1977-06-20

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-27, to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: There are some 33 report stage motions, and it has not been possible for me to survey all of them to determine whether or not there are any procedural concerns or, in any case, to attempt to group them for debate. For the moment, I have examined six such motions which I anticipated would keep the House busy long enough to give me an opportunity to examine the other 27 motions.
Of the first six motions, motion No. 1 gives me some concern about introducing into the clause which it seeks to amend a concept which is somewhat in respect of provincial consultation and, therefore, may be going beyond the scope of the clause which the motion seeks to amend. In a moment I will hear argument from the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in whose name that motion stands, and any other hon. member who wants to argue the procedural question.
Motions Nos. 2 to 6 appear to be procedurally acceptable. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 could be grouped for discussion but would have to be voted separately. Motion No. 4 would be debated and voted on and separately. Motions Nos. 5 and 6 would be grouped for debate and voted on separately. If there is no comment or discussion on that, I would hope that that business would keep the House occupied for a short time.
In respect to the procedural questions on motion No. 1, I recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West) moved: motion No. 1:
That Bill C-27, An act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 5 by adding immediately after line 42 at page 2, the following new subclauses:
"(3) the minister shall consult with the provinces respecting the measures to be undertaken to facilitate the formulation, coordination and implementation of unemployment insurance and manpower policies and programs.
(4) The minister, with the approval of the governor in council may enter into an agreement with any province or group of provinces for the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation of unemployment insurance and manpower policies and programs."
He said: Mr. Speaker, one now realizes how difficult it is for members of the opposition to become involved in significant debate. As I understand it, Bill C-27, which comprises amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, was reported back to the House on Wednesday last. At that time one had no idea when the bill would be debated. Of course, it was up to our House leader on this side to ask the government House leader of the day, being the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), what was the business for the following week. Lo and behold, we find the bill being debated this morning at 11 o'clock.
That is fine, Mr. Speaker, provided report stage reveals no amendments. But the minister himself has tabled at least ten amendments, some of them calling upon the Governor General since the expenditure of money is involved vis-a-vis the extended benefit period of from ten to 14 weeks. In addition to that, we in the Progressive Conservative caucus wanted to put down some amendments, and so did members of the NDP and the Social Credit party.
We now find ourselves in this difficult situation. We had to run like the very devil on Friday, firstly to acquire a copy of Bill C-27 as reported. I believe the bill itself as amended was not available to members until Friday. I know my hon. friends in the NDP will check me if I am wrong on that. Then, when we received the bill as amended, we had to gather our wits together and run helter-skelter around the place to get the necessary material and background to bring in some necessary amendments. We all scratched our heads and were able to do so, but the unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, is that you, yourself, on your own admission, did not have enough time to look at the amendments to see whether they were procedurally correct.
I am not blaming you for that, sir, because you have to follow the procedure that we set down for you. I blame the minister who wants to ram this bill through without giving proper opportunity to members to know what the bill is all about. Now that we are coming closer to the end of the month

June 20, 1977
Employment and Immigration
there is one thing that we on this side will not accept, and that is any ramrodding of bills.
So there is the difficulty, Mr. Speaker. We do not know what the amendments are all about. We see them all in package form this morning on the order paper. It was only because we had some extra staff, for which we extend some little thanks to the government, that we could put these people to work for us and ask them to find out what the NDP and the Social Credit party were doing. We had some idea of what the government was doing, thank goodness, or we would have been in an awful state this morning. I want to put this matter on the record because I feel it is extremely important. Your Honour is embarrassed-I can say that on your behalf-because we are now faced with 33 amendments.


Mr. MacFarlane:: He does not look embarrassed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, you are embarrassed. Never mind what the dumb-dumbs on the other side say; they have no idea what this bill is all about. They just like to put a few words in because it is almost time to go home for the summer recess so they can start mending their own fences. As I was saying, there are 33 amendments placed before the House, if I am not mistaken, by the combined parties, together with six or seven recommendations under Standing Order 75(6) since the government wants to spend money. Having said that, my amendment No. 1 is extremely simple.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Now you are embarrassed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me read it so that my hon. friend from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), who is government whip and a member of parliament temporarily, will understand what is going on around here. My amendment is in line with the new Unemployment Insurance Act which indicates the powers, duties and functions of the minister which are extended to include matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of Canada relating to the development and utilization of labour market resources in Canada, employment services, unemployment insurance and immigration.
Under clause 109 of the new Immigration Act, which is Bill C-24, the minister introduces a new procedure whereby he is prepared to consult with the provinces on immigration. I have questioned the minister and written to all the provincial labour ministers involved, and all I have done is try to bring some credibility to the measure in terms of government plans in regard to unemployment insurance and manpower. My amendment adds two clauses, the first of which is:
(3)	the minister shall consult with the provinces respecting the measures to be undertaken to facilitate the formulation, co-ordination and implementation of unemployment insurance and manpower policies and programs.
The second provides:
(4)	the minister, with the approval of the governor in council may enter into an agreement with any province or group of provinces for the purpose of

facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and implementation of unemployment insurance and manpower policies and programs.
If the minister had any gumption he would say yes, the hon. member for Hamilton West has a point. The point that I am making is that this party will not accept any approach that brings about confrontation with the provinces. We want a policy of consultation and co-operation; that is the essence of the matter. The minister said in committee that that is what we have now. I want to tell him that the letters which have been written and the replies received indicate there is something to be desired in the approach taken by the federal government to the provinces. Consultation is limited, if it exists at all. There is limited co-operation. This is why we have a terrible problem in regard to national unity at the present time. There has been no concrete evidence of any meaningful consultation or co-operation with the provinces. As a result of the tunnel-vision of this government, one province has now elected a separatist government.
Your Honour may think this amendment goes beyond the scope of this bill, but if Your Honour reads the bill in its entirety, as I know you have, it speaks of consultation with the provinces by implication. The minister even adopted a flexible approach to unemployment insurance benefits because we were concerned about the disparities which exist between the various regions of this country. But we are sick and tired of the approach taken by the government which leads to confrontation rather than consultation and co-operation.
The minister will say that we already have consultation, Mr. Speaker, but his consultation goes something like this: there will be option one, option two and option three. The minister will say, "We are going to support option one. What do you think?'' I say that is not consultation or co-operation; it is blackmail. The government tells the provinces what it is going to do, that of the three options, option one is the most feasible, viable and acceptable; but given the fact that the provinces are part of this great confederation, they are occasionally given the opportunity to have a little chat with the government. He has never given them any credit whatsoever in terms of bringing the provinces into the consultative process.
In short, all I am doing is putting in writing the legislative authority, something which the minister is doing right now. The amendment is not taking away anything. It says that he shall consult. If one wanted to be really smart around here, one could say that to consult means very little. But at least it is a step in the right direction. They are consulting now. Also, they are entering into agreements with the provinces regarding unemployment insurance and manpower.
Let me explain what I put in this amendment. Under clause 41, the government is bringing in three different processes entitled developmental use of unemployment insurance fund, job training, job creation and work sharing. The provinces are extremely concerned that the government will bring in these ad hoc approaches to unemployment without thorough and reasonable consultation with them. I am registering their
June 20, 1977

concern in this amendment. I am registering the fact that the provinces make up a part of the whole. I am registering concern about the fact that, as I have been hearing throughout my short tenure in office here, the provinces have been shafted by the government regarding federalism. 1 want to come to grips with this matter. We are not spending money here, and we are not doing anything that the minister has not done before.
1 see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker. Let me just say that I hope I have convinced the minister, and that he, in his wisdom and knowledge that this is the proper and correct motion in terms of trying to put in writing what he is already doing, will come to that conclusion and say that he is thankful to the opposition for having the forthrightness, wisdom and experience to bring in an amendment such as this one for the edification of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) was allowed some leeway with regard to his general observations on the intent of the proposed motion. The question before the House is, of course, a procedural one as to whether or not the introduction into clause 5, which gives the minister the authority which he requires to operate in the capacities anticipated in the statute, of an obligation upon the minister to consult with the provinces before the establishment of programs is procedurally correct. 1 see the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is seeking the floor. If it is on the procedural question, I will hear him.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: In your original remarks when you dealt with this amendment, Mr. Speaker, you said you felt it introduced something new that was not already there in the clause. Indeed, we were well aware of the fact that there was nothing in effect with respect to consultation with the provinces. The government was very well aware of it when we dealt with the bill in committee and when it introduced in the House an amendment changing the minimum attachment period from 8 weeks to 12 weeks. Then the government grabbed its skirts, ran out and brought in its original approach to the minimum attachment period.
In effect, there was no consultation with the provinces when the government decided to change the attachment period from 8 weeks to 12 weeks. There was a hurried consultation after the fact so as to get the government off the horns of the dilemma when Liberal backbenchers from Atlantic Canada started their revolt against the change from 8 weeks to 12 weeks. I think there was more consultation with the Liberal backbench members from Atlantic Canada than meaningful consultation with the provinces regarding the effect on their welfare programs of the change from an 8 weeks to 12 weeks minimum attachment period.
Quite frankly, the amendments themselves are quite meaningless. Who is not in favour of consultation? Surely it is only logical that there should be consultation. Our party has no objection to consulting. One of the things we hear today in
Employment and Immigration
Canada with regard to the unity question is that we should have a closer relationship with the provinces, that we should draw them in and have meaningful consultations with them. As I say, we have no objection to that. The amendment proposes consultation, and if there is one thing the government needs, it is to consult more with those who will be affected by the legislation which they intend to bring before the House.
The minister consistently told us in committee that he had been consulting and these amendments were the result of his consultations. So in effect he has admitted that there is nothing wrong with the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Therefore, I see the amendment as being germane. It puls into writing what the minister said in committee and outside committee with regard to the close relationship with the provinces respecting manpower training centres.
The minister was telling us how much consultation, cohesion and interaction there is between manpower training programs and provincial programs for unemployment. So, in effect, I see this amendment as being very germane to the whole question. If the federal government intends to implement manpower programs, there should be meaningful consultation. Indeed, it is only common sense that the government should consult with the provinces and their educational authorities. Right now there is consultation with the provincial departments of education and local government authorities with respect to manpower programs so far as community colleges are concerned and the kinds of programs that are being offered by those institutions. So there is consultation. I do not see anything new about this. I think there is certainly a place in this clause for such an amendment calling on the minister to put his action where his mouth is.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to speak briefly on the procedural aspect. I cannot add to the eloquence of my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) with respect to the purpose of the amendment. I gather there is some question in your mind as to the scope of the amendment and whether, having regard to the nature of the bill and the parameters set forth by the legislation, the amendment is in order. Bearing in mind that the amendment puts a requirement on the minister to consult with the provinces and to enter into agreements with any province or group, and the fact that it is widely assumed in the country that all the bill does is to deal with the rights of people and methods by which they may acquire certain rights to unemployment insurance, I think it should be pointed out that the bill goes far beyond that.
The essence of the bill, as set forth in its preamble, is to establish a department of employment and immigration, the Canada employment and immigration commission and the Canada employment and immigration advisory council, and to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. The main purpose is the establishment of a department of government and agencies within the department. Clause 3 establishes that. Clause 4 sets up the appointment of a deputy minister and an associate

June 20, 1977
Employment and Immigration
deputy minister. Clause 5 sets out the powers, duties and functions of the minister.
Clause 5(1 )(a) establishes the function of developing and utilizing labour market resources in Canada. These are not unusual things. But there is power in the statute to delegate certain of the functions of the minister in order to operate the department, whether that is done here or somewhere else. There is no geographical limitation in the bill. In fact, the indication is that the bill will operate across the country. The thrust of the bill and the government's approach to this matter, after some changes of heart, is that it is conceivable there will be districts established where certain rules will apply, at least for a temporary period, and these rules might be different in district A, for instance, as opposed to district B. The fact that the bill establishes differences based upon areas of the country designated in the method that the minister has indicated, to my mind leaves open, in a procedural sense at least, the implication-and I suggest it is stronger than that-of consultation between the department, other levels of government and other bodies and agencies concerned with employment.
The amendments which have been put down at report stage by the hon. member for Hamilton West deal explicitly with what is already, by the nature and scope of the bill, implicit in the bill. For that reason-and that is the only contribution I have to make, at least on amendment No. 1-I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you look at this from a procedural point of view, and with respect I say that this amendment ought to be found in order. Certainly it is not-and this is beyond the mere procedural point-out of order in terms of the present method and scope of the operations of the department in any event if we are to believe what the department tells us about the way it operates. That merely buttresses the procedural point. We want to express explicitly what is implicit in the bill. That is true of the clauses I have read into the record, and if we go further the same implications apply. On that ground, I submit that the amendment is in order.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to add a few comments on some of the procedural aspects of this amendment. It ought to be very clear that all the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) does is enshrine in legislation the intent of the government as it was expressed in the committee. When we consider this matter in the context of federal-provincial relationships, one distinguishing fact is that there are areas of co-operation and areas of separation of power. For example, if this amendment dealt with national defence, external affairs or something relating to CIDA, it might be out of order because those matters are dealt with specifically by the federal government. However, in every province of Canada there are departments of labour or departments dealing with matters related to employment.
Traditionally, there have been interrelationships between federal and provincial governments. While we have had federal departments of manpower and labour, there have also been
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).l
provincial departments and the level of consultation has not been as satisfactory as we would have liked it to be. Therefore, this amendment is being proposed. I could read into the record letters from various provincial ministers and groups which state that consultation is unsatisfactory at the present time, but I will not take the time to do so.
I just point out that the provinces of Alberta, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan claim that while there may be some attempt at consultation, the fact is that the level of consultation is unsatisfactory and the provinces require more. I have detailed information before me setting this out. We have a situation where both the federal government and the provincial governments are involved in implementing manpower and labour programs and for seeing to the maintenance of those programs. But it is requested that more consultation take place. This amendment simply enshrines in legislation that which the minister says he wants to do and which the department says it is already doing. But the provincial governments say that the level of consultation is not adequate.
Surely, if the minister is going to stand on the kind of verbiage he gave us in committee, he himself should want to support the kind of recommendation that is being put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West, because the amendment sets forth a position the minister took in committee. If he wants to be consistent, he might as well indicate that, here, in this House. We object to trapdoor legislation which has some 33 amendments. Those amendments were not brought about by full consultation between parliament and the government, and all we are indicating is that if the government cannot consult with parliament, it is certainly not capable of consulting with the provinces.
We hope this amendment goes through. We hope it is found procedurally acceptable so that we can enshrine in legislation something which would be acceptable not only to the federal government of the day but also to all the provinces, because a number of them are on record as saying that the situation at present is unsatisfactory.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the many letters received from our electors dealing with this bill, which to our mind is clearly detrimental to Canadian workers, specially during the high unemployment period we are now going through, the like of which we have not seen since 1930, and here I am thinking specially of the province of Quebec where unemployment is rather endemic and where employment lasts for about six to ten weeks, which of course places that category of workers at a disadvantage, on behalf of my party and all Canadian workers, we support the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) to the effect that amendment No. 30 should be discussed further to allow every group to express itself more freely and pass that bill, though we are against changes which would allow each and everyone to say what he thinks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Of course, the question-
June 20, 1977


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, the comments have gone a little beyond the procedural aspects of this particular clause, and I think it is appropriate that we deal primarily with procedural aspects since we have asked the Chair for guidance.
1 think, Mr. Speaker, that you are right on, and that this amendment goes beyond the scope of what is provided in clause 5. This clause spells out in clear terms that the powers and duties of the minister extend to and include all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction not by law assigned to any other department. 1 think subclauses (3) and (4) of this amendment go beyond the scope of the section.
I shall not go into the merits of them at the present time except to say that as far as subclause (4) is concerned, I have no particular difficulty. If Your Honour should find that it does go beyond the scope, and is prepared to accept subclause (4), I would have no problem. Later, if Your Honour should decide it is within the scope, I shall argue the merits of the section.
1 think it is fair to comment that although we are in a position where we have many amendments, almost without exception the amendments before the House, and certainly the government's amendments, were known to the opposition. I tabled the actual wording of them so that this information would be available to members of the opposition. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is prepared to concede that. I do not think we on the government side are unduly surprised by most of the amendments moved by the opposition, because they indicated during debate what they would be proposing. I think, rather than being embarrassed, that through the kind of competence Your Honour has displayed, what needs to be done has been done in that we will deal with five or six sections at the beginning and there will be time later to deal with the remainder.
There is no intention on the part of the government to ram these amendments through the House. Given the fact that members on both sides of the House hope not to sit throughout the summer, it seems to me that the earlier we could get through report stage of the bill and deal with the amendments, the better we would serve the people who are meant to be served by the legislation.
I have one other comment regarding consultation, Mr. Speaker. Even the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone), who spoke last, indicated that the letters he receives show there has been consultation. I hardly think there is any government that would not like more consultation. But it is a two-way street. I have never received a letter from that particular hon. member or any other asking me about the consultation provided by the provinces when they initiate new programs dealing with manpower. To be fair, I think we should look into that area, too. The co-operation I have had from the provinces has been excellent, but that is not to say it could not have been better, as no doubt our own could. It does not make the case, however, that there has been no consultation other than to say that more could have been done.
Employment and Immigration
In so far as the amendment is concerned, on a procedural basis I think it goes beyond the scope. In the interests of compromise, however, I would be prepared to accept subclause (4), which I assume in redoing it would read as subclause (3):
the minister, with the approval of the governor in council may enter-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has put forward the suggestion that hon. members might have time to explore this matter as the debate unfolds. I seek only to make a ruling with respect to the amendment as it is presented to me. If there is some agreement that might be explored, it could be presented to the Chair later. At the moment I have regard to the text of motion No. 1 as I have it before me, and the clear and well-established rule cited in May's nineteenth edition at page 521. It is well known of course, as indicated there, that an amendment is out of order if it goes beyond the scope of the clause which it seeks to amend. It is not even a question of its going beyond the scope of the general intent of the bill. That is another problem. An amendment to a particular clause must have relevance to the clause it seeks to amend, as well as to the bill in general. It, therefore, does not become a question of whether consultation-which is the basic thrust of the motion-is a good or bad idea within the framework of the piece of legislation with which we are dealing.
What the Chair has to decide is whether mandatory consultation by the minister with the provinces before implementation of a program is a new concept in respect of this particular clause. Reading the clause, one would have to come to the conclusion that the clause itself sets out the general powers the minister must have in order to assure responsibility under the legislation. The amendment would seek to introduce into that clause, not the powers of the minister but an obligation to consult with the provinces prior to the implementation of any program, according to subclause (3) of the amendment. I cannot help but feel that this amendment introduces into the general authority section of the minister an entirely new concept that was not contained or envisaged in the original. The idea of consultation, voluntary or mandatory, or consultation after authority from the governor in council, the power of the minister to enter into agreements which is envisaged in another section of the amendment, is one which I am sure will surface again in another part of the act and can be explored at that time in the way suggested by the minister.
I must find on technical grounds that motion No. 1 goes beyond the scope of clause 5 and, therefore, is out of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are prepared to accept half a loaf rather than no loaf at all. I can now say that I appreciate the position the minister has put forward. At the same time, however, I would ask that the necessary consultations take place between the House leaders to see that the suggestion is discussed. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this House is its own master. I accept Your Honour's ruling, but the minister indicated to the Chair and to the House that he has some reservations with respect to the first part of motion No. 1. In keeping with the spirit of co-operation that usually exists in

June 20, 1977
Employment and Immigration
this House, however, he has indicated he is prepared to accept or to find no fault with the last part of the motion, so I hope the House leaders can get together on the suggestion of the minister. Mr. Speaker, you have indicated that my motion No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The motion has not been formally called.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: motion No 2:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 21 by striking out line 35 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"ister extend and the minister shall cause any reports related thereto to be laid before parliament within 30 days after the receipt thereof or if parliament is not then sitting on any of the first 30 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated that motions Nos. 2 and 3 would be grouped together for debate, but would be voted on separately. Therefore, perhaps I can simply call motion No. 3 at the same time and direct comment to be made on both motions at the same time, with the understanding that they will be voted on separately.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: motion No. 3:
That Bill C-27, and act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 23 by striking out line 9 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"necessary to carry out its duties provided that without restricting the generality of the foregoing it shall meet at least once a year and minutes shall be recorded of all formal meetings."
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 will speak on motions Nos. 2 and 3 at the same time. Through motion No. 2 we are now setting up what is called the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. The clause to which my motion refers is very simple. It reads as follows:
21(1) It is the function of the council to advise the minister on all to which the powers, duties and functions of the minister extend.
At this time 1 want to refer to the CMA brief only. What 1 am attempting to do with this particular amendment is set out as follows:
-and the minister shall cause any reports related thereto to be laid before parliament within 30 days after the receipt thereof or if parliament is not then sitting on any of the first 30 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
As I said, all we are talking about is freedom of information. We must give credit to our good friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who has been a champion in this regard. As the hon. member has so often said, governments do not want the public to know how public money is spent.
(Mr. Alexander.!
An advisory council is to be set up. Actually, it is a somewhat expanded council. Mr. Speaker, really I am not speaking about the report the council must file at the end of the year. That is a statutory matter. It must advise the minister on certain statutory matters. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the public's right to know: the public's right to information. Suppose some questions concerning harassment, overzealousness, abuse, etc., arise; or suppose the minister wants to know if certain provisions of the act are a disincentive to work, or an incentive. Then the council would be asked to give its advice and report to the minister. Such questions have nothing to do with national security, subversive activity or civil rights. Such questions, basically, relate to how well the legislation is working, and the council reports to the minister on these matters. As I say, really, we are talking about freedom of information and the public's right to know.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association submitted a brief in February 1977, to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. As you know, sir, the CMA had representation on the former council and unquestionably will be included on the one to be established. Labour representatives will also be on the council, as will government appointees. When the CMA is concerned about the public's right to know, I understand it speaks both for labour and management. In this regard I shall read section 53 of the brief entitled "The Public's Right to Know". The section reads:
If the advisory council is to have an effective involvement in policy-making, beyond acting as a sounding board but short of assuming decision-making powers which can only reside in the government itself, one key to effectiveness lies in the right of the public to know what the advisory council recommends from time to time and how the government has responded to those recommendations.
As I said, the CMA had representations on the advisory council. In making this representation concerning the public's right to know, I understand the association is speaking on its own behalf and that of labour. I continue quoting from the brief. Section 54 reads:
The council should have considerable latitude in determining its own procedures and methods of operating in relation to such matters as when or if it conducts public hearings, the use of outside expert advice and venue of meetings beyond those required by the act. We note with satisfaction that an annual report of the council's activities will be tabled by the minister in the House of Commons and therefore become a matter of public knowledge and record.
Section 55 reads:
However, the association believes we should have more ambitious hopes for the role which the council could play and for the example it could set for other advisory or consultative bodies in assisting in the development of social policy for Canada's benefit.
Section 56 of the brief is entitled "The Council's 'Right to Know' ". It reads:
The public's right to know about the council's activities and recommendations would be of little value if the council itself were not to have reasonable access to information from the government and in particular from the department of employment and immigration and the minister. Bill C-27 provides the minister with discretionary authority in this regard. This right of the council should not extend to draft legislation or other information which could jeopardize Canada's national security.
June 20, 1977

Those parts of the brief contain the gist of motion No. 2 which has to do with freedom of information and the public's right to know. Canadians are becoming ever more concerned about the way governments act and spend money, most of the time in secret. I suggest it is time to include in all legislation some provision saying that unless there is good reason to keep government action secret, governments should work in the open without the secrecy which is detrimental to the Canadian people.
May I now turn the attention of the House to motion No. 3, which says, in so many words, that the council shall meet at least once a year and that minutes shall be recorded of all formal meetings. I was pleased to note that when we discussed another portion of the bill in committee the minister was ready to accept a similar amendment to the one now before us. In essence, motion No. 3 says that the council shall do everything "necessary to carry out its duties provided that without restricting the generality of the foregoing it shall meet at least once a year and minutes shall be recorded of all formal meetings." Notice, 1 do not say that such minutes shall be available: I do not go that far. I only say that minutes shall be recorded of all formal meetings so that they are available, say, in respect of a legal action. The point is that they ought to be available, and it will be enough if minutes are recorded. Also, the council ought to be required to meet at least once a year. For all 1 know, it may meet once a month or more often. However, a minimum number of meetings should be stipulated.
Nothing in motion No. 3 or motion No. 2 will hamper the effectiveness of the council. We are saying that when the council reports to the minister on how effectively the U1C program is working, the public has the right to know what it says. Further, the legislation should stipulate that the council shall meet at least once a year and that a record, or minutes, shall be kept of all formal meetings.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on motions 2 and 3 proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). As the committee examined Bill C-27 it learned several things about the advisory council. Mr. Speaker, it has always been my impression that an advisory council is appointed to give advice. In this case it will give advice concerning the UIC. If we exclude the question of making such advice public and the question of whether there ought to be a free flow of information with respect to government reports, what bothers me is the ad hoc way the advisory council operates. Its operations, it seems to me, are part and parcel of the way the bureaucracy operates. They fit into the scheme of things. I have observed, in my own innocence, that there seems to be a war going on in the bosom of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen).
The bureaucrats wish to have the only direct line to the ear of the minister. They would never allow an advisory council to advise with regard to the operation of the whole structure of
Employment and Immigration
unemployment insurance. It is only natural that they want the minister's ear to themselves, and maybe other parts as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: They want his ear in order to have direct input to the minister. Indeed, in committee we discovered that any kind of role that the advisory council played was on an ad hoc basis-behind the chesterfield, in the cupboard, or on the telephone. I asked the chairman what he thought of that. We asked for the minutes, but we did not get them. We were told there was a sort of buddy-buddy, ad hoc, off-the-cuff kind of advisory role which the council was condemned to play. We asked what role the advisory council played in the comprehensive review of the Unemployment Insurance Act on which Bill C-27 is based. It is an important review because of the way in which the Unemployment Insurance Act is operating in this country. We asked whether it was serving the purpose for which it was set up.


An hon. Member:: It is outdated.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, it is outdated. Apart from that, one would think an advisory council made up of employee representatives, employer representatives, government people and bureaucrats would have some direct input. With regard to any meaningful role that the advisory council ought to play, we found that their participation amounted to as much as you could put into a thimble.
Freedom of information is paramount in motions Nos. 2 and 3 moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West. I support them wholeheartedly. They tend to give importance to the advisory council; in other words, to give it status. It says to the minister, in spite of all we have been saying about an advisory council, that parliament expects some effects from it.
I have been here since 1972. I have seen the unemployment insurance representatives come before the committee on estimates, on Bill C-69, and the present bill. I have never seen anyone from the advisory council before this committee. They are well hidden. We have never heard their views as to how the Unemployment Insurance Act is being administered. We have never been told whether what was implemented in 1971 is doing the job it was designed to do.
I repeat, we have not seen a copy of the minutes. I do not think they exist. If they do exist, it is only in the minister's imagination. There may be something on paper which says the minister shall establish an advisory council. 1 am not crazy about the way in which the advisory council to the Unemployment Insurance Commission has performed. If these amendments will in any way upgrade the role of the advisory council, any time debating them will be well spent by this parliament.
One would hope that the advisory council would meet more than once a year. The committee heard a lot of witnesses when considering Bill C-27-witnesses for the employers and for the employees. By and large, their views looked at opposite sides. Indeed, there was only one area where employees and employers seemed to concur. That was with regard to the approach to

June 20, 1977
Employment and Immigration
make work programs and having shared-work programs using UIC funds. There seemed to be a meeting of minds on that particular issue-opposing it.
It would have been of benefit to members of parliament to have had the view of the advisory council with regard to Bill C-27 and the effects envisaged by proponents and opponents of it. It would have been of benefit to have the input of that advisory council.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: It might embarrass the minister.


John R. Rodriguez: I agree. It would have embarrassed the bureaucrats. That is why the advisory council is shunted off to the side, treated like the ugly stepdaughter who is hidden from public view.


Mr. Nystrom:: Chauvinist! It is the ugly stepson.


William David Knowles: Step-person!


John R. Rodriguez: All right, ugly step-person. We have to put it in the correct context. When we asked in committee to see copies of the minutes and the agenda of the advisory council, I never saw more pussy-footing and dipsy-doodling. There were glances back and forth along the wide wall of bureaucrats. We could not see the agenda or the minutes. We doubted whether they even existed. If these two motions will in any way enhance the role of the advisory council, so be it.
In committee we also asked about the possibility of local councils or regional councils which would have direct input to the minister. We were assured that the councils would have the ear of the minister and direct input. If they had direct input to the minister, members of parliament studying the legislation brought in by the minister should have the same evaluation reports, the same material presented to the minister with regard to unemployment insurance and, if this bill goes through, the new structure. One would hope to have that kind of information when studying government legislation.
Do the advisory councils, indeed, advise? If they do so advise, does that advice go directly to the minister and not via the bureaucracy which can phase out anything they do not want the minister to hear, and then pass on nice, bland statements to him? We have been trying to avoid that sort of thing, and if these two motions can get around that and make the advisory council meaningful and give it a role to play, we are in favour of it. We would much prefer to see the emphasis on the regional advisory councils rather than on a national advisory council. Why should everything in this country have to be centralized? Why should national bodies be mandatory, and regional bodies optional? Why does everything have to operate under a veil of secrecy? Why cannot the government be open in its approach to the way to administer programs in which members of parliament have participated in putting into law?

We in this party support the motions of the hon. member for Hamilton West and urge the government to accept those two motions and make them part of the legislation.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I think there is little of substance that can be said in relation to the amendments before us, but I think there are some examples which could be given to illustrate how dangerous it would be not to adopt the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Specifically stated, the hon. member's amendment reads:
The minister shall cause any reports related thereto to be laid before parliament within 30 days after the receipt thereof or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first 30 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
All we are really asking the government to do in relation to Bill C-27 is to get out from under the criticism that this government has been under since its existence, and to give, as a right to the Canadian people, freedom of information. In other words, we take the view that what is happening in Canada today is that the government is taxing the citizens of our country, taking their money, conducting surveys and collecting information to use in research, and then turning around to the people and telling them they have no business to know anything about it.
What has happened is that the government has drifted away from the concept of government by the people, of the people and for the people that was enunciated by a democratic leader of another country. Today, what we really have was stated in the House of Commons in May, 1975, by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He said, "What we have today is government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats". That comes about because of the situation of a high degree of secrecy which takes place within our government institutions. This amendment would, in one piece of legislation, say that the kind of information gathered from the council of people that is important to Canada, to Canadians, in relation to manpower and immigration would be knowledge that is accessible and available not just to the government, not just to some council, but to the Canadian people who should have the right, whatever kinds of important pieces of knowledge are put forward, to know what that information is.
I think it is important to underscore that when we talk about freedom of information we are not necessarily saying that that needs to take place in all stratas or layers of government.
I think there is just reason that within the Department of National Defence or some of the sensitive areas of external relations with other countries the government, in its judgment and wisdom, ought to have the right to refrain from releasing certain bits of information that could endanger our national security. That is not the situation at the present time. I would like to put forward an example that happened in my old office on Parliament Hill this past year which I think shows the state of the shambles we are in in terms of lack of the government releasing information that ought to be available to the Canadian people.
June 20, 1977

I have, Mr. Speaker, a very fine researcher. His name is Bing Ho. 1 asked him this year, because I was doing a study on Canadian-American relations prior to going to Washington, D.C., on a sub-committee, if he could investigate some information dealing with the Canadian-American beef trade and find it out for us and put together a booklet, a package. He phoned the civil service here in Ottawa, the Department of Agriculture, and day after day I heard him on the telephone going through the same sequence of questions such as: "Who are you? What do you want to know for? Who else will know this information? Where will it be used? When will it be used? How many other people are going to know?" All this before he could get the information.
Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? One day, perhaps through a slip of one of the civil servants, he found out that much of the information was shared with the American department of agriculture. So we decided to try another route. We bypassed the Canadian Department of Agriculture, phoned through to the embassy in Washington, D.C., and found a most helpful, co-operative, cordial group of people who not only gave us the information but said, "Look; what's your name and telephone number up there in Canada, because we know of other people who can phone you and give you further information?" Within moments we found that phone calls were coming in from the department of agriculture in the United States to give us information that is to be found in Canadian bureau of bureaucracy.
I simply say that this kind of example is one which should scare the living daylights out of Canadians. The fact is that we have in this country a shroud of secrecy over information that is paid for by the taxpayers but which the taxpayer cannot find out about. Like I say, there would be no problem if this related only to the Department of National Defence or sensitive areas of external affairs, but it exists in virtually every department of this government.
What my good friend from Hamilton West is saying is that the crisis of lack of freedom of information in Canada today has become so serious that at least let us enshrine in Bill C-27 that the public has a right to know what the council is doing. We have got to know, and we have the right to know, because we are supposedly a democratic country where people elect representatives to govern for them. The government of the day takes the attitude that once it has been elected it, alone, has the right to make decisions, instead of decision-sharing or taking the approach that the public has something to offer. It takes the position that it is wholly above reproach and has the right and the power to impose its wishes without the release of information so that its judgment could be "critiqued"-1 do not say "criticized", but "critiqued"-and analysed by the public.
What we really need is a new understanding of the words "public servant". The public servant today has come to the view that somehow he is in this domain of perpetuating his own security. What we have to underscore is that he is, in fact, the literal part of the words "public servant" or "servant of the public". In other words, the whole concept of democracy
Employment and Immigration
hinges upon this amendment; that is, we should begin to recognize that freedom of information is something for which provision should be made in the bill before us, and it ought to have been guaranteed before this.
At this stage in our history it is a shame that we still have to be clamouring, as an opposition party, on each and every bill, for the inclusion of a section which would ensure that the knowledge gathered through research is known to the Canadian people, and not only to the people who have been hired with taxpayers' dollars. I should like to deal with motion No. 3, which reads as follows:
-necessary to carry out its duties provided that without restricting the generality of the foregoing it shall meet at least once a year and minutes shall be recorded of all formal meetings.
If we look at Bill C-27 we see that the government has put forward the concept that there should be an advisory council with no obligations or requirements attached thereto. The amendment indicates that the minister's concept is good but can be made better by the addition of the observations of that group. It could be improved, also, by ensuring that the council has some specific obligations. To do otherwise allows the minister to have a cosmetic appearance. He has put forward the idea that there will be a council-with no assurance that it will ever meet, with no guarantee of minutes being kept, and no availability to what that council discussed.
The hon. member for Hamilton West said that we appreciate the fact the minister has come forward with a group of people who will be advisers. We should like to know what they are going to say or how they will have the privilege to find out what they have said. There should be a minimum requirement as to how often they meet. This minister cannot duck and dodge by simply putting on paper that there is one in existence, and then never call it into being.
Those are straightforward amendments, and I am sure the minister will not find them difficult to accept. From one side of his mouth, in standing committees, he told us that they were reasonable requests. He has also talked about consultation and the situation allowing more freedom of information. If he took that position at committee stage, he should have no difficulty taking it in the House of Commons. I should like to hear the minister tell this House that he finds motions Nos. 2 and 3 palatable. I should like to go along with the hon. member for Hamilton West and ensure that these motions be included in Bill C-27 when it is passed.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said so far on motions Nos. 2 and 3. I do not want to duplicate what has been said already, but I should like to read into the record a few excerpts from a letter which was addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), dated April 18, 1977. The letter was sent by Dr. Freida Hawkins of the University of Toronto, the department of political economy. It is my understanding that Dr. Hawkins is well known to the minister and his department. Probably she has written to

June 20, 1977
Employment and Immigration
him on previous occasions, offering constructive criticisms of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


Walter David Baker: Did she send you a copy?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I have a copy of the letter. I am sure 1 am not the only one who has a copy of it. On page 3, under the heading "Public Image and Responsibilities", she refers to the advisory committees which are supposed to function. As other hon. members have pointed out, these committees are not functioning and are seldom ever called. That is the reason I am speaking on behalf of motion No. 2 put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I can assure him that our party supports his motion. Let me get to the meat of the criticisms of Dr. Hawkins by quoting from the letter, which reads as follows:
There are important lessons to be learned from the operations of these advisory bodies, from the way in which they have been used by the department and from the kind of advice which they have been able to give to the minister. First of all, they have been a totally in-house operation and the public has been completely unaware of their existence. Their role has never been referred to in the department's annual reports or in the speeches of successive ministers. None of the work they have done has ever been published. Parliament and the provinces have remained as much in the dark about their activities as the general public itself.
That is a very severe condemnation of these advisory committees, and that is why I implore the minister to accept motion No. 2. Then these advisory committees would have teeth and some input. They would have to report regularly and, as the previous speaker stressed in his remarks, they would be open to criticism, which is one of the most important aspects of government today. Government departments should be opened up for people to see what is being written and said, with the exception of what would fall under the heading of national security. This has nothing to do with national security. Bill C-27 has nothing to do with national security vis-a-vis the advisory committees . The letter continues:
In the author's view, this has been a serious mistake, particularly in a field where public knowledge and understanding has been and continues to be weak, and where the sources of information available to the general public are still very limited.
That is another serious condemnation. It is also a very valid criticism of the lack of information in that department as far as the bureaucracy itself is concerned. I suggest that is overloaded, to begin with. A couple of years ago I can recall sitting in the committee room surrounded by many bureaucrats and only two or three of them had anything to say instead of their doing what they are paid to do.
An. hon. Member: That was too many.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I think the hon. member should tell them. Returning to the letter, on page 4 it continues as follows:
It is worth noting here also that the chairman and members of the Canada Manpower and Immigration Council were not called as witnesses before the senate standing committee, nor were they part of the minister's group of officials which appeared before the committee on several occasions.
Those advisory committees were set up for a specific task: to advise the minister. Obviously, they have been ignored. It is my impression that the bureaucrats are afraid of these adviso-

ry committees and what they may advise the minister. This would embarrass them and might even lead to a few promotions out of a particular department into another.


Mr. Symes:: There is never a demotion.


Mr. Backburn:: As the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) says, "There is never a demotion". To get rid of unwanted bureaucrats you simply promote them to another department. At this point that is all 1 have to say with respect to motion No. 2. Of course, the House is aware of what has been said by other hon. members who have spoken in this regard. We must have greater freedom of information. The minister has a wonderful opportunity here to provide this information through the advisory councils, with regular reports made public either through the House or directly through the press. I think this would also stimulate greater activity and confidence within the minister's department and the bureaucracy. This is why I commend motion No. 2, and also No. 3, to the minister for very serious reconsideration for inclusion in the statute when Bill C-27 is finally passed.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I feel moved to add a few comments on the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I want to say how much I support motions Nos. 2 and 3, the basic objective of which is to provide more openness in the work of government and some input into how regulations are made and executed. An advisory committee which is more than just a title on paper is long overdue. We need a committee that is active, one that we, as parliamentarians, as representatives of the people of this country, are confident will indeed do the job it is required to do by statute. Therefore, it seems to me that motions Nos. 2 and 3 are most appropriate since they provide for some kind of reporting system so we can examine how these advisory councils are functioning.
The government likes to talk very much about participatory democracy and how the government is reacting to people's needs. Yet how strange it is-perhaps it is not strange in view of the history of the Liberal government-that when we get down to the fine details in terms of legislation and the bureaucracy being open and receptive to new ideas, in reality these provisions are not written into the law. Or if they are, they are worded so perfunctorily that they have no real meaning.
This is why the two amendments before the House seem to me so sensible. We want the advisory councils to make sure that they keep minutes of their meetings, and report. I think the minister will find it very difficult to argue against these two motions. If we are to believe in openness in government and that the Liberal government is not the fount of all wisdom, that there are others who can provide information as to the proper functioning of the Unemployment Insurance Act, then surely it would be hard for the minister to reject these two amendments.
June 20, 1977

1 have talked off the record to officials in the unemployment insurance office in my constituency and have noted some very positive suggestions on their part. They are the people who deal with the legislation and the regulations on a day to day basis, and they have a lot of good ideas. I have also talked to people in the labour movement and others who have served on boards of referees. They, too, know where improvements can be made in the regulations and in the system as a whole.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: But they are afraid to talk.


Reginald Cyril Symes: As my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Blackburn) says, these people are often afraid to make suggestions for fear they may be interpreted by those in the higher echelons as speaking in criticism of the way the system works. Therefore, it seems to me that if we had these advisory councils functioning in the proper way, this would provide the opportunity to those not directly involved with the system to relay their points of view to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Hopefully, in this way we could iron out some of the difficulties and have the legislation applied in such a way that it did not discriminate against or penalize certain people. Surely, the aim of any piece of legislation is not to penalize or hinder in undue fashion those who benefit from the legislation but, rather, to expedite such benefits. Accepting these two amendments would be a positive step in that direction.
I should like the minister to tell the House, either at this point or later on in the debate, how the personnel of these advisory committees are to be appointed. My fear is that very often representation to various committees appointed by the government consists of-


John R. Rodriguez: Liberal flunkies.


Reginald Cyril Symes: My hon. friend from Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) says "Liberal flunkies", but I will be a little more charitable and say that often these appointees are not as representative as one might hope. I should like to know who actually appoints representatives to these advisory councils, and what the criteria are. Are they people from interested groups in the community who have something to do with unemployment insurance, such as employers or people from labour unions, or are they people who at one time worked within the bureaucracy but are now retired? Are these advisory committees representative, or are they-dare I use the word-partisan appointments?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Go ahead and dare.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Do they have some kind of expertise in dealing with unemployment insurance or employment generally? I would hope so. I would be very interested to know what is the selection process. Perhaps we should think of future improvements along that line.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the main thrust of these two motions. They provide for openness in the functioning of government, and also for some input into the operation of government. I think this openness and input could be increased even further if there were a broader basis for select-
Employment and Immigration
ing people appointed to these advisory committees. I am not by nature a suspicious person, but judging from the kind of Liberal appointments made in the past I fear that patronage is moving in in regard to this kind of appointment as well. Perhaps the minister would enlighten the House on the actual selection process.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, having listened very carefully to the comments on motions Nos. 2 and 3, may I at the outset remind the House that this is an advisory council to the minister which we are talking about. It is a council which gives advice and from which advice will be sought by the minister. As I said in committee when I went through the bill, having taken on this particular portfolio 1 asked the same questions hon. members might ask. I ask whether we really need a council, whether it is effective, whether it has a role to play, and I am satisfied in my own mind that the answer is yes. It is for this reason that this provision is still in the bill. I wanted it to be a committee that had a real role to play.
I wanted the committee to have access to the minister and access to such information as is available from the department, given the restriction that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) would be concerned about, namely, that there are areas here where individual human rights must be protected, and the information may be very sensitive to some individuals in the department.
If all this information were made available to the advisory council and then became public, the fact that we would have to table all reports would have an inhibiting effect on the kinds of information that would be made available from the department. I would be concerned about tabling all reports. However, as I indicated in the committee, 1 have read many of the reports in the past and have found that a large majority of them-I believe the chairmen of both councils would concede that this is so-contain nothing sensitive or secretive in them. It would be my policy and my role to table a large percentage of the reports that are made available to me. But when I receive information I do not want a watered-down version of what the council thinks, because the council might be concerned that the information will be automatically made public. I want hard information, I want information that is going to be useful to the department and to the individual whom we are trying to serve. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I am reluctant to accept motion No. 2 put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West.
I have no concern about the second motion. I will not oppose it, and the government is prepared to accept it. However, I might say that I think it is somewhat redundant. The hon. member himself, in introducing his motion, indicated that he knows the council meets more than once a year and he is satisfied that the council keeps minutes. So I have no concern with that, other than 1 feel it might very well be redundant. The hon. member used some poetic licence in saying that 1 was "pleased" to accept the motion in committee. That is a loose

June 20, 1977
Employment and Immigration
use of the word "pleased". I accepted the motion, recognizing that it was somewhat redundant, but in the interests of being co-operative, as we on this side, try to be, I went along with it.
I take exception to some of the comments made by the NDP, who spoke about the wall of bureaucrats, the army of bureaucrats sitting at meetings of the committee. From time to time in committee we ask hon. members who ask questions if we could have some of those questions in advance so we could put them to members of the bureaucracy who could give us the answers that are required. We could then have a full and open discussion. Unfortunately, we have no way of predicting what is in the minds of the members of the NDP, so we must have available the various experts from the departments just in case a particular question is asked.
From time to time we did, in fact, try to cut down the number of civil servants present because, frankly, they would be much happier back in the departments doing what they are being paid to do. But then we had members opposite saying, "You have all the experts. We should have the answers today. But if you want the answers, you will have to have the bureaucrats there with the knowledge and the expertise." A little co-operation from the other side would go a long way toward saving the taxpayers some money.


Mr. Blais:: Yes, and a little bit of preparation.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1 was interested to find that the correspondence between my good friend, Freida, and myself had gone astray to some extent. That it is now in the hands of members of the NDP.


Walter David Baker: That is why 1 asked you the question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is an excellent letter, with excellent recommendations and suggestions, but it seems to me that what the hon. lady was talking about was the situation in the past as she saw it-and these were the concerns 1 expressed. 1 met on two occasions with Dr. Hawkins about what we could do to improve the role of the advisory council to give it a meaningful role and let it know that it does have the ear of the minister and will be able to meet from time to time, either informally or formally, with the minister so that we can have a full and frank discussion. 1 will make no further comment on Dr. Hawkin's letter other than to say that these are areas which were of concern to me even before I received the letter from Dr. Hawkins in areas that we discussed.
The last item which should be commented on is the comments of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) on the input from the front-line troops. I tell you candidly that it is welcome. It is a role that a member of parliament should play. He should go to the Manpower and Ui offices to raise those questions either for political purposes in the House or for whatever reason, or with the minister to see if something can be done and that it can be, as we say in press terms, not attributable to anyone. I hope that no one in this department would have any concern about making good suggestions or recommendations to this minister about ways in which we

might go about improving the department and in which we can serve the general public. I thank hon. members for their comments. For the reasons given, I cannot accept motion No.
2.	I am prepared to accept motion No. 3 although, as I indicated, I feel it is redundant.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, at times it is like pulling teeth to get the minister to agree, but I would say that since the minister has accepted a portion of the first amendment, does he not want the second amendment but is prepared to accept the third amendment? We are making some progress in this place.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that motions No. 2 and No. 3 are grouped together for the purpose of debate, but that they will have two separate votes. The question is on motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on motion No. 2 stands deferred. The question is now on motion No. 3, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: motion No. 4:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 26 by adding immediately after line 23 at page 11, the following new subclause:
"(9) Section 2 of the said act is further amended by adding thereto the
following subsection:
"(3) Where, for any purposes, the use of rate of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada is required under this act or the regulations, the rates used by the commission shall be those most recently produced at the time it is appropriate or necessary for the commission to make a final determination in respect of or involving the use of those rates."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I am proposing, motion No. 4, is that we amend clause 26 of Bill C-27 for the purpose
June 20, 1977

of clarifying the rates of unemployment to be used by the commission in determining the entrance requirement, regional extended benefit entitlement under the UI program and the threshold formula for allocating costs to the government and the private sector. The rates of unemployment used by the commission in a number of provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act and the regulations are the rates provided by Statistics Canada from its monthly labour force survey. At present, however, there is no provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act stipulating which official Statistics Canada rates of unemployment are to be used in cases where the basis for determining those rates has been revised by Statistics Canada.
This proposed motion to amend Bill C-27 would provide that the rates to be used by the commission would be those most recently available. It would be consistent with the methodologies provided by Statistics Canada whereby revised rates of unemployment are released from time to time and officially replace material previously provided.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the amendment, which would allow the minister to use Statistics Canada figures with respect to rates of unemployment, but we think the minister ought to have gone further and committed himself and his department to using information with respect to all figures put out by Statistics Canada which are relevant to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. For example, 1 refer to Statistics Canada catalogue No. 73-001. It is not enough just to take the most up to date rates of unemployment from Statistics Canada to establish benefits under the plan. It appears that we have to use the statistical information put out by Statistics Canada, and trust it.
At the moment, far too many decisions are made within the UIC on interpretations of data received from Statistics Canada. Many interpretations are put on material based on views held by the UIC. For example, comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance plan in Canada was done, and it is on that basis that Bill C-27 comes before parliament. There are several aspects of that comprehensive review which are based upon UIC interpretations. For example, the UIC does not recognize alcoholism as a disease when considering voluntary quits. Imagine that, in 1977! A person who is let go from his employment or leaves his employment because of alcoholism is considered a voluntary quit!


Mr. Breau:: What if he goes for treatment?


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member opposite asks, "What if he goes for treatment?" I have never heard anything more silly. That is something which takes place after a person has applied for unemployment insurance and after interviews, and so forth. How do we know that an applicant was prepared to go for treatment after he quit voluntarily and after he was included in the statistics? We do not know. Such information is not provided. Quitting voluntarily, so-called, is not unknown in this country. It is very prevalent. It does not take an
Employment and Immigration
employer very long to fire a person for trying to organize a union in a workplace. We know that banks are famous for that.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Infamous.


John R. Rodriguez: As the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) says, they are infamous. UIC statistics would consider that a voluntary quit. Those statistics imply that that person put himself into a position to be fired. With respect to voluntary quits, the UIC does not take into account the fact that the environment in a workplace may be such that a particular worker might be allergic to it. That is not considered to be a legitimate reason for quitting a job.
These statistics are interpreted by bureaucrats in the UIC and they find their way into comprehensive reviews. On the basis of those comprehensive reviews, recommendations are made which result in bills like Bill C-27. The UIC is shot through with bureaucratic interpretations of data which may have to be obtained from Statistics Canada. The program is not necessarily implemented according to information received. Bureaucrats in the UIC receive information and then project their own interpretations. For example, in the comprehensive review on page C-5 it is noted that 47.2 per cent of those who supposedly left their jobs voluntarily were not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. That, then, becomes a statistic within the UIC. That statistic is now being used to beat the unemployed across the country over the head, and it has resulted in this particular bill.
We would have been very pleased if the minister had extended the amendment a lot further by saying that other statistical data could be used for purposes of computing the benefits to be paid or the length of time benefits were to be paid in a region-which is what the minister is going to come up with later on in this debate-and that other information with respect to the number of people, for example, who have quit their jobs could be used. Using those statistics provided by Statistics Canada would give those of us who deal with the act on a day to day basis with respect to our constituents when they deal with UIC confidence that this policy decision was not concocted in some ivory tower in Ottawa.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]


June 20, 1977
CNR Lay-offs


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Due to the dangers and inadequacies of a provincial inquiry into events involving the national police force and the conduct of a federal cabinet minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should establish an inquiry to investigate all aspects of the break-in at offices of L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec, including the circumstances leading to it, subsequent actions to cover up its occurrence, and the nature of the liaison and communication between the Solicitor General and senior officials in his department.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter which is particularly urgent to a large number of workers in Moncton, Montreal and Winnipeg and 1 hope no one on the government side will say no to the request for the right to present this motion. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House calls on the government to make immediate representations to the Canadian National Railways to the effect that the callous decision to lay off nearly 5,000 employees, 1,950 at Winnipeg, 2,000 at Montreal and 950 at Moncton, for the period from August 8 to September 6, should be rescinded forthwith, and that the government report back to the House on this urgent matter within 48 hours.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion can only be presented for debate pursuant to the standing order, with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Goodale said no.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 seeking unanimous consent of the House on an urgent and pressing matter.
Considering that the funds lent by the federal government to the provinces through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the construction of housing for senior citizens and low-income earners bear an overly high interest rate which, moreover, is computed every six months, which results in a considerable increase in the real rate of interest, and bearing in mind that the provinces borrowing from Ottawa under that program undertake to reimburse $5 for each dollar borrowed on a long term basis, which makes Canadians from every province question the efficiency, equitability and profitability of the present Constitution, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That this House recommend that the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs review that question and that program as a whole with a view to promoting that program so as to reduce the debts of the provinces towards the federal government and to spur construction in order to alleviate unemployment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that only the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) can supply all the details concerning official knowledge of the 1972 break-in at the offices of L'Agence de Presse Libre, in view of the practices of this House which might be construed as barring questions to a minister with respect to former responsibilities and in view of the importance which this House must hold for the truth, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Supply and Services be permitted to answer questions about his activities as Solicitor General in relation to the break-in at the offices of L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec on October 6, 1972.
June 20, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate in the House pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-SUGGESTION MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES RESIGN-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the new theory of ministerial responsibility which, briefly put, postulates that a minister's constitutional responsibility lies with his ministerial assistants. In light of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) use of this new prerogative in three successive scandals, namely Hamilton Harbour, the Lougheed procurement, the Larry Stopforth affair, and now the APLQ break-in, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley):
That this House, recognizing that the minister refuses ministerial responsibility for the actions of his staff and in light of the minister's press release of June, 1977 in which he stated that he would resign if he were guilty of any acts of commission or omission, direct that the minister now resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Noting that this motion requires unanimous consent, may I ask if there is unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It pertains directly to the motion under Standing Order 43 moved by the House leader of the Conservative party, with the sentiments of which we agree entirely.
In raising my point of order, l want to indicate that I was going to do it just prior to the opening of the question period and ask the House to consider the principle involved in the motion moved by the House leader of the Conservative party.
I understand the clear possibility that members on the government side might have said no to the motion that was moved because they might have thought it would lead directly to debate on that motion. I have no doubt that that was not the intention of the House leader of the Conservative party when he moved that motion.
With unanimous agreement, it would be possible for the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) to answer questions pertaining to the very important and murky affair, the break-in of a publishing house in Montreal in the fall of 1972. I appeal to the members of this House, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to give approval to the idea that the present Minister of Supply and Services be permitted in this question period to answer very important and
Oral Questions
very pressing questions on this matter, precisely because there is no other forum open to us at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member seeks, by way of a point of order, to make what might be a suggestion. In any case, it is not being used to draw attention to disorder in this House which is about the limit permitted under the rules at this particular juncture.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: May I borrow just one minute from the oral question period in which to invite hon. members to join with me in recognizing the presence in our galley of a very distinguished delegation, which is here for a few days of what we are sure will be very cordial and successful exchanges as they have always been in the past-a delegation from the European parliament headed by the very distinguished British parliamentarian, Mr. James Scott Hopkins.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, before beginning, I should like to make it clear that the purpose of the intervention of the House leader for the Official Opposition by way of a motion under Standing Order 43 was not to generate a debate but to get the right to put questions to the only minister who is able to answer them.
I begin by directing a question to the Prime Minister. In the statement of the Solicitor General last Friday, a categoric statement was attributed to the former solicitor general, the present Minister of Supply and Services, that that minister was not informed that the theft of documents was the result of an unlawful entry in which the RCMP had actually participated. However, the former commissioner of the RCMP and the former director general of the RCMP security service have stated, and I quote, that "they would be surprised if they had not verbally advised the solicitor general in this regard."
There is a clear and alarming contradiction here, a situation in which the minister states he was not informed of the break-in and in which the former commissioner and director general state, as diplomatically as they can, that they would be surprised if they had not informed him. In the light of this

June 20, 1977
Oral Questions
contradiction, I ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider launching a federal public inquiry into this matter since it could possibly involve a conspiracy to conceal evidence at the most senior levels of his government.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 take exception to the allegation by the Leader of the Opposition that the former commissioner was "being diplomatic" in his answer. I am sure he gave an answer to the best of his knowledge. He was not attempting to cover up anything; he was stating he did not remember giving information but he would be surprised if he had not given information. And it was established by the present solicitor general that information of this nature-


An hon. Member:: Cover up!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to me that the present Minister of Supply and Services, the former solicitor general, is stating a fact. He was not informed. The others cannot say they informed him but they say they would be surprised if they had not. The words speak for themselves and the Leader of the Opposition should draw his own conclusions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Charles Joseph Clark: 1 missed the end of the Prime Minister's response, except it is clear he continued to refuse to have all the evidence made public so that the light of day can be cast upon precisely what that minister was doing at the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This matter involves a minister of the Crown, now Minister of Supply and Services, and former solicitor general, whose reaction to public embarrassment, as one of my hon. friends has said, has simply been to blame public servants. We are now asked to believe that the minister was not aware of participation in the break-in by the RCMP under his authority and that in fact he did not even ask about RCMP involvement. The statement on Friday indicates only that the Minister of Supply and Services is either incompetent or that he cannot be believed. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will order the Minister of Supply and Services to make a full statement of his involvement in this matter, preferably before a federal public inquiry or at least somewhere under oath.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have the statement of the former solicitor general to the effect that he did not know of the break-in by the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
(Mr. Clark.]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I, for one, am prepared to accept the word of a colleague who is a member of the Privy Council and a minister of the Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. members opposite have cause to doubt his word, of course, they can always challenge it in a way which is well known by this House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we in this House of Commons, and the people of Canada, are not prepared to accept the information which was conveyed through another minister by a minister who refuses-which would have been the honourable thing to do-to seek the unanimous agreement of this House so that he might make a statement which would be subject to questioning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-REASON FOR REFUSAL TO CONDUCT PUBLIC INQUIRY
Charles Joseph Clark: The suspicions which arise here will never be put to rest until the Prime Minister is prepared to let this man be questioned in a way in which the answers can be accepted.
My final supplementary to the Prime Minister relates to the very serious fact that the only official investigation which is under way in respect to 1'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec break-in is a provincial inquiry. In effect, we have the Parti Quebecois government investigating the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I should like to ask the Prime Minister why he will not call his own investigation and why he is leaving an investigation of the federal police force to the separatist government of the province of Quebec?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition should know, under our constitution and under our Criminal Code, as it is written, the administration of justice comes under the attorneys general of the provinces. In the province of Quebec we have a government which was lawfully elected by the people of Quebec. If the hon. member disagrees with the procedure followed by that government, of course he can make his views known to it. There is a long established law and tradition in this country that justice be administered by the province. Because of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, one would think that the Parti Quebecois government would make very sure, in this particular case, that the facts are brought to light. This is what we hope will be the case.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister of Canada trying to seriously suggest to this House of Commons that he has no jurisdiction to look into this matter, or is it simply that he will not?


Mr. Paproski:: No-guts Pierre.
June 20, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was quite clear from the statement made by the Solicitor General on Friday that of course the government has jurisdiction to look into the matter. The Solicitor General looked into it and 1 looked into it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Solicitor General made a statement on Friday which conveys our knowledge of the facts in every detail that we can muster. If the opposition has some questions to ask, then let them ask the Solicitor General or myself, and we will endeavour to do the best we can.


ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS-POSSIBILITY OF PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH MINISTER
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General. Could the minister confirm reports, which I have received, that up to two tons of confidential files and data were destroyed by the RCMP in Montreal on June 2 and June 3, 1977; and could he confirm further that this action, involving the destruction of probably hundreds of man-years of work by the force, was initiated because of the implications of an inquiry being conducted by the government of the Parti quebecois, rather than under federal auspices? Finally, will the minister tell us whether he or the Minister of Justice were consulted before this action was taken, and did he approve of it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Shrug that one off, if you can.


Mr. Hees:: Is it shrugging or shredding this time?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the hon. member is referring to the destruction of documents which would have taken place during the course of the past month. As far as I am concerned, I am not aware of any destruction of documents whatsoever. If the hon. member is aware of the destruction of documents in the furtherance of a possible cover-up of an illegal action, it is incumbent on him to give me the evidence so that appropriate action can be taken by this government.


Walter David Baker: He just did so.


Steve Eugene Paproski: How many shredders did you buy, Mr. Goyer?


PROPOSED INQUIRY INTO BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-POSSIBILITY OF CONSULTATION WITH MINISTER PRIOR TO QUEBEC INQUIRY
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the opposition have had to bring facts before the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Surely the Solicitor General must realize that there is fault, not just in the upper echelons of the RCMP but as well in the way the Solicitor General's own office has been handling any RCMP initiatives so far as concealment or cover-up is concerned, which should have been made abundantly clear to the Solicitor General in the past. Will he not reconsider and recommend to the Prime Minister that an impartial jurist or some outstanding person be put in charge of looking into this whole matter, so that we will not be leaving the RCMP to the mercy of an inquiry by a provincial government? Would the Solicitor General also tell us whether in the meantime, although he had no previous advance warning, on his own admission, of this inquiry to be called by the government of Quebec, there has been any constructive dialogue?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I already find at the moment that the RCMP is not left to the mercy of an inquiry by a public body or by somebody appointed under the jurisdiction of the department of justice or attorney general of the province of Quebec. In view of the type of fatuous allegations which have been made this afternoon, if they are left to the mercy of questions which really raise innuendos and allegations, and if the hon. member really has at heart the reputation of the force, as I think all Canadians have, then instead of making generalized allegations which bear on the reputation on the force, if he had brought the specifics of the allegations, which I have heard for the first time this afternoon, to my personal attention, I may have been able to verify them, before the hon. member raised them in a public manner and cast aspersions on the force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that all members of this House have an obligation, if they have this kind of information, to get to the bottom of it and to bring it to the attention of the responsible authorities before-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What is parliament for?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just answer the question.


Francis Fox: As to the second part of the hon. member's question, my deputy minister has today communicated to me that he is getting in touch with the deputy minister of justice of the province of Quebec in order to ascertain answers to some of the questions the hon. member raised on Friday afternoon.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-CONSULTATION BY PRIME MINISTER WITH MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES ON ACTION TAKEN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I should like to preface it with an expression of serious dismay that he would not have made it clear to the Minister of Supply and Services that he expected him to clear his name and the government's name in

June 20, 1977
Oral Questions
this important matter in the House this afternoon. According to the statement made by the present Solicitor General, when the former solicitor general, the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, informed the Prime Minister a year ago March about the RCMP break-in in Montreal and also about the decision which was made presumably not to acknowledge the letter which was sent to the present Minister of Supply and Service at about the time of the break-in, did the Prime Minister have a conversation with the present Minister of Supply and Services to determine what kind of specific action he took at that time and to give a full explanation for his behaviour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my dismay in March of last year was that indeed the RCMP had been involved in an illegal break-in. It was at that time that the former solicitor general, the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and myself discussed the possibility of an inquiry. At that time we recognized that the matter had been stated publicly in Montreal and that the attorney general of the province of Quebec was on the eve of launching an inquiry. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, the former solicitor general, the present minister of Indian affairs and myself, decided, in the presence of our senior advisers including the RCMP, to wait until the judicial process had followed its course before going into the matter any further.
As to the precise date at which I asked the then Solicitor General, the present Minister of Supply and Services, the details about which the hon. member asks, I cannot give the answer to that. I will try to refresh my memory as to the time at which I spoke to the former solicitor general.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since it is a clear possibility even now, I understand, that a federal cabinet minister might not appear before such an inquiry as is now underway in the province of Quebec, and since certainly the kind of inquiry which the government of Quebec might initiate into this process was clear even last year, does the Prime Minister not think that his own responsibilities were not lived up to by relying on the strict application in this case of the due process of law when, instead, he should have gone to the man who was the solicitor general at the time to find out from him if he had inquired of the RCMP when he met with the commissioner of the RCMP on November 6 if the RCMP was directly involved? Surely, it was the ministerial responsibility at that time for the minister to have asked that straightforward, and, one is tempted to say, pretty banal question that we know the Minister of Supply and Services did not ask. The question I want to ask the Prime Minister is, why he did not pursue the matter with the former solicitor general a year ago instead of leaving it simply to a legal process in the province of Quebec which might not ever have led to an interrogation of the minister concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I cannot give the exact moment when I spoke to the Minister of Supply and

Services, but the relevant fact in the spring of last year was that the RCMP had been involved in an illegal break-in, and that itself was the main object of my concern and that of the Solicitor General. It is on that basis that we discussed whether or not we should have a judicial inquiry. I repeat that we waited until the due process of law would follow its course, at which time we would see if the guilty persons were brought to trial, as they were. That is the essence of my involvement at that time.


John Edward Broadbent: I would say with regret that the Prime Minister is apparently missing the question I am asking. 1 am not asking about a judicial inquiry. I am asking about the very important matter of ministerial responsibility involving possibly in this case conspiracy to interfere with the due process of law.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister now, in terms of the statement that was made by the present Solicitor General in the House on Friday in which it became clear for the first time that the former solicitor general, the present Minister of Supply and Services, when he was the minister responsible did not at the meeting on November 6, 1972 even ask the commissioner of the RCMP if the RCMP was involved in the break-in, whether the Prime Minister believes that a minister who in such a grave situation does not even ask the most straightforward and relevant questions-perhaps because he does not want to be caught knowing the answer-ought to remain a minister of the Crown?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister in question was moved from that portfolio around the time that this knowledge came to his attention.


An hon. Member:: After the break-in.


An hon. Member:: Now, we know the reason.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The relevant point, I reassert to the House, is that the then solicitor general was not apprised of the break-in before it happened nor after it happened by the RCMP.


John Edward Broadbent: He did not ask about it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minister did not ask about it. He was moved to another portfolio within weeks after his meeting with the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The serious matter of the RCMP having broken in was not known to him. Friday was not the first time when hon. members heard that. We have been saying in the House for several weeks now that, of course, the former solicitor general knew there was a break-in. There had been a telegram complaining about it. He did not know that his own police force was involved in the break-in, and we have his word
June 20, 1977

that he was not told they were involved in the break-in. A conclusion may be drawn from that, but 1 suggest it is not the one the hon. member is drawing.


John Edward Broadbent: Why did he not ask?
[ Translation]


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I would put my question to the present Minister of Supply and Services.
In view of his responsibilities when he was Solicitor General in 1972, in view also of the serious allegations now made because of this inquiry and the court's decisions, and in view of the importance given by the present Solicitor General in his statement of June 17 as to the role the present Minister of Supply and Services played in this matter, and to clarify and give more dynamism and power to his present position, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to make a statement in the near future on his position as to the conduct of a complete inquiry on this matter, either before the House of Commons or before a parliamentary committee? If so, when?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Standing Order and our precedents clearly indicate that a question may not be put to a minister if it concerns the administrative responsibility that he no longer holds.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, 1 was expecting this position as I was sufficiently aware of the rules, but 1 wanted to demonstrate that the opposition has in fact no chance to cast light on the past activities of solicitors general as they often move to another position and as the present Solicitor General admits on page 4 of his statement, that people in this position do not know anything about their letters and their inquiries from the RCMP. Consequently, I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Considering the unbelievable recognition by the present Solicitor General that it is customary for ministers not to inquire about investigations or claims made against the RCMP nor about the letters to be signed, can the Prime Minister tell us whether there is any direction from cabinet to put an end to this unusual practice where a responsible minister is eventually irresponsible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member reads carefully the statement the Solicitor General made last Friday, he will see that the government already took, in fact, such measures more than two years ago. The problem the hon. member raises is real, namely how to take effective disciplinary measures when a citizen complains about the conduct of a member of the police force, while the
Oral Questions
investigation is made by the force itself? It is because of this difficulty that the Solicitor General reminded the House last Friday that we established the Marin Commission more than two years ago to study this disciplinary problem and that we already took measures to prevent this inconsistency from recurring. Furthermore, the Solicitor General announced that this fall in the next session, we would introduce legislation to further prevent the claimant to be referred to the very police force which is the object of the complaint.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
I am sure the Prime Minister realizes how difficult it is for opposition members to address questions on activities arising from an old responsibility of the former solicitor general. So, given the difficulties that arise from questions which opposition members are entitled to ask on behalf of the Canadian people, would the Prime Minister, since all opposition parties are unanimous, agree to review his decision and allow such an inquiry so we might question the former solicitor general and have the matter cleared up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, would this mean that the hon. member has no confidence in the inquiry which will be made by the government of the province of Quebec, which he usually defends?


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-DATE MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES INFORMED PRIME MINISTER-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. It arises out of answers he has given to the Leader of the New Democratic Party and to my leader. It is evident from the refusal of the Minister of Supply and Services to answer any questions that it is very easy for the Prime Minister to move a minister out of a position when it gets hot, particularly when there is a question of a cover-up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that we have been denied any judicial inquiry, and in light of the statement made by the Prime Minister on June 2 last that no minister knew until several years after that the RCMP had been involved in the break-in, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a very definite, particular and concise question. If the Prime Minister does not remember the day, what year did he find out about this break-in, what year did the Minister of Supply and Services tell him about it and how many ministers knew about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question was somewhat lengthy. I must indicate to the hon. member that the present Minister of Supply and Services has not refused to answer questions. Mr. Speaker has ruled that under our present rules he cannot answer.

June 20, 1977
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: It is a new rule.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a rule of this House. If the hon. member does not agree with it, he can appeal that to Mr. Speaker. However, no question to the present Minister of Supply and Services has been allowed. He has not refused to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Eldon, can you get these guys to calm down while I answer your question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What have you got to offer today? Please answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The second point was by way of an allegation by the hon. member for Calgary North that I moved the Minister of Supply and Services when the going got tough, or something like that. I remind hon. members that during the campaign of 1972, and in the weeks that preceded and followed the campaign, the opposition was complaining that the Minister of Supply and Services was not friendly enough to the RCMP, not that he was trying to protect them too much, which seems to be the position now.


Charles Joseph Clark: Not at all.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish hon. members opposite would remember the attitude they had in those days. Now they are saying he was covering up for the police. In those days they were saying he was not protecting them enough.


Charles Joseph Clark: We are saying he is blaming them for his actions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the question of the hon. member-


Charles Joseph Clark: Having answered none yet.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was coming to that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Fine, go ahead.


George Harris Hees: String it out, Pierre.


Charles Joseph Clark: You've got 15 minutes to fill in.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I have 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could use some of them to get a little silence from the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fraser:: It's the silence on your side we are worried about.


Walter David Baker: It is not our reputation that is on the line; it is yours.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All right, don't you listen to my answers?


Walter David Baker: Why don't you give some answers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure that at least the hon. member for Calgary North is interested in getting an answer. How many years after the event? That has been made clear before. It was only in the spring of 1976 that we knew that the RCMP was involved in an illegal break-in. Before that no minister nor myself knew about that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that it did take sometime after the letter was received by the Minister of Supply and Services, then the Solicitor General-who says he did not get the letter because it was stopped in his office-I would have thought he would have taken some constitutional responsibility for his own staff. I believe the Prime Minister would agree with that. However, after taking several years-I do not know whether it was five or seven for the Prime Minister to find that out-what has the Prime Minister done since besides waiting for the process of law in Quebec, the government of Quebec and the attorney general of Quebec? What has the government done to clean up this mess? What is being hidden today in this conspiracy to cover up?


An hon. Member:: Goyer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in fairness 1 am sure the opposition would want to call to mind the circumstances of the situation. The present Solicitor General, the former one and solicitors general for many years have frequently received complaints about the RCMP. I am sure we all receive complaints from the public about people in our departments who have given either cause or reason for complaint. As I understand it, the then Solicitor General did what every minister would do. He made sure that every complaint was followed up. In this particular case his officials did as mine would do, and that is to make sure that those involved in some complaint are called to task. The hon. member asks what we have done about that.


John Edward Broadbent: They didn't tell the minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The present Solicitor General gave the answer to that on Friday. I believe it was in 1974 that we appointed the Marin Commission to make sure that the police who were complained about were not being investigated by the police themselves. That is why we set up the Marin Commission, to look into the whole problem of discipline. On Friday the minister indicated what steps had been taken and will be taken to meet this particular difficulty.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have one supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the answers, surely, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
June 20, 1977


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely if the Prime Minister will not answer and leaves us in a vacuum we are entitled to follow up.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have been refused a judicial inquiry. I think we are entitled to some answers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think you've cut me off at a time when I was asking-


An hon. Member:: Eldon, come on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can get louder. You take your own seat. I ask that the hon. member take his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask that the hon. member take his seat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say to you, that I was precluded from asking questions.


George Harris Hees: Eldon, sit down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am entitled to another question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Calgary North would resume his seat-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have always been polite to every Speaker in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Calgary North would resume his seat I would be pleased to tell him that any choice in granting supplementaries is only between him and one of his colleagues, and if he feels that he must have the floor against one of his colleagues, 1 am perfectly prepared to allow him another supplementary. The hon. member for Calgary North on a final supplementary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question to the Prime Minister is this: In light of the fact that the police went to the former solicitor general's office on November 6, 1972 and gave him certain information at that time, and that the former solicitor general had information about the break-in from the newspaper in question, does the Prime Minister feel that the then solicitor general acted with the kind of responsibility the Prime Minister would expect of any minister in this House under those circumstances?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Good Lord.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The former solicitor general was under severe attack in those days because it was alleged, particularly by Tory members, that he did not respect that great institution called the RCMP. He was the recipient of a complaint from a group, and hon. members can judge whether that group was a very reputable one. He was the recipient of a complaint about an illegal break-in. He did what most of us would do. He referred this to the police and asked them, "Is this a serious complaint?" He behaved as though he trusted the RCMP in asking whether he should answer this letter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They told him-and it is on record in writing-that he should not answer the letter. Hon. members can decide who is to blame, the former solicitor general or the RCMP, and they can carry on their accusations if they so desire.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It may well be you.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-ACTION TAKEN BY MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services based in part on a statement he made on June 2 also bearing in mind a precedent set by his colleagues, especially the hon. member for Westmount and others during questioning in the House on the judges' affair when ministers were allowed to answer areas of questioning other than their own particular responsibility. My question to the minister based on his statement of June 2 is whether he is in a position to tell the House as a result of his meeting with Commissioner Higgitt and Mr. John Starnes what steps he took when advised of the serious allegations of RCMP involvement in an illegal break-in? What steps did he take when he was given that information following his meeting with Commissioner Higgitt and Mr. Starnes on or about October 9? Who did he did discuss it with and did he discuss it with any of his colleagues in cabinet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The distinction that the question of the hon. member for St. John's East raises is with respect to questions that are put to ministers during an affair in which ministers, even in their present capacity, had taken some steps-in fact the questions were put to them about actions they had taken as ministers, not necessarily actions which related to their own administrative responsibility but steps which had been taken at the moment of the question in respect of their position as a minister.
Order, please. I think it would have been a totally unfair distinction for the Chair to have attempted to protect a minister with administrative responsibility while the minister was being questioned about steps he had in fact taken which were connected with his capacity as a minister, but not necessarily with his capacity in a particular ministry.
6844

June 20, 1977
Oral Questions
In the present situation the questions which have arisen are questions which are similar to questions which have arisen before but are not connected with actions taken at the moment by a minister, as minister, but connected with actions taken by a minister in a former capacity at a former time in that capacity. That is the distinction that I think must hold at all times; that no questions can be put today to a minister of this House about steps that he has taken in a former capacity. An order to do so surely would permit questions to be put, for example, to the hon. member for Eglinton who is no longer a member of cabinet. That is the distinction, and I think it must be maintained at all times.
The hon. member for St. John's East.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-CONSULTATION WITH SOLICITOR GENERAL PRIOR TO STATEMENT ISSUED BY MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to argue your ruling because the rules do not permit me to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Given the dilemma of the situation arising out of our rules perhaps you might permit me to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services based on a statement he made on June 2, issued on his letterhead as Minister of Supply and Services. The minister said:
I can give the assurance, however, that if I felt responsible for any wrongdoing whether by commission or omission I would not wait for his statement-
He was referring to the Solicitor General.
-and all in respect to parliament and to Canadians I would submit my resignation.
A commendable suggestion I may say, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Based on that statement of June 2, 1 should like to ask the Minister of Supply and Services if he can tell the House whether he consulted with his colleague the Solicitor General prior to making that statement? What was the nature of those discussions? Did they include the very serious allegations contained in the letter and the meeting arising from that letter with Commissioner Higgitt regarding the allegations of the involvement of the RCMP in an illegal break-in?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to hear argument from the hon. member at three o'clock and from other hon. members-I see there are several. At the moment the connection with the statement is not sufficient in my opinion to permit the question. I will hear argument at three o'clock.
A supplementary, the hon. member for Hamilton West.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-DESIRE OF MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I think we must get to the nitty-gritty of this matter. In light of the fact that there have been several allegations and innuendos thrown out this afternoon and on other days, and knowing that the Minister of Supply and Services would like to make a statement and would like to answer questions-


An hon. Member:: Sure, he would.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -in order to clear up this murkiness, I would ask him one simple question: is he prepared to answer questions directed to him about his actions when he was the solicitor general of Canada in the year in question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might relieve the hon. member for Hamilton West of that difficulty because even if the minister said he was prepared to answer questions I would not let him.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-SUGGESTION PRIME MINISTER ASK MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES TO MAKE STATEMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take another tack on this whole proposition and let the Prime Minister show what kind of leadership he is prepared to give. In light of the fact that in prior answers to questions he indicated categorically that the then solicitor general, the Minister of Supply and Services, had no knowledge but only had some reference to the police in the correspondence from L'Agence de Presse Libre, and since it now appears that there was a specific telegram attached to that communication and there is an admission in the statement by the Solicitor General to the effect that the matter was considered-in order to put this matter precisely on the record and since according to your ruling we are not able to ask questions at the present time will the Prime Minister, as the leader of this country and this government, direct the Minister of Supply and Services to make a statement on motions or suggest to him at least that he make a statement on privilege so that we may have an opportunity to hear him in this House with respect to this very important matter before any public inquiry is undertaken by the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would be up to the hon. member if he felt his privileges were impinged upon by members opposite to ask Your Honour for permission to raise a question of privilege. I guess it is obvious from what has happened this afternoon that the Minister of Supply and Services has not felt his privileges have been seriously impinged upon because hon. members opposite have not brought any accusations forward.


Walter David Baker: He has condemned
himself.
June 20, 1977


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A short supplementary question. 1 think there are many inconsistencies, one of which I pointed out with respect to the information the Prime Minister received from this minister which would indicate that either he was misinformed or was lied to. 1 would ask the Minister of Supply and Services whether he will undertake to make a statement on motions regarding his personal involvement with respect to an illegal act, regardless of ministerial responsibility, but simply whether he can clear his name with respect to the whole question of whether he was involved in any illegal act personally?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We gave you a chance and you did not take it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Greenwood.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Send him out of the country again; give him a Ouellet holiday.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-ALLEGATION OF CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister about an aspect of the matter that does not seem to be fully explored. As 1 understand it, the Solicitor General has told us that on November 6 he was advised by the Commissioner and by Mr. Starnes not to answer a letter which he had received complaining about the alleged break-in. What I want to ask is whether this does not seem to smack of a conspiracy to defeat the administration of justice and what, if anything, is being done about that. 1 am not accusing the Solicitor General of being involved in it, although I would certainly like to know what part he played in it. 1 am suggesting, however, that at the very top of our national police force there are people who will conspire to suppress evidence or suppress following up matters as important to the administration of justice as this. What is this government going to do about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious question and 1 am presently discussing that with the Solicitor General.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and on a little different line. In his speech on Friday the Solicitor General made this commitment or statement: at page 6793 of Hansard:
The government decided, therefore, not to establish a royal commission,-
That is, to go into this whole matter-
__but remained firmly committed to re-examining the matter once the judicial
process had run its normal course.
1 should like to ask the Prime Minister, at least on one interpretation, after these men had pleaded guilty and received a discharge, whether the judicial process had not in fact run its course? I wonder if the government's undertaking to re-examine the matter with a royal commission is not now operative. If
Oral Questions
it is not now operative, when will it become operative? Are we to wait indefinitely while various inquiries are made in Quebec? Is it not now time for the government to act on what it promised, on what the Solicitor General says it decided to do and committed itself to doing some time ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a rephrasing of the previous question, which I conceded was an important point of view. The only additional aspect to the question is-when, as I indicated to the hon. member, I am discussing that with the present Solicitor General. I think the hon. member asked an important and serious question, and it is causing us great concern.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-FAILURE OF MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS OF FORCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As it has always been accepted practice, in every Canadian government, that ministers take full responsibility for the actions of those for whom they have ministerial responsibility, and as the Prime Minister confirmed in this House on May 24 last that that is the case with this government, will he explain to the House why the former solicitor general is being allowed, by him, to claim not to have any ministerial responsibility for the actions of the RCMP officer for whom the minister had ministerial responsibility and who was involved in the 1972 break-in, as the minister did in his press announcement of June 2?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP officer who committed the illegality has pleaded guilty in front of the courts. I do not think the hon. member is alleging that, unless the minister had knowledge and directed the member of the RCMP to commit that illegality, that he would be bound by any sense of ministerial responsibility. 1 have the minister's clear statement of the fact that neither he nor the Commissioner of the RCMP knew about the break-in before it took place. This is also confirmed by the Commissioner of the RCMP. Therefore, I do not understand how the hon. member can argue that a minister is responsible for an act which was committed without his knowledge.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not aware that all ministers who have ever served in Canadian governments have always been willing to accept responsibility for the acts, whatever they were, of those concerned under their jurisdiction, and the former solicitor general is doing something which is completely different from what has been accepted practice? He is trying to duck responsibility, something which no honourable minister has ever done before.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely the relevant point is this: While the minister was the minister responsible, he did not know of the illegalities of those under his charge. When the illegalities of those under the charge of the solicitor general
80018-31 'h

June 20, 1977
Oral Questions
became known, they were acted upon by the former solicitor general and the present Solicitor General.


George Harris Hees: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister not aware that it has been the case in the large departments of the government, which have existed for many years and which employ many thousands, that if a departmental employee commits a misdemeanour about which the minister cannot be expected to know at the time of commission, the minister, if he has any guts and sense of responsibility, has always taken responsibility for the mistakes of his employees and not tried to duck them? Does he not know this and does he not agree that this principle should be followed in this case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot agree that that would be the principle, because if it were the present member for Prince Edward-Hastings would have to take responsibility for acts which would now be discovered and which were committed in the period 1958-1962, when his party was in power.


George Harris Hees: Which I have always been willing to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Can you name any one action I have ever tried to duck? Put up or shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which really is separate and apart from issues involving this question period, but which involve ministerial responsibility and a minister choosing to remain silent in the face of questions. I preface my remarks by saying that, like the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), I cannot question the ruling of the Chair. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe the House is entitled to a clarification with respect to the ruling you made regarding the questions of the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). They are entitled to a clarification.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: If the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) would shut his mouth for once, he would hear the argument.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, you made a judgment today which I am not questioning since that would be contrary to the rules. But I ask for clarification, Sir, with respect to those questions. You said, in effect, before the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) had the opportunity to answer, that the two members did not even have the right to put the question. That may be the traditional rule, Mr. Speaker, but in view of a precedent which you, yourself, set I think the House is entitled to a clarification and I rise for that reason.
On March 14, 1975 the same kind of question arose, involving a series of matters. I shall now refer to page 4105 of Hansard for that day. In the course of your judgment handed down that day, Sir, you said this:
However, I feel in addition that the Chair does not have the power ever to prevent a minister from answering a question which he wishes to answer.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the point.


Walter David Baker: Your Honour went on to say this:
It is one thing to suggest that, if a minister raises an objection on technical grounds to answering the question-
I remind you, the minister did not move a muscle when he was asked the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but he looked nervous.


Walter David Baker: I continue:
-the question must be examined to see whether the technical grounds are correct. However, if a question is put and the minister wishes to answer it-
I assume he has to give some indication, even to say "no." I continue:
-I am sure it would be improper for the Chair to try to stop him from doing so.
Sir, with respect, today you intervened. I am not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that you intervened in bad faith, but you intervened.


An hon. Member:: Do not reflect.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if a member cannot say these things in the House, it is a pretty sorry House. The questions which were to be put by the hon. member for St. John's East related specifically to a statement made with respect to L'Agence de Presse Libre matter, which occurred apparently in 1972; that statement was made on the letterhead of the Minister of Supply and Services on June 2, 1977, and that was the basis of the question. There was absolutely no indication from the minister that he would refuse to answer the question. I do not know what the proper procedure would be, Sir, but there was a clear ruling made by you, in this House, with respect to a matter absolutely on all fours with what happened in this case. The hon. members for St. John's East, Hamilton West, Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) were interested in raising this matter, and that is the position in which we find ourselves.
I happen to believe that you were absolutely right in your ruling of March 14, 1975 with respect to the privileges of this parliament concerning free questioning. You made that ruling on March 14, 1975. I cannot question your ruling of today, Sir, I understand that; but if I could I would have to say, with respect, I believe you are wrong today. I therefore rise to ask for the only thing I can ask. That is for some clarification with respect to the rights of members of this House, not just on this occasion, but on previous occasions and on occasions yet to come, when we must deal with ministers with respect to their former responsibilities, at least while they are still ministers of
[Mr. Trudeau.)
June 20, 1977

the Crown. That is the position of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) today. He should at least be asked whether he is prepared to answer questions if they are put to him. If not that, he should be asked whether he is prepared to make statements on motions and have questions thereon. If he does not at least raise a question of privilege on what has been said about him today, he is not much of a man.
Mir. Paproski: And he should resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I was very careful on my supplementary question, anticipating what Your Honour's ruling might be, to base my supplementary question on a statement issued by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) on June 2, 1977, on his letterhead, in relation to the matter which is under discussion in the House at the present time.
I would like to submit in argument that, notwithstanding the citation in Beauchesne 171 (X), which 1 know Your Honour will cite, I would draw Your Honour's attention to our own Standing Order 39(5) which states that oral questions may be directed to ministers of the Crown.
In reading the spirit if not the letter of the standing order, I would hold respectfully that a minister making a statement outside the House on his authority as a minister, in this case on his authority as Minister of Supply and Services, on his official letterhead, is under our rules accountable for that statement in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Your Honour shakes his head skeptically. 1 would submit that if the Minister of Supply and Services had not made that statement on June 2, I would be on very weak ground indeed. If Your Honour rules today that ministers who make official statements outside the House on their official letterhead are not to be held accountable to the House for those statements, that ruling will go a long way toward destroying what little accountability there is left in this House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long. As I listened to the House leader, I thought he brought home the point I tried to make in terms of questions I tried to ask the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). I recall very distinctly Your Honour's ruling on March 14, 1975. I recall you stating that if a minister were asked a question about a former responsibility, he did not have to answer that question. However, if he were asked a question regarding his former responsibilities, and if he wanted to answer that question, Your Honour would not prevent him from doing so.
I prefaced my remarks extremely carefully because I know this has been a very heated afternoon. There have been many innuendos and aspersions cast. Following Your Honour's ruling, I put the question to the minister. I thought he would say either yes or no. I was not going to get into anything
Oral Questions
substantive, just give him the privilege or the right to have something to say, whether it be yes or no.
What disturbs me is when I asked the minister that question, I did not know whether he was going to answer or not. I did not know whether the minister was going to say yes, he would be prepared to answer questions with respect to his former responsibility as Solicitor General of Canada. When Your Honour stood up, there was great laughter from my friends on the other side, as usual when we are hitting home. We got the usual red herring.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, you must not only clear the right of hon. members to ask a similar question of ministers when they no longer hold portfolios for which they were responsible, but as well the question raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), another very delicate one. That question was based on the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services wanted to become involved as a former solicitor general, using his own letterhead in order to bring about this particular scenario.
With all due respect-and Your Honour knows how well we get along together, I always try my best to abide by the rules of the House-these two questions as well as the question by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) must be addressed by Your Honour. 1 hope that you do not intend to answer those questions this afternoon because what you decide will determine whether in fact this place can function as it should.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in rising on this point of order 1 preface my comments by stating that I agree in substance with what has been said by the member who just resumed his seat. If we cannot get a clarification of this issue involving the integrity of a minister of the Crown with regard to very clear, explicit charges made both inside the House and out about conspiracy by leading officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, then parliamentary democracy in Canada is in a very bad state. I say that in all seriousness.
1 appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government House leader and Acting Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is absent, that in the event Your Honour's ruling should be negative that we hear the House leader's view on that before Your Honour makes the ruling. I appeal to the Acting Prime Minister to confer with the Prime Minister, who just left the chamber, to recognize the seriousness of the situation.
We have no opportunity of questioning the former solicitor general, the present Minister of Supply and Services, on a matter that involves conspiratorial accusations against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and against the minister himself. The evidence does not warrant charges at this point of conspiracy of the minister. The evidence is unclear on that.
A lot of us are reluctant to impugn directly the integrity of the minister by saying there has been a conspiracy. That would be one way to get him to his feet, denouncing him and saying openly that he conspired. He would then have to justify it.

June 20, 1977
Oral Questions
However, I, and I suspect other members of the House, do not make such charges lightly.
We rely on the evidence. We are serious about the evidence. However, we want the truth of the matter. That is why it is so profoundly important that this minister in some way have an opportunity to clarify the record. His integrity and that of the government is on the line. The whole question of conspiracy in the RCMP is on the line.
It is a shocking act of irresponsibility for the Prime Minister not to have indicated that he wants this minister to answer in the House today. I appeal to the Acting Prime Minister not to sit out this procedural debate in a cynical fashion leaving the impression that the government is going to sit behind the rules of the House and hide the truth. I appeal directly to the Acting Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that if they are not going to rely on the rules whereby the minister is not obligated to answer, to do something about insisting that the Minister of Supply and Services get to his feet, either later today or tomorrow, to make a statement on this important matter.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the same point of order. What happened during the question period will surely not be the best in our parliamentary records.
As a preliminary comment, the Prime Minister in reply to one of my questions asked me a question and accused me of upholding provincial rights. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Prime Minister, the champion of the constitutional statu quo and excessive centralization in Ottawa, did not accuse me but he paid me one of the nicest compliments which a Prime Minister can pay to a member of the opposition, that is of upholding provincial rights in this parliament since the provinces hold and must hold effective powers in this country.
Mr. Speaker, 1 put a question to the former solicitor general but you ruled that I could not direct it to him since he has changed his portfolio to become the Minister of Supply and Services. Mr. Speaker, there are precedents in this House where a minister has been called upon to answer questions about his activities in a former portfolio, thus enabling us to clarify a given situation. If the Minister of Supply and Services is so pure, so perfect, if he did not make any mistakes, if he is not involved in any conspiracy, why then does he refuse to take part in an inquiry and, second, why does he refuse to answer questions put to him in the House? I say that moving ministers from one portfolio to another enables the government to keep its secrets and hide the truth on such important matters. At the very moment we are making a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister is leaving the House. He does not care one bit about Parliament, he also refuses to answer questions put to him in the House by members of parliament, he is hiding behind the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, the ruling you will have to give is a very serious one. The minister involved is still a cabinet member. This minister is taking part in cabinet discussions, he is aware of what cabinet does to try and get out of this dilemma. Doubtless, the press release of the present Solicitor General

was discussed, wholly or partly, in cabinet before being read here.
Mr. Speaker, the minister hides behind the Standing Orders of the House, knowing that light cannot be cast on the matter.
As you can realize, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, we are unanimous on this side of the House in wanting to know the truth of the matter on behalf of the Canadian people and we beg of the Prime Minister the cabinet and that minister, if he is truly responsible, to reconsider this decision and to grant that inquiry, and specially, Mr. Speaker, we ask you, unanimously, that the minister rise in the House and answer our questions. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, not only ministerial solidarity but the tradition whereby a minister, when he changes position, is no longer responsible, will prove to what extent the system is vicious, to what extent it protects the ministers regardless of the democratic rights of hon. members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, the House is being treated in cavalier fashion. It seems to me that if I were concerned, if points of order were brought up, if a whole question period dealt with such requests and the House were unanimous, I would at least have had the decency to stay in my seat and find out what hon. members of the opposition have to say. It shows a total lack of respect, Mr. Speaker, and I join the hon. members of the NDP and those of the Conservative party to prove to you how serious we think the matter is and ask the minister to act responsibly if he really is responsible.


Mr. MacEachen:: Just a word or two on the point of order which has been raised, Mr. Speaker. I think it is clear that the ruling Your Honour made consistently, that a minister of the Crown cannot be questioned on his activities in a former portfolio when the minister currently responsible for the portfolio is here in the House to answer questions, is a sound one. I believe this is an old rule, an old practice. It may be a bad one, but I happen to believe it is a good rule.
Its application today has created some difficulty and some frustration for hon. members opposite but I do not think it is fair, because of that, to ask the Speaker to make an entirely new ruling and change the practice of the House; in other words, to press him, as he has been pressed very strongly today, to alter our practice by some obiter dictum.


Walter David Baker: Obiter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been said that this is a political matter which should be dealt with by the Speaker. I believe such a course would be a mistake. The rules of the House should be observed and we should support the Speaker by consistently applying the rules.


Mr. Gillies:: He ruled on this in March, 1975.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I listened to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton as carefully as I could, but I believe the applica-
June 20, 1977

tion of the ruling for this particular case will depend on the circumstances which prevail at the time it is made. It should also be borne in mind, as the Speaker has pointed out, that the Chair cannot prohibit any minister from answering if the procedure of the House is followed correctly, that is, if the questions are in order, neither can it oblige any minister to answer questions even if they are in order.
Having said this, 1 wish to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) for outlining the difficulty the House faces in securing, during the question period, a statement from the Minister of Supply and Services, one which would be of great interest, I am sure, to hon. members. Bear in mind, though, that on Friday the Solicitor General made an extremely long statement on this subject and was subsequently questioned in detail with regard to all the facts which are known to the government.


John Allen Fraser: That was all hearsay, for heaven's sake!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All that remains-


An hon. Member:: -is the truth!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The truth has been spoken by the Solicitor General and by the Prime Minister. However, I understand what seems to be the complaint. I do not think the way to proceed is through a perversion of the question period. It should be done in another way because hon. members are quite aware that with respect to this incident the universe will unfold in the next few days as it should.


George Harris Hees: Tell us what the other way is.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will leave it to your imagination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The government House leader made a somewhat peculiar reference to the rules of the House. The application of those rules is a matter of precedent and is not determined by our Standing Orders alone. The flim-flam we heard from the government House leader with respect to this course being highly improper is incredible, when we consider that the government has turned around, on at least two occasions, this rule which indicates that only the present minister can be responsible for answering questions.
There were two very noteable occasions in my experience. One was when the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) was involved in blaming someone else for the actions of his department in connection with the Hamilton Harbour matter. The government found it quite appropriate then to have the minister come to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, flanked by the then solicitor general, the now Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the commissioner of the RCMP, and they stonewalled for about four hours. The second occasion-
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That was a standing committee and the same rules do not prevail, as you know perfectly well.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The committee is an extension of this House, governed by the rules and precedents in the same way as the House is. The second occasion was more recent. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) found it convenient to come forward and answer questions with respect to the whole question of Polysar and activities which took place when he was the minister of energy, mines and resources. The uranium transaction, the Candu transaction, is another example.
The point I should like to underline, which has been raised by my colleague, is with respect to the so-called judges affair when questions are allowed to be put to ministers because the concern was not related to ministerial responsibility. It concerned the broader question of illegality or impropriety. Those are the terms that were used. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) suggested that there was some question of conspiracy. There are allegations and suggestions, which have been raised here that the minister was in fact involved in a possible cover-up of an illegal act.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Who raised those?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: These implications were raised in the House of Commons by a member of parliament. We have the right to do that, and we will not be told what to say by the government whip. He is one person who will not tell us what to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: We do not have to accept what you say. No one else is.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact of the matter is that these are instances where specific departmental responsibility was not at stake, but the question of parliamentary responsibility and the responsibility of a member of the administration with respect to his action or lack of action was at stake. On the basis of those precedents, envoked by the government when they felt it was appropriate and opposed by the government when they felt it was not appropriate, and in looking at the nature of the questions raised by my colleagues, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), which were carefully worded with respect to matters of ministerial responsibility in the broadest sense, I suggest that Your Honour should allow the minister to answer the questions.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Good spelling does not make good composition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As Your Honour knows, if the minister refuses to answer, there is no obligation under our rules for the minister to answer. If he refuses to answer, and you allow those questions, the minister will stand indicted by his silence.

June 20, 1977
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That is a lot of supposition.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, 1 would like to indicate my support for the observations made by my leader (Mr. Fortin) on the same point of order in the Elouse for very special reasons which concern our democracy. Mr. Speaker, if we believe in this democracy, I think that we shall have to communicate to the whole population of Canada this belief of the parliamentarians, and parliamentarians are certainly entitled to know precisely what were the responsibilities of a minister when he was responsible for the management or the administration of a given department, even if his successor cannot reply to the questions of the parliamentarians or the members of the opposition, according to decisions made at that time by his predecessor.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is essential for us to know all the details surrounding this search, which has been recognized by its authors as being illegal. Even though this search was illegal and members of parliament know the exact nature of the break-in, this should not humiliate the minister in my opinion, but should make him more responsible and more willing to justify himself in the eyes of the public. But this is what the people want, through their representatives. Today, during whole question period, this very important issue was discussed while there are other questions that are also important and which interest the whole Canadian population. But even though 1 recognize that your role of Speaker is not always easy, you have to make a ruling and to decide if our rules allow such or such a minister to reply to questions asked by members of parliament during the question period even though he has not held the position involved for two, three, four or five years, as he is still a member of the same cabinet.
In my opinion, if we have to change our rules, we should do so, but we should give the opportunity to someone who is still a minister responsible in the cabinet to reply in this House to the questions asked by members of the opposition during the question period. I am convinced that if we follow this procedure, we shall give the public a better opinion of this institution in which we work.
What I consider above all else is that Parliament is the supreme authority in Canada, and if such supreme authority which we represent cannot obtain information on the activities of the executive power which is called the cabinet, I think it is a breach of democracy, and 1 fully support the remarks that the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada has made in the House, absolutely not out of partisanship, something for which I could not care less. What I want to find out is whether, as parliamentarians, we will be able to secure information from the executive members who are in charge of the administration of our country, in whatever department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point of order has been raised to which reference was made during the question period.

Of course, it was anticipated that this line of questioning would be put forward today and hon. members would endeavour to put questions to the hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) in his former capacity as solicitor general.
There is nothing surprising to me in the presentation of those questions under the circumstances. There is nothing surprising to me in the atmosphere, the very charged atmosphere in the question period, or at the strength of the urgings that were put upon me to change what are well-established practices of the House. Under the circumstances, I do not think any of that is surprising. If we do not have these kinds of discussions in these circumstances in the chamber, then obviously members are not doing their jobs. Therefore, 1 fully expected all that took place today. That does not make my decision any easier. However, if there are no moments of difficult decisions, then this is not half the job people generally regard it to be. Therefore, 1 have to be expected to take difficult decisions from time to time. Whether 1 like the consequences of the decisions or not is really entirely aside. We have to try to maintain some consistency in our practices.
It has been indicated that on a previous occasion a question in these circumstances was permitted by the Speaker. The question was asked by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and was directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). The minister was asked, having been the minister responsible for health at the time this report was initially produced and tabled, if he could explain why the House study was not initiated at that time. The question was answered by the minister when he said that he could not recall at the moment but would check into it with his colleague. That was the question and answer referred to in the precedent cited by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. In a subsequent ruling on that I indicated that I do not have the power to prevent a minister from getting to his feet to answer a question. 1 never have that power; nobody has. Physically I have no power to stop a minister from getting to his feet to say something.
There are many, many circumstances which I was describing in the decision which I gave at that time. There are many discretionary rulings which the Chair has to make during the question period. It has happened to be my practice that I have not endeavoured to burden the House with the reasons for these decisions, which are made very quickly and often several times during the question period. Most members know when they have put a question which is largely argumentative, irrelevant, frivolous or which has some other disability. Members may not be as sensitive to that as the Chair, but we all basically know the difficulty when it occurs. If I were to get on my feet every time I ruled a question out of order and simply went on to another member to attempt to justify my reason, 1 think I could spend most of the question period doing that.
Hon. members know that I have those discretionary rulings to make. On the other hand, it is clear to me, and 1 think clear
June 20, 1977

to hon. members at all times that the most flagrantly argumentative, irrelevant or frivolous question, disrespectful perhaps, in unparliamentary language can be put by a member, and to leave the situation there, ruling the question out of order and preventing a minister from getting to his feet to at least get off a rejoinder is a little unfair. Often it is impossible to prevent a minister who is quick on the trigger from at least making a rejoinder. The Chair does not have the authority to stop someone engaged in that kind of process. By getting up to rule the question out of order or by going to another member, which 1 often do, 1 still cannot physically prevent a minister from getting out of his chair to make some kind of an answer. So whether or not the question is out of order, the Chair, so far as I know, does not have authority to stop a minister from speaking.
In some circumstances, while what I think is an innocuous question to a minister may touch upon the minister's former capacity, if it happens to clarify the situation in the House, the goodwill, good judgment and good sense of the member usually will go along with the situation and indicate that it is not an attempt to subvert the rules and procedures of the House but simply to gain information which might make for a more meaningful question period. In those circumstances it seems to me that any Speaker who did not have discretion to allow that sort of thing to happen would be inviting a very technical House indeed, one which I think would be unhappy and unproductive.
In the situation in which we find ourselves, we fall back upon situations which we have been in many times in the past. The clearest situation here is that the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), in his former capacity as solicitor general, did or did not do things which are of vital interest to the House. That is very clear. The House would be delighted to be able to question the minister. If the House could question the present Minister of Supply and Services on what he did or did not do four or five years ago, it could equally question the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray); it could equally question the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp). The counter proposal to that is no, that is not the way it should be; it should only be so if the member is still in the cabinet. That is a distinction which has not been known to me up to this point and I have never previously been invited to make that distinction.
The judges situation has been raised in argument. At that time I was in the situation of attempting to decide how to apply this rule. There one or two ministers of the Crown had taken a step which was the subject of interest to the House. The fact that they had taken that step was directly connected to their capacity as ministers of the Crown. There could be no question in my mind about that. Were they not ministers of the Crown, the step they had taken would not have had the importance that it did.
For the Chair then to attempt to say that simply because the step itself was not connected with the direct administrative responsibility of the cabinet would, I think, have been to apply this rule in a technical fashion which would have tied the
Oral Questions
hands of opposition members in an unfair way. I therefore concluded that questions to the ministers who had allegedly done those things were permissible. There was no obligation on the ministers to answer, but the questions ought to be put.
That situation, it seems to me, is a long way from covering the one at the present time, which is similar to ones which have arisen many times in the past, namely: Can members ask a question of a minister in that minister's former capacity? The clear answer given time and time again, without any doubt about our practices and precedents, has been no. It is tied very directly to the theory of ministerial responsibility, that the present incumbent of a ministerial office has responsibility which goes back for all time. It does not stop at the time that that incumbent took office. Therefore there cannot be two people responsible to the House in the parliamentary sense for that continuing responsibility.
If one minister who now occupies that position is responsible through all time for answering questions in this House, that responsibility cannot be shared by another minister who is a former occupant. If it is the wish of the House to change its practices to say that the House ought to be able to ask questions of a previous incumbent, then the House must also be prepared to accept the argument that the responsibility of the present incumbent of that office stops retroactively back at the time that he took office.
I am sure that this House would never be prepared to make that trade-off. If the House does want to do so, then I think the proper route would be for the procedure committee or some other body, a debate in the House or some reduction of the House, to tell me or any other incumbent of this office that the procedures of the House have been changed. Unless and until that happens, that is the clearest, most concise and effective rule which in these circumstances is not capable of any misinterpretation of misunderstanding, namely that no such questions can be put in the question period.
Can the minister be brought to account elsewhere, or can other steps be taken, are questions which are irrelevant to this particular procedural debate. Our practice and precedents make it clear that the limit of questions to be put to a minister in the question period in this House must go to the minister s present ministerial responsibility, and clearly not a previous ministerial responsibility. That is exactly the case in point. Therefore I have no choice in the circumstances except to disallow questions to the present Minister of Supply and Services which relate to his capacity as a former minister at a previous time.
6852

June 20, 1977
Research Documents



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: According to our revised procedures during this month I should inform the House at this time of the matters to be raised at six o'clock: the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Discontinuation of service to Churchill by radio station CHFC-Corporation policy; the hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie)-Manpower-Unemployment in New Brunswick-Proposed comparative study with state of Maine; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke)- Finance-Proposed formation of private investment corporation to acquire government's interest in Crown corporation.
[ Translation]


SOCIAL SERVICES ACT
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-57, to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the costs of the provision, development, extension and improvement of social services throughout Canada and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan and repeal the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act in consequence thereof.
(Motion agreed to, bill read printed).

the first time and ordered to be * *



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,323, 2,465, 2,534, 2,549, 2,552 and 2,644.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	How many sites does the government own or lease in (a) Hamilton (b) Burlington (c) Stoney Creek (d) Grimsby (e) Oakville (f) Ancaster (g) Dundas, Ontario?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table under Standing Order 41(2) volume two of the research documents and report of the Grain Handling and Transportation Commission.
2.	What is the estimated value of the properties in each municipality?
3.	What is the total area owned or leased in each municipality?
4.	How many government departments or agencies have building space, owned or leased, in each municipality?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Question 1	Question 2	Question 3	Question 4DPW	Number	Estimated Value	Total Area sq	ft.	Agencies	Owned'	Leased2	Owned3 $	Leased4 $	Owned5	Leased6	Owned7	Leased8(a)	Hamilton	6	17	8,231,500	1,112,106	369,736	250,416	22	10(b)	Burlington	1	2	590,300	231,662	29,330	24,954	1	7(c)	Stoney Creek	1	1	220,700	26,559	5,547	832	1	1(d)	Grimsby	1	0	350,000	0	9,768	0	1	0(e)	Oakville	1	2	1,234,300	28,461	37,205	3,840	4	2(0	Ancaster	1	0	140,300	0	3,403	0	1	0(g)	Dundas	1	1	125,000	3,360	11,877	560	1	11	Only sites counted are D.P.W. owned, designated in C.R.P.L*2	Site means address; 2 leases for different/same clients at same address is one site.3	Owned value is based on replacement cost less depreciation plus land value.4	Leased value is rental payable computed on an annual rent on all sites in 2.
5 Total area is in rentable square feet, measured in standard fashion, only for roofed premises.
6 Total area is in rentable sq. ft., according to lease agreement definition of area, only for roofed premises.7 and 8 "Agencies" includes departments; three postal sites is one agency. Various branches at separate sites such as are leased for M & I are all recorded as one agency called M & I. Owned and leased are recorded separately and an agency may be counted in each. Excluded properties are properties owned or leased by other agencies, properties which D.P.W. only manages, properties loaned or otherwise given without charge. Also excluded from above count are marine installations. Marine installations charged to D.P.W. include a few sites in Hamilton harbour for dredging and the Burlington bridge, where about 1,000 sq. ft. or rentable space is used as a control centre. Values are not available.
* Central Real Property Inventory. 
June 20, 1977


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since the implementation of the New Horizons Programme, has the Constituency of Richmond received any funds and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each project approved, what was the (a) name of the project (b) amount allocated (c) year of acceptance (d) name of the municipality involved (e) number of pensioners concerned?


Marc Lalonde: 
Mr. Caccia: Is there a waiting period in each province for a landed immigrant before he/she qualifies for coverage under medicare and hospital insurance and, if so, what is the period in each case?


Marc Lalonde: All provinces, except British Columbia, provide first day coverage to immigrants who are bona fide residents. In British Columbia, new residents can obtain coverage from the first day of the third month from the date of assuming residence in the province. A commercial plan offers temporary coverage for landed immigrants residing in British Columbia until they become eligible for coverage under the British Columbia public plans. In the case of most plans, eligibility for coverage is contingent upon registration, and payment of any required premium, within the appropriate grace period.
6854
Order Paper Questions COST OF LITERATURE PRODUCTION

June 20, 1977


Mr. Johnston: What was the total cost of producing the literature on the metric system?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: The total cost to Metric Commission Canada of producing literature on the metric system in the fiscal years 1971-1972 to 1975-1976 inclusive was $671,063.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is June 30 the customary date for members of the RCMP to commence wearing their red tunics while on duty in front of the Parliament Buildings and, if not, what is the date?
2.	Is the government aware of complaints by visitors, including tourists to Parliament Hill, prior to the date such tunics are worn and, if so, will the government give consideration to setting an earlier date for what has become a symbol of Canada to many foreign visitors and, if not, for what reason?


Francis Fox: 1. No; this year, 1977, RCMP members in red tunics will be positioned on Parliament Hill from June 15th to September 15th.
2. No; see answer to Part one; not applicable.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	During the fiscal year 1976-77, did the government sign an agreement with the Government of Quebec to promote a larger production of feed grains in Quebec and, if so, will the government make a financial contribution towards the implementation of the programme?
2.	What votes were affected by the programme in the 1977-78 estimates?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No.
2. None.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the appropriateness and the desirability of the motion I am about to move has been made abundantly clear this afternoon. I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the clear possibility of a conspiracy concerning the concealment of evidence or the failure to take appropriate action pertaining to the illegal break-in by three police officers at L'Agence de Presse Libre on the night of 0:tober 6-7, 1972.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 26, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) gave the Chair notice this morning of his intention to seek at this time leave of the House to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of considering the matter described by him. I have just indicated that in making rulings during the question period it is not for the Chair to decide on the desirability of a line of questioning or the desirability of the practices that the House follows and that the Chair endeavours to enforce. It is for the Chair to decide whether or not the procedures of the House are being applied and obeyed in certain circumstances. That is the judgment that the Chair always has to make without attempting to evaluate the probity or desirability of certain procedures.
What I have to decide in this instance, which is related to the same subject but in a different way, is, having regard to the subject matter and the circumstances, whether this is a subject which is appropriate to be discussed pursuant to Standing Order 26. Standing Order 26 is a very important part of our Standing Orders and if the Chair were to take the attitude, as has happened frequently in the past, particularly on matters of unemployment when I have had occasion to rule that the questions raised on unemployment are a matter of continuing concern and not a proper subject for debate under Standing Order 26, it would be regrettable.
1 must confess to some misgivings and some unhappiness in most of the rulings I have to make under Standing Order 26 because there is an impression that the Chair can be found to be so technical and so difficult in the application of the language of Standing Order 26 that no one can succeed in persuading the House that the Standing Order should be used for debate. That is a regrettable posture because, as we have all heard, many people express concern about the relevancy of discussions in the House, and if there is one thing that can be said about motions pursuant to this Standing Order, it is
June 20, 1977

always that they are on a relevant matter, always on a matter which has the attention of the country at the time, and therefore a matter that can quite appropriately be discussed in general terms.
That does not alter the fact that frequently in the past- and, 1 suppose, frequently in the future-I have had to and will have to turn down motions because their continuing nature does not fall under the kind of precise and critical aspect of the language of Standing Order 26. The Standing Order clearly defines, not something which will be discussed under a bill, in a throne speech debate or a budget debate and not something which is the subject matter of day to day questioning, a matter of general policy or a matter of concern to the country, but a precise problem which the Elouse will not have an opportunity to discuss at another time or in another way and which, within the language of the Standing Order, is a matter of specific importance requiring urgent consideration.
The question that has been raised here is the result of a statement on Friday by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). The hon. member's statement in support of his argument for the invocation of this order contains certain allegations and propositions. I think it is not for the Chair to evaluate them but to accept them as part of an argument in favour of the Standing Order. It is not for the Chair to decide what practices may or may not be followed. I am confronted with the Standing Order and the subject matter, and upon reading the Standing Order if I find that this subject matter does not qualify for debate pursuant to the Standing Order, we may as well take the Standing Order off the books. I therefore accept the hon. member's application and order that within the framework of the Standing Order we should provide for a debate on the subject matter raised by the hon. member.
However, I must point out that we are facing some extraordinary difficulties. During this month of June the House is sitting extra hours. It is also at present in the midst of a debate which, as provided by statute, must run for a certain maximum number of days without interruption. Ordinarily the Chair is in a position of setting eight o'clock for the hour at which this debate would commence. 1 cannot do that without offending the statute which provides that the debate must run without interruption. There is some comment, which is perhaps in the nature of speculation, that the debate on the anti-inflation program may be concluded before it runs its full course. I have no way of knowing that. In the circumstances, I wonder if hon. members would permit me to hold over my decision on the timing of the debate until tomorrow. My thinking of course would be that if the current statutory debate concludes today, tomorrow would be an ordinary day for government business, I presume, and I could then set eight o'clock tomorrow night for this debate. If that is not the case, then I am faced with a different set of circumstances and I would have to attempt to reconcile the statutory order under which we are now debating the anti-inflation program and this motion under Standing Order 26. That may be obviated by events which will take place later today, and if not, I could deal with it when the House assembles for routine proceedings tomorrow.
_______________________________________6855
Anti-Inflation Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens:
That the Anti-Inflation Act being chapter 75, Statutes of Canada 1974-75-76, as amended by chapter 98, Statutes of Canada 1974-75-76, shall expire on the 30th June, 1977.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Last Friday I was some 16 minutes into my remarks on the motion before the House, and I was talking about two aspects of the motion moved by the Conservative Party, namely, the inequity of the AIB program pertaining to salaries of ordinary working people as compared with salaries of executives, and also the inequity of the program when you compare the wages of ordinary working people and the profits of large corporations.
I have before me a list of 51 corporate executives who received salary increases last year of more than $2,400 a year when ordinary working people where told to limit their salary increases to $2,400, and in many cases much less than that. In many cases they were given contracts increasing their salaries up to $2,400, but then those increases were rolled back by the AIB. 1 put on the record of the House some examples of those huge salary increases and I was speaking about Kaiser Resources Limited and about the vice-president of that company named Howard Cadinha who had a salary increase last year of some $10,415. I was about to go on to Edgar Kaiser, the junior president of Kaiser Resources Limited. He is the one who would really make the hair on the head of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) turn grey. That guy had a salary in 1975 amounting to $206,637 and in 1976, despite the AIB regulations his salary was increased by $60,363, an increase roughly equal to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) salary. Yet AIB did nothing about it. So now Mr. Edgar Kaiser, junior president, has a salary of $267,000, with a salary increase of some 22.9 per cent.
Now I move on to Massey-Ferguson Limited, a well known company in the prairies. The president of that company, Albert Thornbrough had a salary in 1975 of some $353,833. Last year he had a salary increase of $20,000 a year, to bring his salary up to $373,833. I am sure the hair on the head of the hon. member for Nickel Belt will start to fall off. Also, as the hon. member mentioned, this fellow has not paid anywhere near the tax he should be paying.
J. E. Mitchell, executive vice-president of Massey-Ferguson, received a salary increase of $15,000 last year, raising his to over $230,000. That increase was untouched by the AIB. The senior vice-president of the company, a fellow named J. G. Staiger, received a salary increase of $6,000. He is the pauper of the trio: he makes only $192,836. I now move to Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company, of Calgary. The president of that

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
company is D. C. Jones. His salary increase last year was $12,850, bringing his salary up to $140,750. Then we have Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, of Toronto. The chairman of that company is H. R. Fraser. His salary increase was $11,900 last year. Smiley Raborn, president of CanDel Oil Limited of Calgary, received a salary increase of $13,250 last year.


John R. Rodriguez: He is smiling from ear to ear.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Last year, Mr. Raborn's salary was $155,450.


John R. Rodriguez: Is Inco listed on there?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Inco is not on this list, but the list may be incomplete. It is very difficult to get figures like these from the Canadian government. I must say that I am really embarrassed. I obtained the list from which I am reading from the security and exchange commission in Washington. This is not even a Canadian list. The document came from our good friends in the United States. The executive vice-president and treasurer of the CanDel Oil Company in Calgary, Michael A. Williams, received a salary increase or $7,950 last year. Douglas H. Church, senior vice-president and manager of operations, received a salary increase of $6,300.
Now I will move to the twenty-fourth of the 26 companies 1 am listing. That company is Canadian Homestead Oil Limited, of Calgary. The president of that company is B. W. Watson. His salary increase last year was $22,917, an increase of 71.4 per cent. His original salary was $32,083. Now it is up to $55,000. The deputy chairman of Genstar Limited, of Montreal, Charles deBar, received a salary increase of $8,100 last year, and if we add what is called incentives, his increase was $26,183-an increase of 32.1 per cent.
Angus MacNaughton, vice-chairman and chief executive of Genstar, received an increase, including incentives, of $29,168 an increase of 34.5 per cent. Ross Turner, president and executive officer of Genstar, received a salary increase, including incentives, of $40,594. That is a higher amount that the whole salary of hon. members of this House, including their expenses. That increase was 68.1 per cent. Mr. Turner's salary, including incentives, increased from $59,590 to $ 100,184. That was during the year of the AIB. Finally, James Nielson, president and chief executive officer of Husky Oil, of Calgary, received an increase of $10,504, or 9.9 per cent.
As I have said a couple of times already, the source of these statistics is company records received from the security and exchange commission in Washington, D. C. I submit that the list is terribly incomplete. I suppose we could add dozens and dozens of other company executives who received salary increases of well over $2,400. It is a real shame when the government limits the salary increase of ordinary Canadians to $2,400 per year when the largest increase to date is $60,000 for a business executive of a private company. How can ordinary Canadians be expected to trust the government or to support this program when they see this kind of abuse being sanctioned by the government? There is no way ordinary Canadians can support this type of program or see it as fair

and just. There is not one Liberal opposite who would go back to his or her constituency and defend this type of inequity.
I would like, now, to move to the second aspect which I think is unfair about the program. Some companies have been treated differently from trade unions and people who work for a living in this country. Many companies have had huge profit increases. They have been able to do that because of various loopholes in the AIB legislation. I will refer to as many companies as I can in the next five or ten minutes I have at my disposal. First, I will deal with development land companies. Genstar had a profit increase last year of 43.5 per cent. Daon Development had a profit increase of 16.1 per cent.


Herb Breau: Give the absolute figures.


Mr. Francis:: Give the losses sometimes, too.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will give some absolute figures. There is not time to give them all, but I will go back to Genstar. In 1975 Genstar's net income was $7,266 million. In 1976, its net income was $10,429 million-an increase of some 43.5 per cent.


John R. Rodriguez: Workers can't get increases like that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is a huge profit increase.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Anybody can play with statistics.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Carma Developers had a profit increase of 43.5 per cent last year. In the three months ending March 31, its profit increase was 92.6 per cent. It is very interesting that when 1 start talking about huge profit increases and start getting critical about them, all of a sudden the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and other hon. members start defending their corporate friends. However, when workers are attacked day in and day out, we do not hear any Liberals defending them.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I made no specific references to friends; I merely made reference to the very biased selection of statistics the hon. member is quoting. He is quoting only the companies with profits, and he is distorting the base years on which he is making percentage comparisons.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in a way, the hon. member is right. I am quoting only certain statistics. I am quoting statistics regarding corporations which had huge profit increases last year. I am doing that because I believe all companies and all individuals should be treated the same under the anti-inflation program. Companies should not have been allowed to make huge profit increases last year when the anti-inflation program was in effect. If we are going to control the salaries of workers and ordinary people in this country, we should control the incomes of corporations and the prices these corporations charge the ordinary consumer in Canada. Abacus Cities net income in 1975 was $1,520 million. That went up to $4,792 million one year later. That was a profit increase of 215.3 per cent. Melcor Development had a profit increase of
June 20, 1977

23.4	per cent in 1976. Marathon Realty-and I know some of my Liberal friends are interested in Marathon Realty-


John R. Rodriguez: Concerned.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -had a profit increase of 36.2 per cent in 1976, over 1975. Nu-West Developers showed a profit increase of 21.8 per cent at the end of last year. Sifton Properties- again, a very well known development corporation-showed a profit increase of 54.1 per cent at the end of last year. These companies are land developers. We should turn our attention to the activities of land developers as well as to the profits they are making.
1 move now to trust companies. Montreal Trust had a profit increase of 16.7 per cent in 1976. In the three months ending March 31, the increase was 39.1 per cent. Victoria and Grey Trust Company had a profit increase of 18.4 per cent. Commerce Capital Trust had a profit increase of 31.5 per cent. Fidelity Mortgage and Savings had a profit increase of 46 per cent. Crown Trust had a profit increase of 23.6 per cent. Heritage Savings and Trust had a profit increase of 76.9 per cent. City Savings and Trust had a profit increase of 62.7 per cent. Canada Trustco Mortgage had a profit increase of 25.5 per cent. Central and Eastern Trust had a profit increase of
9.4	per cent.
I now move on to utilities. Calgary Power had a profit increase of 44.4 per cent; Newfoundland Telephone, 31.6 per cent; Island Telephone, 16 per cent; Quebec Telephone, 6.1 per cent; Alberta Gas Trunk Line, 51.3 per cent; Trans-Canada Pipelines, 26.5 per cent; Consolidated Pipelines, 20.1 per cent. Now some of my favourites, the food and beverage industry. In the 12 weeks to March 20, B.C. Packers had a profit increase of 45.1 per cent; Corporate Foods, 13.8 per cent; Borden Foods, 21.5 per cent; Jannock Industries, 48.1 per cent; Ogilvie Mills, 36.9 per cent; Labatt, 17.7 per cent; Seagram, 20.5 per cent-for the first nine months of the year; Royal Oak Dairies, 32.1 per cent; Maple Leaf Mill, 7.1 per cent. Next come the media, broadcasting and cable TV companies. Bushnell Communications, 70.3 per cent; CFCN, 56.2 per cent; Maclean Hunter Cable TV, 37.9 per cent; Maclean Hunter, 21.2 per cent; Baton Broadcasting, 26.4 per cent; Moffatt Communications-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. I think it entirely appropriate that I begin by expressing my very great appreciation and that of my colleagues for the outstanding work that has been done both in introducing this motion, arguing the motion and fighting the government on it, by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).
Anti-Inflation Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The primary purpose of this debate was to give the government an opportunity to begin moving out of the controls program. Tonight we will see how successful we have been or whether, instead of accepting that opportunity, the government will continue to vote the party line and keep Canadians in controls and suspense. The other purpose was to give the government an opportunity to say, if they are not to end controls, precisely what they intend to do about the economic policy of this country and the termination of the controls program.
Unfortunately, in all speeches by members from the other side, the government has refused to take that opportunity, so Canadians remain in the dark about the government's plans for the termination of controls. That causes particular difficulty to the thousands of millions of Canadians who have to make plans, who have to know with certainty what the government is going to do, and what the shape of policy is going to be. Canadians have received no direction, no leadership at all from this government.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: What about the results? You know the results.


An hon. Member:: They could not be worse.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not sure if the hon. member is talking about the results of the economy, about the one million Canadians out of work, or if he is talking about the result of the trip to Africa by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer).


An hon. Member:: This is going to put him out of work.


Marcel-Claude Roy: The last Gallup poll is the result. [Translation]


Charles Joseph Clark: Maybe he is referring to the recent by-elections in Quebec, where the Progressive Conservative party had a larger increase in popular vote than any other party.

On July 1 this country is going to celebrate its one-hundred and tenth birthday with a program on which the government intends to spend millions of dollars on public relations in the cause of national unity. What they could have done, instead, by accepting this motion, would have been to give some substance to national unity on that day by showing the kind of leadership that the national government should show. I do not begrudge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) demonstrating his renewed interest in the Crown. I am not surprised that the newest member of cabinet, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner), should rush to make use of government aircraft so that he can be as far away as possible from this House when we vote on the metric bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I can quite understand the Minister of Supply and Services spending so much of his time in Africa. I think if

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
he is going to stay in the cabinet it would be very much in the national interest to keep him as far away as possible for as long as anyone will take him.


Miss MacDonald:: Pity the people of Africa.


Charles Joseph Clark: Those are the privileges of office. Sometimes they are properly used but often so abused by this government. But, sir, there is more to office than privilege. There is also responsibility-responsibility to lead; responsibility to do what is right, even if the kind of public opinion polls cited by the minister the other day indicate that what is right might be temporarily unpopular. Nowhere is that kind of leadership more needed now and more absent than on the question of controls and the future direction of the economy of Canada.
This government has already been irresponsible enough on controls. When my predecessor, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), had the courage to propose what was necessary in 1974, the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, responded with the kind of irresponsibility that has lost him forever any trust that he might have enjoyed among members of this House. Many of the people of Canada will not soon forget the Prime Minister pointing his finger and saying, "Zap-you are frozen", condemning the program which a year later he implemented.
That proposal, that discrepancy, that inconsistency, that spending, that foolish wasting of public trust by the Prime Minister, is not at all a joke for Canadians. It is a very serious betrayal of trust. It is one of the reasons Canadians, whether members of organized labour, those who are not members of unions, whether in business or private citizens, do not trust this government now and will not trust this government until we have at least an indication of when and how it intends to end controls and begin to restore growth to the economy.
The major problem in Canada now is a problem of confidence. Instead of confidence we have a con game going: we have hints about when controls might end. We have a number of options that might be considered by the government. But we have seen nothing that the people of Canada can count on when they make the plans they need to make. No leadership has been shown in regard to the future of Canada and the context in which individual decisions must be made.
I do not want to debate what the anti-inflation program has accomplished for Canada. I am quite prepared to be generous and admit that in the early months it may well have helped to reduce inflationary expectations. But that benefit has long since passed. Today we have a program that is full of injustices. The hon. member who spoke before me cited some of these. We have a program that has become a model of bureaucratic empire-building, a program that is seriously undermining investor confidence and planning in this country. That is the program which this government intends to keep in place indefinitely so far as we know-and we have to ask why. The most charitable explanation is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and his advisers are paralysed. They know they have not dealt with any of the fundamental problems of this country and they do not begin to know how
(Mr. Clark.]
they will deal with them. So they have let controls linger on as a kind of security blanket, in order to hide their own indecision. Sir, we sometimes call the Minister of Finance "Big Mac". A better name would probably be "Linus".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The only other explanation for this government's refusal to end the AIB program is that the government does not want to end controls. This is, after all, the government which loves to meddle in the affairs and individual lives of Canadians, which believes it knows better than anybody else does, and that only it can decide what is in the best interest of all of us. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who is in this House, participated in the debate the other night and spoke of a disciplined economy. That phrase has the kind of authoritarian ring the Prime Minister finds so attractive, but which most citizens of this country find so alarming or offensive.
We all know, sir, that it is not what the Minister of Finance believes or wants that is important. He concedes, as he has in committee and in this House, that this is the right time for the economy to begin the decontrol process. But in the end it is not the view of the Minister of Finance which counts, but that of the Prime Minister of Canada. And who knows what the Prime Minister believes? Perhaps he will take the opportunity in the remaining hours of this debate to come in and tell the House about the economy of Canada. He has not spoken in the House of Commons in this calendar year. Perhaps he would like to take this opportunity to come in and set forth for Canadians an indication of the goals he is pursuing and the plans he is following for the development of the Canadian economy. Until he does that we only have the record of things he says outside this House.
All of us can remember his statement made in December, 1975, about the failure of the free market system. Last summer, of course, he was reconverted to the free market system. Now we have the interview in Le Monde, quoted the other night by the hon. member for Halifax, in which the Prime Minister said it would be foolish to end controls before an election. My colleague from Halifax called that the teachings of some kind of post-Galbraithian school. It strikes me, sir, as pure Keith Davey, if one can apply that adjective these days.


Walter David Baker: He is a Poll-horse.


Charles Joseph Clark: The point is, the Prime Minister was dishonest with the country when he introduced controls. We have no reason to believe he will be any more honest in removing controls. Sir, I missed the debate the other day and I regret that. But I read with interest the contribution made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). In his contribution, he claimed that the government had achieved what he called "more than a modest measure of success" in restraining its own expenditures. The truth of the matter is that this administration has been on the biggest spending spree in Canadian history. In its first year of office it spent $9 billion.
June 20, 1977

This year it plans to spend almost $45 billion-an increase of 500 per cent. The minister calls that restraint. The hard reality is that, thanks to a decade of total irresponsibility by the government, the national finances of this country are virtually out of control. One need look no further than the last budget of the Minister of Finance for confirmation of that fact. This government has spent so much and planned so badly that the budget runs a $7 billion deficit and still leaves more than one million Canadians out of work. This government has spent itself right out of any opportunity to exercise a positive influence on the Canadian economy.
Sir, faced even with this dismal record, the most this government is prepared to commit itself to regarding restraint is to hold the line, to hold its spending increase to the rate of increase of the gross national product. Having governed for a decade in which the proportion of gross national product taken by governments has climbed from 29 per cent to 43 per cent, this government now says it is prepared to level off for a while. That is just not good enough. We on this side of the House are committed to reducing the government's take from the economy-not keeping it at a constant level-because that is an essential first step to restoring confidence in the Canadian economy.
We have had controls in this country, sir, for 20 months-20 months during which we might have expected some initiative by this government to deal with some of our more deeply-rooted Canadian economic problems. You will remember, sir, that when this program was introduced in the dark of the night, without any warning, on pre-empted television time-as has become too much of a habit of the government-the government gave us a long litany of commitments, of things they were going to do during the period of controls. We were to get a comprehensive energy policy. Where is that comprehensive energy policy?


Walter David Baker: We do not even have a comprehensible minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: We do not have a comprehensible minister, and we do not have a comprehensive energy policy which we were promised as a condition for accepting this period of controls. We were told we were going to have a national food policy which would be brought in during the period of controls. We now have a document, introduced the other day by Mutt and Jeff-I do not know which minister is which-and the ministers cannot agree if it is a policy or strategy. They cannot even agree on the semantics, let alone on its substance. That is the second absolute failure to keep a promise which was made as a condition for accepting controls.
We were told we would have an effective housing program. We must admit that the control program has had some effect on housing in this country. It has driven a great deal of the investment which could be made in Canadian housing, south of the border so that there are houses in the United States which could have been built in Canada if it were not for the controls program we have in place right now.
Anti-Inflation Act
We were told that there would be, as part of the condition for accepting controls, an examination of regulatory policy. We have not had an examination of regulatory policy, but we have had a proliferation of regulations. We were also told that we were to have, if we accepted controls, an improved system of collective bargaining. As my colleague from Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) said the other night when he participated in this debate, we have had nothing of the kind, because the government of Canada has not made any serious effort to use the time we bought with controls to bring about the reforms which Canadians were promised as a condition for accepting controls.
However, we have had one other activity during this period. We have had a multitude of meetings and discussions around a concept called voluntary restraint. This process, as the House recalls, started more than three years ago under the previous minister of finance, and to this day-I am not sure of his name-no one knows exactly what the Government of Canada is expecting from business and labour in the matter of voluntary restraint. But they are asking for changes from meeting to meeting and speech to speech.
In this debate, the Minister of Finance said that he wants "further assurances as to the active advocacy of policies of restraint we can expect from these groups." That means he wants them to get out and actively advocate restraint which, as one must admit, is entirely consistent-because that is all the government has been doing in the name of restraint throughout the controls program. Of course, he asks of business and labour a commitment to participate in his semi-annual talk-in, that process of public education from which, in the best traditions of this government, the public and the House of Commons will be barred. Sir, that is simply a farce. With great respect, the minister knows it is a farce. We accuse the Minister of Finance of a lot of things, but nobody on this side has ever accused him of being stupid. He is not stupid. He knows that the people he is talking to cannot give him any binding commitments on behalf of business or labour.


John Allen Fraser: Right on.


Charles Joseph Clark: He knows, too, that there is not a room big enough to get into it all the people, the thousands of economic decision-makers in this country, who would have to join in a massive cartel to create any meaningful program of voluntary restraint. The minister knows that, yet he plunges on with the charade. Why? Because it is a convenient substitute for the government accepting its responsibility to lead. Even more seriously, because it is a convenient set-up for this government to play its favourite game of blaming the other guy for all the country's problems. It is a set-up to make the people of Canada believe that only the irresponsibility of the private sector is preventing concrete action in this area. Sir, that is not only dishonest; it is totally unfair to business and labour leaders who have shown more responsibility in this matter than anyone on the government benches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act


Charles Joseph Clark: I would be remiss if I did not at least acknowledge the contribution made to this debate by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). He has, to give him credit, a simple and straightforward position. In his view, the major weakness of the present controls program is that it does not control enough. He advocates a national incomes policy which, as I read it, amounts to government assuming the role of national paymaster, deciding how much each sector of our society should get from the economy. As I say, sir, it has at least a certain simplicity to it. I have to ask myself whether the member for Oshawa-Whitby has enunciated that concept to his friends in the labour movement. But, then, I suppose organized labour is prepared to concede the odd aberration to my friends on the left in the practical comfort that they will never have the opportunity to implement this or any other of their unrealistic proposals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We realize, Mr. Speaker, that there is never an easy way or a right time to get out of controls. However, we submit-and we seem to have the support of the Minister of Finance on this point-that our present economic circumstances, with the large amount of unused capacity we now have in our economy, is as good a setting as any in which to begin the decontrol process. The circumstances now are as good as they are going to get. To wait would be irresponsible. Waiting would mean we would have to face decontrols-if the Prime Minister ever lets us face decontrols-in an atmosphere that is not as effective as the present one.
We accept that, even with a stagnant economy, there could be short-term price and wage pressures, and we have advocated a series of proposals to deal with any such pressures which might arise. I will summarize the proposals made by my colleague. We want legislative action to ensure that rulings by the AIB and the administrator retain their effect even if the AIB is dismantled. I note from his remarks the other night that the Minister of Finance accepts that proposal.


John Allen Fraser: After we put it forward.


Charles Joseph Clark: As my colleague from Vancouver South says, "after we put it forward". We want a monitoring agency established within the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. That is a proposal the minister does not accept, for very good reason. The monitoring agency under Consumer Affairs is too small for him. It is not a big enough bureaucracy. He will not accept anything that will not allow the bureaucracy to grow larger and larger. We believe that a monitoring agency within the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs could do the job that needs to be done to get us out of the controls program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We would, as my colleague said in his remarks, require corporations and unions to provide 30 days' notice of price and wage increases. We want the cabinet to have ultimate power-


Mr. Caccia:: Great idea.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am a little suspicious of receiving any support from the auspices of anyone who wants to have so much control over the economy as the hon. member for Davenport. 1 am pleased, at least, to learn that he is listening. We want the cabinet to have the ultimate power to roll back any such increases which are deemed to be clearly excessive and contrary to the public interest. We recognize that this may require some legislation; but after all, that is what parliament is all about. If we need to have some legislation to build in that power, we will do it.
The Minister of Finance raised a red herring the other night suggesting there would be no authority for the parliament of Canada to do that. I simply make one suggestion which I would have thought would have occurred to the minister. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ceded the roll-back authority to one federal agency, the Anti-Inflation Board. It would be a simple matter to have that extended to another federal agency, the most senior agency, the cabinet of Canada. That, sir, is a concrete program. It is a specific program. It is a workable program. I have no hesitation in offering it as a constructive alternative to the minister's "first in, first out" system which will lead to all kinds of inequities and which, in all likelihood, will stretch out the present program at least to the end of 1978.
As the hon. member for York-Simcoe made clear the other night, one of the things that this government may be considering-we do not know, and this adds to the climate of uncertainty, making it impossible for Canadians to plan-is a date for the beginning of a decontrols regime which would, in effect, mean that controls would stay in place for most of the corporations and large unions in this country until the end of 1978. That is pretty good hocus-pocus, but it is pretty dangerous economics for a country like Canada. This debate has centred on a specific question, the timing and nature of the decontrols process. In a way, it has also focused on some much larger questions and some basic differences among the parties in this House. As I already have indicated, the NDP, to give them credit, operate from the basis of a consistent ideology. They have no faith in the free market system, and they have every faith in the ability of government to plan and to manage society in infinite detail. I totally reject that ideology, but at least I give them credit for having one.
This government, of course, has no ideology at all. To it, principle is something you collect interest on, preferably at elections. There was no more damning evidence of that than the emphasis the Minister of Finance placed in this debate on opinion polls and the short-term politics of decontrols. In place of principle this government is prepared to do literally anything that its backroom manipulators deem to be politically convenient, because the single thing in which this government believes is its own right to direct the lives of Canadians.
Even putting aside principle and morality, the problem with that approach, sir, is that it simply does not work. Having flip-flopped into controls, they have done nothing whatsoever to make constructive use of the time which controls could have

June 20, 1977

bought for them. Faced with a dramatic new challenge to the unity of our country, they have produced not a single positive response except to create two or more new bureaucracies in the Privy Council.
We, on this side of the House, are prepared to exercise the powers of government when we believe it is the responsible thing to do, as witness our proposals for the decontrols period. But we advocate that kind of action only when we feel it is essential, and only because government is the only collective mechanism available to us-most certainly not because we believe we are smarter than Canadians or because we believe we have some right to direct the lives of the private citizens of this country.
There are any number of imperfections in our economy as, indeed, there are in our society. But surely it is time we began to question whether the constant cure of government intervention is not a more serious sickness than the ailments it claims to treat.
Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing thing about Canada right now is that we have lost confidence in ourselves-and this in a country which has more reason to be confident than virtually any other in the world. But how can Canadians have confidence when their national government's every act is to breed suspicion, confrontation and distrust? How can Canadians believe in themselves when their national government doesn't believe in them?
Removing the wage and price controls program will not solve the problem, but perhaps it can be a start. Perhaps it can be at least a beginning in showing some trust and confidence in Canadians. I have that kind of trust and confidence in Canada, and 1 invite every member of this House to express that same trust and confidence by supporting this motion.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, in the current context of all those systems maintained and nurtured by the old parties to try and control inflation, one is reminded of the story of that fellow who raised skunks and tried to control the smell. Because at the start, the smell is quite awkward. But after a while, one gets used to it to the point it does not bother too much. So it is with inflation. The first experiences are stifling, but after a while it goes almost unnoticed. Although the smell is there.
While prices and banking and multinational profits are going up through the elevator, wages and small and medium businesses profits have to climb a slow flight of stairs. Inflation is in my view an imaginary "gimmick" thought of by the government and its so-called economists to ignore the fact and entertain the illusion that everything is well, there is nothing to be done, it is a necessary evil, and all that is needed is to tolerate the smell and let the skunk get older, but while the inflationary virus is getting deeper and putting the government to sleep, there are in this country more than 503,000 students and young workers that will be unemployed during the coming
Anti-Inflation Act
season. Labour is facing a number of impossible problems. Farmers are almost to the point of letting everything go, while senior citizens see their savings are being eroded daily.
The Anti-Inflation Board simply permitted that people in the small income group be subjected to controls, while banks and multinational corporations went on scot-free their golden way.
As I said, the first ones hit by that cancer are people in the low income group, non-unionized and even unionized workers. Other victims are non indexed bond holders and small savers. Private sector pensioners and all those living off allowances have lost half the initial value of their money. While inflation is gnawing at small income people, the moneyed classes invest their loot in real estate and, finally, we end up with the situation we see now-the bankruptcy of small- and mediumsized businesses and the growth of large fortunes.
Indeed, chartered banks' assets have increased by $16 billion in 1975-76 and are now showing an annual increase of $25 billion when calculated on the basis of the assets accrued for the five first months of this year, that is $12 billion. What is worse is that people responsible for that state of things have all gone into hiding. Thus unions are blamed for inflation. When workers are not blamed for inflation, industries are. And when individuals are not blamed, consumers are. Everybody has his turn. Of course, we shall not attempt to absolve completely those groups. However, those actions are for the most part defensive reactions rather than initial causes. It is like the individual pushed from the top of a cliff, who grasps a rope and drags someone else down with him. If the first one had not been pushed, the other should not have been dragged.
As we could see, inflation is the major problem in Canada today. We could even say that all other problems would disappear for the most part if we could eliminate inflation. Yes, because inflation steals the savings and revenues from Canadians. This is why we were disappointed when the Speech from the Throne and the subsequent statements by the government did not mention the only measure that really succeeded among all so-called anti-inflationist measures made until now by this government, I mean the subsidy that eliminates directly production costs. The subsidies to dairy producers are the best example. Canadian consumers benefited from lower prices through that program and we deplore its end. Of course, we could still improve the way those subsidies are paid. One of the rare good things said by Mrs. Plumptre, the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board is: This program might become a racket to the advantage of producers. We agree on this. The subsidies should improve the capacity of consumers to express their needs to producers and retailers. For that reason, subsidies should be given at the retailer level when the consumer has really made his choice among the various products. We can only wonder why the government do not continue that experience which demonstrated the efficiency of creating credit to reduce costs rather than increasing production and production costs.
We from the Social Credit Party of Canada want to see an extension of that policy. In fact, a universal discount on retail

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
prices is advisable as we know it is the only means to increase the purchasing power without increasing prices. Unfortunately, this government cut off those efficient subsidies against price increases. But the money now earned by workers in the industry will be spent tomorrow and will leave behind a series of costs which will be felt on the market when people can no longer afford to pay them. The approach chosen by the government does not solve the basic problem, it only delays the inevitable confrontation. And when you delay the time of fighting, it is not a cat you face in the end, but a tiger.
In the present circumstances, it is absolute nonsense to claim that by increasing production we will be able to reduce inflation. This idea has been proven false many times but it is always the last resort of those who cannot understand that our major economic problem is not production, but consuming and distribution. The events we see unfolding before our eyes today are very similar to those of the crisis of the thirties. At that time, surpluses of produce were destroyed, while people were in need of them. We must not produce more eggs in Canada. However, we must see to the distribution of eggs already produced, one year ago, a beef shortage was anticipated, but the picture has changed completely; our beef producers anticipate large surpluses and are developing plans aimed at convincing Canadians to eat more beef.
If there truly are shortages of several products, it is because of problems which did not exist in a healthy monetary system. We have only to recall the famous paper shortage of recent date. Can someone seriously suggest that we have exhausted our forest resources in Canada? No. The shortages are caused by strikes, price inflation and a general economic slowdown. Canada has so much resources that it is nearly unbelievable and, if they are well used, our natural resources and technical capacities can easily meet the material needs of the whole population and even of a much greater population than the present one.
Some people will probably say that the financing of lower prices is another daydream of the Social Crediters, another instance of funny money. Unfortunately for the critics, the federal government has shown the practical and effective nature of this suggestion. Some will say that it is not an orthodox approach to the situation. But since economic orthodoxy created the present problem, it is obvious that we need new ideas. Moreover, in the last 50 years, some professional economists have been great exponents of consumer subsidies through price reductions, and in this regard, I can mention Mr. R. R. Irvine, professor of economics at Sydney University, in Australia, during the crisis in the thirties. Another economist, Mr. J. E. Meade, has written a book entitled Consumers' Credits and Unemployment, published by the Oxford University Press, in which he states his belief-
He has also written:
f English]
This is a subject which has been strangely neglected by professional economists ... The subsidization of consumption at certain times and in certain conditions is perfectly sensible. At the risk of being numbered among "the 
monetary cranks" 1 submit this book to all who are interested in social and economic problems to persuade them that this is an important method of maintaining prosperity, to my professional colleagues to convince them that they should take the subject much more seriously-

Also, Mr. Speaker, a Mr. Vincent Bladen, currently professor of political economy at the Toronto University, insisted recently on the fact that new measures are necessary to fight inflation. His remarks are reported in last year's March-April issue of The Canadian Chartered Accountant.

Action is urgently needed. I suggest the government hold down prices by subsidy rather than by ceiling.

And the administrative method he has suggested consists in a negative tax which is applied at the retail level.
Mr. Speaker, we, as members of the Social Credit Party, have been striving for many years for the establishment of the guaranteed annual income. I should like to quote a few remarks from Mr. Erich Fromm:
The guaranteed income, which has become possible in these times of economic wealth, could for the first time liberate mankind from the threat of famine and in a way make it free and independent from any economic threat. Nobody would be forced to accept intolerable working conditions simply because he is afraid of starving to death; a talented or ambitious man or woman could increase his or her qualifications and undergo retraining to take up another kind of job.
The shift from a psychology of scarcity to a psychology of abundance is one of the most important in the history of human development. A psychology of scarcity generates anxiety, envy, selfishness (that can be seen particularly in primitive cultures throughout the world). A pyschology of abundance generates initiative, faith in life and solidarity.
Economic abundance and relief from the fear of starvation will mark the transition from a pre-human to a truly human society.
There it is, Mr. Speaker, as I suggested earlier and have been doing so for many years, I think that the present economy of this country or at least the natural resources of this country allow the government to act and finally decide to give every citizen the guaranteed annual income, an income that would allow him to live beyond the poverty line. 1 read recently either in a newspaper or a magazine that there are now over half a million workers-workers, not unemployed-who find it absolutely impossible to secure the vital minimum to their subsistence. So, Mr. Speaker, in a country such as ours, with incredible abundance, I ask what is stopping the government from acting and providing each and every citizen of this country with decent and fair comfort in view of the unlimited abundance.
Since the prime purpose of the creation of the Anti-Inflation Board was to control and destroy inflation-which it lamentably failed to do, having overrun the bridge-and since those effects are nil and the board only prevented small wage earners from going up in the wage ladder and allow poor people to breathe, I think that board has no more raison d'etre. That is why we of the Social Credit Party are going to support the motion calling for its abolition.
June 20, 1977


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, like most members of parliament, like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I have serious misgivings about price and income controls as a means of dealing with inflation in peacetime. As a former member of the government, I was one of those who resisted such controls until 1 became convinced that there was no alternative. When the decision in principle was taken, I was one of those who shared the view that the program of price and income restraints should be selective, limited as far as possible to the principal decision-makers in the private sector, flexible enough to deal not only with the typical but with the atypical cases, and of sufficiently long duration to have some possibility of changing the inflationary psychology then prevalent. It was the urgent need to try to change the inflationary psychology that, in my opinion, was the main justification for the introduction of price and income restraints in 1975.
Members of the House will recall that wage demands at that time were based on the expectation and the fear of further price increases. Similarly, price increases were being based on the expectation and the fear of further cost increases. The chase of incomes after prices and prices after incomes threatened disaster to all concerned. The managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Witteveen, put the point, with his customary elegance, in an address just about a month ago on May 17:
Perhaps the most important lesson of economic policy that has been learned from the events of the past decade is the key role played by expectations in the determination of price movements. When high rates of inflation persist, expectations of continuing price increases are gradually built in to pricing policies, both in the labour market and in the goods market. These expectations can sustain the momentum of inflation even when excess demand pressures have been eliminated. Not only that, but uncertainties concerning the future course of costs and prices undermine the confidence of private business and result in an unwillingness to undertake the investment on which future output and growth depend. This is perhaps one reason for the rather tentative response of fixed investment during the recent cyclical recovery.
That, as I have said, is the view expressed just a month ago by the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Just why this race got under way no one is quite sure. It was not only a Canadian phenomenon; it occurred throughout the industrialized world. In some places the pace was quicker than in Canada; in others it was slower. But it was universal.
I shall not at this time enter into a debate as to the causes, although there are, without doubt, important lessons to be learned about the inflationary process which will be of value in preventing its recurrence in the future. If I may be permitted a brief comment, it is that it is much easier and much more popular to take measures to stimulate demand than it is to take measures to dampen the economy when inflation threatens-and I speak now from the heart of a former minister of finance. Somehow we shall have to learn that there is a point beyond which measures to stimulate over-all demand are counterproductive in terms of employment.
Anti-Inflation Act
The trade-off between inflation and unemployment, which may have had some validity in the past, has little meaning today when high inflation and high unemployment exist simultaneously. Until a few years ago the central objective of economic policy in the industrialized world was to prevent the recurrence of a depression such as devastated the western world in the 1930s. On the whole, that objective was reasonably well attained. Looking back over the period one can say it was one of the most successful periods of economic expansion in the whole history of the world. The period from the end of World War II until the early seventies was one of unsurpassed expansion and prosperity.
The problem facing us now is quite different from what it was in those years. The problem is to maintain reasonably steady economic progress, steady progress which is threatened by inflationary tendencies of great tenacity and universality. So I return to the question before us, which is whether or not to disband the present controls at the end of the month, as proposed in the resolution introduced by the financial spokesman for the official opposition and founded, of course, upon the gathering together of a sufficient number of members to justify this debate.
I proceed from the premise that price and income controls are not a desirable solution for inflation in a free society in peacetime, although I know there are some who take a contrary view. I do not think there are many in this House who take the contrary view, but at any rate I know that outside this parliament there are many who do. To me, and I think to most of us, controls are at best a temporary expedient to gain time, and that is the basis upon which they were introduced and approved by this parliament. The legislation that gave sanction to the system that is now in operation had a time limit on it, and it was defended on that basis not as a permanent system of price and wage controls. Nor is anyone, I trust, going to argue that the program of price and income restraint now in effect is ideal and fully equitable. In the very nature of things, price and income restraints are arbitrary and, at best, offer some sort of rough justice.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Minister of Labour said they wouldn't work, in the last election.


Mitchell William Sharp: They certainly are not of the kind and nature that one would have entered upon with any great zeal, because in the nature of things they are arbitrary. They are justified only because, although arbitrary, they are to be preferred to the excesses which would have been experienced without them and only if they have beneficial effects on the pattern of human behaviour for the future. No one can know what would have happened without the imposition of controls. All we do know is that price and cost increases prior to the introduction of controls were accelerating at an alarming rate, and that since the application of controls there has been a fairly steady diminution in the rate of increase of both prices and costs.
Hon. members will recall that the period of controls is divided into three parts. During the First year which ended in October, 1976, the objective was an increase in the consumer

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
price index of 8 per cent. In fact, the increase was 6V2 per cent, a notable reduction from the 11 per cent increase recorded in the previous 12 months-not all attributable, of course, to the controls program. There was an element of good luck and good fortune as well. In the second year now under way, the objective is a 6 per cent increase in the consumer price index. This may or may not be attained because of price increases in food and imports which are not fully under the control of the program, but it looks as if the target will not be missed by more than about one per cent or so. If this is, in fact, the result, it can be said that over the first two years the control's program did at least achieve, and may better, its consumer price target.
Most independent observers are of the view that this was not a coincidence, that the controls, notwithstanding their limitations, did bring about an immediate and significant reduction in the rate of price and cost increases beyond what would otherwise have occurred by the free play of market forces and collective bargaining. I think it is also fair to say that most independent observers are also of the view that the rate of increase in prices and costs is still excessive, that the controls have been effective all right, but that domestically-generated inflation is still serious.
One valid criticism of any comprehensive system of prices and incomes controls that restrains incomes and prices in accordance with some yardstick is that it results in inequities amongst the various participants in the economic process. Wage earners who have fallen behind feel that controls prevent a full restoration of their relative status. Some professionals may feel they have been unfairly treated. Wage earners may feel that professionals and business executives are not being as closely controlled as they are. Businessmen contend that profits are being held so low as to inhibit investment, and so forth. Every effort should, of course, be made to achieve fairness and equity, but regardless of what form the regulations take, those that are effective are also to some degree arbitrary. This is one of the main reasons why controls should be temporary. They are, in the nature of things, bound to cause distortions.
What can be said about the period since October, 1975, is that on the average wages have risen more quickly than prices, so that for those who are working there has been an improvement in the average standard of living, although not necessarily, of course, in the standard of living of every working Canadian. For example, wage rates on the average rose approximately 10 per cent during the first year of the control period, as against an increase in the consumer price index of 6V2 per cent; and while we do not have final figures for the period that is now under way, the second period, I understand that wages are still surpassing prices. If you look at the whole period, whatever else one can say about it, the wage earner has improved his relative position.
What is less satisfactory and a cause for concern is that, notwithstanding controls, wages have risen on the average

more quickly than average productivity, which means that there is a continuing upward pressure on costs and prices of domestically produced goods and services.
Mr. Speaker, I trust there is agreement on all sides that it is of the utmost urgency to try by every means to bring an end to the inflationary bias that now seems to permeate the economies of the industralized countries of the world, including Canada. It is no longer a question of choosing between inflation and unemployment, if these ever were valid alternatives. Inflation threatens to undermine the stability of our societies, and by so doing to jeopardize employment opportunities and conceivably to bring about even worse dislocation and social unrest.
No one can be quite sure how this inflationary bias is to be eliminated. I have heard the opposition criticize the government for not having a sure remedy for all these ills. I have greater confidence in the government, because they are not quite sure what should be done. I suspect that there are no simple methods, that the problem has to be tackled on several fronts, by prudent fiscal and monetary policies and, also, I am convinced, by concerted efforts on the part of political, business and labour leaders to achieve consensus as to the price and wage objectives that are in the national interest.
I know that efforts made prior to the imposition of mandatory controls to achieve voluntary restraint were not particularly successful. I was in the government at the time, and I sympathize with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and other colleagues who were endeavouring to bring about a program of voluntary restraint and found that it was an extremely difficult exercise. I venture to say, however, that the dangers of persistent inflation were not as well understood two or three years ago as they are today. It also is encouraging that progress has been made recently in working out a format of consultation which could serve to bring together principal decision-makers.
I have been following with great interest the debate on the control of inflation that has been going on around the world, not only in Canada but in Europe and in the United States. I have been listening to the various economists expressing their views on what is the right and perhaps the only way of controlling inflation, and I heard the other day some reference being made to the views of Professor Milton Freidman who said that there was only one way of controlling inflation, and that was by controlling the money supply. He said that you can stop inflation if you stop creating money in order to finance the business of the country. I am skeptical, however, about the acceptability of this remedy as a sovereign cure when the pressure builds up. That is why, it seems to me, some consensus amongst the principal decision-makers as to price and wage objectives would be helpful.
It would be much easier for those who try to exercise some control over the money supply or over fiscal policy if these decisions could be made within the framework in which there was general agreement as to objectives. This happens in other free societies, and while our institutions and conventions are in many ways unique-I regret to say we are one of the most
June 20, 1977

fragmented economies in the world-I suggest that we should at least make the effort.
I hope the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), will not be too discouraged by the reaction they may get at this stage to the efforts they are making to try to bring about a greater degree of co-operation between the principal decision-makers, whether in the field of government, labour or business. We might all be pleasantly surprised by the results if we can bring about the desired degree of co-operation.
The issue before the House is a simple one: Should the present system of controls be terminated by the end of the present month? Someone once said that the most important thing to consider when entering on a program of price and wage controls is how to remove them. The government has indicated the alternative methods and has come down, and I think rightly so, in favour of some kind of phased withdrawal.
An abrupt end to controls as proposed in this motion would be irresponsible, would jeopardize the substantial gains that have been achieved during the past 20 months and would, 1 submit, either create the impression that the program has failed and should be terminated without notice, or that the threat of inflation is over. The program has not been a failure-on the contrary, it has succeeded so well that it has become popular-and the threat of inflation is still very real. The hope is-and one can be more hopeful today because of the restraining effects of controls-that the inflation psychology has been moderated, if not eliminated.
As 1 have said, however, even though the rates of increases of prices and incomes are much below what they were, they are still excessive and dangerous. In the third year, the objective of the controls system is a 4 per cent increase in the consumer price index. Even if formal controls were to be substantially lifted, that objective, or even a lower figure, is a desirable one. A 4 per cent annual increase in consumer prices may seem small in relation to recent experiences. It is such a reduction from the two-digit figures we had become accustomed to that it looks as if it might be an unattainable figure. I do not know whether it is or not, but in my view we should be striving to get our consumer price index increase down to as low a level as possible, as well as all the other price indices.
A 4 per cent annual increase in consumer prices may seem small in relation to recent experience, but it is not small per se. When I was minister of finance and things throughout the world were quite different from what they are today, a 4 per cent annual increase for the indefinite future had implications which are still here today. If we contemplate that prices are going to rise by 4 per cent annually over the next ten years, we will be less willing to hold money and more anxious to buy goods or property. So I think we still have a serious inflationary problem to which I hope the government is directing its attention.
As hon. members know, I am no longer in the confidence of the ministers. I do not even have anyone to help me write my
Anti-Inflation Act
speeches nowadays. I have to depend upon myself, so I am not informed as to the intentions of the ministers with respect to the timing and process of decontrol apart from what is contained in ministerial announcements and documents. The views I am expressing now are entirely personal. I hope they accord with the views of ministers, but they are my own.
First, although the price and income restraints have been very useful, I trust that the government will resist the temptation to try to extend the term of the legislation beyond its present date because of public support for the program. The government may be tempted to do so. I hope it can resist that and, as the Minister of Finance has indicated, reinforce the price and wage undertakings which have been made while the program has been in effect. Second, I think it would be advisable to begin the process of decontrol before the end of the three-year period, so that the transition is orderly, not abrupt, and is as fair as possible to all concerned.
Third, it is my earnest hope that the government will persist in its efforts to achieve an acceptable means of promoting understanding and co-operation amongst business, labour and government, whatever the discouragements. The traditional adversary attitude amongst these three principal decision-makers must be modified. Otherwise, the pressing of their respective claims will frustate the attainment of the common good.
The end of controls, whenever it comes, will not mean that the threat of inflation has passed. The controls only gained time to effect more fundamental changes in underlying inflationary forces, one of the most powerful of which was the inflation psychology which was so dominant in the immediate precontrol period. The challenge before government, business and labour is to achieve a new equilibrium.
We are at a watershed in the affairs of the people living in industrialized societies. The attitudes suitable to the post-war age of expansion, which was brought to an end by the emergence of the energy crisis and the persistence of inflation, are no longer suitable to the age of uncertainty upon which we are now embarked. We now have to think in terms of conservation. We did not think in those terms before. Our society tended to be very wasteful. It is no longer possible for us to continue that way. There is less margin now for mistakes. As far as governments are concerned, because the level of expenditure and taxation has risen so high-and I speak now of municipal, provincial and federal governments-governments have less room for manoeuvre, whether on the spending side or on the taxation side.
In brief, in my judgment-and l hope it is a judgment which will be shared throughout this house-desirable growth can only be attained by the establishment of stable, underlying conditions which give confidence to the worker, to the consumer and to the investor. I do not think this is a task only for government. This is a task which must be undertaken in a spirit of national endeavour. It is as much in the interests of labour unions as it is in the interests of businessmen or of governments to be able to bring about this new kind of equilibrium.

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
I was an official and a minister throughout most of the period of post-war growth. I have the great good fortune to have been at the centre of decision-making during that period when the structure of modern government was being put in place, and I say from that vantage point that the things which motivated those of us who had that responsibility at that time were not the things which will motivate those who will have that responsibility from here on in.
We were concerned about preventing another depression. We were concerned that demand might not be sufficient to engage the resources which were available, about keeping everyone working, and so on. The emphasis was on expansion and on the maintenance of and increase in demand, and for a long time it worked very well. However, in the process we not only consumed resources at an enormous rate and ran up against limitations, particularly in the energy field, which we had not anticipated, but I think we also created a kind of bias. That bias is one of the concerns I have, and I think many people who have had the same experience as 1 have share the concern that we cannot go on thinking in those terms any more. In those days it did not matter how much confrontation there was between the various decision-makers. It matters now, and therefore I hope the government will continue its efforts to try to bring about greater co-operation amongst the decision-makers, in the interests of everyone.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) exemplified the same type of example he set when he was a member of the government. I think all hon. members would agree that his speech was a very thoughtful one and that it contained very worth-while information. I congratulate the hon. member for an excellent contribution to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He did not tell the whole story, though. I want to know about the 1974 election.


John Carr Munro: I thought the hon. member for Eglinton told an exhaustive story, one which would challenge the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) to refute in any detail.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) wants me to refute it, 1 would like to put on the record that I recall vividly during the 1974 election that the Minister of Labour, other ministers of the Crown and other hon. members of the Liberal party appeared on television, were heard on the radio and were reported in newspapers in effect saying that wage and price controls would not work and that this government would never introduce them because they were not successful in the United States and Great Britain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I remember, in particular, hearing the Minister of Labour say that his government would never introduce controls.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member knows that this is hardly a point of order. It is just an argument he could make in due time if he wishes to do so.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that was not a point of order. I yielded to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) as a matter of courtesy. I am still basking under the adulation which was bestowed upon him for his long years in public life, but I will not be naive enough to repeat my courtesy in the future.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I remember the 1974 election.


John Carr Munro: I am prepared to fight that one all over again, with the hon. member, any time. The hon. member for Eglinton presented a very comprehensive review of governmental initiatives and efforts to ease the inflationary process and the rate of inflation. I think the government paper, "Agenda for Co-operation", has also been an invaluable means of promoting the vital participation and debate that the government regards as essential if the right economic and social decisions are to be made. We had a good experience with that this morning when about 20 groups of various kinds with various mandates from across the country came to present their views and briefs to ministers. I think the "Agenda for Co-operation" was a stimulus in this regard and will prove to be one of the more beneficial documents for our guidance.
My own ministry has understandably found itself front and centre in the continuing discussion on the whole issue of control, wages and prices. All of us are aware of the stand taken by the Canadian Labour Congress in particular, but 1 am confident that we can look forward now to a progressive, co-operative relationship, as and when restraints come off, with the CLC. Great emphasis was placed upon this by the hon. member for Eglinton. The consultative process must be re-established, and I am optimistic that it will.
I do not think any useful purpose can be served by dredging up past confrontations and disagreements with the CLC or any other body, or even with my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West. Suffice it to recall that when the government introduced its restraints program in October, 1975, our industrial relations system in general, and the collective bargaining process in particular, had become focal points of invective and discontent across Canada.
Certainly there was justification for the general dissatisfaction that had accumulated over a period of approximately a year following the general election of 1974. This showed itself in the months that followed through the unacceptable incidence of strikes that resulted in a record figure of man-days lost, and a record amount of inconvenience and discomfort for the public at large. With issues made more complex by inflation and its erosion of purchasing power, the collective bargaining process was further stressed by increasing demands over and above those concerned with pay for greater job security, improved working conditions, job satisfaction, equal opportunities, and other items.
[Mr. Sharp.)
June 20, 1977

In retrospect I can say that the imposition of controls, while undoubtedly placing some limits on the free collective bargaining process, also helped to safeguard that process. At that time there were tremendous pressures at work urging the government to take far more drastic action with respect to that process; action that could well spell a more lasting curtailment of collective bargaining.
The advent of controls also enabled the parties in labour affairs, and the public in general, to re-evaluate the workings of Canada's free market system, to re-evaluate it and, perhaps, to rethink the apportionment of responsibility for the results of the system.
In addition there was breathing space in which to consider and weigh those policies, programs, and relationships which might best meet the needs of the post-control era. I can say that the Department of Labour was in a fairly strong position to respond to the new challenges because it had already started a process of self-examination and reassessment. This process resulted in a major reorganization plus decentralization into five regions, both operations reflecting the department's role as a vital partner in labour affairs. And of particular significance, the new order meant the department was well equipped to initiate a range of new programs designed to improve the work environment; to improve the collective bargaining process; and to improve the structure and process of labour-management relations.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is that what the $10 million is all about?


John Carr Munro: It is part of what it is all about. If the hon. member would like to forget some of his intuitive bias and look at it objectively, he would find it a very worth-while measure indeed. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most hon. members will be aware of the extent of these new programs, which have recently been the subject of a fairly extensive program of public information so I will not reiterate them in detail.
I will, however, refer to those programs that do have a specific bearing on the post-control period, and on the containment of inflation. Six new initiatives are in this area of curtailment of inflation. They involve: a quality of working life centre; a new voluntary code of good practices; amendments to the Canada Labour Code; promotion of broader-based bargaining; the establishment of a collective bargaining information centre; and the establishment of a national consultative forum.
The quality of working life centre will concentrate its efforts in the area of increased job satisfaction, leading to improved organizational effectiveness. As well as initiating its own experiments, the centre will concern itself with the results of European as well as other North American experiments in the humanization of work, and will provide a range of educational, technical, and consulting services.
Second is the voluntary code of good practices. Over the years, employment standards legislation has set basic minimum levels-a "floor of protection" of particular importance to that majority of employees not covered by collective agree-
Anti-Inflation Act
ments. As a supplement to these legislated standards, the Department of Labour is developing a code to advise employers of prevailing good practices on a range of personnel and industrial relations issues. An obvious benefit should be to reduce the divergence of views on industrial relations matters in general.
Third, broader-based bargaining is one of those initiatives designed to curtail inflation and improve the structure of the system. Of prime importance here is the promotion of broader-based bargaining in order to avoid harmful sequential shutdowns in key public services. Broader-based bargaining can be an important means of increasing public confidence in the industrial relations system; also an example to the private sector. My department is recommending that the parties concerned consider some form of voluntary bargaining coalition as being far preferable to a legislated solution.
Fourth, with regard to the Canada Labour Code we will be introducing a number of amendments to the code so as to improve the bargaining process. Frequently there are delays, sometimes there are burdensome costs, and there are tensions which produce their fall-out long after the formal settlement is concluded. Parliament will be asked to consider a number of amendments to the code to improve the balance of responsibility among government, labour, and management.
Talking about the balance of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, this is an integral feature of the fifth item of major significance in this post-control period. I am referring to the national consultative forum and the collective bargaining information centre. It will be multipartite, not possessing decision-making powers, but it can be expected to have considerable, and hopefully beneficial, influences on policies and programs in both private and public sectors. In general the forum would make for a better common understanding of the economic situation as it really is; what the economy can stand, where it is heading, what its weaknesses and strengths are. I am confident that the forum can be of real value in helping to contain the growth and spread of inflationary pressures, and more generally in its role as a disseminator of information.
The multipartite forum is a positive response to labour's request, at its convention in Quebec as identified in the Quebec manifesto, for a role in influencing the decision makers, fully realizing, I believe, that they are prepared to accept responsibility for some of those decisions providing they are permitted to participate on an equal basis.
As the government's green paper emphasized, the functioning of the market place can be enhanced by increasing the information available to the participants. This is particularly the case with regard to the collective bargaining process. We find, during this period of control, that these were some marked deficiencies in the information dissemination element throughout the system prior to controls.
Some two years ago we set up the Canada Labour Relations Council. When it first met, the need was identified for more objective information on compensation and economic trends. I

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
might indicate that the Canada Labour Relations Council was composed of those who in their daily lives were practitioners in collective bargaining. They were not academic particularly, and not corporate presidents. Some of them were men who, in the corporations, were responsible for the proper functioning of the collective bargaining process in their enterprise. On the labour side there were representatives of unions, including union leaders who, in their daily lives, were concerned with the operation of the collective bargaining process. They identified the need for a collective bargaining data information centre.
It was perceived that existing data was not prepared specifically for collective bargaining, or it was perceived in some cases as having a pro-labour or pro-management bias. As a result the council set up a subcommittee to study the issue, including the possibility of establishing a national data centre.
At the direction of the subcommittee my department conducted a survey of employers and labour organizations. The survey asked questions about the sources of bargaining information then being used, the kind of information needed, how often it was required, and how the existing information could be improved. The subcommittee discovered a wealth of compensation and economic information produced by a variety of government and private sources. The survey also showed that many practitioners in collective bargaining, particularly among trade unions, did not always know what information was available and sometimes had no access to it. What was needed was a single agency to put all the data together and make it available and useful to union and company negotiators. The key elements of this data would be accuracy, adequacy, timeliness and, hence, credibility.
The centre which my department is now in process of establishing would not duplicate existing data collection functions, but rather will act as a clearing house from which existing information can be obtained.


An hon. Member:: Big Brother.


John Carr Munro: Just one minute. Perhaps when the hon. member who just referred to Big Brother sees who will be involved in the centre, it will allay his fears. I propose to set up the centre as a separate departmental agency under a tripartite management board of labour, management and governmental representatives appointed by order in council. Therefore the centre will not come under a government bureaucracy but under the aegis of a tripartite body.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I wish you were looking after multicultural-ism.


John Carr Munro: We may even have Canadians of Ukrainian descent represented on it.
The centre would respond to requests for information from the parties to collective bargaining, mediators and conciliators, and Labour Canada and provincial officials. Where necessary it would work with clients to identify information needs and collate data and publish regular reports. The setting of priorities and the program direction would remain the responsibility

of the centre's own management board. Eventually, I would suspect and expect that the centre will play an active role in promoting data improvement by identifying gaps in existing information and ways in which information can be made relevant for collective bargaining.
With the participation of both labour and management, under whose aegis this centre will be, 1 anticipate that the development work for establishing the centre can be completed this year and the centre made operational by early 1978.
I suspect that the credibility difficulties which beset other agencies trying to supply information will be overcome when we establish this centre, the findings of which will be under the aegis of labour, management, and government, working together under a tripartite relationship.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You mean a troika.


John Carr Munro: The centre can be an invaluable agency for developing an open and creative dialogue among the parties at the national and provincial levels, as well as at the level of the enterprise. It can help to remove some of the negative adversary elements from the collective bargaining process by introducing elements of logic and reason. It's potential as an inflation fighter is, I believe, self-evident.
I have identified the six main initiatives; they relate mainly to the curtailment of inflation during the post-control period and the question with which the hon. member for Eglinton dealt, the absolute necessity of involving labour and management in some type of consultative mechanism. This involvement will come about not only in the multipartite agency, mentioned as one of the six initiatives, but also in the operational aspects of some of the other initiatives I identified. Their involvement in supervising many of these initiatives will be continuing and, hopefully, permanent.
In closing I should briefly like to mention something else. I shall not elaborate on the information, since the hon. member for Eglinton dealt with it adequately. The point concerns collective agreement settlement statistics compiled by my department. These statistics show that for the 12-month period ending March, 1977, the real, base rate rise in earnings was 5.8 per cent, not a bad increase, especially when compared with the figure of 3.9 per cent for the previous 12-month period. That shows that under the controls program we have laid the basis for a re-evaluation or re-assessment of our collective bargaining system.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You should hear what Joe Morris says about it.


John Carr Munro: Because we laid the basis for re-evaluation and, as a result of the beneficial views expressed by management, labour, and members of this House, we have been able to design these initiatives which we are confident will serve a useful purpose in the post-control period.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a question? I do not intend to ask a "dirty" question. The minister referred to the involvement of a multipartite council
June 20, 1977

in the operation of the information centre. What is the situation with regard to the Economic Council of Canada and the Canada Labour Relations Council? I ask my question because 1 cannot read everything, and would like the minister to help me. Are these organizations to return to the fold, as it were, particularly since we were flirting with them, so to speak, with $10 million? Can the minister elaborate on the point? 1 think the organizations involved-and if 1 am wrong perhaps the minister will correct me-are the Canada Labour Relations Council and the Economic Council of Canada, on both of which labour had representation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, 1 think 1 should deal with the implied derisive comment of the hon. member for Hamilton West with respect to the $10 million.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I did not mean it that way.


John Carr Munro: It shows, I think, a dismal lack of appreciation of what has gone wrong in the past in our collective bargaining process. It is far too deeply committed to the adversary approach, to a degree not duplicated in any other industrialized nation of the free world. As many far-seeing members of this House perceive, we must depolarize the situation and try to bring the parties together. They must realize that a well functioning economy is in their own interest, that everyone has a stake in profits and progress. That is what we are endeavouring to do. When we talk about grants to labour organizations to get on with the educational process that is so badly needed in that area, we are only dealing equally with them as we are with the business community.
Perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton West is not aware that the business community can deduct from taxes paid the expense of sending officials of the corporation, businessmen, to seminars and educational courses of all kinds. If you deduct that, it is revenue the government does not receive. Therefore these grants are made to labour organizations so that they can undertake the same process.
If labour can avail themselves of the educational institutions, and many have built careers in the business community through those institutions for which the taxpayer pays, it will make the system work better. The educational system must serve all Canadians. We must work together to achieve the objectives we are desirous of achieving. If they can be achieved, it will be the best $10 million this government has ever spent. I hope it will have the support of the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now that you have spanked me, will you answer my questions?


John Carr Munro: As the hon. member is well aware, the attitude of labour at the moment is that they have adopted a position of opposition to wage and price controls. That has been evident for some time. It must even be evident to the hon. member for Hamilton West. They have been meeting more with government over the last year, as well as
Anti-Inflation Act
with the business community, than in any similar period since Confederation. Obviously discussions are going on. Through that process there is a greater awareness of what the difficulties are on all sides with respect to achieving the purpose of a healthy economy.
Labour's position is that, if we can reach some consensus with respect to the decontrol period, they are willing to participate in mechanisms of various kinds during the decontrol period that ensues thereafter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: But they are not ready yet.


John Carr Munro: They indicated a willingness, certainly on the 14 points. We discussed many of those with labour and the business community. We received positive responses to many of the initiatives. Much of the seeking of consensus has been going on unofficially rather than officially through some of the bodies the hon. member has identified. Surely the hon. member's mind is not so inflexible as to think that the only way to achieve consensus is to have somebody with a proper name that calls meetings. One way to achieve consensus and co-operation is to meet the other fellow, talk about common problems, and work out solutions. That is what we have been doing, and probably more so in the last year than ever before.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think it can be agreed by both sides that this debate has been carried out at a higher level than is often the case with debates in this House. Today we have been fortunate to have two Privy Councillors of Her Majesty's government, one an ex-member of cabinet, address themselves to this issue. I recognize the fact that the debate on what the issues are has been made clear as to the timing of decontrol.
Of all the speeches made today, the most significant one was the speech by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) who is not a Privy Councillor. The hon. member for Rimouski put the debate at the level it should be.
First, this program of price and wage controls is inflationary. It legislates inflation. Just quoting figures of 10 per cent, 8 per cent, 6 per cent or 4 per cent begs the question. This is inflationary legislation that is having disastrous effects now on the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Rimouski talked about how this is affecting the farmers in Quebec, the small businessmen, and those who are not protected by having big companies to do the bargaining for them in this inflationary period. They are not protected by the unions. As a result, he said, many farmers have to leave the business. I am going to put it very simply.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), also a Privy Councillor, spoke in this debate. He put his finger on what he thought was the issue, that the country had lost belief in the credibility of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). When a man of the decency of the hon. member for Halifax stands up and says that he too has lost belief in the credibility of the Prime Minister, that should make sense to the people of Canada.

June 20, 1977
Adjournment Debate
1 want to add something else which is even more profound. I come back again to the hon. member for Rimouski. Let us take one industry that is unprotected and not under these controls. I refer to agriculture. When the figures come out next week for the year 1976, agriculture will show a decline in real income of 25 per cent. There is talk about labour income going up 10 per cent, how other things are going up at a certain rate, how prices are going up, but farming was down 25 per cent for the year 1976.
I support what the hon. member for Rimouski said. This is the human problem that everyone forgets. On the basis of present trends of gross cash receipts, farm income in 1977 will show a further decline of 20 per cent. Taking the two years together, you get a total real income decline in one of the most important segments of our economy of about 40 per cent in two years. How can they talk about rough justice in general economic tones in this House when one large segment of our people has a decline in income in two years, under these so-called price and wage controls, of 40 per cent in real income?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise this afternoon following up my question of May 13 concerning the discontinuation of service to Churchill by radio station CHFC and the corporation policy of the CBC.
I want to point out today the CBC is running rough-shod over people in isolated parts of Canada. Churchill, Manitoba, is an isolated community located on Hudson Bay. It is serviced by air and rail and, in the summer, by ship. It is a very important seaport.
At the present time the community of Churchill has a population of 1,600. They had the privilege of having a radio station for 25 years. That CBC station was installed so that that community would have some form of media. They were not able to receive other stations that were transmitting in Manitoba.
When the radio station was built 25 years ago, Churchill had an approximate population of 4,500 people. That was because the Department of Public Works operated an armed services camp there. That camp has now been phased out.
(Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain).]
With the complete phasing out of that operation, it only left the CBC radio station CHFC.
Many people in Churchill were wondering when the CBC would move its facilities into the town of Churchill where the federal and provincial governments had just constructed an $11 million recreational complex known as the Churchill Complex. Nothing came to a head until, talking to the CBC in the early part of May, I found out they were planning to phase out CHFC in Churchill. The community of Churchill was not aware of this plan. People in that corporation who are supposed to be media experts capable of providing information to Canadians in all parts of the country, had failed to consult the local media, the mayor, officials of the local government district, or any of the organizations in Churchill.
Once I found out about it I got in touch with the radio station in Churchill. The manager was not in at the time I called but 1 did talk to one of the announcers and asked him whether he realized that the station was to be phased out in September. She said; "You are crazy!" However, I was able to make her eat those words a day or so later because a CBC representative called me and set up a community meeting in Churchill on May 12. Approximately 110 people came to that meeting, and it almost ended in a riot for the simple reason that the CBC had made an arbitrary decision to phase out CHFC in Churchill, thus leaving the community with no in-community radio broadcasting station, though they had been accustomed to such a service for 25 years.
Over the next couple of weeks local organizations and individuals sent briefs to the CBC on the subject. Briefs were sent from the local government district, the Manitoba Metis Association, from the Active Youth of Churchill, from the Churchill Volunteer Fire Department, from the Northern Resource Development Centre, by the Churchill Health Centre, by the Churchill Northern Studies Centre, and by individuals such as Lorraine H. Ingebrigtson and Ollie Roma-now. They sought a hearing from the CRTC and found out that a hearing had been arranged, either by CRTC or by the CBC, for June 22 in, of all places, Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, it was impossible for people to come all the way from Churchill to present briefs to the CBC at that time. However, the CRTC has now decided to hold the hearing in Winnipeg on December 13.
I just cannot understand why the CBC would be phasing out an English radio production facility in Churchill, Manitoba, when at the same time it seems to be gearing up for a program called the accelerated coverage plan to go right across Canada at a cost of some $150 million. There just is no point in phasing out a radio station which has served the community of Churchill so well over the past 25 years. It appears that by the stroke of a pen it can be eliminated, and that Churchill will no longer have the privilege of enjoying good radio communication within the community.


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was in the House the day
June 20, 1977

the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) raised this initially, and from that point forward I have taken an interest in it. As he knows, as well as other hon. members, I have a particular interest in broadcast facilities in remote and northern communities. Therefore it is a pleasure for me to reply on behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts).
I should like to advise the hon. member of the following. As you are aware, Churchill residents have been advised that CBC will close its radio production facilities at Churchill, leaving a transmitter which will continue to provide the community with CBC national and regional radio service out of Northern Manitoba.
This decision is the result of a review that was made to determine if the funds and resources available to the CBC for use in the north were being allocated to the best advantage, and what changes might be desirable. As a results of the review, CBC Churchill will become administratively part of the corporation's prairie region instead of, as at present, part of the Northern Service, which is focused on the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
It was felt that CBC radio service to northern communities has developed to the point where there is now a need for facilities to serve both the Keewatin region in the Northwest Territories and northern Manitoba. Churchill is not in a good location to do both these jobs and, accordingly, CBC will establish two production centres to replace the Churchill station. One will be in the Keewatin region itself, that is the Northern Service, and the other will be at a location further south than Churchill attached to the prairie region. This latter centre will provide regional service to northern Manitoba.
CBC has undertaken to offer, first, community access to the present Churchill transmitter within the general terms of its community access policy; second, a modest studio facility for use in connection with community access; and third, training of local residents in radio production techniques for a transition period.
Emergency access to the CBC Churchill transmitter will be made available to a government agency in Churchill such as the Department of Transport or the Department of Communications. This access can be used in the case of polar bear sightings and extreme and hazardous weather conditions.
I want to assure the hon. member that both myself and the Department of Communications will continue to take an interest in this. As I said at the beginning, I am very interested.


Cecil Morris Smith: We will hear somebody on the radio shouting; "Polar bear, polar bear!"


MANPOWER-UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEW BRUNSWICK-PROPOSED COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH STATE OF MAINE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government programs of Canada Works, Young Canada Works, and Local Initiatives, have been important weapons in the Department of Manpower and Immigration's
Adjournment Debate
attack on unemployment in New Brunswick, and I want to give them full credit for the jobs they have created and the achievements they have made.
I think the local office Manpower staff have become very knowledgeable in their work and are truly dedicated people who try very hard to bring about results. I should like to see the Manpower staff enabled, in terms of structure and numbers, to develop statistics that would allow us to identify more readily the root causes-and local causes-of unemployment, and the remedies available to us.
I think every federal constituency should have an unemployment profile backed by statistics which show clearly the number of persons in each community who are working and who are not; the type of work they do and are capable of doing; the work potential which is available to them; and the impediments to accepting this work, such as transportation. I think every member of parliament has a very good idea of what this profile would be, but it would be much better if Manpower undertook such a compilation with its professional staff, using the same criteria in every riding, so that from an overview the minister could draw relevant conclusions that would improve our national policy in dealing with the unemployment problem.
I do not think there is any area from which we cannot learn lessons. My suggestion to the minister was that we study the dynamics used in the State of Maine, which is adjacent to New Brunswick, in order to determine what that state does which gives it a better record of performance in dealing with this subject. It brought a rebuttal from the minister which suggested they were using a different basis for arriving at their unemployment statistics, that that state really was not doing all that much better than us, that there was very little we could learn from them, and perhaps they could learn something from us. I prefer to think that we can learn from each other.
So far the federal government's programs in New Brunswick have helped to keep the situation from getting worse, but they have done very little to identify the real causes of unemployment and remedy them. One of the basic causes of chronic unemployment in New Brunswick is the transportation system. Another is the failure to focus the attention of all departments of government on the same problem.
Severe retrenchments in air passenger travel and cargo capacity were announced by our national airline without prior consultation with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard). In fact the concept of using air transportation as a development tool in the Atlantic provinces has never been discussed by our national airline with DREE. I pressed this matter with the president of Air Canada at the transportation committee meeting last Thursday morning, and I invite the minister to read the minutes. Bus transportation has just been cut back in New Brunswick. The main feature of rail passenger service equipment is its age.
In rural areas surrounding our cities there is a great need for a form of public transportation moving people to and from work and to buy goods and services. I would like to see a

June 20, 1977
Adjournment Debate
feasibility study done to determine the viability of a rural-urban bus service performing this function, and to identify possible routes in New Brunswick.
If I had to put my finger on one thing that the Government of Canada could invest in to improve employment opportunities in New Brunswick and the other maritime provinces, 1 would put my finger on transportation. 1 would recommend to the minister that transportation be regarded as a development tool in all the Atlantic provinces, and that in applying this principle they look at air transportation, and all weather highways-a comprehensive, modern transportation system that should be put in place in the Atlantic provinces by the Government of Canada as an investment in the economic development of that region. Vast improvements in the quality, scope, and performance of public transportation is essential in all parts of New Brunswick.
The programs of LIP, Canada Works, and Young Canada Works have their functions as labour absorbents for a short term application. They do not and are not intended to go to the root of our economic problems. I suggest, however, that the Department of Manpower might play a great role in identifying-as I have attempted to do in my remarks-the root causes of unemployment, and in recommending to appropriate branches of government at all levels the necessary strategy to deal with these problems.
In my view, the proper vehicle for mounting a meaningful attack on the disparities that exist in the Atlantic provinces is a federal-provincial conference convened by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and the premiers of the respective provinces, and if we are to carry out the strategy they propose and focus the attention of all departments of government on the problem, the ultimate answer will require the personal direction and dedication of the Prime Minister of Canada.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been interested to listen to the observations of the hon. member from Fredericton concerning problems in the economy of his region, and I want to touch on two particular issues. A number of members opposite have lately been comparing statistics from states in the U.S., with statistics in Canada. I think we have to be very cautious in trying to make comparisons on that basis. Since other members have made similar observations, 1 have taken the trouble to look into the way in which American states arrive at their statistics. Of course I have not looked at all states, but I chose Maine since it is one the hon. member planned to refer to today.
1 would argue that no valid comparisons can be made on the basis of statistics gathered in our jurisdiction and those in that state. We have regional statistics which are prepared by Statistics Canada. In the case of unemployment the statistics are prepared by our Department of Labour. These statistics are prepared by a vast household survey which is accurate.
I noted the hon. member's suggestion that statistics be made on a constituency basis as well. Although interesting, it does

present problems. The boundaries of constituencies change every few years and comparisons over a period of time would be distorted by that fact. There are rather more constant geographic units which are set regionally, but on balance I think it would be desirable to continue to use the more durable geographic grid than use the constituency basis.
In the State of Maine unemployment statistics are prepared through the unemployment insurance administration. They are generalized from the number of people who apply for unemployment insurance, making some assumptions and using some factors that are obtained from national surveys. In other words, it is a much more indirect and, I would argue, not nearly as accurate a way of making analyses of unemployment in the State of Maine as is used in Canada. Certainly the base is very different, and it has been observed by others more knowledgeable about the two jurisdictions than I that it would be hard to argue which of the two has a higher level of unemployment. One thing that is clear is that the State of Maine has a very different industrial base and structure from New Brunswick.
The hon. member noted a lot of problems and made some suggestions for developing the regional economy of New Brunswick. I know he is aware that DREE is directed toward that, and many of its programs, which he knows better than I, are designed to develop the economy of New Brunswick and to put it on a better footing.
But it is not only DREE that is trying to expand and improve the economy of New Brunswick at the level of the federal government. There are also the budgets of the federal government, in particular the last budget which extended the accelerated capital cost allowance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the parliamentary secretary that the time allotted to him has expired.


FINANCE-PROPOSED FORMATION OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION TO ACQUIRE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my contributions to the debate today will indicate the lack of true free enterprise thought on the part of the government.
My comments arise out of a question that I asked of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on June 10. I wanted to know when the Government of Canada might consider following the lead of the government of British Columbia in forming an investment corporation into which it could sell or fold its investments in the Crown enterprises being carried on in Canada today. I submit that the difference is that the government of B.C. inherited the assets it is proposing to put into this corporation from the former socialist government in that province, whereas in the case of the Government of Canada it has made a small attempt at forming such a corporation but it is selling or putting in assets that it acquired or created itself by intrusion into the private sector.
June 20, 1977

The premier of B.C. said that it was a new corporation which would make share offerings to the public. Shares would be offered through banks, etc., initially to B.C. residents, and later on shares would be sold to the Canadian public. It would not be a Crown corporation but a private corporation working in the private sector. It would have less government ownership than 50 per cent, which is the percentage held by the government in the case of the Alberta Energy Corporation.
The first announcement was that public shareholders would elect the majority of the board of directors and that no government employee would be allowed to serve as an officer, director or employee of the corporation.
The minister gave, as his defence of the government's position, the fact that it had created a few years ago the Canada Development Corporation in which it included some government assets, notably Polysar and its many subsidiaries. Of course it also has in its operations of the CDC, Oil and Gas Limited, Connlab Holdings Limited, Venturetek International Limited, Ventures West Capital Limited, Innocan Investments Limited, Texasgulf Inc., in addition to the one I mentioned, namely, Polysar.
The minister also said that there would be further distributions of shares to the general public. We on this side of the House would like to know when that is likely to happen. We know what the government announced when it founded CDC, but so far the government still owns 65 per cent of the equity in CDC. My information is-and it is hard to tell from the annual report-that the government still owns all the common shares, and that class A preferred shares are held by 21 institutional and industrial enterprises. The class B preferred shares are the only ones which have been offered to the Canadian public, and so far only 17,000 Canadians are shareholders. Of those, some 88 per cent, or 15,000 shareholders, own less than 100 of those shares.
The important thing is to see that a corporation like that gets itself completely separated from the government. The CDC and the minister have failed on that score as well in that the board of directors includes no fewer than three gentlemen who are deputy ministers of this government in Ottawa. It is important that we have corporations like this which are free from government intervention, interference, intrusion or whatever, that they take their task seriously, and that they become independent by having an independent board of directors and by seeing that the public of Canada owns a controlling interest, if not total ownership, so that they can truly be called bodies independent from the government. The minister's answer fails on those three distinct points. It fails on the source of the assets, on the ownership of them, and on the background of the board of directors.
Mir. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting question, and the development which has been going on in British Columbia is also interesting.
Adjournment Debate
Speaking for the government 1 can certainly say that we do not believe in government ownership of enterprises for its own sake. Quite the contrary, this government and the Liberal party stand for the belief that the private sector and the free market are the most efficient means of production. In fact it is the private sector which has been responsible for creating, in countries which have committed themselves to free enterprise and to the free market, the greatest prosperity the world has ever known. Canada, of course, has been a great beneficiary of that approach to economic organization. However, there are times and sectors in which we believe that government ownership is appropriate. In some sectors the enterprises which operate are strategic instruments of government policy, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or one might select some transportation agencies and other companies of the government to make the point. These are agencies which operate and fulfil government or public policies. They are not meant just to be efficient allocators of goods and resources.
In other areas we depart from the principle of the free market and free enterprise because the enterprises are not profitable or because it is in the public interest that we continue. We cannot very well expect the public to be interested in acquiring shares of enterprises which are by their very nature not profitable.
In other cases-and I am thinking particularly of de Havil-land Aircraft which is an enterprise in my own riding-there are government acquisitions which are intended to be temporary. Our hope and expectations are that the aerospace industry can be rationalized and that at a certain point down the road Canadian private individuals will become interested in being shareholders of this enterprise.
What about the Canada Development Corporation? It is an excellent idea. It is one of which we are very proud, and its 17,000 shareholders, 1 observe, are a large number of shareholders. It is not a small number of shareholders, as the hon. member suggested. The purpose in establishing the CDC was to establish a substantial pool of Canadian capital which could be available as a counter-weight to the enormous influence of foreign capital present in Canada.
As the hon. member observed, our intention is that the pool of capital will become privately owned over time and not remain in the control, as a major shareholder, of the federal government. But so long as this is so, I am sure the hon. member will agree there ought to be representatives of the government on the board of directors, and indeed there are, in the form of deputy ministers. He has urged on the government that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but the time allotted to him has expired. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6.27 p.m. the House took recess.
Anti- Inflation Act AFTER RECESS

June 20, 1977
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens:
That the Anti-Inflation Act being chapter 75, Statutes of Canada 1974-75-76, as amended by chapter 98, Statutes of Canada, 1974-75-76, shall expire on the 30th day of June, 1977.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock, commenting on the quality of the debate, I praised the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) for speaking in human instead of economic and political terms. Now I mention the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) who delivered a written speech. As he admitted, he has not written one for a long time. It came from the soul, was sincere, and set out the history of the last 40 years from a senior civil servant's point of view. The hon. member sounded soothing, just as senior civil servants do when they do not know what to do. At least the hon. member suggested that controls should come off as quickly as possible, but left it at that.
Before six o'clock 1 also said something which caught the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). I said that price and wage controls are inflationary, and parliament, by enacting them two years ago, had legislated inflation.
We have heard much talk in this House and across the country these last two years about the rough justice of the controls program, and we have also heard it said that there are distortions in the economy. Such phrases are meaningless unless you understand what they mean in terms of human suffering. I said that in 1976 the farmers of Canada saw a drop in their realized net income of 25 per cent, and it is predicted this year that, because of rising costs, the realized net income of the farmers will drop another 20 per cent. Therefore in two years, under this program, the farmers of Canada, the most efficient people in the whole economy, will lose more than 40 per cent of their realized net income. Their incomes will have declined by that amount.
We heard government spokesmen telling the House today that labour income had gone up some 10 per cent or 13 per cent, that prices had risen only 6.5 per cent, and that labour is ahead of the game. When government spokesmen speak of labour, they mean big labour, not the two thirds of labour which has no powerful union to negotiate a share of the pie.
I am concerned about human values, which is why 1 speak about the person at the end of the line. How does he feel about inflation? Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members to think of the plight of those retired on non-indexed pensions. I ask members
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
to think of those who saved their money, those not in a pension plan and seeing the value of their savings dwindle each year. Some sacrificed for a lifetime to secure a pension of $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000 a year. They are the human part of the equation which politicians, economists, and political scientists forget. That is why I praised the remarks of the hon. member for Rimouski. He spoke of what the farmers of Quebec are enduring under price and wage controls. In theory, they are protected by the great minds of this government. In practice, they are being driven out of business. This is the human factor that has to be considered in the decision we are going to make tonight.
I started out by saying that wage and price controls, dividend controls and all the rest, are inflationary. I will give other examples of what I mean. Think of all the labour unions that knew that the profits were declining, that the best they could expect was 2, 3 or 4 per cent of an increase. How did they feel when wage and price controls were brought in saying that, "Because of the economics of your industry, your increases are limited to 10 per cent"? Naturally they all took the 10 per cent.
I mentioned the case of farmers. I could go on to class after class to demonstrate that price and wage controls have only one raison d'etre, one reason for them, that is, to give a temporary shock to the people of the nation to show that we are running downhill in a great hurry. During that time you can freeze, not 6 per cent or 10 per cent, but really freeze. You should use that time to get at the basic causes. 1 will leave that for a moment and go to another question.
1 want to remind parliament, particularly the government, that what we are going through, inflation and employment at the same time, is not a new phenomenon. As the hon. member for Eglinton said today, they now admit that you can have inflation and employment at the same time. Do you know what that means? An ex-senior civil servant has finally convinced himself there may be some reason for doubt. He does not seem to know that for ten or 15 years voices in the wilderness have been raised all over the world, pointing out that the economic theories our leaders were following were not accurate in the quantitative sense.
After the budget of 1976 the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) and myself made back to back speeches, pointing out alternative theories which explained economics in the sense that you can explain it, with unemployment and inflation at the same time. We put forward constructive proposals, both domestically and internationally, showing how we could cope with it. The press paid no attention to us. It was a new subject. We had been told for years by our leaders, and by that I mean the senior civil servants, that we had to trade off unemployment and inflation. I simply point out that what we are suffering here today is not new.
I do not intend to use all my time giving a history lesson to this House. However, just going back 1,000 years, this is the fourth time we have had this situation. Those who even faintly
June 20, 1977

remember their history know that during the period of the dark ages there was almost nil advance. When the dark ages began to lessen, out from the monasteries the monks and priests brought the knowledge and the intelligence of the ancients. They told the people how they could get more production by breeding cattle and breeding grass.
This was the agrarian revolution. It spread throughout Europe, thanks to the knowledge safe for a thousand years in the musty churches. The farmers of the western world used this knowledge. They bred their cattle and bred their grains. A great increase resulted. The result was rising prices. Because there was high production in comparison to previous standards, there was unemployment.
Surely hon. members remember the days of the peasant revolution. Surely they remember the 100 years war. This is all part of our school book history. Some may not remember because they have taken history out of the curriculum for the last number of decades. Prices rose four times during the agrarian revolution. Then they levelled off for 300 years. We learn what to do about this one by looking at our history. There is nothing new in this.
Move ahead 200 or 300 years to what is known as the commercial or banking revolution. That is where somebody discovered that instead of bartering together you use paper money. All over the world things began to flow much more swiftly. All over the world living standards rose. Prices rose as the new phenomenon increased distribution of wealth through paper money and lifted the whole world to new levels. When that was over, once again there was a long period of stability of prices for 100 years.
At the end of the eighteenth century there was the industrial revolution. It was sharp and to the point. Prices doubled again. Then they levelled off for 100 years, and actually went down. At the beginning there was unemployment and higher prices like we have now.
Look at the history of Great Britain, France, and Germany with all its divisions. You will learn the lessons about historic events that every person in this House should know. This particular situation that we face today is not just in Canada. It is all over the world. If one sits down and thinks for a minute, he will know what it is.
When people are short of food, they no longer lie down and die. They stand up and scream for food. People have radio and television. When they have poor living conditions, they no longer accept them like they used to do. They want these material things and want them now, not 100 years from now.
Whether you live in a communist country or in an underdeveloped country in Africa or Asia, the social revolution is here. There are two billion people insisting on enough food to eat, shelter for themselves at night, and a reasonably secure sense of living for the future and their old age. This is the social revolution of our times.
Those who say we need to go to a no growth situation and freeze those people for hundreds and hundreds of years in this poverty stricken situation do not speak with the knowledge of
Anti-Inflation Act
history. Once people get a taste of what it is like to move to a food supply as during the agrarian revolution in the early twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, they want to eat. Once they get a taste of trading goods with each other for mutual advantage, they want more of it. Likewise today. It is not only Canadians who want hospitalization, medicare, and a house in which to live. The whole world wants it.
I have not gone back to the decline of the Roman empire because it is identical. 1 have just taken the last thousand years. We must say to our senior civil servants who have held such a tight grip on western countries these past 30 years, let loose these bonds, let loose this desire to control and restrict us.
Sure, there has to be selective control, because there are some bad apples. The main thing is to let the controls off us. This is not only rough justice, a term originated by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). It is rough justice. Think of it in terms of the person whose income has gone down 40 per cent in two years. Then you will see what rough justice is.
I appeal not only to the reason but to the heart. Get rid of these controls. Let us get out in a positive constructive way and get at the task we have to face in a world social revolution.
I ask these questions. Can these rising prices and unemployment be stopped? The answer, of course, is yes. How do we adjust to these rising prices and unemployment? That is the question to which we should be putting our minds. How can we make this adjustment equitably so that the burden is borne by all groups and not just a few?
In speeches I have made over the past 12 years I have been trying to put on the record of this House constructive proposals to try to get at these problems, because this is not new. These rising prices did not start in 1973. They just started running away in 1973. They had been with us for years, particularly since 1954.
Take government costs. What do we mean by government costs? Most people think it means the staff employed in the House of Commons or the civil servants employed in Ottawa or in agencies across the country. But that is only a small proportion of government costs. The great proportion of the cost of government today goes to pay for the social services which we all want and which none of us wants to lose. We have never given any attention to the fact that the only way they can be paid for is in price increases. When you face that fact you begin to realize the necessity of delivering social services in a manner which will provide the same social benefits for half the cost.
All the figures are available to the government. Half the costs of our social services today are waste. Half of the costs! We have known this in Saskatchewan for 30 years because we pioneered hospitalization. I have seen the figures produced by the Saskatchewan government-they wanted them kept quiet lest they alarm the people. Consider rising costs in England. Look at the Clark Report of 1958. If people went to the hospital and visited the doctor and were unemployed at the

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
average rate to be expected, the cost would be only half of what it is. All this information has been available for 20 or 30 years, yet parliament goes on and talks about economics, political science. Be cool, they say, and things will be all right.
I belonged to a group of people 30 years ago who put forward a proposal to try to inject a positive incentive into these programs in order to save the social services by delivering them at minimal cost. The services need an individual incentive so that the person who does not abuse them is rewarded for not doing so. Without saying any more about it, let this parliament start getting costs down for the delivery of this fantastic new social revolution in this country. We can well afford them if we get down to paying for what we should be paying for.
I turn now to the money supply. It is very clear that the monetarists, whether it be rightwingers like Friedman or quasi-intellectual leftwingers like Galbraith, are away off in outfield some place. I have a quotation here from an article in Forbes Magazine of last November-the same day as the Quebec election, November 15. It says: "Memo to President Carter: Inflation is now too serious a matter to leave to the economists." If that article had been written 30 years ago we could have made progress by now. The article says:
Inflation is not-a Maynard Keynes thought and Milton Friedman thinks-a simple matter with social consequences. It is an infinitely complicated business with social causes.
In the great social revolution which is taking place today, there are social forces which cannot be stopped. Who would want to stop the agrarian revolution of the 12th century, with all the increased food it meant to mankind? Who would want to stop the banking revolution of the 17th century with all the great good it did for all the nations on both sides of the Atlantic? Who would want to stop the industrial revolution, with all its high prices and unemployment in the beginning, because it brought so much good to so many millions of people around the world? Nor should we think of stopping this social revolution. That is the crux of my pitch, Mr. Speaker. We have to quit depending on these so-called experts, mostly economists, whose economic theories were obsolete when they were born and are completely suicidal today. This government has to get on with the task.
I want to conclude on this final point about the economists. The exchange value of the dollar is directly related to inflation. But what have we heard from the government? In the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) today; nothing. What about interest rates? Today when you buy a house for $50,000 at 12 per cent over 30 years you pay $202,000 for that home. The sum of $152,000 goes into interest. The same figure of 75 per cent of the cost applies in the case of a big oil sands plant in Alberta. Yet these economists continue telling the government it must keep the interest rates high so the people won't spend. How silly, and how wrong they are!
Let us consider living costs around our cities. Can one blame the working man? Twenty years ago a house could be bought in Toronto for $17,000. That home today, with land costs having soared, and construction costs having soared in the last

four years, is now worth $65,000 or $75,000. That is a fantastic increase. The problem of land costs around our cities is not an insoluble one, yet the government has done nothing about it.
The Minister of Labour spoke here today about labour confrontation with management. How many hundreds of millions of dollars have the people lost on the working side, on the owners' side and, particularly, on the consumers' side because we have been using obsolete methods of labour-management negotiation? It isn't hopeless, Mr. Speaker. As I have said before, a group of Conservatives went out to the West Coast two years ago and met with labour. We met with management, and on the third day we met with the owners. And today that industry is moving grain to the hungry people of the world and has a no-strike pledge indefinitely because it is based on productivity and because the contract is based on pension portability. That is all it took to give us a no-strike pledge in that industry.
Consider the contract of the miners with Cyprus Anvil in the Yukon. I could cite examples from all across this country. But this is a case where some politicians went out and sat down with labour. They sat down with management and with the owners and came up with a no-strike pledge indefinitely for the movement of food in this country from the West Coast. What the Minister of Labour was talking about this afternoon should have been done 30 years ago. This last two years there has been no action-just talk. Somebody has to face up to these things.
1 think that all of these things-cost of government, money supply, exchange value of our dollar, interest rates, land costs around our cities, labour-management confrontation-carry a positive answer. The answer is yes to each one of them-we can do something about them, if we have the will and use basic common sense. But the government does nothing on these economic issues. Faced as we are with a social revolution around the world, our government does nothing. It is too important to leave to the economists. So as we move toward the new economies there are signs of hope.
I now read from an article in the Wall Street Journal of May 9, entitled "Toward a 'New' Economics?" The article mentions that there is a move toward the conservative approach-old-fashioned truths to get at these problems. It mentions the name of a Republican from New York State, speaking in the house. So I got a copy of some of his speeches. Here is a man, Mr. Jack Kemp, saying the same thing in the Congress of the United States as the hon. member for Don Valley and myself have been trying to say around here for the last two or three years. We, of course, have good reason to speak loudly of these new economics because the father of them is a Canadian. We never hear of him in Canada, but his name is Mundell. His American partner is Laffer and, naturally, Mr. Kemp talks about Laffer all the time. But we talk about the father of the idea, Mr. Mundell.
All the subjects I have been reviewing here tonight are mentioned in Mr. Kemp's speeches. A few months ago he was able to get 30 members of the Republican caucus to back him
June 20, 1977

up in Congress. Now, according to the last report I have here, he has all the Republican members coming out solidly for this "new" type of economics which is not really new at all. All it is, is going back to the basic truths which were ignored during our concentration on the theories of Adam Smith, Ricardo, Keynes and Galbraith. Go back to the basic truths, which are very simple-productivity and savings.
I have another article here which casts some light in the darkness. It appeared in the Montreal Gazette on June 15, 1977, under the name of the financial editor, Don McGilliv-ray. The article was entitled "Economists Display Mental Turmoil". Thank God they have enough sense to have turmoil in their minds. For 30 years they have dominated these western countries, and our people are paying a heavy price. I should like to quote some of the words of Don McGillivray as follows:
The tone was set by David Winch of McMaster University who told his fellow economists that they had been too successful in recent decades in selling their version of what human society is all about.
I go further than that and say that they have dominated governments, banks, business, and universities.
The article continues:
For a while their "apparatus of wizardry" seemed to be credible. But now the tricks no longer work.
"When his tricks no longer appear to work," said Winch, "the wise wizard invents new tricks."
That was what John Maynard Keynes, the great British economist, did 40 years ago when he produced the idea that the government should steady the economy by compensating for the ebb and flow of the private sector.
New economists have to escape the "mental shackles" of Keynes who failed to allow that some groups have power-especially corporations and unions-while others have not. Unemployment and stagnation result from this cleavage ...
But he called on economists to keep watch on the government's proposed watchdog, the post control monitoring agency, because it might well "develop teeth" and grown into the "new, permanent wage and price control agency."


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


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, tonight 1 am taking this opportunity to take part in a debate which may be of great interest to the House of Commons, but I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, for those who are in the galleries and for the Canadians who will perhaps be reading my comments tomorrow that the debate will the followed by a decision taken in a few minutes as a result of a vote held at about ten o'clock. I think that Canadians will have to realize once again how useless it is to hold such a debate for such a protracted period.
Mr. Speaker, what one might conclude at the end of this three-day debate which began last Thursday is that the opposition knows perfectly well that the government has already decided for all practical purposes, since we have announced it up to a certain extent in a green paper that was tabled recently, that we will indeed get out of controls. The date for the beginning of decontrol has not been announced, of course,
Anti-Inflation Act
but everybody in Canada knows at present that the government, as the result of the experience of the last 20 months, has come during the past few months to the conclusion that they should consider lifting these controls.
Mr. Speaker, tonight's debate, as well as those which took place Thursday and Friday last, as well as today, has been held according to a principle of the House of Commons which enables hon. members or the official opposition to make Canadians aware of specific problems, if that is possible. They have decided, because the legislation allowed them to do so, to have a three-day debate on the controls issue. Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of parliament since 1962, I have been in the opposition for almost four years. 1 have been on the government side since 1968 and have been a cabinet member for about 21 months.
1 would like to relate briefly one of my experiences to my colleagues in the House. When I became a minister and a cabinet member on September 26, 1975, 1 was given the first formal documents which precisely dealt with the economic situation, its progress during the previous months and prospects for the future. In another paper attached to the same document, some alternatives were offered to me, Mr. Speaker, between status quo, measures that one might have called incentives and measures that one had to recognize as well as slightly coercive.
In the preceding months, the government had had to face the staunch criticism, coming from the opposition on the one hand, but also coming from the media and public opinion in general, to the effect that inflation had become quite unbearable. Inflation had reached a level of 10 or 11 per cent. In the collective agreements in the process of being negotiated, demands were raised for increases of up 15 and 25 per cent and there were even some for up to 50 per cent. A record hike in prices was forthcoming, Mr. Speaker, therefore, the government found itself in a position where it had to intervene.
I remember quite well, because it is still fresh in my memory, that confronted by this situation, my colleagues from the cabinet and myself decided to impose the controls. This decision was reached only after lengthy discussions, extensive analysis of the situation and that was not done easily; this decision was taken as the only means, at that time, to counteract this spiraling inflation which was undermining the economy of our country, causing restriction in the field of investments and thereby diminishing them, and also eroding quite significantly the purchasing power of Canadians.
It is quite obvious that this decision was not taken lightheartedly and one only needs to remember that when the Prime Minister announced it, it was a very difficult decision to make because it would surely be quite unpopular.
Mr. Speaker, being a labour leader, I know quite well that when they saw the inflation situation the workers themselves realized that there must be an authority which would say to businesses and labour unions that they must sit down and keep quiet for a while. That is what this government decided in October 1975. Every individual knew he would be affected by that decision. He hoped he would be affected less than others
8001 8-33V2

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
and he even hoped that he would not be affected at all by that decision. Of course, during the first weeks and months after the announcement of that decision, when control measures were applied, nobody was happy. The workers were concerned but so was the business community. Nobody knew exactly what would be the terms of the controls. Nobody knew what would be the details for every category. Nobody knew how wages and salaries would be controlled in detail. We did not know how profits and prices would be controlled. On the other hand, we all recognized that controlling wages would be relatively easy, but we all admitted that controlling prices and profits in the business sector was much more complex and much more difficult. We, in the government, knew this before making our decision. This is why our decision was hard to make, but we knew that we had to make it. This is why during the last twenty months, we have witnessed a gradual increasing of the support for the government and for these measures.
After two or three months, polls were taken about the degree of support and satisfaction of Canadians concerning this decision of the government. We were not popular. Indeed the degree of support was not very high throughout the Canadian nation, but today when the opposition asks us to eliminate controls abruptly, quickly and suddenly, the polls tell us that more than 60 per cent of Canadians support the controls, and not only support them, but ask us to maintain them because they are aware that they have contributed to bringing back some good sense, some logic, some order in the economy, because thay have contributed to reducing what we can call the excessive expectations that some had these last few years.
We said that we were not happy to implement the control program. We said in October 1975 that these controls would be applied for a maximum of three years. We said recently that we are ready to see, in consultation with the affluent economic groups of our society, how we could put an end logically and in an orderly manner to these controls over Canadian economy. This is what we have been doing for several months. And the opposition is well aware that during these last few months, we have conducted a series of intensive consultations with the private sector, the financial groups, the workers, their representatives, in other words, all the important sectors of our economy. We have sat down, we have discussed with them what would eventually be an ideal formula, the one best suited to bring us to a situation where there would no longer be any controls. We do not want controls, but being realistic, we know very well that there is still a need for certain controls in the Canadian economy.
Last week I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to travel through this country. For some months 1 have been pushing aside the kind of commitments I was asked to undertake. 1 was forced to delay trips in the Atlantic area and in the western provinces. I am a Quebecer and a minister in the Canadian House of Commons, and I knew it would help me a

lot if I were exposed to my fellow Canadians in all parts of the country. I knew very well that sitting here is not the best place-it is a good place, but it is obviously not the best place- to assess the mood of the people, what they need and what they want. Of course I admit we need to debate to some extent.
While I was in Cape Breton I did some checking on Devco's activities. I must tell my colleague over there that 1 travelled through his riding. I was forced to do so because of bad weather; I could not land where 1 was supposed to, so I had to drive through his riding. 1 drove through Pictou, and that area is just wonderful. I must say that the kind of reports that we get in this place, the kind of description we have from our colleagues in the opposition, would tend to paint a certain picture. I admit there are difficulties, but the picture is much more beautiful that some people in this House tend to depict. They still have difficulties. We all have difficulties, no matter where we live.
I had the chance to travel last week and the week before in P.E.I., Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton. 1 have been to Halifax before, and I know my hon. friend will agree with me that Halifax is not Nova Scotia, any more than Paris is France, or Quebec or Montreal is the whole of the province of Quebec. When I was in Cape Breton a few days ago 1 stayed for 24 hours in a private house and had dinner with a fine family. 1 slept at the house and breakfasted with this family and talked with them for 12 hours, so I can report to the House that what these members here are saying is not at all the truth. They cut those parts that do not suit their purpose.
1 know we have much more support for our policies, which is why tonight 1 am able to stand in this place and tell my colleagues across the way and my hon. friends on this side-I make that distinction-that things are not exactly what hon. members opposite say.
1 was going to fly to the Northern Territories and travel around during the next few days-


Walter David Baker: Whose jet did you use?


Marcel Lessard: I took a commercial plane and 1 flew by government plane too. How can you get up there otherwise? There is no way. It is a long road if you want to walk. Obviously I have to respond to those guys over there, Mr. Speaker, and that is what I am doing tonight.
These people who are asking to put an end to the controls on the economy of this country do not represent Canadians at all, absolutely not. Two days ago I met with a group of people in northern B.C. and they told me that we were right. In the Vancouver Sun of Friday there was an editorial which was asking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) why the hell-


Walter David Baker: Order.


Marcel Lessard: -he was calling for a three day debate to put an end to controls when he had nothing to suggest except something which was very close to the kind of controls we are
June 20, 1977

proposing we adopt for the remaining period. The people in Canada are not fooled by what is going on, Mr. Speaker. They know that what we have decided to do is the right decision. It was a hard decision to arrive at; they are prepared to recognize that.
Elon. members opposite are in deep trouble, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you why. They are calling for an end today to the controls on the economy of this country. Some of them pretend that the cost of food is too high. I was quoted as having expressed my disbelief at what I saw in the north a few days ago. When I saw the cost of food and other basic commodities in the northern territories, for instance, it was hard for me to believe that people living up there have to pay that kind of price for a loaf of bread.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: This is all your fault.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The minister has the floor, and I suggest we listen.


Marcel Lessard: So one day we say that the price of food here in the south is much too high. I say that it may be too high.


An hon. Member:: Where is the A1B?


Marcel Lessard: But, my God, there is quite a difference with what they have to pay up north. It is a great pity that we, as a group of Canadians sitting here tonight, should consider what these people up north have to pay for food and not find a solution to bring down the price of food to a reasonable level for people in the far north.


John Allen Fraser: I wonder if through you, Mr. Speaker, the minister would accept a question.


Marcel Lessard: Sure, I am not afraid of a question.


John Allen Fraser: The minister talks about the cost of food in the north. Some of us were in the north many years ago and we know that the cost of food there has always been much higher than in the rest of the country. The minister has spent some minutes now putting that up as a straw factor in defending the government's policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.


Some hon. Members:: It is a question.


John Allen Fraser: It is not true and I suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is picking as an example a situation which has prevailed for the last two and a half decades.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes or no?
Anti-Inflation Act


Marcel Lessard: -I tend to agree with the hon. member that the price of food up north has always been higher than down here.


An hon. Member:: What are you going to do about it?


Marcel Lessard: The fact that the cost has been higher does not mean necessarily that it is O.K. for me to accept it. If I stand today in this place to speak about it, it is because 1 have not heard it being expressed as a major issue in this place. It should be a major issue. When the opposition starts to lash at the government because of the price of food here in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, I say to them, that that is not the real issue in this country.


Mr. FInatyshyn:: The farmers don't get any of it.


Marcel Lessard: Again I am inclined to agree with that, but what I want to raise here is the fact that tonight we are taking part in the last part of a three day debate on inflation, and 1 must say, from what I was able to hear and what I was able to read in the notes here on the points made by the opposition, that I have not heard anything new and, what is worse, I have not heard any proposal made-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Lessard: -anything that would solve the situation.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


Marcel Lessard: I have here a resume of most of the speeches that were made by the major spokesmen of the opposition, and I find nothing in them that would reassure Canadians that there is an opposition on that side. Quite the contrary. They have no solutions to offer, none whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate because I think that my colleagues and myself, as a member of the cabinet, would have wished contructive and realistic suggestions from the opposition. Unfortunately those dear friends are very far from reality, as my colleague from Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) has pointed out, they are so far from reality, from Canadian concerns. And several Canadians I met recently in remote areas told me that in Ottawa we spend too much time discussing various subjects and that we have no opportunity to communicate directly with Canadians throughout the country. I recognize those difficulties of our duties here.
The House must necessarily hold debates and pass legislation, budgets and other things but, Mr. Speaker, if we really wish to represent public opinion and meet the interests and the needs of our constituents, we must meet them more regularly and be more aware of their needs. And this is why when we hold that kind of debate, I realize that it would be advisable to have new rules allowing hon. members representing the official opposition in a realistic way to show the bad aspects of our legislation, to show the mistakes we might be doing without extending unduly the debates and doing the contrary of what should be done here, I mean make the best possible decision,

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
with some weaknesses of course. In fact, the situation changes, the needs change and a measure we pass in all objectivity today will not necessarily meet the needs of the situation within one year, within five years. This is why this House and this system should be flexible.
Three days of debate to know if the government should put an immediate end to controls, Mr. Speaker, this is too much. One day would have been enough. Several editorialists, several reports, several people who have been studying that debate already came to the conclusion that it has lasted too long, that one day would have been enough to put the question and present the issue. A speaker from each party would have been enough. It started Wednesday, this is the fourth day. 1 am wrong, Mr. Speaker. I realize that it really took a long time.
Two or three speakers from the main opposition parties, Mr. Speaker, should normally have been able to present the views of their party. Three or four speakers from the government could also have answered, and then the problem could have been solved. But no, we are in a fourth day of debating if the control measures should be immediately abolished. This debate will not bring much change because the opposition has brought no new idea forward.
This morning the whole cabinet held discussions with 15 groups from all areas across the country which came to sit with us. If that is not consultation, Mr. Speaker, if that is not listening besides what we have to listen to here in the House, what is consultation? I am asking. We are open to suggestions. We are willing to listen to realistic and objective propositions. That is what we did this morning once more when we listened to those organization representatives which presented their views. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the government can count on the support of a great majority of Canadians, because the population also realizes what we are doing, what we have done, what we want to do in the future, in a few weeks and in a few months, is exactly adapted to the needs and desires of Canadians. That is what this government wants to do. That is also leading the way. Leadership, that is what this country needs and that is what this government, and particularly its leader, wants and shows, and will still show tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the present debate and the vote that will be taken tonight will not accomplish much.


Mr. La Salle:: What about the million people unemployed?


Marcel Lessard: The hon. member refers to a million people unemployed in this country-


Walter David Baker: Who's fault is it? You did
it.


Mr. Neil:: Who caused it all?


Marcel Lessard: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, if we had not brought in those controls, we might have a greater number of unem-

ployed. Businesses want to invest. The cost is too high in this country. They prefer to invest elsewhere, and I know something about that. In my department we are faced with situations and propositions like that every day. Businesses say: it is better to invest in the United States. Labour, installation and construction costs are all too high in Canada. We are told that regularly.
That is where the controls applied last fall are important, that is where it is important to keep them on for a few months, Mr. Speaker, when there will be a consensus, when there will be agreement between governments, private businesses and groups representing workers. And that is the kind of consensus we need. Unless that consensus is there, Mr. Speaker, there is no point in putting an end to controls; quite the contrary, they will have to be further maintained for several years. I am not for that. I am against controls, but unless we can find a way to discipline ourselves as Canadians, as workers, as businesses, if we cannot control ourselves unfortunately someone will have to decide to control us, and that is the predicament we were in exactly 20 months ago, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we are now urging all members of the opposition to lay their short term political concerns aside. Indeed, that is not serving them very well. They would be better off to lay them aside because that does not help them. The polls prove it indeed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. minister that his allotted time has expired.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, would the minister accept a very short question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I am sorry. The minister's time has expired, and there is a previous ruling limiting speeches to 30 minutes.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the comments of the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard). Of course, he praised the good intentions of his government. However, I would like to correct one thing. He talked about the length of this debate. It does seem that the rules of this Parliament allow us to take four days but there was agreement to take three days for this debate and the government representative was in full agreement with that.
From the minister's point of view, this debate is a worthless exercise because his government has already declared its intention to abolish controls! We would like to give our confidence to the government, but thinking back about the 1974 elections and the commitments made by this government, you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult to believe them when they say they will remove controls, when we remember how they condemned them in 1974 and the way they reversed their policy in 1975.
The minister is talking about negotiations, the series of consultations going on today. I wonder if it would not be normal to invite this government to ask themselves why these
June 20, 1977

negotiations, these consultations, did not take place before the controls.


Marcel Lessard: We have had a great many.


Mr. Olivier:: Is the hon. member for Joliette serious?


Roch La Salle: Indeed, I am very serious. The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) knows perfectly well what happened today. Of course the need is now felt to go through those consultations, those important bodies in an economy such as ours did not trust this government, as evidenced by their position during the 1974 election which left a number of interrogation marks. We now see that this government feels the need to get the support of those important organizations.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) in 1970 travelled throughout Canada to warn this government against that calamity, as inflation was already called, because it was recognized as a danger. I do not think any member of this House did so much as the former leader of this party to make Canadians and the government aware of the menacing danger, but he was ridiculed and we are now asked why we wanted this debate. If the government had taken heed when warned by the then opposition leader, we would have been spared the kind of politicking that went on in the 1974 election. If this government had been honest in 1974, it would have recognized, as every Canadian is now aware, that we were right in 1974. Times were right in 1974 to take the initiatives we were urging. But so much time was lost that irreparable harm was done. And now the minister states it was not in good faith and with a happy heart that controls were established in 1975.
The unpalatable thing for the government was not to establish controls, but to know that the people had been willingly misled in 1974. So it was not easy to establish controls on responsible organizations and the Canadian people. This is why the government and especially the cabinet were hesitant. The then leader of the opposition spoke in 1974 of a 90-day freeze as a means of establishing a mechanism to slow down inflation, and nothing else. We were not speaking of continuing controls as the government is now implying in case it does not get the cooperation and support and trust of the provinces, labour unions and the business community. Of course, we admit that it is important, and that it is impossible to implement those measures efficiently without the cooperation of major organizations. We knew it, and that is why we thought that 90 days would be sufficient to set up that mechanism or device which could have enabled the Canadian people to achieve the objective we set at that time. Mr. Speaker, I intend to endorse fully the motion now before the House.
1 support this motion with utmost conviction and sincerity, the more so because I feel I am expressing the opinion and the deep feeling not only of my constituents, but also of millions of Quebecers, whatever their political affiliation. But before coming to the object of the debate, I consider useful and even indispensable to remind hon. members of the poor performance of this administration in the area of inflation over the
Anti-Inflation Act
past six or seven years. I feel this is necessary to place in its true historical perspective the major intervention which the official opposition is now trying to make and which I proudly support.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to say that the Canadian public will be disappointed by our position in this debate. It is also easy to say that the Standing Orders should be amended to gag the opposition, but it would be too easy for the government, by improving or amending these Standing Orders, to prevent us from increasing the people's awareness of this public lie which was told in 1974. I think it is important that all Canadians know the real reasons behind the government's action, its refusal of those measures in 1974 and the reasons why they decided later on to implement those same measures. When the first symptoms appeared, the government thought that it would be enough to pretend fighting inflation for it to disappear. So they established the Prices and Incomes Commission, they willingly neglected to provide it with the needed tools to be efficient and operate a real recovery. Needless to say, the commission could not do anything valid and the problem kept on worsening. During all that time, the government did not take the problem seriously, allowed the situation to deteriorate rather than grapple with it and tried to warrant its inaction with sophisms like "inflation is a world problem" or "if we want imported products we will have to pay the price asked for them".
But the prices were still increasing, not only for imported goods but also for consumer oriented products. Prices were constantly increasing and, consequently, we know the problems facing the public. After some years of efforts and the useless spending of $5 million, the Prices and Incomes Commission came to the conclusion, in a report kept secret by the government, that it would be necessary to control prices and incomes. Was the Prime Minister aware at that time of the inflation threat to Canada? He must have been because he said back in 1970 and 1 quote:
Continuous inflation would undermine our economy, dangerously alter the structure and the stability of our society and affect the credibility of our political institutions. In the long run, it would be a threat against our future, both as a society and as a nation. It is obvious that the more inflation rises, the more difficult it will be to control it and the more costly it will be to put an end to it.
The words I have just quoted were not spoken, Mr. Speaker, by the then leader of the opposition, whom, in passing, the government members delighted in calling a prophet of evil; they were spoken by the Prime Minister himself, and not recently, but seven years ago.
That being the situation, and in the face of the failure of the Prices and Incomes Commission to check inflation, one would have thought that the government would have considered it timely to implement immediately the recommendation of the commission by advocating prices and incomes controls. But no, the government was not going to take the chance of losing its popularity by introducing controls. Once again, it chose to spare its popularity with the electors at the expense of the Canadian economy, and to keep up appearances it set up to

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
succeed the commission another invertebrate monster the Food Prices Review Board. Another toothless effort, another adventure for gobbling up public moneys and creating jobs for friends. The board once again, even more so than the commission, revelled in words while inflation continued to ravage the country. And, during those years, Mr. Speaker, going from commission to board, and from board to statements which were meant to be reassuring, the government danced its favorite waltz, that of indecision. Now it would allow unemployment to grow in the hopeless hope of containing inflation, now allow inflation to rise again in the hopeless hope of containing unemployment. Either way it did not settle the matter, and this is a failure for most Canadian people, Mr. Speaker. Inflation has now reached its highest point since the Korean war and it goes on increasing at a tremendous rate while there are one million unemployed in our country and while the situation could become still worse.
At the outset of the election campaign in 1974, our party submitted to the Canadian voters a daring yet sincere and realistic project to reduce inflation. We advocated a freeze on prices and incomes during a 90-day period to give us time to consult the provincial governments, financial circles, business leaders, unions and consumers on the objectives which might be set and which could be adjusted periodically. Government members, led by the Prime Minister, found nothing better than ridiculing our plan in the face of the nation. Do not trust the Conservatives, they said, they are going to freeze everything, from food prices to the wages of newspaper carriers.
They worked so hard at it that inflation was given a free hand to increase more than ever. Yet, the government knew at that time that we were right, that no matter how it went about it, willingly or otherwise it would have to resort to price and income controls. I repeat that the government knew it would have to apply this formula and that is why I repeat before the House that this government did lie on that issue. It would like us now to keep silent, not to say a word about it. I suggest that Canadians need to know exactly why this government condemned measures which it applied eight months later; it was nothing but a vote-catching manoeuvre. Besides, it was so obvious that our former party leader in a speech delivered in Magog towards the end of the election campaign, did not hesitate to declare and I quote:
If the present government is voted back in power, inflation will go on increasing.
He was not wrong either.
And then in two months, four months or six months inflation will reach such a level that the government will have no other alternatives and will impose control on prices and incomes.
Our leader made the following statement before the 1974 election:
But the difference between doing it now and doing it eventually is that, if we wait, it might be too late to stop the damages and we will then find ourselves in an economic depression.
Pronounced three years ago, these words of the ex-leader of my party have turned out to be tragically prophetic. Therefore, this government has been misleading the Canadian people on

the matter of inflation for seven years now. We talked about unemployment, we could talk about its just society and its objective of national unity. This government has been constantly cheating the country on the matter of its basic goals and it is going on playing the same game, hiding itself behind the curtain of national unity. It has come to the point where national unity or national harmony is unattainable without first restoring an acceptable economic climate and this is true for all provinces. But above all the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet have behaved in this shameful and dishonest manner during the 1974 election campaign, because they knew very well, while they were condemning the controls from the electoral platforms, that they were bound to impose them a few months later.
I remember hearing this cynical sentence from the Prime Minister when, during the same campaign, he had to face reporters with the last statistics on the cost of living which was dramatically increasing. He would only say: "Let us take things coolly." But cool or not, he had to impose controls eight months later. We have been living with them for twenty months now. They did not work very well. And this is why we are asking the government to put an end to these controls. They were not a success for many reasons and one of the main ones is that they were imposed without previously consulting the different sectors of our economy. Jean-Luc Pepin, chairman of the board, has admitted in committee that this 90-day freeze period would have been very useful to set out the means to control inflation.
The Chairman of the board recognized it: he resigned, as a matter of fact. He and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) know the real reason for his departure. We advocate-


An hon. Member:: What reason?


Roch La Salle: The Prime Minister and Mr. Pepin know it, but I do not.


An hon. Member:: Do not talk of things you know nothing about.


Roch La Salle: Neither do you, for you hardly know anything about the Prime Minister. We were advocating a 90-day freeze so as to proceed with a consultation which would have allowed us to reach some consensus about the goals to pursue and the means to reach them. The government chose to dictate in its traditional believe-or-die approach. This total lack of consultation made the various sectors of the economy uncomfortable, with no confidence towards controls and government economic policies, especially since the establishment of controls, the federal government did practically nothing to reduce the inflationary spiral; not only did it fail to restrict its own expenditures since then, in spite its pious wishes, but it even found a way to increase them by over 20 per cent and it is a government which was supposed to provide leadership, so that due to the lack of economic confidence, investments are decreasing, small and medium-sized businesses are incurring deficits as a result of an inflation and in some cases must close their doors, unemployment is increasing-
June 20, 1977


An hon. Member:: What about the PQ?


Roch La Salle: I will come back to that, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment is increasing, the economy is regressing and the government is giving funds right and left, for unemployment insurance or all kinds of subsidies to enable the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to restore a faltering economy.
Quite recently we were still referring to a reduction of 2,000 employees in the footwear industry, Mr. Speaker. I am not lying when I say that those controls have been ineffective and when the minister asks what are our proposals, we are specifically demanding the removal of those measures which did not attain the objectives sought by this Parliament and consequently, those investors, business heads who would be aware of the long-term measures of the government, which they do not know, could be responsible for an economic recovery, because those policies and the government's waiting have stopped the decisions of the business community.
In our view, Mr. Speaker, the only way to stimulate the economy at the present time is to abolish the controls and to replace them by less strict measures which, at the same time as they would curtail inflation, would above all restore an atmosphere of confidence in investment, and would in turn rapidly increase productivity and create employment. It is very possible that the government does not intend to maintain the controls indefinitely, but that is not the question. The question is to suppress them immediately to accelerate economic recovery. The government can and must not make a second mistake with the controls, and delay suppressing them as it delayed introducing them. The Prime Minister likes to talk about crimes against national unity, well I think it would be one, and a serious one, to prolong beyond the next two weeks a system of price and wage control which is dangerously jeopardizing our economy and creating concern and hardship for thousands of people in this country.
But let us not forget that in this House we are probably among the privileged. When we talk about inflation the objectives which we are given are seen with our reason. For those who earn $20,000 and more, it is always possible to make ends meet, and we can accommodate ourselves and pay for our cigarettes or any other products once the price have been raised, but the real victims of inflation are not in this House, Mr. Speaker. These are the workers, men and women who have to bear the real burden of inflation, or those for whom any salary raise is automatically eaten up by a similar raise in prices. The real victims of inflation are above all those who live on a pension or on small savings-


An hon. Member:: What about the pensioners?


Roch La Salle: Someone is talking about pensioners who have been given a 60-cent raise from time to time. Well, if the Liberal members are satisfied and if they can prove that the raise in old age pension payments corresponds to a similar raise in the cost of living, go and tell this to those who have to manage on a miserable old age pension. Or to those who try to
Anti-Inflation Act
survive on a meagre pension and who are unemployed, or to the one million unemployed, who are below the poverty level.
I was going to forget to mention the student population, Mr. Speaker, for whom scholarships have not been increased while educational costs kept rising. This government could not care less about the misery and the problems suffered by people because of a policy which has not been efficient and which, according to many, has been a total failure if we compare ourselves with our neighbour to the south who, without controls, has succeeded better than us in keeping inflation at a reasonable rate.
What all these people are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that Parliament stop playing the game of politics and instead care for their future and their well-being. In a country that can offer so much hope and promises as ours, I cannot accept that for partisan reasons, the social crisis and the economic injustice that prevail are allowed to continue indefinitely. It seems to me that more so than ever time has come to close ranks and work together to correct these problems and put our country back on the track of prosperity. Mr. Speaker, these are our objectives and I would not hide the fact that I am very disappointed to see so many government members taking refuge behind a few ministers who are trying to defend an objective that has been the sorry failure which we know, while others seem to have found an opportunity to play games. I do not mind being told about the government of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, but some find it amusing, as I said not so long ago, to provoke a government that has problems of its own, which is also still part of our country. Sitting opposite are some 60 members coming from that province who are not overly concerned about the problems we are experiencing in Quebec. They feel as if they were here to contend with this government, to stay aloof instead of proving that it is possible to restore a better economic climate in my province, well before the time when separation becomes the prime issue.
I feel as much of a Quebecer as anybody else from that province. I reject as much as anyone else in this House the idea of independence but I think it is most urgent, Mr. Speaker, to prove to Quebecers that by restoring economic progress in our province, it is not necessary to become independent to achieve our legitimate aspirations. But this I do not do in a spirit of partisanship, of political manoeuvering, as my colleagues opposite, and when I say how important it is to help the province of Quebec which is experiencing tremendous difficulties, to bring down the unemployment rate, when I am asking the federal government to cooperate with its Quebec counterpart, there is nothing new in my stand. I did it in the times of Daniel Johnson. I did it in the times of my little cousin Robert Bourassa, and I will do it again today. They accuse us, members of the opposition, of being separatists, because we defend the interests of a province which I call my own: that's the way they are treating us. Well, I want Quebecers to know how these people remain silent during majors debates, how they hide behind scarecrows, or follow too faithfully the instructions of their leaders.
6884

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
Mr. Speaker, 1 hope that by repeating these remarks often enough, we shall instill in government members a more positive attitude, and that we shall also find a way to help Quebec and the other provinces which are faced with this record unemployment, and thus, reach the objectives and fulfill the expectations of all Canadians.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has moved a motion saying that the AntiInflation Act should expire at the end of June. I point out that the Liberal government introduced controls for limiting wage and salary increases and, supposedly, profit increases.
Before we are called on to vote on the motion, let us examine the history of this policy. The Conservative party proposed, in 1972, 1973 and 1974 a freezing of wages and prices. It said the government should intervene drastically in the process whereby prices and profits in the economy are established. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rejected those proposals, making the point time and again that much of Canadian inflation resulted from the interplay of international forces over which Canada had no control, and that the wage and price freeze would not work.
In the 1974 election campaign the major issue was whether or not to implement wage and price, or wage and profit controls and limitations. The Conservative opposition advocated those controls, or such a policy, but the Prime Minister travelled from one end of the country to the other telling people that no government he led would ever be involved in such a program, that it would not work, would be unfair, and so on. The Prime Minister succeeded. He won the election. In Ontario, Liberal members were elected, defeating sitting Conservative and NDP candidates. And what happened?
In 1975 the Prime Minister, who had promised not to implement controls, did just that. He implemented wage and profit controls. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) told the House on Friday that the Prime Minister had always said that the Liberal government was ready with an alternate program to deal with inflation, if it became an emergency, and tried to convince members and the people of Canada, as the Liberals have been trying since October, 1975, that indeed an emergency existed. The hon. member said, I think, that although he believes in limited controls, so long as we have unemployment we must have controls. He completely ignored the fact that unemployment has risen dramatically since the government implemented the controls program.
Figures can be used to make a point, even if it is not true. On Friday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) used figures to make a point in that way. On Thursday the minister said that when the government implemented its anti-inflation program, the rate of inflation on an annual basis was 10.6 per cent. Lo and behold, the anti-inflation program has been so successful that, according to the minister, the rate of inflation
[Mr. LaSalle.)
dropped from 10.6 per cent, the date the program was put into effect, to 6.2 per cent in October, 1976.
Like other members of this House, when I go shopping with my wife I find there is not one item in any supermarket which has not increased substantially in price since October, 1975. When I sign the monthly cheque for heating the house, I see that the cost has gone away up. The cost of oil will probably go up by $2 a barrel by July 1. That will mean another 1 per cent increase in the cost of living.
I looked at the figures for the first five months of 1977 which were put out by Statistics Canada. I did that because I was flabbergasted by the minister's claim that the rate of inflation had been driven down to 6.2 per cent as a result of the anti-inflation program. 1 found that in February, 1977, the cost of living increased by 9/10 of 1 per cent. In March it increased by 9/10 of 1 per cent, in April by 1 per cent, in May by 6/10 of one per cent, and in June by 8/10 of 1 per cent. Therefore in the first five months of 1977 the cost of living went up by 4.2 per cent.
Taking into account the $2 a barrel price increase there will be in July, we are looking at an increase in the cost of living for the year 1977 of between 9 and 10 per cent. Therefore we are right back to where we were when the government first brought in its anti-inflation program.
The Prime Minister was right in the 1974 election campaign when he said that wage and price controls would not keep the cost of living down, that the cost of living had gone up because of external factors over which we had little or no control. As a result of 18 months of wage and price controls we have a situation where, in 1977, the cost of living will go up by almost the same amount as in the year 1975 when the government brought in this program.
We were told that the program would control wages and salaries on one hand and prices on the other. We know what the program has done in terms of wages and salaries. It is as we in the NDP and most economists predicted when the program was first proposed by the Prime Minister.
It is relatively easy to control wages and salaries. People are paid once or twice a month. It is not difficult through legislation to put a limit of 6, 8 or 10 per cent, or whatever some bureaucrat in the Department of Finance who earns over $60,000 a year believes to be a fair amount. The government has been fairly successful in that regard. The minister pointed out how much lower wage settlements were this year than in 1975. Of course they are lower. Workers and unions know they cannot force their companies to break the law. If the law puts a limit on the amount of increases permitted, the unions and the companies have to live up to that law.
When the minister says that expectations have come down, he is 100 per cent dead wrong. As soon as the controls come off, the workers will ask for wage and salary increases as high as they believe they can get. That will depend on the buoyancy of the economy and the profitability of the company for which they work.
We have been told that the major reason for the anti-inflation program was the exorbitant, unreasonable, pie in the sky
June 20, 1977

demands being made by workers in the private and public sector. Let us look at what is happening in the private sector.
In 1974 wage demands in the private sector were very high. It should not have surprised cabinet ministers and senior officials in the Department of Finance. However, they have tunnel vision. In 1974 they woke up to the fact that workers were demanding large increases. Where were they in 1972, 1973, and the first half of 1974? In those three years profits of major corporations increased by about 35 per cent each year. Therefore profits went up by more than 100 per cent in those three years. The percentage of gross national income which went to corporation profits rose from 10.5 per cent to over 14 per cent.
Anybody who knew anything about how the economy works and the basis on which labour-management negotiations are conducted would have expected high wage demands in 1974, as there were. If the government had wanted to cool that, it should have ensured in 1972, 1973, and the first part of 1974 that profits were not too high. Instead, the government gave more tax cuts to corporations, more concessions to mining and oil companies, and faster write-offs to manufacturing industries. The result was that corporation profits rose again and again. In fact they rose by more than 100 per cent.
It is not surprising that workers in private industry were asking for, and on occasion striking for, very high wage increases. Some of us were told privately by senior public servants that the government was not too worried by wage increases in the private sector. They knew they could only get wages commensurate with the profitability of the companies. The employees could not push their wages to the point that the companies would not make a profit or the companies would cut back and there would be no jobs. What the government was worried about was the exorbitant demands being made by workers in the public sector at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. We were never given many examples of exorbitant increases, but that was the thinking which supposedly went into making the anti-inflation program a necessity.
I suggest to members on the other side that we did not need an anti-inflation program, that we did not need legislation. If employees in the public sector were demanding too much it was the business of the government to say no. What we have seen is the government saying no to workers in the lower brackets, to workers who are unskilled or semi-skilled. What we have seen is a government willing to give more and more to the people at the top. Let me offer a couple of illustrations.
Hon. members know that senior civil servants at the very top are now getting in the neighbourhood of $65,000 a year. They have received substantial increases. What members may not know, although the former president of the Treasury Board knows it, is that the number of senior executive employees has doubled and redoubled. In a period of about ten years the number of SX employees went from some 380 in 1968 to 1,250 by 1975. That superstructure is tremendously expensive to
Anti-Inflation Act
maintain, and I am not at all convinced it is necessary in terms of getting a better, more efficient, and more humanitarian government.
There has been no evidence to substantiate the growth which has taken place. We were told that we needed the anti-inflation program because Canadian workers were making excessive demands, because Canadian wages were rising at such a rapid rate that Canada was pricing itself out of the market. Well, there is no question that sales of major Canadian companies have been reduced substantially in the last 18 months. But there is no evidence at all that we have priced ourselves out of the market, no evidence at all that the productivity of Canadian workers has declined or, specifically, that it has declined relative to productivity in the United States, our major competitor.
What has happened is that Canadian sales of such major products as metals-one of our major exports-have dropped. This is not because workers in the industry have demanded and received wage increases which have priced the product out of the market. Sales have dropped because of the economic slowdown in the United States, Japan, and the western world generally.
Let me quote from an article I came across in the Winnipeg Tribune of Wednesday, June 15, written by Steven Kelman of the Financial Times Service. The heading is: "Low Demand for Major Metals Decreases Prices and Earnings". The writer says, and I quote:
Repressed by sluggish world economic recovery, the demand for many metals-copper, zinc, lead and nickel-remains below expectations of investors. Consequently, inventories of these metals are historically high, depressing the earnings of metals and minerals producers. Mining and metals analysts expect prices of most metals to remain at low levels at least until the fall when they might begin to rise if economic recovery leads to some reduction of inventories. Even with this scenario, however, investors can anticipate several quarters before producers report higher earnings.
The article lists some of the reasons why earnings are lower, and then goes on to say:
Metals overproduction: The late 1960s and early 1970s were a period of major world mine expansion intended to meet a high consumption rate. But the growth rate of metals use diminished with the escalation of energy costs. Metal prices, without a major pickup in demand, will continue to be depressed.
The writer explains that there are high inventories of copper and other metals held around the world. Then he goes on to state:
High inventories: Manufacturers' fears of labor stoppages among major U.S. copper and zinc producers led to substantial hedge buying in advance of normal needs during the past six months. Adding to this were fears of copper shortages stemming from the political turmoil in Zaire, a major African producer.
Widespread discounting: With large inventories and little likelihood of a short-term gain in demand, many producers discount posted prices, making a shambles of industry attempts to hold prices. Many analysts expect further weakness in metals prices, at least until the fall.
Hon. members will notice that he does not talk about wages in the industry being a factor at all in the decline of sales, and I suggest that if an analysis is made of the lumber industry or of the pulp and paper industry or, indeed, of any of the major industries which earn dollars for Canada, we would find the same situation existing.
80018-34 'h

June 20, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
May 1 point out that the price of wheat has fallen by almost 50 per cent? This has nothing to do with the wage level in Canada; it is based entirely on the demand for the grain in the western world which purchases most of our crop. I contend, therefore, as 1 believe the facts will prove, that we have not licked inflation and that the program has been a failure, as we in this party predicted and as most economists predicted at the time.
To meet the so-called threat of inflation the government had another program beside the limiting of wage and salary claims and, supposedly, the limiting of prices. Let me remind hon. members of what the Minister of Finance has finally had to admit after a year and a half of prodding from the New Democrats. As we predicted, the controls on wages and salaries has been effective because increases in this sector were easy to identify. But the minister is now admitting that, between the legislation on one hand and lax monitoring by the Anti-Inflation Board on the other, many people at the top of many of the corporations in Canada have been able to secure very substantial increases-not just 6 per cent or 8 per cent, or 10 per cent, but 25 per cent, 50 per cent, and 75 per cent in salaries ranging from $100,000 upward.
As we forecast, no way has been found under this program to limit increases in income enjoyed by self-employed people like doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects. I do not know whether an attempt was really made.


An hon. Member:: What about pharmacists?


David Orlikow: And pharmacists, too, I suppose. These people have continued to get whatever the traffic will bear.
Every aspect of the so-called fight against inflation was a call by the federal government for restraint in government spending. All governments got involved in this, regardless of which party was involved-Liberals, Conservatives, Social Credit, and the New Democratic Party. The government was able to go before the people and indicate that it was showing restraint. It was not going to spend $30 million in Manitoba or $50 million in Ontario. Actually, 1 forget what the saving was by the federal government. But it forgot to tell the people that every time a million dollars is saved fewer people are employed.
Unemployment for every month of this year has been at an all-time high. In April unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis was 8.3 per cent, or 932,000 people. In May the figure was 7.9 per cent. Newspapers reported that as a victory because it was half a per cent lower than the month before. If one read down to the end of the article, he would realize that 7.9 per cent was almost 1 per cent higher than the month of May in the previous year.
In my city of Winnipeg there is a low rate of unemployment, as there is in the province of Manitoba, as compared to Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, Ontario or British Columbia. 1 have done some inquiring in my constituency and have found out that graduating classes in faculties such as education,

social work, and engineering are having difficulty finding employment. That applies also to the graduating classes of community colleges in our province. The students were encouraged to go to community colleges rather than university, because an arts degree would not give them a job but training in one of the many skills which are provided in our community colleges would give them a job.
The graduating classes of the universities and the community colleges are finding it virtually impossible to get jobs. The best educated young people we have ever had are not able to find jobs in June of 1977. In some of the industrial plants, the steel fabricating plants and the agricultural plants in Manitoba, we are finding that workers with 20 years of seniority with one company, and who have never drawn unemployment insurance benefits, are now unemployed. The situation in Manitoba is far better than it is in Quebec.
In Quebec virtually 10 per cent-one out of every ten people-of the people who want work and are available for work cannot find work. In Nova Scotia it is substantially more than that. On Cape Breton Island the official figure for unemployment is 17 per cent, and the real figure is probably closer to 25 per cent. That is a part of the price we are paying for the government's anti-inflation program and its program of restraint.
As I have indicated, we are fighting inflation unsuccessfully and on the backs of the unemployed. When this program was first proposed we said that it would not work, that it would be inequitable and would result in more unemployment. Unfortunately our fears have proven to be correct. We believe, and we have believed all along, that the anti-inflation program would not work and would be unfair. We continue to call for a national incomes policy which would be fair to all the people of Canada. We call on the Government of Canada to make a major commitment for itself and for the people of Canada to a program of full employment.
We do not accept the arguments being put forth by so-called experts, who are employed at comfortable salaries, that full employment is no longer an unemployment rate of between 3 per cent and 4 per cent, that in fact it is something in the neighbourhood of 5Vi per cent or 6 per cent. This country has the resources, the raw materials, the manpower and the skills to put the people of Canada who want to work back to work. This party is committed to that. We call on the government to adopt policies which will put the people of Canada back to work. One of the first steps necessary is to eliminate the anti-inflation program which has been a failure from the day it started.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wanted to rise and take part in this important debate, for I could not do it last Friday. This is why I have felt it necessary to rise tonight at the very last minute. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?
June 20, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made on Thursday, June 16, 1977, it being ten o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at eleven o'clock a.m.
Anti-Inflation Act
on Tuesday, June 21, 1977, pursuant to the order dated May 30, 1977.
At 10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Tuesday, June 21, 1977