1978-04-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowksi):
That this House feels, having regard to the recent developments in Africa, the time is overdue to advise the government of Cuba that with an army of 110,000 men, of which some estimated 23,000, under the direction and with the co-ordination of the Soviet Union, are engaged in action in Africa and in particular in Angola where diabolical cruelties were perpetrated against its people by this army, and in a so-called liberation movement designed to drive out democratic governments Cuba has troops now in Mozambique, Malagasy, Tanzania, the Congo Republic, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia and Algeria, in Rhodesia they are engaged in arousing revolution, and elsewhere assisting in the drive of African guerrillas against white minorities: in consequence of this, the peace of the world is endangered, and this House declares, despite the closeness of the relationship and mutual admiration between president Fidel Castro and the Prime Minister of Canada that-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Even on this happy day I suppose there will be mutual messages. My motion continues:
-a warning in the form of an ultimatum be given to Fidel Castro that either he have his troops returned from Africa and agrees to desist from stirring up war and revolution, this House not only condemns what he is doing, but if he does not desist and return the troops to Cuba, Canada will have to consider terminating the large financial aid that she is providing to Cuba-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very long motion. I hope the right hon. member is coming to the end of it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the assistance of hon. gentlemen opposite makes it impossible to be brief. My motion continues:
-and also give consideration to ending diplomatic relations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the irresponsible statements by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Hamilton yesterday, where reportedly he indicated that he is not concerned about the devaluation of the Canadian dollar and, furthermore, that the dropping of the Canadian dollar to as low as 80 cents U.S. would be a good thing for Canada-


Mr. Horner:: I never said that.


Some hon. Members:: What did you say?


Max Saltsman: -I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns the minister's irresponsible statements, talking down the Canadian dollar, which only encourages speculation and uncertainty and lack of any confidence in our currency.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the numerous requests made by the National Council of Veterans' Associations in recent months concerning the increase in the basic rate of disability pensions for veterans; in view of the fact that there is a $240 annual income

April 6, 1978
disparity between the average wages of unskilled civil servants and the disability pension of veterans; considering also that the federal government must ensure that a fair pension is paid to disabled veterans and to the widows whose spouses willingly courted danger and sacrificed their lives, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House direct the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to take all necessary steps in the shortest possible time to introduce a bill aimed at increasing the basic rate of disability pensions for veterans and thus correct inequities existing between the latter and the wages of the unskilled workers comprising five groups of civil servants now on the labour market.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent necessity and great national interest.
Considering that the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) openly recognizes that the referendum bill he has introduced was prepared and drafted without previous consultation with the provincial governments; considering that, when the first ministers met last February, the federal government formally proclaimed its intention always to consult the provincial governments on all matters of national interest; and considering that nothing could more directly involve national interest than a bill providing for a referendum or amendments to the constitution, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That the House unanimously decide to postpone consideration of the referendum bill until all provincial governments have clearly indicated their position on this issue, for hon. members need to know where the provinces stand before opening an intelligent debate on such a vital issue.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Allard.)


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that eastern Canada's potato growers are going through the worst selling campaign in 25 years because of artificially low prices; considering that yesterday the federal government announced initial and part payments of about $60 million to western grain producers; and considering that eastern Canadians are not less deserving that western Canadians as regards monetary needs to pay for seeds and to compensate for the loss of net income, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Agricultural Stabilization Board immediately announce the payment formula or formulas for potato growers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my initial question is for the Prime Minister, who undoubtedly is very anxious to tell the House when the budget will be presented. In telling the House when the budget may be received, can he tell Canadians why the budgetary deficit, which was approximately $20 for every Canadian when he took power, rose to almost $500 for every man, woman and child in the country in the year just ended?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr.Speaker, it seems to me that the answer to the question-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their very warm applause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 6, 1978


An hon. Member:: Jack Horner didn't applaud.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I certainly cannot guarantee that they will all be here in ten years to wish me another ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There may be, in those days, a couple of leftovers, including myself, from a previous depression, Mr. Speaker, but not many more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Which depression?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is my point. But that is a bit too subtle for the hon. member to understand.
Mr. Speaker, the question is obviously one which is related to the budget debate. The opposition have been asking for a budget debate, and I am glad to see that they are not only welcoming it now, but are entering into it at this point, by their questions. I would suggest they wait until next week, when the Minister of Finance will be making his budget speech, and then maybe we will hear the answer to the point made by the hon. member opposite.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What day?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What day is it, Mr. Chretien?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it will be Monday night at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister, who surprised me when he did not seem to know the date when the budget debate was to be held. I would also add, with reference to his "depression" reference, that certainly we on this side will not be contributing, as he is, to the next depression in this country.
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister indicate why he feels that during his ten years in office the number of unemployed in this country should have risen from 375,000, when he took power, to over one million Canadians looking for work today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree that the question is argumentative.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again my supplementary is to the Prime Minister, who surely does not feel that Statistics Canada's hard, cold figures which I have just cited are argumentative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me ask him this second supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could he explain to the House and account to the Canadian public why inflation, which was running slightly above 4 per cent when he took power, should now be 9.5 per cent, which is the last figure published by Statistics Canada?
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will realize that if the Prime Minister wanted to attempt to do that, the question period would not provide ample time.


DECLINE IN BALANCE OF TRADE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Prime Minister. I was one of the deluded Canadians who ten years ago voted for the Prime Minister to become leader. I have since atoned for that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: My question to the Prime Minister is this: Canada's financial deficit on current account was $97 million in 1968, and was 44 times that last year-$4.2 billion. This is reflected, of course, in the way the world is now dealing with the Canadian dollar: you need a snorkel mask now to deal with the Canadian dollar, which is supposed to be floating.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Could he explain the reasons for this dismal record and tell us how, in the few days left to him in office, he is going to do something to reverse this tragic decline in our trade balance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course we are very anxious to make comments on these statistics and help the Canadian public understand how they should be interpreted, rather than listening to the biased interpretation from the other side of the House.
When a statistic is quoted, I am not saying the statistic itself is argumentative; I am saying the way in which the question is asked is argumentative. Obviously, with respect to each one of these statistics-the one asked now and the previous one by the hon. member for York-Simcoe-we have answers and are anxious to put them forth in the budget debate. For instance, when the hon. member says that the number of unemployed has gone up by something like 400,000 in ten years-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 600,000.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -600,000, it would be important for the Canadian public to understand that during that period Canada created jobs at a faster rate than any other industrialized society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are a fraud.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 2,300,000 jobs have been created in that period in this economy. That, obviously, is an argumentative answer and that is why I am suggesting that this line of question would be properly put during the debate. We are very anxious-


An hon. Member:: You don't like this kind of question.

April 6, 1978
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wants me to give argumentative answers, I will make my budget speech right now. He can just continue asking the questions. On the other question that he asked me-


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I suggest if the Prime Minister cannot do better than that, he should give the boots to Coutts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I suggest to the Prime Minister that the electorate of Canada will want the answer in a few months. In 1977, our deficit in fully manufactured end products-that is, the products that give the jobs-was $11.6 billion. If we manufactured those goods in Canada-in reverse-it would mean 800,000 jobs. Can the Prime Minister tell us how he plans to overcome this deficit which has grown from $3.1 billion in 1968 to the present $11.6 billion? What are his plans to reverse that in the next few weeks, before the Canadian people reverse him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate at some length that the size of the deficit in Canada now, compared to gross national product, is considerably less than it has been historically in Canada. That should put that matter in perspective.
The hon. member is interested in making puns on personalities. I wonder if he would explain to us why he comes down here to give us advice on economics, when the Premier of Newfoundland did not even think he was good enough to correct the economy in that province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister indicate to this House whether the statement made yesterday in Hamilton by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, when talking down the Canadian dollar, reflects government policy? When the minister said that he is not concerned about the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, and that the dropping of the Canadian dollar to as low as 80 cents U.S. would be a good thing for Canada-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I never said that.


An hon. Member:: You did.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Were you there?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I really wish the backbenchers would keep their ministers in order.


An hon. Member:: How would you do it?


Max Saltsman: Jack, if it is not too much of a crossing, come over and I will show you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, on some days it is very difficult to get a serious question in.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member would put his question, the matter would be complete.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was reflecting government policy when he said it would be a good thing if the Canadian dollar dropped to 80 cents U.S.?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I never said that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government, as stated by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance, myself and all ministers, is that the dollar should be allowed to find its natural level.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a floating dollar. I understand hon. members opposite would like to engage in a bit of speculation; they would like us to tell them the way it will float. If they want to risk some money, they can do it on their own.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The position of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been exactly that: it should find its level. He has twice said to the hon. member-and the hon. member understood him-that he did not say the words he was quoted as having said. I would have thought the hon. member would accept that denial as the word of the minister.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Of course I am prepared to accept the denial of the minister that he said it; nevertheless, whatever he said has certainly given an impression of what he meant to convey. If he is not guilty of that, he is guilty of having some very loose lips.
An. hon. Member: "Loose Lips Horner".


An hon. Member:: Let's have a statement, "Loose Lips".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really wonder how much of this kind of preamble we should have. Will the hon. member please put his supplementary question.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the Minister of Finance's fine moral fervour of yesterday when he lectured the opposition to avoid
April 6, 1978

Oral Questions
making certain statements because of the effect this would
>
have-	AGRICULTURE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Max Saltsman: -would he lecture the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce along the same lines?
[ Translation]


ALLEGED FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO CREATE JOBS
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. On this tenth anniversary, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roch La Salle: Allow me to point out that there are probably a million or more Canadians who do not feel like applauding the way my hon. friends opposite do. In 1968, Canada had
375.000	unemployed; ten years later, we have over a million. Under the circumstances, having failed to find the solutions required, would the Prime Minister have at least the courage to recognize the monumental failure of his government in that regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again it is a matter of quoting statistics with arguments. I repeat what I said a while ago in reply to the same question in English. We would like to hold a debate on budgetary matters; that is why the Minister of Finance announced a budget for this coming Monday night. I can understand that hon. members across the way should want a budget when none is on the way, but now that one is, they do not want a debate because they know we have answers to all those questions. The hon. member speaks of an increase of some 600,000 unemployed; but that should be placed in the context of a Canada in which
2.400.000	new jobs were created over the same period. All those things must be seen in context and that is why we want to have a debate on the budget next week. I trust the hon. member will come forth with his speeches at that time, and that he will listen to the answers we give.


Roch La Salle: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In answer to that the Prime Minister says they still managed to create two million new jobs. How then can one explain the lack of foresight of the government with regard to the new workers entering the labour market? The Prime Minister tells us they created two million new jobs in the last ten years: how then can that increase of 700,000 unemployed be explained? Under the circumstances, how does one explain the fact that the Prime Minister-
[English)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Elgin.


STEPS TO OVERCOME FARMERS' ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to lack of government performance. In view of the fact that farm debt has doubled, to $10 billion, in less than ten years and farmers, under this government, have to borrow simply to survive, what immediate action, if any, can the producers of this country expect to help overcome these serious difficulties?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to be a little more factual. He knows that land values for farmers have increased about 120 per cent in the past four years. That is a capital gain for the farmers, so naturally they are going to have more investment. But they are much wealthier because of that. There are many farmers in agricultural endeavours who are making net profits; the hon. member knows that very well.


John Wise: Farm input costs have increased 100 per cent in less than ten years, net farm income has declined 30 per cent in three years, and agricultural imports have tripled since 1968. Without the sale of western grain, total agricultural exports would be nil. What legislation, if any, can we expect to effectively deal with these serious problems?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we increased our exports last year by 11 per cent on the world market. The hon. member makes broad, sweeping statements about agricultural products that we are importing. He should be more specific and outline what they are. He knows that the Tariff Board report is in, and that action has been taken on imported products.
If we were to swing in and immediately move to stop all the imported tomatoes coming into Canada, the producers could produce them but we could not process them, the facilities are not there. It would have to be a three year phase-in program. The hon. member knows those programs are in the government's machinery at the present time, and that the horticultural producers of this nation recently made an award to this minister for doing more for them than in living memory of the Canadian Horticultural Society.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We were told yesterday that Renault-Canada is leaving the

April 6, 1978
Oral Questions
province of Quebec and that from now on its complex, located in Brampton, Ontario, will serve only as a distribution centre for Canada. An agreement to build Renault models in the United States has been reached between the Regie nationale des usines Renault of France and the American Motors Corporation. Taking into account the glaring laissez-faire and irresponsibility of the Quebec government on this question and taking into account the loss of jobs that this move will mean for Canada, and particularly Quebec, can the minister tell us if his officials or himself have taken action in the matter?

Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice, owing to the delicate nature of the implications of the Quebec government and the Canadian government in the various automotive plants.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the minister had heard about this move and if he had made plans to prevent it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the possibility of the move. As I said, owing to the delicate nature of it, I would like to examine all the ramifications before answering fully.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Finance has announced that the budget is going to be presented Monday night, will the Prime Minister, as head of the government, confirm whether it is the intention of the government to have a full length budget debate? If so, will he participate in that debate? Should he participate, would he tell us how he can explain the floating Canadian dollar, and why it should not be known as the "fuddle-buck"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought the first part of the question was a serious one, but it was obviously intended in jest. I am not quite sure what kind of answer the hon. member wants. On the one hand, they wanted a budget debate. When we announced the budget they said "We don't want a budget because it is going to be an election budget."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what members opposite have been saying.


Mr. Paproski:: You are the one who said that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I never said that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The absent Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Leader of the NDP-


An hon. Member:: He is out getting his hair cut.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He may be getting out of shape; I am not quite sure what he is doing. On the other hand, they want us to have an early election. Now they want a guarantee that we are going to take all the time for a full budget debate. If they will make up their minds, I will have the government House leader meet the House leaders of the other parties to see how much business we can complete in the next few days, or weeks-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Keep trying; you will screw it up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, we are ready for an election any time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We were told repeatedly by the opposition that they wanted to have a budget debate before an election; they challenged us to do it. Our attitude now is that we are going to have a budget debate before an election. We would like to pass other important legislation before an election and we hope we will have the co-operation of the opposition: for instance, the bill to amend the Criminal Code-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that eastern farmers have as high and as urgent a cash requirement as do western farmers just before spring seeding, can the Minister of Agriculture now indicate what payments he or the Farm Products Price Stabilization Board intend to make, and when will they be made to eastern potato growers, since the last press release was of little consolation to them?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well what the stabilization act is that we use for potato growers. The act used for western grain producers is a voluntary program which they join and contribute to if they wish. Their operation is on a calendar year basis. As I said in the House yesterday, the final figures are not in for that; we do not know what the final figures will be. We will not be changing our historic approach toward the stabilization of potatoes. Potatoes are completely different from cereal grain. Potatoes are a perishable product, while cereal grain can be stored for years. I do not think you can make a similar comparison at all.
April 6, 1978


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
Is the minister prepared to release today the text of the agreement reached recently by the United States and Canada on the question of maritime frontiers?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the hon. member could be mistaken. Canada has recently reached an agreement with Japan, but not with the United States; that agreement is to the effect that negotiations will resume within a certain period of time, probably in six or eight months from now.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the minister state, even in very broad terms, the provisions of the agreement between Canada and the United States on the matter of the four sectors involved and could he also explain what criteria were followed in the negotiations with the United States?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I would need a lot more time than Your Honour would give me to answer in detail the question of the hon. member. As I have already stated, there has not been any agreement. We have agreed that the special negotiators would take some time off in an attempt to identify points where agreements could be reached and to find a solution. Meanwhile, we will have to conclude an interim arrangement for 1978.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice of which I gave him notice yesterday. It arises from a question I put to the minister a few weeks ago concerning the drafting by one, D. Maurais, of his department of an act to establish an inflation monitoring agency and to provide for the reporting of financial and other information. At that time the minister said he would inquire who the officer was, who authorized the drafting of this legislation and the distribution of the draft bill throughout the country.
Oral Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. He told me yesterday that he wanted to ask this question and I undertook to get the information, but because I have been in cabinet all morning I do not have that information. I will get it immediately and supply it to the hon. member.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister followed developments in the unequal dispute between the St. Mary's Indian band of Cran-brook, B.C., and the CPR in which the band has threatened to charge the railway with trespass? Can the minister report any progress on this problem of seven years' standing, which deals with erosion into the St. Mary's River from the railway line?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not followed the developments recently. But I would be pleased to review the matter and report to the hon. member.


Howard Earl Johnston: Considering the difficulty experienced in negotiating disputes involving Indian bands in south central British Columbia, the delicacy of questions of ownership, the possibility of differences between individual rights and band rights regarding the-we hope-early settlement of the cut-off lands question, and that the nearest Indian Affairs office is as far away as Vancouver, is the minister in a position to announce the reopening of the Indian Affairs office at Vernon, B.C.?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister knows, there has been a drop in employment in the Halifax shipyards from roughly 1,300 or 1,400 down to 100, and the province has been trying to negotiate the sale of the shipyards by Hawker Siddeley to Upper Canada Shipping Limited. I think the minister has been engaged in the negotiations. Can he report to the House any progress as far as the negotiations are concerned? Many people in that area are suffering as a result of the high rate of unemployment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct; Hawker Siddeley does want to sell the Halifax shipbuilding

April 6, 1978
Oral Questions
yards. We are attempting to facilitate new ownership of the yards, but as yet we have not put together a package that is satisfactory to any prospective buyer. I would hate to speculate any more on the matter for fear of upsetting the delicate balance of negotiations at this time.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce think the lay-offs at the Halifax shipyards are due to workers' inappreciativeness for the retention of their jobs?


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In his statement yesterday relative to grain stabilization payments, why did the minister, in effect, return to the farmers only what had been paid into the funds to date by those very same farmers? Why did the government not make a contribution of its own to match what the farmers had contributed? Could it be that the Minister of Finance wanted to postpone this so that his deficit would not look so bad at the present time?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member reads the questions and answers of yesterday, he will find the answer to his question. We still have to wait for cost of production figures from Statistics Canada, and they will not be ready until July.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Environment). In the period of time between when the minister receives the final report of the environmental impact panel which is making a recommendation regarding the Eldorado refinery at Port Granby, and the time that report is considered by the cabinet, will there be an opportunity for independent groups and persons to make representations to the government and to the ministers concerned?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many groups I will be able to see, but I did tell a group from Port Hope that I would be very happy to see its members before I make a decision on the report submitted to me.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister appreciates that a number of people will want to make representations based on the final report before the cabinet, and especially the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, make certain decisions which may flow out of that report. Will people have an opportunity to make representations between the time the report is released to the public and the time the cabinet finally makes its decision? Will there be an opportunity for interested groups or individuals to make representations to the cabinet or to the ministers concerned?


Len Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I expect to be as flexible as possible. However, wide-ranging public hearings were held by the panel and I hope not to carry on the process for too long.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the minister has not yet received the final report. I wonder if he has any idea when it will be coming, whether he will be releasing it or whether the panel will be releasing it.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, 1 expect to receive the report about the middle of April, and I will be releasing it.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. The minister has defined a public works policy whereby all plans for capital projects have to use the metric system. Do even those plans drawn to the standard measure have to undergo metrication before contracts for capital projects are put out to tender?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker, but I will be happy to verify that for the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of evidence given by the minister's officials yesterday in the Standing Committee on Agriculture that the long outstanding capital project in the Annapolis Valley, the research station at Kentville, Nova Scotia, is now ten months behind due to metrication of plans already drawn, could the minister exercise his good offices and the weight of his office with the Minister of Public Works and finally announce this project, so that the tenders which have been delayed three times may be dealt with in the early spring rather than some time in June?
April 6, 1978


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can rest assured that I will do everything I can to help him-out!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Postmaster General. The minister is certainly aware of the deteriorating service provided by his department. Today is a day for statistics and for looking back ten years. I presume the minister is aware that ten years ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There have been several questions on this theme which, by their very nature, are argumentative. If the hon. member has a question for the Postmaster General, would he put it forthwith.


Stan Darling: I would like to ask if something is going to be done to reverse the present trend in the Post Office. Ten years ago there was a $67 million deficit; now there is a $650 million deficit ahead of us. Ten years ago we paid 5 cents for a stamp for first-class mail, and now we pay 14 cents: that is nearly a 300 per cent increase.


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, referring only to the question of postal rates, I must say that even with a 14 cents stamp our rate remains the lowest in the world. So I do not believe that there has been so much inflation or, if you like, that the increase was scandalous.
I think it is a reasonable rate in the circumstances.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some two years ago the then chairperson of the Food Prices Review Board had a special study conducted with respect to food prices above the sixtieth parallel in the two northern territories. That report recommended a further study in order to see that food prices be reduced.
In view of statistics released yesterday, indicating that food prices in Whitehorse and in Yellowknife are some 25 per cent above the national average, can the minister now say when that study will be resumed and, if not, has he any plans at all for reducing food prices in the two northern territories?
Oral Questions


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I still have as great an interest in the question of food prices in the north as 1 did when I was minister in that department. Just two weeks ago I sent two officials from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the north to discuss this very matter. I am afraid I do not have exact information on when this particular study will be proceeded with, but I will inquire into that and get back to the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: Is the government taking any action whatsoever to bring down food prices in the north-which I emphasize are some 25 per cent above the national average-in Whitehorse and Yellowknife, to say nothing of the more remote communities along the coastal areas of the Northwest Territories?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member that those statistics are alarming. I will bring myself up to date on the work that is being done in this respect.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Due to the great number of representations made to members of parliament, in particular in the Ottawa area, concerning Bill C-28-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Be quiet. More especially with regard to sections dealing with the right of the employer to assign not only duties through position but duties to employees, is the President of the Treasury Board in a position today to tell us if he intends to amend this section or to withdraw it altogether?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it was not the intention of the government to permit the employer to make such assignment and/or change of duties of employees, as has been the interpretation of the wording of that clause. We believe that the concerns are unwarranted. However, for absolute certainty, I assure the House that when we proceed with the bill before parliament, we will make the necessary amendment or, if necessary, delete that clause.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 6, 1978
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF WINNIPEG SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would call attention to the presence in the gallery of 55 members of the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra, led by their musical director and conductor, Maestro Piero Gamba, and their president, Mr. Julian Benson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Today I received a news release from the office of the Minister of Justice in which the following statement is made:
The ombudsman will also be able to hear complaints from members of the public about specific actions of the RCMP. The need for a mechanism allowing the public to have complaints against the national police force reviewed by an independent body-
My question is twofold. First, will the minister move immediately on this legislation, and has he ascertained the cost with reference to the priority? We already have a deficit. Second, does he consider-I know the minister is not running again, and I make nothing of that, but that means he will not be Minister of Justice-that it is necessary for the ombudsman to check the RCMP?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, first,
I think it is essential that we have an ombudsman within the federal jurisdiction. As to whether we will proceed with the bill, the Prime Minister endeavoured a short while ago to indicate to the opposition bills, such as the language of trials bill and others, for which we hope to get the co-operation of the official opposition with regard to passage.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Two days' debate?


Stanley Ronald Basford: With regard to the other part of the hon. member's question, Judge Marin in his report on the RCMP made two recommendations: first, that there be an independent process for the examination of citizens' complaints regarding the force and, second, that there be a different system dealing with complaints and disciplinary matters by members of the force. The bill that was introduced dealing with the ombudsman acts on the first of the recommendations, and the Solicitor General is proceeding with the preparation and introduction of a bill covering the second of those recommendations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that I have always had confidence in members of parliament when it comes to the

routine of their daily work with reference tc taking care of complaints from their constituents, and even people living elsewhere, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has ascertained the cost of setting up a new organization within the government, thus adding to the deficit? What is the cost of this new empire which the minister wants to build before he leaves the distinguished position he now holds?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The report upon which the bill is based outlined the projected cost. I think the cost will be considerably lower than that projected in the report.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How much?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The estimate of the cost for the first fiscal year, if the bill is passed this session, is $700,000 for the start-up, appointment and establishment of the capacity to deal with some 200 complaints per month. It is, of course, impossible to determine with any certitude what the business of the ombudsman will be. It is also very dependent upon the style of the ombudsman one appoints. The Quebec ombudsman deals with 7,000 complaints a year, with a staff of some 30 people. The Ontario ombudsman deals with 6,000 complaints a year, with a staff of about 140 people. We hope to appoint the Quebec-style ombudsman as a more effective and efficient way of dealing with the matter.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. On March 20 one of the stores in Vancouver mailed an advertising brochure to the poeple of Surrey, which was delivered on March 28, for a sale to be held on March 27. Can the Postmaster General collaborate with the Minister of State for Small Business to see if they can find ways to help small businesses stay in business in the face of the kind of perverse help they are getting from the Post Office?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are making every necessary effort to have the most efficient mail service possible. Accidents or errors may happen, and I think that in this case it was an error and 1 am very sorry it happened.


POSTAL WALKS FOR NEW SUBURBAN AREAS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General a question? Since several hundred thousand Canadians cannot have their mail delivered, will the minister now make the decision to spend some or all of the last postal rate increase on installing postal walks in cities in Canada with new suburban areas? Over 2,000 postal walks
April 6, 1978

are needed. Would he agree now to establish these new mail deliveries for Canadians across the country?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, if I did what the hon. member is asking for, it would mean spending millions of dollars. Considering the fact that the opposition is always telling us we are spending too much money, the increase in the postal rate was imposed so as to decrease to S525 million the deficit which was projected to be $717 million and I think it was a wise move. If we expanded door to door delivery, it could cost many hundred million dollars, because all across Canada people want it at the moment. But at the present time we must be reasonable and we must try to administer the Post Office like good businessmen.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. There was an exchange between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Edmonton West with respect to the budget debate and 1 will be asking the government House leader when we might be commencing the debate. But no answer was given by the Prime Minister on whether the budget debate will be shortened or there will be a full debate. I ask the Prime Minister, as leader of the government, what is the intention of the government with respect to the length of the debate? Are we to have the full six days' budget debate, or is the government's intention otherwise?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We could go either way. If the opposition has a preference, I would appreciate hearing from them what it is.


Walter David Baker: Quite frankly, my preference is to go to the country, beat this dreadful government and get it over with.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: I do not believe that has anything to do with the length of the budget debate; at least, I did not think it would. But if it does, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not we will have a full debate? It is a simple question and I would like as direct an answer as I gave him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are attempting to be extremely accommodating in this matter. At the request of the opposition, we made sure we would have a budget before dissolution. We have announced that budget. They seem to grumble that there is going to be a pre-election budget. I am not quite sure what they have in mind. Now I am saying, Mr. Speaker, if they want quick dissolution after we read the
Business of the House
budget speech, we can go that way-if that is what they would like. If they are completely indifferent, my suggestion to them is, why don't they wait and see?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the act of accommodation of the Prime Minister, but still I would like an answer to my question. What is the intention of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if it is a very serious debate, and if the opposition comes forth with very constructive proposals, we will want to hear them through to the bitter end. If they are making politics out of this, we might just dissolve before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in both official languages-Mr. Collenette.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Baldwin.

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the government House leader has to leave the House, in the event he does, and since the budget date has been announced today, I wonder if 1 could ask a question with respect to that in the course of the usual Thursday question on House business.
I think the House would be interested in knowing on what day after April 10 the budget debate will be commencing. Once the budget debate has commenced, is it the intention of the government to carry it through on six consecutive days to the normal end? Or is it the intention of the government to break up the budget debate and deal with other legislation in the meantime? If the government House leader can be any more forthcoming than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I know the country would be grateful. That is one question I should like to put to him.

April 6, 1978
Business of the House
My second concern is that there is a motion for concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs dealing with that committee's report on pornography. I understand it may well be the intention of the government House leader to call that business. If it is his intention to call it, I want to assure him that we are prepared to have that motion concurred in without debate.
The third thing I should like to deal with is that it is important, and obviously it is becoming much more important from the point of view of the answers of the Prime Minister today, for him to give us an indication of the government's priorities with respect to legislation as we go into the next week. I would appreciate it very much if the government House leader could be as straightforward as possible with respect to those questions.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, it is my present intention in calling the budget debate on Wednesday to provide hon. members with an opportunity to savour the flavour of the budget address. It is my intention to call the budget debate and continue it in the regular sequence, in accordance with the Standing Orders and all constitutional opportunities which may present themselves. Nothing will be done that is not fully regular.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At the present time I have no intention of interrupting the budget debate with other legislation. It may be that will happen, but it is not my intention.
In addition to the budget debate, today I will call the amendments to the Anti-Inflation Act, then the Farm Credit Act, followed by the bill in the name of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), petroleum administration act amendments and then Bill C-8, the labour code. I want to talk to my colleagues in the other parties on whether we might agree to pass, within a very short time, the act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the language of trials. I should like to get that passed quickly, if we can get consent from hon. members to deal with it quickly.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my friend's answer speaks volumes to all of us. He mentioned Bill C-18. I understand there may be anxiety on the part of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to deal rather quickly with the Farm Credit Act. That is a matter he and I may wish to discuss. I would be happy to discuss it on the basis that I believe debate on that will be quite short.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this point of order, may I say first of all that someone should be commended for the new clocks in the chamber today. The times may be out of joint in Canada, but it is good to have the clocks in this place synchronized.
May I remind the government House leader that on at least two occasions, once when Mr. King was prime minister and once when Mr. St. Laurent was in that position-both of them Liberals-the House was informed a few days ahead of disso-

lution as to the actual date of the election so that we could plan the work of the last week or ten days with some sort of sense. I wonder if the government House leader would discuss with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the possibility of following that precedent, and straightforwardly telling us what the election date is so that we can decide what should be dealt with in the intervening time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of members of this side, as well as the other side, who would be interested in knowing that date. As always, I will attempt to co-operate with hon. members opposite. It would be very important information to them, from which they would likely be ready to clear the order paper in a very short time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the government House leader be calling an early meeting of House leaders so that we can discuss the plans for the remainder of this session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter, a very serious one, of interest not only to members of parliament but indeed to taxpayers. We have repeatedly suggested that the election date should be provided for in the constitution, that it be established once and for all and known to every Canadian. I feel that such an amendment would provide a very clear-cut rule for holding general elections, avoiding a lot of dealings and so many public opinion pools of no use whatsoever.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the point made by the leaders of other parties in this House, that we be apprised as soon as possible of the date of the coming election. Mr. Speaker, I believe this would facilitate our proceedings, we could go ahead in an objective way with the process of dealing with government bills that have a high priority. Simultaneously, as far as the budget is concerned, after the answer given today by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the budget hopefully will be coming Monday next, this would allow members to seriously address the question of what should be discussed about the forthcoming budget, in the interest of Canadians we are trying our best to serve here. In this way we could work together at giving Canada the best possible administration, the most efficient one, so that the Canadian tax dollar be put to the best use, for the benefit of all groups within our society.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the government House leader. I noticed when he listed the order of business that he mentioned the lifting of the antiinflation legislation, then the farm credit legislation, the petroleum administration measure, and then Bill C-8. I would
April 6, 1978

Order Paper Questions COST OF REGULATION ACT
like to put it to the government House leader that C-8 is an extremely important bill for all those workers covered under the federal labour code, and in the committee when we studied the bill we expedited it because both labour and the members of the committee felt that it was extremely important to workers under federal jurisdiction to have the right to refuse work which is dangerous to their health and safety. It was in that spirit that our party participated in expediting the bill.
I recognize the fact that the minister may be receiving some flak from some members of the cabinet with respect to that bill because of the new ground it is breaking, but I would plead and ask the government House leader to please reconsider the order and put Bill C-8 in a higher position than it is presently resting.
I would hate to have all that work that we have done, and the anticipation of the workers under federal jurisdiction, dashed by an election which would wipe out that legislation. So, I ask the government House leader if he would give us some assurance that he will reconsider the order and put C-8 in a higher position?
Mir. MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that following the Anti-Inflation Act amendments I would call the farm credit bill, and following that I am quite prepared to consider whether I could call C-8 prior to Bill C-19.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a related point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the way the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his superior attitude has treated the question of a budget is picayune and childish. The question I would like to ask the hon. gentleman is: will this House have the right of the normal procedures of a budget debate to place the normal amendments, and has the government the intestinal fortitude to allow those amendments to be brought to a vote in this House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that it is my intention to call the budget debate and to carry it forward in the normal way. I have already made it clear that there are constitutional possibilities that may intervene, and I have no control over those. I think the Prime Minister has indicated his attitude on that point.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, during the exchange between the government House leader and the Conservative House leader there was an indication that, in the event the report on pornography from the legal and justice affairs committee was called, there would be some commitment that it would go through without debate. I want to make it clear that that is not the position of our party. We would not wish to see that particular report go through this House without further debate in the House.


MEASURE TO PROVIDE ANALYSES OF DEPARTMENTAL REGULATIONS
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-433, respecting the cost to the public of government regulation.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous amount of regulation and red tape associated with modern government whenever a new regulation is introduced, and inevitably costs rise. Under the policies of the government the only costs that are disclosed as such are the costs to the taxpayer. The purpose of this bill would be to require federal departments and agencies to estimate, to the best of their ability, the costs of regulation and administration and to give this information to the industries affected by the regulations, and to the consumers of the products and services involved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-44, respecting Customs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today; 1,302, 1,398, 1,400 and 1,416.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Of the $183,000,000 worth of fish imported in 1976, as reported in the 1976/77 Annual Report of the Fisheries Prices Support Board, what is the breakdown with regard to the (a) amount of each species of fish imported (b) dollar amounts for each species of fish imported?
2.	What is the same breakdown with regard to fish exports?


Roméo LeBlanc: April 6, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Canadian Imports and Exports by Species, 1976
I. Imports
	Amount Imported	$ Amount
Name of Species	(Metric Tons)	('000)
Seafish		
Cod	1,790	3,147Haddock and Hake	2,539	3,161Halibut	965	3,137Herring	565	779Sardine	1,277	2,668Salmon	3,495	10,305Tuna	12,903	23,712Anchovy	233	721Seafish, not specified	28,202	29,934Freshwater Fish	Trout	701	1,782Freshwater Fish, not specified	1,114	1,876Shellfish	Clams	2,387	2,947Crab	836	3,462Lobster	2,524	23,401Shrimps	11,002	60,585Oyster	17,419	4,853Shellfish, not specified	2,867	6,628Other Species	Fish and Marine Animal Oil	299	233Total	91,118	183,331Exports	Amount Imported	$ AmountName of Species	(Metric Tons)	('000)Seafish	Cod	45,441	73,612Haddock and Hake	8,221	11,904Pollock*1*	4,637	5,455Halibut	1,709	5,522Catfish	865	1,506Ocean Perch	21,187	36,503Flatfish	22,277	44,906Turbot	3,000	4,678Herring	125,167	114.108Mackerel	2,011	1,119Sardine	4,135	6,979Salmon	21,197	87,309Smelt	1,516	1,205Swordfish	3	5Alewife	2,164	771Seafish, not specified	49,248	42,789Freshwater Fish	Bass	131	155Perch	1,727	6,620Pickerel	2,311	7,947Pike	1,733	2,495Sauger	982	3,388Smelt	4,530	3,359Sturgeon	31	117Trout	289	551Tullibee	633	1,281Whitefish	4,878	7,775Mullet	518	417Freshwater Fish, not specified	2,587	2,728
Amount Imported $ Amount
Name of Species	(Metric Tons)	('000)
Shellfish
Clams	743	1,182Crab	1,910	11,684Lobster	8,857	52,762Scallop	9,259	43,436Shrimps	1,759	5,700Shellfish, not specified	2,375	2,677Other Species	Seals*2*	(156)	4,114Whales	5	8Fish and Marine Animal Oil	3,407	1,041Seaweeds	4,549	2,708Total	365,992	600,516
[DOT]'[DOT]includes some cusk.
|2lQuantity reported in number of skins.


Mr. Schumacher: What amount did the (a) federal (b) provincial governments spend in total, per capita, in (i) 1937 (ii) 1947 (iii) 1957 (iv) 1967 (v) 1977 in current dollars?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports: The following table shows the amount spent per capita by the federal and provincial governments in the years asked for.
Year	Federal	Provincial1937	$ 41.00	$ 33.001947	169.00	52.001957	313.00	111.001967	517.00	394.001977	1,824.00	1,581.00


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many veterans' hospitals have been turned over by the government to provincial government responsibility and, in each case, where was the hospital located and on what date was responsibility transferred?
2.	How many other veterans' hospitals will be turned over to provincial authority and, in each case, where is it located and what is the proposed date of transfer?
3.	(a) In each of the hospitals already transferred to provincial jurisdiction, how many employees had to resign their federal positions and re-apply to the province (b) how much severance pay was given in each case by the government?

April 6, 1978

4.	In each of the hospitals still to be transferred from federal to provincial authority, how many employees will be expected to resign their federal position?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	Seven: Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, (transferred to the University of Toronto) October 1, 1966; Ste. Foy Hospital, Quebec, Que. September 1, 1968; Lancaster Hospital, Saint John, N.B. November 15, 1972; Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver, B.C. July 29, 1974; Veterans Hospital, Victoria, B.C. August 26, 1974; Westminster Hospital, London, Ont. October 3, 1977; Queen Mary Veterans Hospital, Montreal, Que. February 20, 1978.
2.	It is the policy of the government to transfer all veterans hospitals. Date of transfer is a matter of negotiation with provincial authorities. With the exception of Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax, which it is proposed to transfer this summer, no dates have been negotiated. Location of hospitals not transferred: Halifax, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Senneville, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary.
3.	(a) No employees have had to resign their federal positions and reapply to provincial jurisdiction, (b) The amount of severance pay given in each case is determined under the terms of collective agreements negotiated under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act which are binding on both the Public Service as the employer and the employees.
4.	None.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Has the Minister of Finance, or the Inspector-General of Banks acting for the Minister, since May 2, 1977, had any discussions with the chartered banks in which the point has been made that the pensions paid by the banks to their retired employees ought to be escalated annually by an amount at least equal to the rise in the cost of living and, if so, can the Minister say whether the chartered banks are implementing this practice with respect to their retired employees and, if not, have they made any improvement in this regard since the last time there was a report thereon, as indicated on page 5180 of Hansard for May 2, 1977?


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: No. It is not government policy to impose conditions on private pension plans beyond those contained in the Pension Benefits Standards Act. I am, however, advised that the chartered banks are continuing to pursue the previously reported practice of making supplementary payments to their older pensioners with increases in the cost of living being the primary factor in the determination of the amount of the supplement.

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question number 933 could be made an order or return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Point of Order-Mr. Rynard
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary having been answered, is the House agreed that question No. 833 be made an order for return?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Epp: As of November 21, 1977, what were the purposes and descriptions of each of the eighty-five Canada Council grants funded under the "Exploration Program" and (a) how long will each project last (b) what is the total number of persons employed through each project?
Return tabled.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention one of the failings of this House, namely, the failure to deal with the starred questions. It was almost four years ago, the length of this parliament, when I first brought this to your attention. A starred question had been on the order paper for a period of just about one month.
I will put it in order of sequence. On February 27, 1975, I rose in the House of Commons to inquire about a question which was of importance to me. At that particular time a starred question of mine had been on the order paper for approximately four weeks and had not been answered. I naturally assumed that that question would be answered within a week, as was the custom when I first came to the House of Commons. As custom dictated the law of proceedings in the House, I accepted this to be so.
When I rose on this point of order, Mr. Speaker, you stated that I had raised a very interesting point but you could not find any authority which would entitle a member to an answer to a starred question within a certain period of time. What it did entitle me to, of course, was an oral answer in the House of Commons when that answer was given. As I have stated, this was not my interpretation of the starred question. Indeed, I felt it was accepted fact that starred questions were to be answered within a week, or the minister contacted that individual who had asked the question.
In the Mother of Parliaments, a member who desires an oral answer to his question must distinguish it with an asterisk, and notice of any such question must appear on the order paper
4204

April 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Rynard
two days before that on which an answer is desired, except that questions received before 2:30 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays may be put down for oral answer on the following Monday and Thursday respectively.
As a matter of historical interest, Mr. Speaker, the starred question came into being in 1910 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Prime Minister of Canada. At that time he stated that many questions are put on the floor of the House that have no interest except to the individual putting the questions, but if a member desired to have an oral answer he had only to put an asterisk to his question and it would come before the House at once. In 1910 the rules of the House provided only for written questions, but members persisted in asking oral questions and, by custom, this became a rule. The starred question was introduced in an attempt to reduce the emphasis on oral questions. Oral questions were not recognized by the rules of this House, as far as I can find out, until 1964.
In 1955 the Special Committee on Procedure sought to establish more firmly the existence of the starred question, which was then given a special place on the order paper on one day of the week. No member was allowed to have more than three starred questions on the order paper at any one time, and this is still the accepted practice. This, of course, was the situation when I first entered the House of Commons.
The very thing that has happened today is that the order paper has become so full of questions that the backlog goes far beyond the original interest of those starred questions being answered within a few days. It appears to me to be a very foolish thing, and a waste of time and printing, when one finds at the end of a parliament that hundreds of these questions remain unanswered long months after they had been placed on the order paper.
As a matter of fact, John B. Stewart, in his work on procedure in the House of Commons, offers an unique explanation for the existence of starred questions, by stating that usually the purpose-and this is very fundamental to our democracy-is to ensure that the House and the press will not remain oblivious to any horrendous information elicited about extravagance, patronage, or mismanagement by government itself. This strikes at the roots of democracy, and it is the right of the people to know.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your advice in the House and for your request, on more than one occasion, that the Special Committee on Procedure meet to deal with this matter.
I am further upset that this infringes on the rights and privileges of a new member particularly, who might have difficulty in the wording of his oral question. Further, I see no reason why the committee should repeatedly ignore the request of the Speaker who, all of us feel, has the toughest job in this House. Not only must he have the ability to think and the wisdom to guide, but his own conscience is on trial. As well, of course, as ignoring my own personal request as a member of this House on several occasions, and the refusal of the head of that committee to meet, I do not believe that this would be the wish of this government or of any member of the opposition.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I just add a few words in support of my colleague with regard to starred questions. Governments in the past have been absolutely contemptuous of members with respect to the nature of starred questions which, by tradition, practice, and ordinary decent consideration, have been earmarked for early attention by the House and could not be sloughed off as a matter to be made an order for return. The fact that starred questions exist today does not mean a thing.
I have intervened not only to support my colleague and others who want to use starred questions, but in order to support you, Mr. Speaker, in your stand, and to lay the blame where it belongs.
I am vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I want to put on record that the committee has not met once during this past session except for the formal organizational meeting. Not only in this session but in the long prior session, the government House leader has refused consistently to refer one item of House rules to that committee. This matter should be taken into account by the committee itself. The government House leader has been contemptuous of this House where there was an agreement on both sides that certain modifications should take place. The House has been run as his personal fiefdom when he is here and, when he is not, it is totally neglected.
I do not know how we are going to cut the Gordian knot. Shall we have to decide that the committee will take up matters without reference from the House and bring in their return? Something has to be done, Mr. Speaker. For the three terms that I have been vice-president of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, the present government House leader, not only in this parliament but in a previous parliament, has consistently refused to refer any particular point to the committee, with the result that nothing is done. We have this continuing abuse, and we have anomalies in practice. The duties of Mr. Speaker are made more difficult, and the functions of members are made equally difficult.
I insist again that the blame lies entirely with the government House leader who has refused to refer these matters to the committee.
(Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think we must still put the facts in their proper perspective. What the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) says is not quite accurate. As I remember very well, since I was myself a member of the Committee on Procedure and Organization, two years ago, at least three very detailed reports on parliamentary reform were prepared and discussed by this committee. The committee even sat during the summer recess. We came here to Ottawa, and what stopped the House from adopting those reports which recommended reforms and important changes was that the parties had undertaken to submit those reports to their respective caucuses. The Progressive Conservative party never did accept to ratify those important changes, which were liberal to say the least and which would have greatly helped modernize
April 6, 1978

the House and make it more efficient. This was therefore the true reason. It was not obstruction on the part of the government House leader, but the fact that the Progressive Conservative members of parliament did not come to an agreement about the changes which had been discussed and which had obtained the approval of the members of the committee. This is the real reason.
As for the suggestion of the member who spoke before the hon. member for Edmonton West concerning starred questions, I think that it is very interesting and should be examined in due time by the Committee on Procedure and Organization, but I think we should not examine only this matter but consider also a global reform. We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that during the past year and a half, or rather the past year, the main reform in this institution has been the televising of our debates. God knows that hon. members have co-operated under your able leadership to enable this reform to be made as smoothly and as efficiently as possible. Now that our debates are televised, I am convinced that an in-depth reform of parliamentary procedure will follow and that very shortly, probably in the early days of the thirty-first parliament, the Committee on Procedure and Organization will be able to study many changes to parliamentary procedures and that this will quite probably include the starred questions mentioned by the hon. member.
For our part, I want to assure the House that we are open to all changes which aim at making this parliament more modern, more efficient and more respectful of the rights of members of parliament and the population as a whole.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual day to be discussing the reform of parliament after the exhibition which occurred this afternoon during the question period. I have never seen anything to equal it since 1957 just prior to the dissolution of parliament that year, which resulted in the election taking place in June.
Mention is made of television in parliament. One of the effects of TV in parliament, which has not been beneficial, is the fact that across the country people are deeply disturbed about the noisy nature of this institution and of the degree to which those ordinary principles under which man meets man, even in disagreement, are so often disregarded.
Today brings to mind that prior to an election things do happen. 1 recall the last day of the 1957 parliament when, as far as I was concerned as opposition leader, the possibility of becoming Prime Minister was as remote as Peking in China. It was pointed out that there had been a Gallup poll which showed that all the Conservative party would be able to poll would be 34 per cent. It was then I enunciated a principle which I have followed through the years concerning polls, and that is that the only animal which knows how to give appropriate treatment to poles are dogs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Point of Order-Mr. Rynard


John George Diefenbaker: I listened to the hon. gentleman who just preceded me. I do not want to be unjust to him, but I have watched him as questions are asked or motions are made under rule 43, and he has developed a propensity and a capacity to say no without resort to any artifical instruments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Here we are facing the end of this session of parliament. There are 1,408 questions, of which only a few have been answered since April. There have been starred questions asked on the part of the hon. gentleman who has brought up this point of order, as far back as November. 1 had one here a moment ago; it was concerning prices. It was a starred question, and there is no answer to it. This is the kind of thing which disembowels this institution. It seems to me now that we are in a position which did not happen under previous governments. It did not happen under Mr. King, it did not happen under Mr. St. Laurent, and it did not happen under my leadership. We are in a position where questions have simply become an instrument for the concealment and hiding of information. Hide and conceal, and never reveal!
This is a very serious matter. This matter not only covers starred questions, but questions in general. I am beginning to wonder how parliament can continue unless there are tremendous changes made. Untrue information is given too often, and yet we are supposed to accept the answers as being the truth. I could give several examples of that. Yesterday during the course of the oral questions the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) pointed out what the western farmer would receive. It looked like a $60 million gift. Gift, nothing! This amount was contributed in considerable measure by the farmers themselves over a period of two years. Those farmers who belong to the stabilization organization have each contributed approximately $1,000, and the farmers are simply getting back what they paid in. It is no gift. There should be no concealment, or endeavour to pretend that it is otherwise.
There are other examples I can give which have come to mind, but I am not going to do so. I am simply saying that unless there are reforms in this connection, parliament will become a hollow institution. It does not have to become that. In the Mother of Parliaments in the United Kingdom, how long would they stand for the fact that there are questions on the order paper going back to October 18, 1977, unanswered, unconsidered, concealed? There are 1,400 of them here.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: This is wrong. This is unjustifiable. Mr. Speaker, this is a travesty on the institution which you and I and hon. members love.


An hon. Member:: It is contempt.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to designate it by such an inferior expression as contempt. It is the disregard of the rights of an institution that belongs to the people of Canada. That is what it is. We had a clear example today when the Prime Minister finally allowed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien)
4206

April 6, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
to speak. He said, "You", and then the minister was able to speak. If parliament comes under the control of the Prime Minister, and he has no regard for it, then this institution simply becomes a form of debating society. I only hope, believing as I do in the continuance of Speakers from parliament to parliament, that even with a change of government, the House will decide to continue you, sir, in office-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: So that you, with your high ideals of what parliament should be, of what this institution should do, will take a lead, bringing about changes which everybody admits should be made.
The point raised by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) is one which does honour to him. All I can say is that I hope his views will receive attention. Why hide information?
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt)-1 see his name all through the record. He has asked many questions. When he asks questions, the government wonders what be has in mind, fearing the worst or knowing the worst. You can see the record prolific with questions unanswered. This cannot maintain the dignity of this institution. To follow a system whereby a government can simply say "Shut up," will not allow this institution to carry out its responsibilities.
That is the reason why I make the suggestion to you, about a permanent speakership, sir, because I believe in the continuance of speakers in your position, thereby providing them with independence, which too often has been challenged over the years. Unless such a system is adopted, I fear for the future of parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-18, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act and guidelines, be read the third time and do pass.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is some five years since I first spoke in this House with regard to the subject of wage and price controls. I recall the circumstances in 1972 at the time of the budget being presented by the former member for Ottawa-Carleton. Inflation was start-

ing to show its head, following what I consider to be the most disastrous budget that hon. gentleman ever presented in so far as the country was concerned. We are still reaping the whirlwind of it, as well as the slack money policy which accompanied that budget of 1972. It was an election year budget that was full of goodies.
It is conceivable that in its desperation for what is going to be an electoral campaign in a short time, this government, bankrupt of policy and bankrupt of effective action, will come down with a budget that is going to insert into the Canadian economy long-range nefarious effects, as was done in 1972.
At that time I spoke about the need of an effective wage and price control policy. This was continued as the policy of our party. My colleague from Don Valley spoke at length on that occasion with regard to the proposal, and others of my colleagues supported it.
This was not something that was suddenly dreamed up on the eve of the election in 1974. It had been a considered policy. It had been strongly advocated by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who was then Leader of the Opposition. It was a good program as enunciated by him.
One of the problems in 1974 was that in a spirit of dishonesty, in light of subsequent events, a government spokesman decried and belaboured the wage policy. The New Democratic Party followed suit. In Ontario, and that is where it happened, they convinced the voters that they should have nothing to do with an incomes policy. The Leader of the NDP came along immediately after he had done what he thought was effective on the Conservative party policy, and came down with a prices review board, just prices. Of course, his program was soon picked apart. His followers quite rightly read into the program that it was another form of incomes policy. It was to control prices and profits, but somehow or other not wages. There is no way to control prices and profits without controlling wages and rents.
I have the record here if anyone wants to see the onslaught of inflation over the years. In 1971 the government changed the base to 100 from what it had previously been since 1963. Taking the 1971 base of 100, when we go back to 1966, it only took 83 cents to produce what in 1971 cost $1.
In 1975 there apparently was a series of events which led to the resignation of the minister of finance and, on the eve of the re-opening of parliament, the institution of a wage and price controls program that is now to terminate on April 14. The legislation today deals with that.
Let us see what the record has been since 1971. In 1971 it was 100. In 1972 it was 104.8. In 1973, after that infamous budget of 1972, it went to 112.7. In 1974 the people were still not conscious of inflation. They had not suffered enough. It went to 125, in other words 12.3 points on all items.
In 1975, it went to 138.5, another 13'/2 points. That is when the government finally acted. We had had double digit inflation for three years. It was only then that the government reversed its stand. In a little over a year the policy of controls-"zap and you are frozen", as the Prime Minister (Mr. April 6, 1978

Trudeau) was so wont to say in Ontario-became a matter of fact. He who said that the people of Canada should eschew any program of wage and price controls was the man to put it in.
A little bird in the person of a young, well-established lawyer in Ottawa circles spoke to me the other day. He gave me the scenario of what happened in September and October of 1975. The then minister of finance, Mr. Turner, finally came to his senses with regard to wage and price controls. He told the Prime Minister that there would have to be a wage and price controls program and that he, as minister of finance, was making that recommendation as of then. He was told that in no way would there be such a program. Therefore he said he could not continue as minister of finance, and wanted a transfer.


Mr. Bechard:: Who told you that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A man who knows a little more than you about it.


Albert Béchard: Speculating.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not speculating.
Members opposite should know the scenario of what brought on wage and price controls and John Turner's resignation. The story is told that he could no longer continue as minister of finance and that he wanted to go back to Justice or some other ministry that was in keeping with his talents. Very abruptly, Mr. Turner was told that he was in the ministry as minister of finance only, and could serve in no other capacity. That was the end of the road. That is a very instructive way of finding out why there was such a sudden change in policy.
Prior to October, 1975, the ministers sitting with the Prime Minister today who were ministers then, swore up and down that, no, a thousand times no, there would be no controls. Then after October 14 they were all following the former member for Rosedale, who has been appointed the new mate of the ship or, if one wants a change in command structure, the first lieutenant. The first lieutenant was then defending wage and price controls. But what a system of wage and price controls it was! It did not apply to everyone. Many price increases were allowed. Many wages were frozen. The Public Service was frozen. Wages were frozen, but prices were allowed to go up.
The price situation got so bad in British Columbia that the provincial administration of the day took its conviction into its own hands and took steps which were against the basic philosophy of the New Democratic Party, which did not favour wage and price controls. The NDP did not favour an incomes policy, as enunciated by David Lewis. But the B.C. government put in a system of price controls on foodstuffs and consumer goods, and the people became very consciously against the fact of inflation.
There is no doubt that 1974-in fact, 1973-would have been the time to bring in a program of wage and prince controls for a short time, not a protracted period of almost
Anti-Inflation Act
three years as we are now going to have. What was needed was a psychological shock to the minds of the public, and to bring to the attention of governments at all levels that this business of charging what the market would bear, passing costs on to anybody, instituting a cushion and deluding the public that inflation was not here and that it was something which could be swept under the rug, was not acceptable. People on low fixed incomes, people receiving unemployment benefits, and people who had their own savings and the savings of generations, were finding that their money was being eaten away by inflation. These people, as well as people living on savings from insurance policies, were being offered as sacrificial lambs on the altar of inflation. There was total inaction in the face of inflation.
In July of 1969 the Prime Minister appeared on television to deal with inflation as it stood then. At that time we were dealing with an inflation rate of about 5 per cent or 6 per cent, which was peanuts compared with today. We would be in a seventh heaven today if we could get inflation down to say, 5 per cent. Then later came the statement that the government had wrestled inflation to the ground. What nonsense! The man was completely deluding the Canadian public. As a lawyer I would almost say that he was crassly ignorant or grossly negligent in saying that to the Canadian public, and then instituting programs such as indexing of old age pensions and civil service pensions. Those measures were designed as a temporary cushion. They were palliatives, but inflation was not cured. The government did nothing about curing inflation.
In 1972 we saw full indexing of old age security, public service pensions, RCMP pensions and, after a certain point, armed services superannuation. That was when we had the cheap money policy. There was an increase in monetary supply.
I invite hon. members to read the speech made last Monday by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I invite the public to read that speech. It was a long speech, but it covered chapter after chapter of inaction. It was an exhaustive review of bad economic policy and bad economic actions by this government. However, from 1972 on we had those palliatives.
It was almost like telling someone, "Yes, we realize that you have rotten teeth, that you need some work on the roots of some of your teeth and that they hurt," and then offering some aspirin or some other type of medication. It was like telling that person to take two tablets a day to relieve the pain, that the prescription could be renewed and that if the pain remained, the dosage could be increased. Nothing was said about getting to the root cause of the problem, the decay in the roots of the teeth. In the same way, no one on the government side looked to the cause of the decay in the economy.
How on earth can an administration continue to support double digit inflation and ever-increasing unemployment? In those days half a million people were unemployed, and there were all-party debates here about that. The New Democratic Party put resolution after resolution on the order paper. There were questions, debates, motions, and amendments from all

April 6, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
parties on the opposition side. Government ministers did express some concern about having 500,000 unemployed when inflation was at the level of 138 to 148.9 in 1976. However, where are we today?
After two and a half years of wage and price controls we still have indexation. There has been an increase in the frequency of indexation, and now there are one million unemployed. Where are we with regard to inflation? In January of 1978 it had reached 167.8. In other words, compared with the dollar of 1971, seven years ago-and seven years is a short time in the economic life of the country-it now costs two thirds more to buy the same quantity of goods and services. We wonder why people outside this country are concerned about the falling value of the Canadian dollar. There is the answer, Mr. Speaker. Our Canadian dollar is a true reflection of the economic performance in this country during the last decade.
If my good friend, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton), would like to take a look at the tables in the Bank of Canada's monthly review at page 62, I would invite him to read for his edification and education something that he should know. I am sure that his wife tells him that in the past decade it has cost 78 per cent more to buy $1 worth of goods and services. Does the hon. member pretend that that is the right conduct of the economic affairs of this country? What does he think will have to be the course of action over the next decade if that was the performance over the last one? If you take another 68 per cent or 78 per cent increase on this total, in other words, if you take 78 per cent of 178 per cent, as the hon. gentleman knows, we will have an increase of 100 per cent, so we will get 350 per cent. That is the prospect.
I can put on the record the performance of all governments in the past decades and the percentage they take of the GNP in the inflated figures, based upon the regressive tax system we have. By 1984, George Orwell's Big Brother will have nothing at all on government, as government will take more than 54 per cent of the GNP.


Mr. Railton:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will certainly accept one from that hon. member.


Samuel Victor Railton: I want to thank the hon. member for allowing me to put a question to him. Does he agree with the statement in the past year made by the vice president of the Toronto Dominion Bank about Canada's borrowing power and the soundness of the economy, which will increase progressively because of our GNP increase over the next 15 or 20 years at a steady rate of between 4 per cent and 5 per cent, and that we have nothing to fear because we have a deficit at this time in the economy? That is what he stated. Does the hon. member agree with it?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: First let me say that I would hope the hon. gentleman has a true appreciation of what was said by the president of the Toronto Dominion Bank, and second, I would say that I do not agree with that statement because it was made on the basis of past records. My statements are made now when the Canadian government has difficulty borrowing. Does the hon. member know what was the record of that $750 million bond issue in New York which fizzled out? It was a real fizzle.


An hon. Member:: It was sold out.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, at discount prices. The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) shrugs his shoulders. Of course, you can always sell at fire-sale prices. The hon. member knows very well that the Canadian government has to report not only the initial credits in the consortium of Canadian banks on its foreign exchange account and then arrange for a credit, but is having to pay increased rates at 1 per cent more, and this will have to be paid. It is all part and parcel of consumption by the government. I do not agree with what was said because I do not agree with the premises put forward by the hon. member for Welland as quoted by the hon. gentleman, and I am not too sure of the accuracy of his quotation.
I want to come back to the point that here we are being asked to make some changes in the legislation. I welcome some of them, and one in particular in section 47 and 48 dealing with matters which I raised in committee with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), the director of the Anti-Inflation Board, and the administrator. That was a point that no one seemed to notice in the initial instance, but then it was drawn to my attention by one very erudite gentleman who asked; "Have you provided for anything to eliminate the spring-back effect of multiple year contracts?" If you read your Anti-Inflation Act, you will find that there is nothing in that legislation which says that any roll-back ordered by the Anti-Inflation Board or by the administrator would serve as a modification of the contract.
There had to be an amendment, and that is true in the legal sense, because it was clearly the intention indicated by a number of people that if there were in existence unexpired multiple year contracts at the time of the expiry of the anti-inflation legislation, when the controls came off not only would any full year's provision in the contract be applicable, but any amount in the roll-back would immediately spring up and be due to the workers under the collective agreement. That would make utter nonsense of any AIB roll-back or any order by the administrator. That is provided for in section 48, and I am glad to see it there. There are also provisions in section 47 specifying that notwithstanding any order of the AIB or the administrator, when the controls came off, the wage rates provided for in the contract would become binding, and naturally there would be considerable increases in the arrears.
April 6, 1978

The study of this bill in committee provided a classic example of how a very complicated subject cannot get adequate treatment. In the committee structure, an hon. member is given ten minutes. A committee session consists of approximately 80 to 85 minutes. In the first round, members are given ten minutes, and in the second round they are given five minutes. That may continue on, but there were only three sessions on this matter. The minister was not very, very forthcoming. He would not give information. The net result is that what you are attempting to find out in committee is withheld. There was pressure, and then the study and the legislation were terminated.
As a matter of fact, perhaps this is the bill the Minister of Finance refused to come back to committee with, unless certain things happened in the House. I was not present for that, but indeed it is a strange attitude to exhibit. I have no apology to make, and I reject any suggestions that speeches made by myself and my colleagues will take some time. We are here for the purposes of making a review. I am taking my allotted time. I was not involved in the committee, so I will canvass the subject as I see it.
I disagreed with the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board concerning a particular case which came to my attention. There was an exchange of correspondence. The anti-inflation program does a grave disservice to a firm which is operated efficiently. I am referring to a particular trucking firm in western Canada. That firm increased its profits beyond those of the base year, as defined by the Anti-Inflation Board. It was not done by reason of any increase in rates. It was done by re-organization in certain parts, and greater efficiency.
When the AIB examined the profits of this company, it indicated that they were over 95 per cent of the base year or the compliance period. Therefore, the board indicated that there would have to be a return of the excess profits to the patrons. That is totally impractical and impossible, unless the company reduced its present rates thereby putting out of business other smaller competitors. If that occurred, of course it would pick up more business, and a self-defeating cycle would occur. Instead, the company proposed to take the surplus profits and invest them in better capital facilities, rather than distributing them as dividends or for the payment of higher executive salaries. I protested this. There was no way this could be accepted by the board as an economic principle.
I received a letter dated September 30, 1977, from the Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board. In part it reads as follows:
I agree with your statement that the program "in many ways" discourages attempts by management and employees to improve efficiency in that, by and large, we require the benefits from such actions to be passed on to the marketplace. Indeed, it is difficult for me to imagine an anti-inflation program which did not require such a contribution from the more efficient firms. At the same time, it must be recognized that this policy only impacts on the companies that are operating close to their target profit levels.
It is extraordinarily difficult to justify that the achievers, either through improvement in management or performance by employees, must be penalized. This is what happened
Anti-Inflation Act
precisely in this particular case. The case is under review before the administrator, and I trust we will see a reversal of the AIB decision.
Before finishing, I should like to indicate that the other day I heard a very intriguing radio program on the CBC. Some time in the past there was quite an uproar in the media when the salary figure of the president of Canadian Pacific Railway was published. It had been obtained in Washington. Of course it was in the $300,000 range. People booed and hawed. They made various asinine and inane comments about it, not realizing that most of it goes toward income tax.
A former member of the press gallery, who is now stationed in Washington, went to the appropriate government agency, and under their right to know legislation, he was able to unearth the exact salary figures of leaders in the Canadian labour movement who occupy executive positions in international unions. The results were very interesting. I will not refer to any particular example, but some of these people were earning over $100,000. I should like to hear the comments of the hon. members of the New Democratic Party, particularly those who feel anyone earning over $15,000 is somehow robbing his employer. What about these people?
If it is conceivable and correct that the salaries of public officers, such as of the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, and of Your Honour, shall be public knowledge, then the law should apply to everyone. We have a right to know. There is a great deal being said about that. The United States does not seem to be suffering from its right to know legislation. Under that legislation, corporations must file the salaries and allowances of their corporate officers, or the schedule of salaries of executive officers and directors must be filed with the Security Exchange Commission. One can get at that information in the United States, but in Canada it is impossible to do that. Similar legislation with regard to labour unions, because they are executives of major economic units, is in force in the United States. They are required to file the exact figure of their salaries, down to the last dollar and cent.
I think it is only fair, and it is my personal suggestion that if elected officials must post their salaries, as do certain other officers and directors of public companies, then it is right and just that those people in private corporations who are officers and directors, and executives of labour unions, should file their incomes. It should be out in the open where everyone will know, and no one can come along and point to business leaders and comment adversely about their salaries while at the same time they are drawing down the same high salary or perhaps more.
On that, Mr. Speaker, I will now draw my remarks to a close.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-18, a legislation to amend the Anti-Inflation Act. Inflation has become a real psychosis over the last ten

April 6, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
years and remains a major barrier to the realization of our collective and individual aims.
In 1975, Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing Bill C-73 on price controls, I stated that the restraint measures the government intended to take did not strike at the roots of the problem. Indeed, controlling the salaries of the workers and the weak and letting the brass do as they wished was no solution and changed absolutely nothing to rising inflation. I would now add that the efforts that were being planned for the three following years would not solve the problem.
Mr. Speaker, today, after three years of implementing the Anti-Inflation Act, the government is out of breath in every field, and especially with regard to inflation and unemployment problems. It admits candidly that it is incapable of throttling rising prices and unemployment. When the price and wages control program was introduced, the board was given the task of reducing inflation to 6 per cent over a two-year period. Unfortunately, the system created a majority of dissatisfied people and much dissatisfaction and we are grappling with a 9.5 per cent inflation today. That is as unacceptable as the current rate of unemployment. Mr. Speaker, we not that the steps taken by the government until now, that is limiting government expenditures, controlling and watching prices as well as salaries, are precisely that, just steps. It is high time we have a cohesive policy, and over-all policy requiring decisive leadership. It is all too easy to blame inflation on unions and workers.
The inflation we know in Canada is not inflation created just for lack of demand as some would have us believe: it is monetary inflation stemming from the level of prices and interest rates. It is therefore a monetary problem. Let us not forget that the production of goods and the production of money, that is the issuing of credit, are the fruit of two entirely different processes. The price mechanism is related directly to the monetary system. Mr. Speaker, the chartered banks can issue up to 16 times the credit they have in real reserves; they have a direct influence on the purchasing power of consumers. High interest rates mean additional costs for the producers who pass them on in their prices. The consumer who resorts to credit to acquire goods and services will pay in the price of the products he buys a portion of the interest of the producer, in addition to his own interest on the capital.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, those who close their eyes on the impact of interest rates bury their heads in the sand, as the government is doing. The actions of the government relating to inflation controls were only reactions of defence. They came to grips with secondary effects rather than with the roots of the problem.
The government is unable to put before us a real aggressive policy to control inflation and unemployment. Does this mean that it has already surrendered to the financial power of chartered banks and large companies? We often hear in government circles that our inflation comes from external

causes and that it is worldwide. I would like to remind you that the most industrialized countries in Europe, such as Germany and Switzerland, have the lowest inflation rates. The continuous rise in the cost of energy and food we experience will only be amplified by the drop in the value of our dollar, because we import many of our products in large quantities.
In my view, the decline of the dollar is caused by the lack of confidence of financial circles and international bankers in our economy and by the total lack of leadership to ensure its recovery. Inflation which continues and will continue to plague us can be attributed to a large degree to past mistakes by the monetary and fiscal authorities. And, unfortunately, the longer inflation goes on the more complex become the factors creating it.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the government when they refuse to end the controls abruptly. We need a decontrol process which will not bring back the staggering rise in prices, but let ine add that these decontrol measures as proposed by this government will still create a great deal of frustration because we cannot endlessly count on such simple measures to stop the decline in purchasing power. To get to the root of the evil, what will be needed is a consensus of the three main components of our economy, that is management, labour and the government. I believe it is already generally recognized that this is a step toward a more consistent policy which would not favour one group at the expense of the other. This action has had good results in Germany and other European countries. However, more than a consensus among the three groups, the government will have to seriously consider revamping the present monetary system, where most of the credit power rests with the chartered banks. We all recall that in 1976-77, interest rates offered on savings accounts decreased fairly substantially and that despite this trend financial and banking institutions continued to charge interest rates of 13'/2 per cent or more.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot stabilize our rate of inflation by relying on measures such as anti-inflation controls, which affect only some facets of the economy such as salary increases and other secondary problems, while the brass continue on their merry way. I therefore ask the government that, in submitting the first phases of its decontrol program, it also propose a genuine policy aimed at reversing inflation and unemployment, which, in my opinion, are causing more harm than the problem of national unity.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope to see the government exercise more control over chartered banks, especially, of course, over the Bank of Canada, which is the foremost money and credit institution, so that it adopts a credit policy in line with the harmonious development of the Canadian economy. Such a credit philosophy, if I can use those words, will, in my view, stabilize the purchasing power of consumers. I therefore implore the government to consider these suggestions very seriously.
April 6, 1978


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, we in this party are going to oppose Bill C-18 because it continues the inequities of the Anti-Inflation Act and, instead of ending in April, it is really going to continue until January 1, 1979.
I want to start by looking at what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had to say in his New Year's interview with Mr. Bruce Phillips of CTV. He was asked by Mr. Phillips how he would defend his economic record. When Mr. Phillips mentioned 9.1 per cent inflation for the last 12 months-as of that date-the Prime Minister said it was unfair to look at the year-to-year change in the consumer price index without reference to the over-all trend of inflation during controls. He went on to say, and I quote from the transcript:
We are still making the assertion that by the end of the three-year control period the inflation rate will have been brought down from the almost 12 per cent it was, to 6 per cent.
Again quoting from the transcript, a few moments later the Prime Minister said:
... that on the over-all three-year average we're going to be on target.
The Prime Minister was wrong both in his view of recent Canadian economic history and in his forecast.
First, from the historical point of view, inflation was not almost 12 per cent when controls were announced in October, 1975, but 10.6 per cent.
The target was not 6 per cent but 4 per cent at the end of the three-year controls program. As for his forecast of getting 4 per cent this year, every economist I know of, in or out of government, forecasts that we will be looking to an inflation rate of 8 per cent for 1978. Given the recent increases in interest rates it is likely to average at least 8 per cent, and everybody knows that it is now about 9.5 per cent as measured by the consumer price index.
We all know that, on top of this, the unemployment rate this year will be at least 8 per cent, and if discouraged workers were counted accurately by Statistics Canada, there would be an average of 1-1/4 million workers unemployed, or 1,600,000 during 1978.
In several speeches I made when the Hon. John Turner was minister of finance-and our party has been consistent in this-I told the government that inflation cannot be controlled by deliberately creating more unemployment.
The current economic wisdom at the centre of the Liberal national economic policy was that expansionary policies would push up the cost of living, or the inflation rate. In our opinion, this is a fundamental error, with very bad results for the whole of this country but chiefly for low income areas of unstable employment. I think of Quebec and parts of Atlantic Canada such as my own, regions of northern New Brunswick, and most of Newfoundland.
The New Democratic Party was accused, both by Mr. Turner and Mr. Donald Macdonald, when each was minister
Anti-Inflation Act
of finance, of not caring about inflation. We retaliated by saying they were hurting individuals, regions, and national unity by their policy of waging the fight against inflation on the backs of the unemployed.
Just recently Mr. Ralph Sultan, chief economist of the Royal Bank of Canada, who is no wild eyed radical, said:
The current thinking is that expansionary policies would be inflationary. This may be one of our fundamental errors. Inflation seems built into our economy regardless of our growth rate.
The Prime Minister's economic policy for the last three or four years has been based upon this notion which is prepared to see unemployment rise as a trade-off for less inflation. Between 1975 and 1977 this policy was shown to be a bankrupt one, and 1978 will prove it to be even more so. Economic history attests that in Canada and other countries you cannot fight inflation on the backs of the unemployed and low income workers. It is not only a morally wrong policy but an economically bad one. That I repeat, has been shown in this country at the present time, and will be shown even more during 1978.
The Prime Minister pointed with pride in his recent address to the Economic Club of New York to the fact that Canada had created 280,000 new jobs between February, 1977, and February, 1978, "well above our historical average of 250,000 jobs each year." That is fair enough-if we do not seek the details of how many of these were permanent jobs. In any case, what he forgot to mention was that while jobs increased by 280,000 the demand for jobs rose by 362,000, leaving a record of 1,007,000 Canadians unemployed in February, 1978. Statistics Canada shows that there were only a little over 32,000 vacancies for permanent jobs in all of Canada during the same month. The Prime Minister conveniently did not mention that the size of the unemployed labour force in Canada had almost doubled since 1974, the year of the last election.
As high unemployment has continued there has been a substantial increase in the number of long term unemployed. The definition of long term unemployed that Statistics Canada uses is "unemployed for over 14 weeks". The number of people unemployed for 14 weeks and over averaged 247,000 in 1976, rising to an average of 302,000 in 1977.
In New York the Prime Minister tried to hide his government's miserable mismanagement of the economy since the last election by a curious selection of reference years such as 1964-when he was not Prime Minister-to 1975. He has done the same thing in the question period during this week. He does not dare run the coming election on his government's performance in the last four years, so he retreats to decade figures to try to hide from the Canadian people how poorly the Canadian economy has been managed over the last several years. This time, however, he will not fool the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister must have sounded unconvincing even to the Liberal faithful when they gathered in Ottawa in March, when he tried to tell them that Canada is a healthy country in a difficult world. Using unemployment as the chief yardstick of economic sickness, Canada has not fared well. The following are recent figures compiled by the International
4212

April 6, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
Labour Organization in Geneva and the Montreal Gazette. These figures were published in the Montreal Gazette on Wednesday, February 8, 1978, on page 2. The countries with less than 4 per cent unemployment are: Switzerland under 1 per cent; Sweden 1.8 per cent; Japan 2 per cent; Austria 2 per cent; Norway 2 per cent; Israel 3.5 per cent; West Germany 4.2 per cent. Countries with unemployment between 5 and 7 per cent are as follows: France 5 per cent; the Netherlands 5.3 per cent; Australia 5 per cent; Britain 6 per cent; United States 6.3 per cent; Italy 6.6 per cent; Finland 6 per cent; New Zealand 6 per cent. Countries with unemployment over 7 per cent are as follows: Denmark 7.1 per cent; Canada 8.5 per cent (at that time); Belgium 9.5 per cent; Greece 9.5 per cent, and Ireland 12 per cent.
Canada has in recent years one of the worst managed economies in the western world, and I could add the cost of living figures to go along with the unemployment statistics to show that. Amongst the western world countries, Canada has one of the most consistently high unemployment rates over the last three years. I would love to debate the Prime Minister's economic record during the coming election campaign, not the record of the government during the last ten years, but the record during the last four years since the last election campaign.
The Liberals are going to be fooled if they think that because of the Gallup polls which show them ahead because of the national unity issue, because the people in Quebec are uptight and so on, English speaking Canada will fall for that kind of thing and not see the economic mess that has been perpetrated by the stupid policies of this government in the last four years, and especially in the last three years.
Money policy or monetary policy was fairly tight in 1977 and was tightened even further by the Bank of Canada's two increases in its discount rate, which is the rate it charges to the banks that borrow from it, to 8.5 per cent from 6.7 per cent in March. These interest rate rises have occurred despite the fact that the Canadian economy is weak, a weakness that is widely attributed to the existence of deficient domestic demand for investment goods and consumer goods. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, imposing even higher interest rates on an economy already hampered by restrictive national and provincial fiscal policies will only serve to dampen business investment and consumer spending further. This again is another bleak chapter in the bankrupt economic policy which has been followed by this government.
For the first time since the Central bank adopted the policy in 1975 interest rates have been increased with no pretense that the change was needed to keep the supply of money growing within the chosen target range. In fact, the latest increase in the bank rate will probably make the money supply grow slower than the Bank of Canada says it needs to grow for the good of the economy. This means that interest rates are going higher than they should.

The rise in the bank rate immediately caused an increase in the prime rate charged by the ordinary banks, in other words, the interest rate which they charge to large corporations for short term loans. And with the prime rate up to 9.25 per cent, other interest rates will rise too. This can be expected to make it less attractive to build homes or to get business loans in order to improve one's business, or for consumers to buy durable goods such as automobiles, etc. Interest rates for loans such as these will be higher. The increases are far from over. They may be able to hold them in line until election time, but I doubt it because as I see it there are higher interest rates in the offing. These trends will all tend to hold the economy back at the very time when it needs to grow faster to cut down on unemployment. We are all familiar with the figure that it is over 1 million people. If you count the discouraged people who cannot get jobs and those who have given up looking for jobs and are therefore not counted statistically amongst the unemployed, the figure is at least 1.4 million people in Canada without jobs.
But Mr. Gerald Bouey, the governor of the Bank of Canada, admitted as he raised the interest rate, that the bank, and I quote him, "gives high priority in its conduct of monetary policy to the external value of the Canadian dollar." When is this government going to learn the lessons of the economic history of this country? It is repeating the same errors of the early 1960's.
Ottawa's actions of accommodating and encouraging higher interest rates in Canada at this time are explained on the basis that interest rate rises in Canada are inevitable because of interest rate pressures in the United States. Thus this government has chosen to defend the Canadian dollar at the cost of an even more sluggish economy. That means, in every day words, at the cost of more unemployment and at the cost of higher inflation. As Mr. Donner, a Toronto economist, said in the Globe and Mail yesterday "this risk is not worth taking, and Ottawa has, once again, chosen to emphasize the wrong priority. Ottawa has linked Canada's economic prestige to a particular international price for the Canadian dollar, and by intervening with tighter monetary measures in exacerbating the real No. 1 problem, which is not the declining dollar, but high unemployment."
As Clarence Barber, professor of economics at the University of Manitoba, has recently noted, the governor of the Bank of Canada claims to have a policy of gradually reducing the rate of inflation. "In fact, the evidence suggests that it has a policy of gradually increasing the rate of unemployment."
Since the governor embraced his monetarist creed-and for those who are not cognizant with the term "monetarist creed", it means the money supply aggregates are much more important than the interest rates and one does not intervene in the economy. The governor of the Bank of Canada embraced this very much since 1975. Now he has to get off that kick of Professor Milton Freidman and others. I repeat that the governor embraced his monetarist creed in the late summer of 1975, and Canada's unemployment has risen from 7 to 8.3 per cent. As Professor Barber says, and I am still quoting, "that
April 6, 1978

takes some doing when the U.S. economy is recovering and its unemployment rate is falling." Meanwhile, the new wage and price controls policy appears to have had little effect on the rate of inflation. That is a serious warning from Professor Barber.
The American economy is showing a decrease in unemployment and a decrease or a holding the line of inflation. When our economy should be moving up and our exports should be increasing, what do we get? We get increasing unemployment and higher interest rates that will further increase unemployment and the cost of living.
If we look two years ahead or more, this country will be in an even more serious condition than at the present time. I defy anyone to say that is gloom and doom. What we are going to get willy-nilly is the continuance of the policies of the past three years by this government which have made this country so badly off, both nationally and internationally, and have caused so much suffering to the people of this country.
This government's major thrust since October, 1975, when it introduced the anti-inflation legislation, has been to fight the cost of living or inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, by increasing unemployment. It is helping to convince many, as Karl Marx pointed out in the nineteenth century, that, in order to succeed, capitalism needs a "reserve army" of the unemployed. This time the major part of the army is young adults and housewives whose incomes for family well-being are desperately needed by at least half of Canadian families.
The record of this government for the past three or four years in its economic mismanagement of this country defies description. To continue essentially until January 1, 1979, with this present anti-inflation program which has not stopped price increases except in a marginal way, and in the past year especially has attacked the personal disposable income and wages of the ordinary people of this country, is a sad state of affairs, for a party to go to the nation with at such a time with such a program. They will try to hide behind the flag of national unity. This time those living in regions of high unemployment, and suffering desperately as a result of it, are not going to be fooled.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, we are now debating the demise of the government's anti-inflation program. Inflation has gone from 10.5 to 9.5 per cent, not much to show for almost three years. The Anti-Inflation Board will carry on for at least another 12 months.
I would like to speak today on a few of the elements in the inflationary process and the fact that other and more pressing problems are weighing down on us. With the Canadian dollar at a 45-year low, the American dollar collapsing on the world markets with its enormous American trade deficit, the Russian superiority in arms and their ability to control western oil through their successes in the Horn of Africa, along with Iraq and Libya, this means that Canada and the western world are in a rather grim financial situation. The value of oil has been a
Message from the Senate
factor in rising inflation. Inflation grew out of the oil crisis in 1973.
I would like to deal first with the Prime Minister's desire to have the Anti-Inflation Board grafted on to the Economic Council of Canada. There is a certain relationship in that one of the Council's jobs has been to give advice on how to avoid inflation. But the move does seem to pose great problems for the Economic Council if it is to have a function to point the way to the government of often unpleasant political truths. Will it not lose a great deal of value if it only becomes the mechanism for deflecting criticisms that rightly belong on the government's own shoulders?
One cannot quarrel with the idea of a general report and surveillance of inflationary processes. The problem will begin when the organization has to do what the Prime Minister suggests, and I quote:
-the surveillance of those particular cases of increase in prices, wages or other incomes which constitute threats to the national economic objective.
There does not seem to be any way in which the council can stay out of public controversy over its views on price and wage amendments. What is the government doing? It surely seems to be unloading on the Council the government's responsibility for the problems of inflation and it will almost certainly lose its role as an independent economic critic.
Obviously it is not going to develop new ties with organized labour or provincial governments. If the Economic Council is going to be involved in economic debate, there is substantial evidence that it would be better not to involve the Council. With such a move it will make the Council much less important in the future, and much more suspect to government direction. In the final analysis, the Council was set up to point the way in a non-political manner as the best advice for the government in dealing with economic problems.
Obviously the government's plan and the oft-stated hope that inflation would fall to 6 per cent by this year are purely a mythical mirage and a political deception. The announcement yesterday that the Bank of Canada's lending rate was up to 8.5 per cent, with two raises within the past month, indicate that the government is in serious difficulty. It was necessary to arrange an increase on its stand-by credit from $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) announced that he had to draw $750 million to bolster Canada's foreign exchange reserves. Furthermore, the government lost $500 million through intervention in the foreign markets during March through interventions aimed at supporting the Canadian dollar, although the minister keeps saying that the Canadian dollar is floating. What about the inflows-


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have
80033-S4y2

April 6, 1978
Private Bills
passed Bill S-10, an Act respecting The Royal Canadian Legion, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Pensions-Requested amendment to legislation to provide pensions at age 60 despite marital status; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Health and Welfare- Grants to Planned Parenthood Federation; the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae)-Energy-Rationing of supplies-Government position.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be unanimous consent to proceed with consideration of Bill C-1001 reported to us this afternoon and to give it third reading during the next hour. I think that the parties have brief comments to make on the matter and this would enable the member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) to proceed with consideration of motion No. 50. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that Bill C-1001 with all its amendments be reported as is and that we proceed immediately with the third reading in the shortest possible time before the end of this hour and afterwards, if time allows hopefully that we proceed with the consideration of motion No. 50 standing in the name of the member for Brandon-Souris.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has agreed to allow his motion to stand and to allow Bill C-1001 to proceed. My understanding is that it will be allowed to proceed prior to the motion in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I think that was the essence of the agreement. I think the understanding arose from a commitment on the part of members of the New Democratic Party. I do not know if there is any time limitation, but I understand that there will be brief
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
remarks. I understand that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has agreed to let his motion stand and that it will proceed following the conclusion of debate on Bill C-1001.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we agree to the proposal that we now take up the report stage and third reading of Bill C-1001, and after that move on to the motion in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). I do not think there is any ironclad agreement about the length of time to be spent on Bill C-1001, but the intention is that it be dealt with quickly.


Léonel Beaudoin: We agree, Mr. Speaker, with the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There seems to be unanimous consent. Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BELL CANADA
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East) moved: that Bill C-1001, respecting Bell Canada, as reported (with amendents) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Mr.   O'Connell moved@: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members of the House for giving unanimous consent to proceed today to the final stages of this bill. That unanimous consent is very much appreciated by me as the sponsor of the bill, and I know also by the seconder of the bill. We do appreciate this cooperation.
I would like to thank hon. members of the House for the consideration they have given the bill over the past 14 months. I would also like to express my appreciation for the expeditious work this morning of the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. That committee is heavily charged with other important legislation, and its members did undertake to facilitate the consideration of this bill and particularly the amendments to this bill this morning, so that once again there has been a very cooperative attitude in the House, which is very much appreciated.
April 6, 1978

Circulated amongst us is the amended version of Bill C-1001. It incorporates the changes made this morning in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I would like to refer very briefly to those changes. They can be found in a pledge made by me as sponsor of the bill in the debates of March 16 at pages 3846 and 3847 of Hansard. They, and they only, are the changes which were incorporated in this printed version this morning in the standing committee.
Those three changes are these: Former clause 2 has been amended in that former sections 5.2 and 5.3 have been entirely deleted from the new version of the bill. Former clause 4 which was found on page 8 of the bill has been entirely removed from the new bill. Finally, two words have been deleted from former clause 6 at line 6 of page 9. Those changes are in exact accord with the commitments made in my statement of March 16 which are recorded in Hansard at the pages to which I have referred, and which were made in the final stages of second reading debate. As I pointed out, no changes other than these have been made in the bill.
Just to remind the House again, the effect of the amendments are also as recorded in Hansard for March 16, and I will refer to them very briefly. The effect of the changes is to withdraw from the bill the request for a letters patent procedure for any possible future changes and the request for a negative resolution procedure in the House or in parliament as a future means of amending Bell Canada's basic charter.
Furthermore, the amendments would also withdraw the request formerly made for certain ancillary powers sought through the application to Bell Canada's charter of section 16 of the Canada Corporations Act.
Finally, through the deletion of the two words I mentioned the amendment would withdraw the request in this bill that future individual common stock issues not require CRTC approval. The effect of this latter change would be that future capital stock issues would require CRTC approval.
These are the important amendments made to this important private bill. What remains is an authorization of a new and higher level of capital for Bell Canada, and certain provisions to give Bell Canada a greater financial flexibility in capital stock. Those are the changes, and I believe they are such that the bill will now commend itself to hon. members of the House.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-1001, dealing with Bell Canada and as amended by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, is acceptable to the New Democratic Party. Hon. members will recall that when this bill was first introduced in the Senate as Bill S-2, we objected to its passage in its original form because we felt that it would reduce parliamentary scrutiny of this monopoly telephone company. If the bill had passed unamended, it would have created a company which would have come
Bell Canada
under the Canada Corporations Act and therefore treated as any other corporation in Canada. Bell, by virtue of being a monopoly, should not be treated as any other corporation.
The bill would have allowed Bell Canada to expand and invest in non-telecommunication industries, which was prohibited by this parliament when it first granted Bell its act of incorporation. We felt that, if that was allowed, telephone subscribers would receive poorer service since their subscriber fees would be funneled off into non-related telecommunication undertakings by Bell Canada.
Another part of the bill to which we objected was the procedure of letters patent whereby Bell could change its act of incorporation to a negative resolution procedure, which in effect would have curtailed debate in the House on Bell's performance and the implications of any such changes. As well, we objected to removing CRTC scrutiny of the issuance of stock. Anyone who reads the debates of this Chamber will realize it was primarily the objection of the NDP that has brought about these amendments. We have had assistance from our friends in the Creditiste Party on occasion, and we appreciate that, but not one Liberal or Conservative member, other than the sponsor of the bill, rose in objection to these provisions in the bill which we say would have jeopardized telephone service and would have lessened parliament's scrutiny over this company.
Indeed, I think it is a sad chapter in the history of this parliament that the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) and her department, as well as the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and CRTC, did not come forward with a public statement on what they thought the implications of the passage of this unamended bill would be on Bell Canada and its subscribers. Indeed, the length of this debate on Bill C-1001 almost reached the point of 1,001 speeches, because it was only through the NDP consistently putting up members during private members' hour every second Thursday that we were able to prolong debate on this bill and prevent its passage in original form until Bell Canada decided to make some compromises and withdraw the offending section of the bill. It took Bell a long time, in my opinion, to come to its senses, and indeed it is in the dying days of this parliament that it is finally getting in the bill its capitalization increase which still remains.
One of the issues on which we in this party have been harping again and again, not only before regulatory agencies but in this chamber, is the level of service that Bell is providing to its subscribers, which we say can be dramatically improved in terms of Bell's priorities, on where it is placing its priorities, and what it is doing with the rate increases it is receiving from the public. We have harped on the lack of improvement in the rural service over the years, and I think we have made an impression on Bell Canada officials that they have an obligation to rural subscribers to improve service so that we no longer have the norm of ten people per party line but have brought it down to more reasonable levels of four or

April 6, 1978
Bell Canada
two parties on a telephone line. As I say, we have made some progress in this respect.
I do not want to prolong this debate. I have spoken on this issue many times in the House, and anyone can look at the Hansard record to see the reasons why we objected to the bill. I think the bill is improved because of the amendments we have been able to win out of Bell Canada, and I hope that in the future when Bell Canada comes before the House to advocate changes in its act of incorporation, we, as members of parliament, will again have the opportunity to hold up to public scrutiny the activities and performance of Bell Canada, as is surely our right as members elected by constituents who are subscribers to this company.
Our whole aim during this debate is to maximize service to telephone subscribers, to pressure Bell Canada to live up to its responsibilities, and to keep Bell Canada involved in what its act of incorporation charges it to be involved with, that is, telephone service to the best of its ability for its subscribers at the most reasonable cost. We have won this battle here in the House of Commons. There is yet the battle before the regulatory agencies on rate increases which my colleagues and I will continue to fight in the interests of subscribers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I run the risk of being accused of just giving in public a bouquet I could give to my hon. friends in private, but I do not feel I should let this moment pass without paying a tribute to the tremendous piece of work that has been done on this legislation by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and other members of this caucus. I could say, of course, that it is a demonstration of what can be done by hard work in parliament.
I would also like to commend the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) on his flexibility and his willingness to advocate that certain changes be made. At any rate, the story does have a happy ending although, as my friend has said, there are battles to be won in other places. But I did feel that I should not let this moment pass without paying this tribute to a number of my colleagues, and especially to my friend, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I think there was unanimous consent prior to this day that the next item, which is item No. 2, shall stand.
We will next proceed to Motion No. 50 in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by Hay Associates Ltd., management consultants, concerning the management of the Post Office Department, together with a list of the recommendations implemented by the department.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion first came up for consideration of the House on December 7 last. It is a very simple motion which should have received the approval of the government at that time.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), rather than approving a motion of this kind, which was an attempt to get information to deal with the growing malaise in the Post Office Department, said that it is a confidential report. Perhaps I should quote him. He said:
These are internal working documents of a confidential nature. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Then the motion was transferred for debate. I do not want to speak at length this afternoon because I hope that the matter will come to a vote.
Since great concern has been increasing in recent days regarding the problems of the Post Office, I would think hon. members would only be too happy to have access to information which would provide some answers in coming to grips with these problems. Certainly this opinion has been expressed almost every day in questions put from all sides of the House. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agrees that something has to be done.
There was a great celebration today, because of the significant anniversary of the Prime Minister becoming leader of the Liberal party ten years ago. During the question period it was demonstrated that the right hon. member has not been too accurate in some of his positions, statements, and actions over the intervening ten years. In 1973, when a government backbencher asked a question of the Prime Minister arising from the continuing long saga of the Post Office horror story, he answered briefly and succinctly by saying "Everybody knows postal service is lousy". He was dead accurate in his assessment of the situation. Obviously action must be taken. Before action can be taken, it must be based upon informed opinion.
The Hay report, which was produced at considerable expense to Canadian taxpayers, goes back to December of 1975. It was a report on major organizational problems in the Post Office Department. It was made up by departmental officials, in cooperation with members of the task force from the Treasury Board, which has a responsibility for administrative matters in the Post Office. It was compiled at great cost from a series of conferences, interviews, and consultations with members of the Post Office from all parts of the country. It is
April 6, 1978

an excellent, useful, and helpful document in coming to grips with these problems. Why should the government regard a public document of this kind as confidential? It is beyond my understanding. Surely the government must be interested in resolving the problems of the Post Office. That department will play a major role in the events which are not too far ahead. It is typical of an almost paranoid government to be concerned about confidentiality and secrecy. In fact, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has been promoting successfully a piece of legislation on freedom of information. I trust the matter will come to vote today.
On the basis of the general concern which has been expressed for a long time, and which has grown in intensity in recent months as the problems become more critical, I hope we will receive the approval of hon. members for the tabling of this document, so that we will have access to its valuable information, and in turn begin to make recommendations for solving the Post Office problems. It is obvious to hon. members present in the chamber at this time that I have a document in my hand.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Table it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I would be quite happy to. Whether it is the real document or a reasonable facsimile thereof, I do not know. It indicates the problem the government faces when it attempts to conceal information which has no confidentiality aspect whatsoever. The only legitimate reason I can conclude for this action is that there is information in the document which is embarrassing to the government. It is highly critical of the lack of attempts on the part of the government to deal with the growing problems of the Post Office.
The document recommends what hon. members on this side have been advocating for a long time, that is, the setting up of a special committee. We have not specified the specific terms of reference of the committee or its organizational structure. We have suggested that it could be a joint committee including members of the Senate and members of the House of Commons. Joint committees have been successful in coming to grips with problems on many occasions. It could be a special committee of the House assigned the task of pursuing a particular problem, as was the case regarding problems in the penitentiaries which the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs dealt with. It could be a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which deals with Post Office matters. It could be a royal commission as recommended by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Whatever its formation might be, it is encouraging to realize that the Hay study group made exactly the same proposal back in 1975.
I should like to quote from the report of the Joint Post Office-Treasury Board Secretariat Study Group, which reads as follows:
The study group, in beginning its assignment, excluded from its analysis any examination of organizational options for the Post Office such as a Crown corporation, special status department, etc., focusing instead on the internal structure of the existing department. The group took this particular course of action, not out of conviction that such options were impractical, but rather
Post Office
because it considered that manpower and time limitations made such a review infeasible and better studied later as a separate issue.
One of the first recommendations of this group, which was brought together in 1975 to investigate the Post Office and to come up with solutions, was that it had only gone partially into its investigation and that it must be followed up, if solutions were to be found, by another review at a later date to consider and study such important issues as the advisability of transforming the Post Office Department into a Crown corporation type of organization.
Now, I do not have to recite the problems of the Post office here today for it has been post office week in the House of Commons. We have had several debates on the subject which indicates the degree of concern with respect to post office problems. I do not have to repeat the problems. They are all too obvious.
I would like to comment on a statement that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) made recently when he said that there are far too many leaks from government departments. I do not know whether the document which I have in my hand is a leak or not. I cannot say because I have not seen the original document. He made some strong criticisms of public servants who might be responsible for such leaks. I suggest that in view of some of the problems in the body politic in Canada today

and the post office is typical of this type of situation-anybody with the courage of his convictions to make available to the general public, through elected representatives of the people, helpful documents of this kind is not acting in a despicable way. Rather, he would be acting in a responsible way, realizing that it is the only way that there can be any action obtained from a government that has been noted for inaction, wrong action, or just plain muddle-headedness.
I would say that the explanation of confidentiality is not in the interests of the public of Canada but in the interests of the government of Canada, the particular party in power. This is a far different situation from the one of confidential documents that border or move into the security area of concern.
It is another sad commentary on the lack of competence on the part of the present government that hon. members who have been primarily concerned with post office affairs and endeavouring to come to grips with the problem have had to go outside the country for information. We have not had a thorough study of the post office since 1966. I have that document in my hands, incidentally, and it is called the Royal Commission on Working Conditions in the Post Office Department, an excellent report under the chairmanship of the Hon. Andre Montpetit which was tabled in 1966, 12 years ago.
Strangely enough, it is in the intervening years that the Post Office Department has gone continuously downhill. There are 363 pages of recommendations, reforms, legislative changes and administrative changes that will have to be brought in urgently if the Post Office Department is going to meet the challenges of the revolution in communications generally that has been felt in Canada and throughout the industrial world. If

April 6, 1978
Post Office
I had time here this afternoon I could recite recommendation after recommendation to which no attention has been given by the government of Canada. The Liberal party has been in power during this whole period of time.
The latest document I received on the subject was put out by the Congress in Washington, where they have gone the route of the public corporation in order to deal with the problems of an industrial organization such as the modern post office. I refer to volume one of the report of the commission on the postal service, and it was brought down last spring. I refer to it at this time because it indicates that if we had access to this information from a Canadian source we could intelligently and hopefully sort out the post office confusion.
One of the topics they dealt with and which we have not started to deal with in Canada is the impact of electronic communications. There was a newspaper report recently that a firm in Toronto has launched itself into the electronic communications business in Canada. If the post office service was to go electronic, 70 per cent of the first class business would be removed. Seventy per cent of the post office business can be handled by electronic communications, and the technology is already available. Surely this subject requires careful examination.
Other topics in this report are financing the postal service- that is a topic that comes up repeatedly in this House-and levels of service. Hon. members know the horror stories we hear every day in question period in this House of Commons. Chapter six deals with postal rates and mail classification.
I understand the committee on statutory instruments has picked up this topic once again and they are standing by the decision they made with respect to irregular increases in postal rates by the government under administrative decree and order in council rather than by amending the Post Office Act as is required under the act. This is a fundamental invasion, as Senator Forsey keeps saying, of the rights of parliament because only parliament can increase taxes; but the government is increasing taxes by order in council.
The joint committee made up of Senators and members of the House of Commons only this morning was wrestling once again with this problem. They are concerned that the government has again ignored their unanimous recommendation, which states that order in council action is a fundamental violation of the rights or parliament. It is also a fundamental violation of the rights of parliament for the government to refuse the tabling of a report, a helpful, innocuous report so far as the security of Canada is concerned. Indeed, I think it would be helpful to the well-being and security of Canada if we did have access to this information and were able to make recommendations helpful in resolving post office problems.
I hope that hon. members will support this appeal this afternoon and vote positively so that the Hay report can be tabled. I think that we will all benefit from the information that is obtained. When it is observed in that report that the final recommendation was that it should be followed by another study, then we will have strong support for that viewpoint as well.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) that we are regularly and constantly receiving reports on the conditions which exist within the Post Office Department. If we seek and obtain these reports, it is because we want to study them, determine how we can implement the recommendations they make to improve the Post Office organization. For the information of the hon. member, I should like to say that I have with me a list of all the reports which have been prepared since 1969. There are several of them, and I do not understand why the hon. member has chosen to pay more attention to the Hay report than to the others.
The hon. member has mentioned a lack of attempts on the part of the government to come to grips with the problems within the Post Office. I suggest that if he would only read my communications, as well as the official report of our proceedings, he would find that we have indicated on several occasions the actions we have taken. As to his suggestion about a Crown corporation, a special commission of the House or a royal commission, I have said and I repeat that they all seem great to us, but before we decide on one of them and implement it, 1 feel we must find solutions to two problems. As I stated again recently, the Post Office is faced with two problems, namely the debugging of our mechanization and especially, our relations with our employees.
About the Hay report, perhaps I should say something. We have received several reports, including the Montpetit report, and I should like to indicate to my hon. colleague that we have implemented over 80 per cent of its 200-odd recommendations. Which proves that when we receive a report containing recommendations, we pay them the attention they deserve. We implement those which we feel are more likely to improve the postal service. That is what we have been doing and will continue to do. As to the Hay report-

The purpose of this study was to collect objective and realistic data from the various levels of management of Canada Post concerning their conception of the climate of the organization. In fact, the consultants, Hay Associates of Toronto, called the report a "Climate Analysis Report". That was in 1975, three years ago. The purpose of the report was to analyse the data and compare results with those from other employers. Hay Associates have also conducted a climate analysis report for the Royal Bank, Abitibi, Cominco and CMHC, to name a few.
Hay Associates aimed at ascertaining what were the strengths of the post office and what were the weaknesses. We are not hiding anything and I think we have a big problem. Any corporation with a budget of $1,300 million and around 63,000 employees has problems these days.


April 6, 1978

The hon. member opposite spoke of the United States post office. A report in the Washington Post of March 22 says there is talk of a postal strike in the United States. I can also send the hon. member a book published in the United States in the last year entitled "United States Post Office-A Great Mess". I think we all have problems in this world when we try to run large organizations.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, would the Postmaster General permit a question?


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


Steve Eugene Paproski: The minister says the post office is in a mess now.


Mr. Lamontagne:: I am talking about the United States post office.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about yours?


Maurice Lamontagne: Ours is getting better and better every day. The survey attempted to show how wide the gap was between how things were in the post office and how they ought to be. It was a vast study. A total of 5,870 climate analysis questionnaires were distributed to various regions and to all levels of management. They were answered anonymously and returned directly to Hay Associates. The method insured that the managers were given every opportunity to be frank and candid.
The report's approach borrowed from contemporary sociology and reflects both the strengths and weaknesses of this method. That is to say, it aimed at determining what the opinions and attitudes of management were toward the organization that employed them. In no way did the report try to measure the performance, efficiency and rationale for organization and operational systems.
It must be emphasized that the report is essentially an aggregate of opinion and attitudes. While having some merit in learning what management thinks, the report's approach was essentially an academic approach to operational realities that remained constantly in flux as a result of the introduction of new techniques and operational methods at Canada Post. That is why they recommended a further study.
The report was conducted in 1975, only a relatively short time after the post office had been decentralized. Automation had also only been recently introduced. As a result, when the Hay inquiry was conducted the post office was still in a period of transition, a period of change. As celebrated English journalist, G. K. Chesterton, once said, "Progress is the maker of problems."
The post office, at the time of the Hay report, and indeed today, was and is changing, a change in many respects in the direction of progress. Traditional methods were being modified in the interests of progress, and as G. K. Chesterton stated, problems accompany a period of change.
The Hay report reflects the dismay and even at times the trauma experienced by some of the management at Canada
Post Office
Post. The old, safe routines were being uprooted and new ways of doing things remained to be modified and adjusted to make the new systems work smoothly.
This is not to say that management's attitudes as portrayed in the Hay report were entirely negative. Neither were they 100 per cent positive. To be frank, the Hay report did reveal that there existed some discontent at Canada Post about the way the organization was being run. There exist some problems and nobody is surprised about that. But the fact that senior management at Canada Post in 1975 wanted to ascertain what the sentiments of their management were vis-a-vis the organization is a tribute to their concern about improving the morale and productivity of their employees.
It would be grossly irresponsible for me here to reveal with any precision the details of the report. Certainly, the frank and candid opinions expressed in the survey could conceivably turn a branch against another branch, a division against a division, perhaps even a region against a region. Certainly, such a revelation would not be in the best interests of the Canadian public and Canada Post. Revealing the report's details would clearly serve no useful purpose except, perhaps, to reveal that there is some latitude for more changes at Canada Post if service is to be improved. And, let me ask, what organization made complex and sophisticated by having a staff of more than 60,000 scattered across several thousand miles does not have latitude for change and improvement?
I should also like, Mr. Speaker, to give a report about the status of our relations with our employees. There are five major unions in the post office.

There are five major unions in the Post Office Department. Following the Hay report, we have used several means and approaches to improve relations between employees and management. That is the kind of system we have put into place through inter-group sessions and consultation meetings with our employees. The management works exceptionally hard with four of our five unions. I need not remind my colleague from Brandon-Souris of the interventions the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have made during the convention of the Canadian Labour Congress in Quebec City, as reported in newspapers over the last four or five days. Hon. members will admit, if they really want to be fair, that we are dealing with people with whom it is quite hard to negotiate and to discuss and I suggest that the major problem in the Post Office is located at that level.
If all our labour unions co-operated with the Post Office, we could give you a service which would be as competitive and efficient as that of any other administration of the same type or size. At this point, concerning labour relations between the Post Office and its staff, I woud like to read to you an excerpt from a brief which was sent to me and which is entitled Labour Relations', it may be a very delicate subject, since the matter will probably be discussed soon or since we may have to take measures. My colleague says that we are not doing

April 6, 1978
Post Office
anything in the Post Office, that we are not trying to solve the problems. We are now in conciliation. The chairman has been appointed. In fact, he should begin conciliation talks next Monday. After a certain number of weeks or days of talks, or after both parties have made all their representations, he will prepare and table his report and then we will see what we have to do. If the union wishes to work more closely with us, we will try to solve the problem that way. I would like to quote a few comments on this subject:
If hon. members listen to their constituents and to the public these days who are indicating that the right to strike in the public service should be eliminated, it would be very easy to say yes right away. But the situation is more delicate than that. One has to understand the reason why the public voices such an opinion.
This opinion does not apply to all employees of the post office, but it is given because some workers of the union, at certain times act irresponsibly. Each work stoppage brings a rash of letters to editors suggesting that the right to strike be withdrawn or that the union be de-certified. All hon. members here have heard these cries. It is understandable the public eventually loses patience. As hon. members know, I sympathize with the Canadian public who get fed up at times with the kind of service that is given by the Post Office Department. I would like to point out that we are not the only ones responsible. We have workers who work well and we have certain workers who are not responsible in the work they do.
It is understandable as I say, that the public will eventually lose patience. It is questionable, however, that the answers suggested would solve the problems. According to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the right to strike is not the problem. In a letter to a major mailing organization the Prime Minister said that stifling the worst symptom of the ailment is not a cure. He suggests that we must deal with the perceptions that labour and management have of themselves as adversaries. The Prime Minister sees the basic challenge as one of securing from labour and management a sense of shared responsibility for making sure the enterprise survives. That is the basic point. If everybody in the post office were responsible about the work they had to perform, we would not have this problem, and we would not be in this mess, as it is called.
The Prime Minister points out that while cynics may scorn this approach in favour of a hard line, experience has proven that conflict between labour and management is neither inherent nor inevitable. Mr. Trudeau said-


An hon. Member:: Order.


An hon. Member:: You cannot say that, you must refer to the Prime Minister.


Maurice Lamontagne: I am sorry, I will learn after a few weeks.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are doing a good job, but you will only be here for a few months anyway.


Maurice Lamontagne: Thank you, to the hon. member on the other side of the House, if that is the way to do it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes.


Maurice Lamontagne: The Prime Minister said "Consider the more harmonious relationships that exist in some other countries, for instance, West Germany. And in our post office, the letter carriers union is participating with management in a problem-solving program, which has succeeded in defusing some potentially explosive grievances." The LCUC have collaborated with us tremendously and we have no problem with them. The Prime Minister closed by insisting that his government will pursue its efforts to get all participants in collective bargaining in the public service to make the process work so that increased regulation does not become necessary.
Tripartitism is one of the many names given to an exercise in joint management/labour/govemment problem solving. This is an idea which is becoming more and more interesting to companies, labour unions and governments in their search for ways to cool the destructive aspects of confrontation and arrive at decisions which will present the optimum good to all three segments.
Tripartitism, it is hoped, will work for the welfare of the nation without the messiness of table banging, strikes, lockouts, and the impediment of passion. The conditions faced by most western nations-inflation, unemployment, slow growth, limited resources-enhance the appeal of any new ideas. Changes in the social climate, including interest in the quality of work, life, job enrichment, industrial democracy and individual social expectations, contribute as well to the search for new approaches to problem resolution.
It is clear that we must keep looking for better ways with an open mind. That is what we do. John F. Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable".
Since the introduction of collective bargaining into the public service a number of bargaining agents have been certified by the Public Service Staff Relations Board to represent employees of the Post Office Department. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers represents approximately 25,000 employees primarily performing internal mail processing and complementary post services. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers was certified on January 16, 1975, at about the time of the Hay Report. The remaining 40,000 unionized employees are represented by the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada, the Association of Postal Officials of Canada, the Canadian Postmasters' and Assistants Association, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service. These five unions present no problem.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the CLC?


Maurice Lamontagne: In order properly to understand the events it is important to place the facts underlying the employer's
April 6, 1978

request in their proper perspective. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers was certified by the Public Service Staff Relations Board in January 1975 as I have said. The certification of the Union of Postal Workers followed the decertification of the Council of Postal Unions, which included the Letter Carriers Union and the Union of Postal Workers, which asked to get out.
During the 1975 round of bargaining with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, it became clear from the union's demands that CUPW wanted a new agreement, quite distinct from the one which had just ended. In fact, because of the many changes that had been made, the 1975 agreement could justly be described as new. This is why we find it surprising, to say the least, that the proposals of CUPW would have the effect of writing a new collective agreement once again.
During the current negotiations-and I would like to bring this point to hon. members' attention because they think nothing has been done-the parties met on April 20 and 22, May 19, October 5, 6, 12, 18, 25 and 27 and November 4, 8, 10, and 17, 1977. As the House can see, during a seven month period there were only thirteen meetings. We believe it is necessary to explain these gaps.
CUPW decided to break off negotiations at the first official meeting on May 19, 1977 after some thirty minutes of discussions. This breakdown was followed by a complaint to the Public Service Staff Relations Board by CUPW alleging that the employer was contravening sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Not until October-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) is rising on a point of order?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I would like to ask if this discussion is now concluded. We started at 5:20 p.m. rather than five o'clock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, there are so many minutes left to debate this motion. We are not asking for extra time at this moment, but because this is a motion for the production of papers we have so many minutes left and we want to know how much more time is available.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are 45 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion does remain on the Order Paper certainly. Again, the hour provided for consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Anti-Inflation Act


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-18, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act and guidelines, be read the third time and do pass.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, when I called it five o'clock I was speaking about the problems of the dollar. Roger Croft, a Toronto Star staff writer, under the headline "Moves to prop up the dollar called too little, too late", wrote the following today:
Ottawa's latest moves to prop the sagging dollar are too little, too late, most economists and foreign exchange dealers say.
... in hectic trading yesterday, the dollar skidded to yet another 35-year low at 87.4 cents U.S. before recovering slightly ...
But more important is the cost.
"We've got a run on the currency," Michael Graham, director of dealers A. E. Ames and Co. Ltd., told the Star.
"Foreign investors have lost confidence in the Canadian economy and are simply not putting their money into Canadian funds."
At the same time, added Graham, Canadians themselves are either buying real estate in Florida or opening up U.S. currency accounts "because no one in this country has any more confidence left.
"Both the Bank of Canada and the government have done too little, too late."
The article later refers to some of the reasons for our problems as follows:
"Our high inflation rate-after three years of wage and price controls-our high jobless rate, the big and growing budget deficits and the Quebec situation. Add the expected election to that lot, and no wonder everyone wants out of Canadian funds," Graham said.
Later in the article we find the following:
"No one wants to stick his neck out on that one" ...
This is a reference to where the Canadian dollar will go.
"We thought 95 was the psychological barrier late last year. Then it got to 90 and recently people have been saying that 87 cents will be the bottom."
There is now talk that at 85 cents there might be a turnaround. According to currency dealers, the Europeans got out of Canadian currency long ago. That is because they had sold off almost all they had. The article continues:
"The gnomes of Zurich have by now got out of the situation."
Barry Davenport, chief foreign exchange dealer with Wood Gundy Ltd. on Bay St. said he expects the dollar to continue "very, very weak for the foreseeable future."

April 6, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
"It doesn't matter what the Bank of Canada or the finance minister do to stem the drop in the Canadian dollar. It won't have any effect. Things have to change..
Among those uncertainties, said Davenport, are the Quebec situation, the upcoming federal election and the relatively poor state of the Canadian economy.
Doug Peters, chief economist at the Toronto Dominion Bank, said ...
"The government should have convinced the speculators-whether corporate or private-that it meant business. I don't think the fundamental economic situation warrants this run on the dollar."
This is what Mr. Rogers, chief economist at the Bank of Nova Scotia, had to say:
There's talk and uncertainty about a new federal budget. But the sort of budget a government should bring in to deal with a run on its currency is a restrictive budget...
Finally, a senior partner at Dominion Securities Ltd. said that the only thing that can save the Canadian dollar is a new government. I think we can agree with that.
The Speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in New York about two weeks ago was really saying that "when you are broke you have to be kind to your bankers". In his speech he said that Quebec would not separate. Anyone who lends money would want to hear that. However, there are no assurances. It seems that our economic situation will not improve until the Quebec problem is settled. The flight of capital from that province, mainly to the United States, and the dislocating effect of language problems prevent the functioning of companies which must do business in other parts of Canada and in the United States. It is no wonder that business is moving out of that province. However, by attempting to shore up the economic life of Quebec the federal government is diverting large amounts of public funds into that province. Even with the most careful management it is difficult to allocate funds where they can have a meaningful and productive role.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the Prime Minister have looked to the United States to bring the Canadian economy out of its doldrums. The United States is now obviously being geared to a much higher inflationary rate than was even considered a few months ago. There is no doubt that inflation in the United States is going up and is going to go up at a faster rate. The basic rate has moved from 6 per cent to 6V2 per cent and it will move to almost 7 per cent or more later this year. The United States coal contract will be a goal which other unions will strive to match, and they will prod non-union workers to demand increased wages. The United States dollar is weak, and ours is weaker. That will cause import prices to rise.
The President of the United States has had to back higher farm prices, stockpile copper and make a good many other promises in order to nail down votes to ratify the Panama Canal Treaty. On the political scene, the Panama Canal Treaty has increased the inflationary risk. The government and Congress are not likely to do very much about it. Mr. Carter will obviously look for other ways to deal with inflation, but he is not going to balance the budget. He wants tax cuts, and he will not restrain the money supply. Will the President

of the United States turn to what the AIB was supposed to do in Canada?
How will President Carter control wages and prices? He will obviously be forced into the same tactics used by the AIB. One tactic was to get at wages and prices directly. High wages and high prices are symptoms of inflation, not the cause. President Carter and other people around him know that controls have not worked in the United States, in Canada or in any other major country, so it is almost certain that United States inflation will race along and gather steam as the year goes by.
A previous minister of finance, Mr. Turner, always maintained that inflation arose outside the country and that there was nothing we could do about it. Inflation has created a voracious monster, and it may in time destroy our institutions. We have had a decade of accelerated inflation, and all indications are that we will have more in the next few years. We measure goods and services in terms of money prices. If we had a pure barter economy, there would not be generalized inflation. If the supply of money rises faster than the supply of goods and services, then prices for all goods and services rise as well. Only if the money supply does not become more plentiful relative to goods and services will inflation be contained.
In the early stages of inflation the total money supply declines as the public is duped into holding money at high rates of interest, but actually at negative real rates of return. As inflation advances the public tries to dump its money into buying goods before inflation reduces their value. But obviously credit must be settled at some time, and there is a limit to credit.
There are other inflationary factors which are new. Mr. Henry Kaufman, in an address to the Committee on the Budget of the U.S. House of Representatives, had this to say:
The composition of credit demands in 1978 reveals part of the emerging problem. I shall focus on three major demanders for money-the households, business and the Federal Government. The increases in consumer credit and mortgage debt, reflecting mainly borrowings by individuals, is truly spectacular.
This is referring to the American scene.
It reflects strong demands for consumer goods and housing, sharp increases in prices, and a new inflationary psychology that is perhaps more than marginally liberalizing the Financing attitudes and habits of individuals.
Our inability to reduce inflation is encouraging individuals to bid far more aggressively for mortgage funds than in the past because home ownership, at least in the postwar period, has been a far more satisfactory hedge against inflation than investments in financial assets ranging from savings deposits to bonds and to common stock.
So home ownership and various other personal needs requiring credit have certainly increased the number of problems related to borrowing. People's personal monetary habits spread over the nation as a whole, and that is important.
One of the greatest difficulties in steadying inflation is the definition of money. The Bank of Canada has standardized four types of money, and if the effect of money on inflation in real economic activity is viewed solely in terms of actual spending on goods and services, then we must look at spendable money. But when money is viewed as a commodity it seems to be a much broader concept. Obviously there should be a wider definition of money or of what should be called the
April 6, 1978

total money supply. If there is an excessive creation of money, it will undermine its value; if there is slow growth, it will raise the value of money.
It is obvious in an open economy such as is Canada's that large increases in money supply are not necessarily reflected in domestic price levels in the immediate future. In our open economy, an increase in the money supply so that the total supply of goods and services is greater than the productive capacity of the domestic market can be met by increased imports, because when domestic prices rise above competitive world prices an inflow of goods and services results. Obviously excessive money supply results in a severe deterioration in the current account of the balance of payments, with the consequent downward movement of the external value of the currency.
Canada has shown all the symptoms of excessive money creation in the early 1970's. The current account deficit was $4.8 billion in 1975; $4.2 billion in 1976; and $4.1 billion in 1977. How should one deal with the current account deficit? There are a number of ways of dealing with it, or one can use a combination of them all. Raising domestic interest rates, which the Bank of Canada has just instituted, is obviously one action which causes an inflow of money. But when we are hampered by political uncertainty in the country, with an election in the wind and with the problems with Quebec, this might offset the deficit, and tight money will eliminate the excessive current account. Also, the Central Bank could allow its foreign exchange reserves to run down, which would eventually diminish the money supply, or it could induce sellers to accept the local currency. Unless excessive monetary creation is stopped, money will either depreciate against local goods and services or against foreign currency.
Toward the end of 1976 the Bank of Canada allowed interest rates to fall and differentials vis-a-vis the U.S. money market to narrow sharply so that the excessive money creation in a little over a year has reduced the external value of the Canadian dollar by 13 per cent.
From 1967 to 1977 the growth of the money supply was truly phenomenal but the Canadian public was willing to hold increasing amounts of the total money supply as a percentage of its transactions. This was borne out in the annual report of 1976 of the Bank of Canada, which stated the following:
-the inference is that as incomes have risen over this period, most people wish to hold a larger proportion of their incomes in the form of interest earning deposits. In terms of our earlier discussions of velocity, it is also a way of saying that every dollar of money turned over fewer and fewer times in the past ten years to accomplish a given rate of economic growth. Excessive credit demands were being accommodated rather easily by the further creation of money, and therefore, interest rates were not allowed to perform their credit allocative function.
During the period of 1967 to 1977 three quarters of the increasing assets of the Bank of Canada have been ascribed to the purchase of Government of Canada bonds. Obviously the Bank of Canada has been monetizing government of Canada
Anti-Inflation Act
bonds, the result of which has been a rapid increase in inflation.
Supporters of Keynes point out the economic benefits of a budget deficit. They indicate that the Bank of Canada has had to increase its support as a percentage of the net financing requirements. In the last ten years the government of Canada has been unable or unwilling to obtain non-inflationary financing, such as sales to the non-banking general public, and has relied increasingly on the printing presses. Obviously credit demands rise faster than the money supply, with the competition for funds causing interest rates to rise, thus eliminating the weaker borrower, and if at this stage the central Bank keeps interest rates from rising too fast, it is forced to monetize the increasing credit amounts.
This happened in 1972 to 1974 with a minority government which feared that bad publicity would result. The result was that the Bank of Canada took up 6 per cent of the government's net financing requirements. According to the "Bank of Canada Review", in 1966 to 1968 the Bank of Canada purchased 18 per cent of the bonds, which amounted to $2,578 million. In 1972 to 1974 the Bank of Canada purchased 66 per cent of the bonds which amounted to $3,271 million. In the first nine months of this year, almost 23.5 per cent of the bonds was taken up.
It is obvious that the purchase of these bonds by the Bank of Canada has increased our rate of inflation. This enormous appetite of the public sector has crowded out the private sector, and the Bank of Canada rescued the Canadian government by purchasing much of its debt. The situation was turned back once more in the last year, and with the government's recurring record of a high budgetary deficit it is obvious that this year some 25 per cent or more will have to be monetized by the government and by the central Bank, thus increasing our financial and inflationary expectations.
In the fiscal year of 1978-79 the prospects are frightening. With a $10 billion deficit and, it is to be hoped, a reviving private sector, interest rates will be forced up to high levels or, what is even worse, monetization on a large scale will be required or the printing of more money. It is estimated that if the government monetizes only 25 per cent of its requirements in two years, we will have created $34 billion in total money, or an increase of 40 per cent in two years.
How inflation can be kept below double digit rates is not at all clear. A sensible approach for the government of Canada to take is to eliminate its $10 billion to $11 billion deficit which would allow the central Bank to follow non-inflationary policies. To raise taxes now would harm the private sector. To cut expenditures seems to be the best course to follow. However, the government has obviously decided to raise a substantial portion of its next financing abroad. The Minister of Finance should tell us what are his financing plans for the next year.
The floating of the $750 million loan is just the beginning, and the speech of the Prime Minister paves the way for the future. But how can he be so hopeful about the political realities in Quebec? Obviously the government hopes to borrow abroad so as to shore up the Canadian dollar. If

April 6, 1978
Anti-Inflation Act
foreign currency is exchanged for the Canadian dollar in a freely floating market, the net effect would be to raise the value of the Canadian dollar, with beneficial side effects on the anti-inflation effort. But if the foreign currency is converted into Canadian dollars and is absorbed into foreign currency reserves, the inflationary impact will remain the same. It seems that we will not have a balanced budget, and there are those who suggest that with the frightening prospect of two $10 billion to $11 billion deficits back to back, our rates of inflation could be double digit.
The demise of the AIB has to come. It was faulty in the beginning and it failed to attack the causes of inflation. All it dealt with was the symptoms, the rise in wages and prices. Inflationary forces were at work internally and externally and the government has done little about them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, (Mr. Chretien), which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 38)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Abbott	Duclos	LeeBechard	Dupont	LefebvreBegin (Miss)	Dupras	LoiselleBlais	Duquet	(Chambly)Blaker	Faulkner	LumleyBlouin	Fleming	MacDonaldBuchanan	Foster	(Cardigan)Bussi&res	Francis	MacEachenCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Gauthier	MacFarlaneCampbell (Miss)	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MacGuigan(South Western Nova)	Gendron	MaineCaron	Gillespie	MarceauChretien	Gray	McRaeClermont	Guilbault	Nicholson (Miss)Collenette	Harquaii	O'ConnellComtois	Herbert	OuelletCorbin	Holt (Mrs.)	ParentCorriveau	Hopkins	PennerCullen	Horner	PinardCyr	Joyal	PoulinDanson	Kaplan	Prud'hommeDaudlin	Lajoie	RailtonDawson	Lalonde	ReidDe Bane	Lamontagne	RobinsonDemers	Laniel	RoyDionne	Lapointe	(Timmins)(Northumberland-	Leblanc	RoyMiramichi)	(Laurier)	(Laval)
Messrs.
Sauve (Mrs.)	Smith	StollerySavard	(Saint-Jean)	TessierSchumacher	Stewart	WatsonSharp	(Cochrane)
NAYS Messrs.	Yanakis Young-86.Alkenbrack	Knowles	NielsenAndre	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	Nowlan(Calgary Centre)	Lambert	NystromBeatty	(Bellechasse)	OrlikowCadieu	Lambert	PaproskiCrouse	(Edmonton West)	PetersDinsdale	MacDonald (Miss)	RitchieDionne	(Kingston and the	Rodriguez(Kamouraska)	Islands)	SaltsmanEllis	Matte	StevensFriesen	Mazankowski	SymesHnatyshyn	McGrath	TowersHogan	McKenzie	WhittakerHowie	McKinley	WiseHuntington	McKinnon	Woolliams-4:Johnston	Munro	Knowles (Winnipeg	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	
North Centre)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


FARM CREDIT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-29, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to indicate our party's support for the bill before the House tonight, in a mood of friendliness and co-operativeness, in order to expedite the work of parliament, and I will be as brief as I possibly can. The bill before the House tonight does a couple of things. It increases the Farm Credit Corporation's capital from $100 million to $150 million; it also increases the amount that can be lent to individual farmers under the Farm Credit Corporation. It increases the lending limits to $200,000 for all borrowers. At present the limitations are $150,000 for persons under the age of 35 and $100,000 for the people over the age of 35.
As I have said, the bill before us is a good bill; it will help farmers a little bit better in a pinch. But I want to make it clear that it will not solve their problems.
It will be worth while to take a few minutes to put on the record some of the statistics that show the reality of the problems faced by Canadian farmers today. I know of many members, even some from New Brunswick, who are not aware of the dire financial circumstances that farmers are faced with today in Canada. The number of farms in this country is decreasing every year. According to the census, from 1951 to 1976 the number of small farms in the small farm category,

April 6, 1978

which comprises acreage ranging from 70 to 759 acres, went down by 36 per cent. The number of farms in the 760 acre and more category went up by 72 per cent. One can see, Mr. Speaker, that farms in Canada are becoming larger and larger and more and more of the smaller farmers are being forced off the land.
Farm debt should concern all of us. We are discussing a bill to lend farmers money and farm debt is going up very rapidly. It is probably even going up in Crowfoot. For example, in 1966 we find that the farm debt in this country was some $3.4 billion; in 1976 the farm debt had gone up to some $9.5 billion. Farm debt is triple what it was previously.
Then if you look at net farm income, Mr. Speaker, one would assume that if the farm debt is going up, with people borrowing money and expanding their assets, then net farm income should likewise go up. We all know that farmers are hard working people. It should be pointed out to the people of Canada that the Canadian farmer is the most productive farmer in the world. It costs only about 14 per cent of our consumer dollar to buy food in this country, whereas in the United States it costs about 15 per cent of the consumer dollar. In every other country in the world costs are much higher than that. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool recently used as an example a typical food basket and it was found that for that food basket in Canada it took about five hours and 15 minutes worth of labour to buy it. In Washington, in the U.S., it took about seven hours of labour to buy that same basket of food. In Toyko it takes around 24 hours worth of labour, and in Buenos Aires, Brazil, it takes approximately 60 hours of labour to buy the same basket of food. Once again we can see the Canadian farmer is indeed most productive. Canadian consumers are very fortunate that our farming system is efficient and we are able to produce food at a lower price than any other country in the world.
I suspect in some areas where food prices are high that it is not the fault of the farmer, it is the fault of the middleman. Again there are examples to point that out. For instance, using the consumer price index in January we found that the price of beef had gone up some 33 per cent. For a 1,000 pound steer we found that the farmer had received an extra 19 per cent in January, 1978, or an extra $80 over what he would have received in January, 1977. The consumer had paid an extra 33 per cent for the steer, or an extra $180. This meant the middleman had received an extra $100 for the steer for that same period. We looked at the statistics for these middlemen. We looked at wage rates first of all, because in this House there are hon. members who will say that the workers are making too much money. We found that the wage agreements for the packing house workers had increased only 6 per cent during that calendar year. So it was not the workers who were receiving that money.
One would assume with all this extra investment and the efficiency of the farmer, together with the free enterprise values in this country, that the farmer would be receiving a much higher income due to his initiative, hard work and all the
Farm Credit Corporation
expansion of his capital, his assets and the like. But that is not the case at all.
I have here before me the figures on net income for Canadian farmers. In 1974 net income was some $3.9 billion. In 1975 it had gone up to some $4.3 billion. In 1976 it had gone down to some $3.7 billion, and in 1977, according to the best estimates of Statistics Canada, it will be about $3.3 billion.
This means the farmers of this country had a drop in wages and salaries of some 23 per cent. Which other group in society would allow their wages to go down by that amount? That is what happened to the farmers of this country. It is net income they are losing, not their cash receipts.
At the same time as income went down, what happened to their costs? In 1975, farm costs in this country were $6.6 billion. In 1976 they were $7.3 billion and in 1977 it looks as though they will be $7.8 billion. Therefore, while the cost to the farmer increased by some 18 per cent, his net income dropped by 23 per cent. The Canadian farmer is expected to meet his 1978 costs with his 1974 income. That is not fair. Farm incomes must be higher. The farmer must receive a guaranteed price for his commodity. He must get a better break from the marketplace. The farmer is not receiving a break from this government.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has gotten up time and again in the House to say that we have the greatest farm programs and the wealthiest farmers in the world. I wish he would look at some of his own statistics which show that farm income has decreased drastically. Debts are piling up and farmers are being forced to leave the land.
Fet us look at more statistics which point out what is happening in rural Canada, particularly in my province. Yesterday I was astounded to find in some research we were doing that cash receipts in Saskatchewan for January 1978 had fallen by 55 per cent over January 1975. If the people in the constituency of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) had a drop in income of 55 per cent, she would scream blue murder in the House like I am trying to do now. That is the drop in cash receipts for Saskatchewan farmers between 1975 and 1978, according to the Department of Agriculture and Statistics Canada.
Fet us look at the Saskatchewan operating costs and depreciation charges. In the full year 1977, compared with 1975, the operating costs in Saskatchewan increased by 23 per cent. While cash receipts are down by 55 per cent, their costs are up by 33 per cent. Is it any wonder why grain farmers in my province, Manitoba and Alberta are going out of business? Is it any wonder more and more farmers are being forced to sell their land? The older farmers are selling to the big guy. Farms are consolidating very quickly.
Fook at net income in Saskatchewan. If you take away the cash receipts and leave in the farmer's pocket the money he is able to spend, you find that net income in Saskatchewan between 1975 and 1977 decreased by some 40 per cent.

April 6, 1978
Farm Credit Corporation
Stabilization programs will not rectify that situation in any serious way.
The 1978 forecasts for Saskatchewan indicate that costs will probably be 32 per cent higher than 1975 costs. The 1978 costs will be 105 per cent higher than the 1970 to 1974 average. In every province in this country there was a similar situation. I am sure the hon. member from British Columbia who will be speaking after me will be saying some of the same things about farm income.
Let us look at Alberta, the province of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) who is worried about his re-election in Crowfoot. In 1978, cash receipts in that province were down by some 38 per cent over January 1975. In Manitoba, cash receipts in January 1978 were down by some 53 per cent over 1975. In other words, the drop in Manitoba was roughly the same as the 55 per cent drop in Saskatchewan.
I have intentionally used a lot of figures and statistics to point out to the House and the government that there has been a serious drop in farm income. Passing a bill like this, even though it is good and will help some farmers in a pinch, is not good enough. We must start determining what we are going to do to ensure that farmers survive and that their family farm remains the basic unit of production. If we do not do that, the family farms will disappear. We will have a situation similar to that in states in the United States such as Colorado, where 95 per cent of the farmland is owned by non-farmers such as doctors, lawyers, wealthy people in the cities, corporations, real estate people and the like. The rest is owned by the farmers who are doing the farming. If we go that way in this country, it will not only be a disaster socially but economically, not just for the farmers but for the country.
As the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has stated, we in Canada have a real crisis in unemployment. If we do not produce and process our food in Canada, we will add to that unemployment problem. In almost any food category in which we are not self-sufficient, we are not only losing jobs but a lot of money. We are only self-sufficient in a few items of food in this country. According to all indications, if we do not start changing our policies, by the year 2000 Canada will not be feeding itself. According to the Science Council, we will only be self-sufficient in five of the 27 basic foods in Canada.
According to the figures of the Minister of Agriculture, if we take away grain and oilseeds we will be in a deficit position in production of food to the tune of about $1.8 billion. That is a downright shame. Those policies have to change. One change should be to ensure that our farmers receive a decent wage. If they get a decent wage, they will produce food.
This country has the capacity to feed ourselves for hundreds of years in the future as well as the capacity to feed a lot of others in the world. We should be making a commitment to self-sufficiency. That would not only be good for rural Canada but for the urban consumer as well.
I want to use one example, that of broilers. There is now a move in Canada that is almost completed which I support

totally. That is the bringing in of a national marketing board to handle broilers and chickens across this country. We will have that marketing board as soon as the province of Alberta gives us the green light. The other provinces are pretty well in agreement.
In anticipation of a national marketing board, a number of large chicken importers in Canada have been importing an unduly large number of imports from the United States. They do that because, when a supply management board is brought in, import quotas will be based on the previous five year average. Therefore, they are importing five, ten, 15 or 20 times as many broilers as in the past in order to up their average of imports. In that way they will not be as controlled by the farmers' agency as they might otherwise be, as it is in terms of industrial milk, eggs and other products marketed through the marketing board in this country or through the provinces.
Studies have pointed out that in the last year in the area of chickens alone, literally tens of millions of dollars have been lost in productivity as well as jobs we would have had if we had not imported so many chickens from abroad. We should have been producing Canadian chickens, making sure that Canadian chicken farmers had better incomes and that Canadian workers eviscerated, processed and cleaned those chickens instead of letting that be done in the United States. We should have been making sure that Canadians in the transportation and refrigeration industries were given jobs transporting those chickens.
We have lost literally tens of thousands of dollars in that industry alone, but I could go through the whole food industry. I admit that I do not know very much about particular industries in Ontario, but I know that fruit and vegetable growers at about the time of the second world war supplied about 70 per cent of the Canadian market. I believe we now supply about only 30 per cent of our market. We have the capacity to be almost self-sufficient in fruits and vegetables, yet we are not. Because we are not, we are losing hundreds of millions of dollars which could be generated in Canada.
Our target must be to be self-sufficient in food. One way of doing that would be to make sure that farmers are guaranteed decent prices for their products. If they are guaranteed decent prices, they will produce food. Farmers are about the only people in our country who do not have guaranteed prices for their labour or their commodities, and they have to have guaranteed prices if they are to produce food. We have to produce food if we are to keep farmers on the farm and if we are to keep the rural fabric of our country going as strongly as it should.
I want to remind hon. members of these things because I feel that most Canadians think we can produce an infinite amount of food and that we are the bread basket of the world. People do not realize that with our existing policies, according to the government, the Science Council of Canada and almost every organization which has looked into this, by the year 2000 we will be a net importer of food. We will not be able to feed
April 6, 1978

ourselves, and that will be mainly because of policies which do not assist farmers to produce the food that they can be producing.
With regard to self-sufficiency, according to the federal government there are several hundred acres of good quality farmland being taken out of production each and every day. Because of our climate we cannot produce food in most of the country. We have lakes, water, muskegs, forests and places where food just cannot be produced. Only about 4 per cent of our country can produce food in great quantities, yet several hundred acres of farmland are being paved under each and every day or sold to developers for urban development and turned into such a state where the land cannot be recaptured for the production of food. I think that is a crime, and it should not go on. We should be concerned about producing as much food as we can in order to feed the people of this country, to stimulate our economy and to make our contribution abroad in terms of foreign aid.
I call upon this House to pass this bill as quickly as possible so that farmers who need more credit from the Farm Credit Corporation can get it. However, I ask hon. members on both sides of the House to realize that farming is important, that without the support of this government and governments right across the country there will be fewer and fewer farmers, and that the day will come when there will be a food shortage and we will be a net importer of food.
That might not sound very serious to many people, but there was a time when we did not worry about the shortage of oil. We said we could get all the oil we needed from the Arabs or Venezuelans at very low prices. That is the kind of policy we pursued for years, and now we have an energy crisis and a price crisis. If we do not have foresight, the same thing will happen with regard to food about 25 or 30 years from now. I ask hon. members, please, to do something about this now instead of burdening our children and our grandchildren.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I speak this evening on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
The Farm Credit Corporation has been administering the Farm Credit Act for close to 20 years. In that time, it has approved over 192,000 loans totalling more than $3.1 billion. A further indication of the importance of this agency is that it extends approximately 60 per cent to 70 per cent of all the long-term farm credit in Canada. In recent years, private lenders, the chartered banks in particular, have become more active in the general field of farm credit, and, more particularly, in the area of long-term credit. I sincerely welcome this increased participation. The Farm Credit Corporation is a long way from meeting the total demand, and unless steps are taken to meet it, the gap will continue to widen. Projections are that it will soon take close to $1 billion per year to meet the long-term credit needs of Canadian farmers.
This bill brings forth a number of amendments designed to update the Farm Credit Act so that Canadian farmers can
Farm Credit Corporation
maintain their position of leadership in the world and increase their productivity level through the wise use of credit.
The major amendments are as follows: the FCC's capital will be increased from $100 million to $150 million, thus increasing the corporation's borrowing capacity to $3.75 billion from $2.5 billion. There is real urgency for this amendment because the corporation's capital will be used up by May, 1978.
Most age restrictions on lending will be removed except for loans to persons phasing into farming. This special advantage would continue to be offered to persons under 35 years of age.
The maximum loan for a single farming enterprise will be increased to $200,000 for one qualifying applicant and $400,000 for two or more qualifying applicants.
Before going on to the lesser amendments, let me give the reasons for these three proposals. The present authorized capital of $100 million and the corporation's borrowing capacity of 25 times that, or $2.5 billion, will be exhausted early in 1978-79.
The corporation's capital was last increased in 1975 by about 50 per cent, from $66 million. Between 1971 and 1976 the total value of farm capital in Canada increased from $23.7 billion to $57 billion, representing an increase of close to 140 per cent. The number of farms with annual sales of $5,000 or more has increased by 18 per cent. The number whose sales exceed $10,000 increased by more than 63 per cent. The corporation therefore needs a significant increase in borrowing power to be able to keep pace with the increase in total farm capital.
In order to meet future demands we are also proposing that henceforth requests for additional capital could also be authorized under an appropriation act. Any provision of an appropriation act authorizing an increase in the aggregate amount would stand permanently referred to any committee of the House of Commons established for the purpose of reviewing matters relating to agriculture.
It should be noted that the FCC will continue to be restrictive in its lending guidelines in order to stay in line with the government's restraint program. This means that applications will continue to be assessed according to the applicant's need for funds from the Farm Credit Corporation.
The second amendment removes age as a qualifying factor for lending limits. Hon. members will recall that when the Minister of Agriculture proposed the 1975 amendments to the Farm Credit Act, the main thrust of that bill was to help young people get started in farming. Since then the FCC's total lending to young farmers has steadily increased. This year almost three quarters of all loans went to persons under 35 years of age. This represents some $410 million.
A great number of farmers, farm organizations and the FCC advisory committee as well as members of parliament have written to the Minister of Agriculture and made recommendations in the past few years. One of the points that constantly comes up is that need does not magically stop at 35.

April 6, 1978
Farm Credit Corporation
The present amendments extend these advantages to all farmers. Nothing is taken away from young farmers by these amendments. They simply acknowledge that basic credit requirements do not change on a specific birth date. Experience indicates that the imposition of the 35-year age limit encourages borrowers to rearrange business structures to qualify a spouse or child. This amendment will give more flexibility in meeting real credit needs. The 35-year age limit would remain on what we now call Part IV, or beginning farmer loans, which allow the borrower to retain an off-farm job for up to five years before becoming principally engaged in farming.
We must recognize that capitalization under all its forms is increasing in agriculture. With the farm labour problems of the past and the future, increased mechanization will continue. Many of the costs of technological change cannot be paid for immediately out of current incomes. Time is required. I wish to remind the House that in recent years the farmer has very often been faced with the cost-price squeeze. This cost-price squeeze has forced him to pay for most capital requirements over a substantial period of time.
The third amendment, therefore, deals with increases in lending limits. Under its present legislation, the Farm Credit Corporation can lend up to $100,000 for standard farm loans and up to $150,000 for loans for young farmers. The $150,000 limit for young farmers was set in 1975 and the $100,000 limit for the standard loans was set in 1972. According to Statistics Canada, land values have increased 25 per cent since 1975 and 130 per cent since 1972. Furthermore, a farm today is nearly 10 per cent larger than it was in 1975.
The present loan limit applies to farm units as well as to applicants. Thus, the maximum loan for a farm operated by father and child or by partners is presently $100,000 or $150,000, depending on age. If this bill is approved, the Farm Credit Act would provide a new loan limit of $200,000 per qualifying operator up to a maximum of $400,000 for a farm unit where there are two or more qualifying operators. We feel this will facilitate joint operations, encourage greater efficiency and a smoother phasing in of the young operator into the family farm business.
This increase in lending limits is presently necessary so that the Farm Credit Corporation can meet the credit needs of Canadian farmers. There are a number of sectors which have become increasingly difficult to finance. For example, a grain-livestock operation of some 1,100 acres in Alberta presently costs about $400,000. In Saskatchewan, let us say on the Regina plains, if one wishes to purchase two sections of wheat land it would likely cost over $500,000. In Ontario, a 75-cow dairy farm would cost more than $300,000. Cash cropping land of about 200 acres in size in southwestern Ontario would probably cost nearly $300,000 today. These are but a few examples of some typical capitalization requirements on family farms in Canada.

In looking at these proposed amendments, some critics will say that raising loan limits, removing the age limits and adding capital for the corporation will have an inflationary effect on land values. There may be a small element of truth to this statement since the provision of more adequate credit will at all times favour the buying and selling of land. However, farm land gets its value because of its capacity to produce income. It is really economic conditions-that is, the level of income produced-which are the main determinant of land prices, not credit. An increase in the lending limits and removal of age limits only mean that the farmer with the greatest need can more easily compete for the land available.
A small number of other amendments are included in this bill which are designed to streamline the administrative operations of the act. These are, first, the use of market value to assess all loans. The Farm Credit Corporation at present uses two values in assessing the security it takes: market value and appraised value. Generally, market values are used for young borrowers and the appraised value for older borrowers. Market value is based on recent sales of similar properties while appraised or productive value is mainly based on the capitalized value of net income. Appraised value is calculated, and therefore a theoretical value which is bound to confuse most people, other than economists. The use of these different values has been confusing to borrowers and to other agencies, as well as to FCC staff. In recommending the use of market value and repayment ability, it is understood that loan limits would be based on the lower of the two. This point should be stressed. No matter how high or low the market value, all loans are determined on the repayment ability of the proposed operation.
A second amendment regards the removal of the supervision fee. Under the original act passed in 1969, a supervision fee of $25 was set for supervised loans; that is, those that exceed 75 per cent of the appraised value. The fee is now more of a nuisance than anything else, and sometimes gets in the way of establishing good relationships between the borrower and staff. Under the proposed legislation, advisory services would be provided only where needed and wanted.
Third, there is the provision for losses on loans. The present act has established a reserve where actual losses have been charged. This amendment would allow the corporation to make provisions for these losses according to accepted accounting principles.
The last amendment proposes that penalty interest be dropped. It is believed that removal of penalty interest would make the Farm Credit Act more compatible with the spirit of the Interest Act, which prohibits penalty interest except in those acts which specifically provide for it. Even a higher penalty interest would probably not have the desired deterrent effect because farmers traditionally pay off loans as fast as they can, even when the interest rate is well below the market rate.
In 1978, farmers will face further increases in costs of farm inputs and the present outlook is for slightly decreased realized net income. When hon. members consider that these farmers
April 6, 1978

represent a mere 6 per cent of our population, yet they produce most of the food that all 24 million Canadians consume, as well as earn about $4 billion in foreign exchange from exports, they can understand the importance of these amendments. One of the tools of our modern economy, credit, must be available to the Canadian provider of food.
I also want to mention that loans under the Farm Credit Act are not a grant or a gift. Borrowers enjoy a slightly lower than market rate. The FCC interest rate is presently 91A per cent. On a $200,000 loan amortized over 29 years, this represents an average of $13,000 in interest payments alone per year. The Farm Credit Act is a tool which gives operators of family farms a chance to make a success of their operations. One need only look at FCC's statistics to realize that this opportunity is not taken lightly. Farmers have by far the best repayment record in our Canadian society.
I have faith in the ability of Canadian farmers to continue to produce high quality food in an efficient manner. I urge hon. members to show their support for these efforts by giving farmers this needed legislation.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Farm Credit Act. We in this party were prepared to have this bill go through this evening. We agree the main thrust of this bill is the increase in money for loans. We were prepared to pass this piece of legislation quickly tonight. We wanted to see it go into committee, go through committee, and come back before the House dissolves, which I believe will not be too long.
Because the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) rose this evening and read a lot of statistics into the record, which everyone in Canada is aware of, and because he used up 20 minutes of the time of the House doing the job of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)-


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House, which I failed to do in the first instance, of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture was performing another duty, and I was asked as Acting Minister of Agriculture to make a speech this evening. If the hon. member is going to say something which has never been heard in Canada before, we would be glad to hear it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of order, but I think the minister-


Miss Begin:: Then sit down.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Clearly the Minister of Veterans Affairs is misleading the House. The Minister of Agriculture has already spoken on second reading. He started off the debate. I was present in the Chamber at that time. The hon. member for Lisgar followed him. I do not understand why the minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. All of these remarks are argumentative, and I think the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary should pursue his own intervention.
Farm Credit Corporation


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I was present in the Chamber, and I heard the speech by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Speaker, I would still like to rise on a point of order with regard to what the hon. member for Fisgar (Mr. Murta) has just said. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has not spoken yet to the bill, and the explanation was given by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald).


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, the government is filibustering its own bill. Farm credit needs money. Members of the Conservative party do not disagree with that.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George H. Whittaker: We do not disagree with that. The Minister of Agriculture opened this debate.


An hon. Member:: No, the Minister of Agriculture did not speak.


George H. Whittaker: I heard him.


Some hon. Members:: He did not speak.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I was present in the Chamber and I heard the Minister of Agriculture speak on this bill. Clearly hon. members opposite are filibustering the bill. The minister has known for six months, or for at least four months, that the Farm Credit Corporation needs more money. He could have brought the bill in four months ago. He is not providing the House with an opportunity to say anything regarding this piece of legislation. In fact, hon. members of the Liberal party are trying their best not to let the opposition say anything on this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George H. Whittaker: Opposition members do not get very many opportunities to speak on agriculture in the House. Very seldom do we have an opportunity to speak on farm credit. The minister is dragging his feet. Hon. members opposite are filibustering in an attempt to stop opposition members from speaking. The Minister of Agriculture had his opportunity.


An hon. Member:: When did he speak?


George H. Whittaker: I know when the minister spoke. I sat in the House and listened. I do not have to listen to the baloney which is coming from hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George H. Whittaker: I do not have to agree with the baloney from the government side.

April 6, 1978
Farm Credit Corporation


Mrs. Holt:: Watch your farm language.


George H. Whittaker: I know more farm language than that. You city slickers ought to sit and listen for a change. It is just about time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George H. Whittaker: I have a lot to say about farm credit. Hon. members opposite should not bother reading figures into the record and wasting the time of the House. The minister read a lot of statistics into the record. That can be done every day. It is not difficult.
There are many things going on in the field of farm credit which should be brought to the attention of the House. I brought forth one such matter before committee the other day. The last time the House dealt with farm credit, time was spent on dealing with people under 35 being able to hold a job for five years while they established their farms. The other day I noticed in the lending policy of the Farm Credit Act that there is an eligibility clause. I should like to refer to part IV, which reads as follows:
It is not intended that part IV loans should be made to persons or the spouses of persons who are established in stable employment that provides what is considered in the community to be an adequate level of living, even if such persons have capabilities as farmers or are presently involved in farming.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George H. Whittaker: Even though hon. members opposite are making a lot of noise, I should like to indicate that this policy makes a farce out of the Farm Credit Act.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: No way.


George H. Whittaker: Hon. members opposite do not want to hear any reason. That is a complete and utter farce. It is completely against what the act indicates.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to inform the hon. member that I do not think he should be reading.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is attempting to use up part of my time. He mentions my reading into the record, but at least I read some pertinent information. He read his speech. He read every word of the entire speech he made.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George H. Whittaker: What kind of a place do we have here? The people in the Farm Credit Corporation who are working out in the field can give various examples of what is happening because of policies such as the one I have referred to. These things make a farce out of what we do in the House when dealing with a piece of legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is now ten o'clock. The hon. member for Red Deer.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, just as a matter of clarification for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to point out that Hansard, at pages 3957, 3958 and 3959, reflects the speech of the Minister of Agriculture on this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This is one fact which is clear now.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Acting House leader might apprise us as to the business for tomorrow. What order of business can we expect, as far as the government is concerned, for tomorrow?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning we should be in a position to advise the hon. member about the business to be dealt with tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 31, as recorded in Hansard at page 2387, I put this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Now that she has been the head of her very important department long enough to know that a great many Canadian women between 60 and 65 feel very unhappy and upset over the fact that there is no pension for them unless they have the status of being married to and living with someone who is 65 or over, is the minister giving consideration to the necessary amendments to the Old Age Security Act so that persons between the ages of 60 and 65, particularly women, who are in need will get a pension without regard to their marital status?
The reply of the minister was in these words:
Mr. Speaker, I answered the same question very recently put to me by other members of this House. We are reviewing the situation, and I have nothing new to add today. As soon as I am ready to give a further explanation, I will do so.
In today's atmosphere I feel like saying: "This is where I came in". My reference to today's atmosphere, is, of course, to the fact that everyone is thinking about the next election. I am

April 6, 1978

reminded of the fact that during the 1974 election I happened to be in my room late at night when the first news came over the television to the effect that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had indicated that day that if the Liberals were re-elected they would bring in a bill providing for what was to be known as the "spouse's allowance".
I remember that the Prime Minister in the announcement had said they were going through with this program because it would provide help to certain people, even though it would create certain problems. I said to myself: "How right the Prime Minister is". Once you start paying a pension to persons in any age bracket based on marital status you are creating as many problems as you solve. I know that the spouse's allowance is regarded by the government as one of those examples of equality because it is available to the younger spouse where the older spouse is 65 or over and is receiving the old age pension, regardless of whether the younger spouse is a husband or a wife.
The fact is that in most cases the spouse's allowance is granted to women. The government refuses to give us the exact statistics. It tells us it does not keep statistics on the basis of sex. In my experience I have had scores of letters from women complaining about the situation, particularly from women whose husbands have died, and I have not had one letter in the years this has been on the statute books from a man between 60 and 65 complaining that he does not get the benefit of this legislation. For all practical purposes the spouse's allowance is a piece of legislation for women.
In addition to the age requirement and the means test there is this marital test: you get this allowance as a woman only if you have a man. That is no test, Mr. Speaker, to be in any legislation today, particularly in days when we believe in equal rights. My plea to the government is that it correct the mistake soon that was made in that legislation and remove from it the marital test.
I do not like means or income tests, but I will accept a means test, an income test, or a work test and so on between 60 and 65 rather than a marital test.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), in some of her responses to me on this matter, has said that she is concerned not only for those between 60 and 65 but for those between 55 and 65 and for other categories as well. I commend her for that. She knows how warmly I commended her just the other day for that tremendous speech she made in Sherbrooke on March 13. It is one of the best speeches I have read for a long time.
However, Mr. Speaker, the whole thrust of what she is trying to do is defeated by a piece of legislation that says to women: "You get what you need, or what you should have, only on the basis of your attachment to a man". This marital test ought to be removed. Just as soon as possible there should be a pension available between 60 and 65, or between 55 and 65 if the government wants it that way, based on other tests if you will, but not on a marital test. I do hope that the problem
Adjournment Debate
that the Prime Minister realized four years ago would arise will be resolved by establishing a pension or an allowance in this younger age bracket based on need, if the government wants it that way, but based on the rights of people as individuals and not because of marital status.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised again his usual question about the spouse's allowance program, and he has waxed very eloquent, as he usually does. I thank him also for the comments he has made about the minister and her concerns regarding senior citizens in particular, which is the topic we are discussing this evening.
The program with regard to the spouse's allowance was introduced to cover a specific situation-that faced by many married couples with little or no other income who are trying to get by on a single old age security pension. It is considered appropriate to use spouse's allowance for cases like this because the married couple already has a connection with the old age security program through the one spouse who has reached retirement age. Because it was designed for this specific requirement, the spouse's allowance was not made applicable in the case of widows, divorced persons, and other single people in the 60 to 64 year range.
It is recognized that many people in this age group also have need for income-assistance, but it should be remembered that these needs can be met through other programs such as provincial assistance programs which the government of Canada shares in under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.
The idea of an income tested retirement benefit akin to the spouse's allowance which would be available to anyone in the 60 to 64 age group who needed it is an attractive idea. At this period of time, however, when it is particularly important to exercise restraint in government spending, one should look very carefully at the potential costs of such a program. A rough estimate indicates that introducing the proposed program would cost an additional amount in excess of $600 million annually. This estimate does not take into account the potential effect on the behaviour of people. That is, if people were encouraged to retire earlier because of the existence of such a benefit, then clearly the additional cost would be higher.
We would also have to ask ourselves whether the creation of such a program would lead to the adoption of age 60 as the normal retirement age in Canada, and whether we could afford such a development. It is a well known fact that when federal retirement benefits became available at age 65, that age soon became generally regarded as the normal age of retirement in the country.
Notwithstanding this question, the government has considered such a program in the past and will no doubt consider it again when economic circumstances make it feasible. The government will be continuing to examine other potential improvements in programs to assist people. In this context the

April 6, 1978
Adjournment Debate
government is looking at potential initiatives for supplementing income for those who work at inadequate levels of income, and there will be a continuing examination with the provinces regarding possible improvements to the income support system.
In conclusion, potential improvements to the system can and will be examined in the future. In the meantime it should be recognized that we do have programs to meet the income needs of people, and in particular the spouse's allowance is doing a good job of meeting the special need for which it was designed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provided a woman has a man.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-GRANTS TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I rose to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) the following question:
The chairperson of the allocations committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation said in her report of June 17, 1977:
It is important for associations to remember that their primary role is to be agents for change rather than service agencies.
Since the federation receives about $670,000 annually from the federal government, most of it from the minister's department, I aslc the minister whether she, as the principal financial supporter of that organization, endorses that statement?
I should like to put on the record the last part of the minister's reply, in which she said:
I can see the implications he-
Meaning me, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.
-is suggesting, and I do not think that is an honest, intellectual way to work. First of all, I should like to read the report; secondly, if the hon. member has clear allegations I would prefer that he had the guts to announce them.
I think that last part of her response does not deserve comment, Mr. Speaker, and so I shall refrain. Up to this point I have had considerable regard for the minister. But I am concerned about the first part of her answer where she said:
I do not see what is wrong with the statement, taken out of context, that the hon. member read to me.
That answer, Mr. Speaker, disturbs me a great deal. I am really not talking about whether the Planned Parenthood Association ought to exist or even whether the federal government ought to be supporting it financially. What I am talking about is to what extent the government and ministers of the government will permit our people to be free and independent determinants of their future, their lifestyle and what kind of people they choose to be. That really is the critical question. When any group says it is here to be an agent for change and is supported by taxpayers' dollars, I am concerned.
The minister is right. This statement made by the group does raise serious implications. Let us admit it, Mr. Speaker, we are living in a very pluralistic society. There are many different views of man and of life. The planned parenthood group apparently sees life from a very rationalistic and materi-

alistic point of view. Other groups such as the pro-life group see man as being a sacred person. There are other religions who see all life as being sacred, whether it is man, animal or insect. We live in a pluralistic society.
If the minister says she agrees that this agency ought to be an agent for change, my question is: How far is she willing to go to apply pressure to bring about a change of attitude? How much are the people going to have to change their convictions to conform to those agents of change? What if they do not want change? What if they want to maintain the convictions and lifestyle they have chosen for themselves? How far is the minister willing to go and to what extent is she willing to use taxpayers' money to bring about that change and try and convince people that they ought to change?
Within a rationalistic and materialistic view of life there are many different views, a whole range. Should there be such things as abortion on demand? What about abortion for those whom some invisible agency deems are not fit to raise a family, are not capable of raising a family? Should there be compulsory abortion? What about euthanasia and to whom should euthanasia apply? Should it only be for the elderly? At what point should we apply euthanasia for the elderly? What about euthanasia for the disabled who are "a burden" on society? At what point do we apply euthanasia if we are going to take a rationalistic view of life?
I come back to the question, Mr. Speaker: How far should any group in society be supported by the taxpayers' money to try to change people? That is the most sacred question. The most sacred faculty we have is the faculty of choice. If this is taken away from us by any means at all, we become dehumanized. We become animals. We do not have to go back very far in history to see examples of that.
The goal stated by this group raises ominous implications for this very sacred faculty which is ours by right. Furthermore, the government is elected to represent all Canadians. What about the other groups who disagree with that point of view? Are they not entitled to support? If the government is going to support planned parenthood, a group that thinks they are agents for change, what about the other groups in society who want to change society in a different way? Are they not entitled to taxpayers' dollars? Is the government going to represent only one small segment of society and the one very narrow view that it has chosen as being the right view for all people? How far is the government willing to make this choice for all Canadians?
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has chosen a very serious approach if she agrees, as she says she does, with the view that the planned parenthood group has espoused for itself. They ought to remember they are not simply there to be social servants, but they are to be agents of change.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to give me a clear indication of just how far the minister is willing to go to change society according to the norms that she has chosen for all of us, or that this group has chosen for us. How much
April 6, 1978

money are they willing to continue to spend? Will they be free and democratic enough to support other groups who might not agree with this particular group?


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have now had the opportunity to read the report of the allocations committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada for 1976-77. It was from the document I understand the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) quoted from when he asked his question on April 3. In it, the chairperson of the allocations committee reports on a meeting held June 17 at which several topics of relevance to the financial health of this national voluntary association were discussed. The report in its financial affairs section indicated, as did the hon. member on Monday, and I quote from the report:
"It is important for associations to remember that their primary role is to be agents for change rather than service agencies".
What is implied here is the primary role of the Family Planning Federation of Canada, which can be conceived as education and promotion of responsible parenthood for all Canadians.
This sentence further implies that voluntary agencies in the social and educational sectors are not to be primarily responsible for the delivery of health, welfare and education services. I am sure the hon. member would agree provision of services is the primary responsibility of provincial and municipal governments in this country. Let me take this opportunity to commend the two national voluntary associations active in family planning, SERENA Canada and the Planned Parenthood Federation, for their educational and promotional efforts toward ensuring that Canadians have the number of children they want and when they want them.
At the same time let me sketch the policy of the department on sustaining grants to national voluntary associations such as SERENA Canada and the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada. These grants are made on a year-to-year basis, after annual review. The sustaining grants to the two associations, namely $175,000 to SERENA and $600,000 to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, are calculated on the basis of their relative scope of activity in the country.
The sustaining grants have not increased over the last four years. Notice has been given that the department is attempting to reduce the dependence of the two organizations on federal funds. In other words, we have been working toward a pattern of financing in which the affiliates of the two associations will cease to be dependent upon the national organizations. We visualize the national offices being in receipt of revenue from their affiliates. This model is the typical pattern of funding for the voluntary sector in Canada. In the family planning field we do realize, however, that a number of years may pass before it can be fully implemented without loss of valuable educational and promotional effort.
Adjournment Debate
It is my firm belief that the voluntary sector's advocacy for social change has been influential in the development of the broad range of social services across Canada.


ENERGY-RATIONING OF SUPPLIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) about a report from the London Conference over the weekend to Mr. R. Toombs, the senior energy adviser for the department. Mr. Toombs indicated some very real concerns about oil shortages in the next seven or eight years and called for a super conservation program. The minister indicated in his answer that this program, which included the possibility of rationing, would only be implemented in the case of an emergency.
According to the figures of the National Energy Board, this emergency is inevitable. A chart produced by the National Energy Board and a report on oil supply and demand made a year ago do not vary more than 50,000 barrels a day today, according to the department and the board. That report shows that in 1976 Canadians were producing two million barrels a day. By 1986, production will drop to one million barrels a day. This includes a growing amount that will come from the oil sands or tar sands.
In 1977 we had a deficiency of 17 per cent in our production. This will grow to 52 per cent by 1986. We were told in testimony recently that by that time oil will be $25 a barrel in today's dollars. Therefore, we will have a deficit of $10 billion.
The department's figures indicate additional supplies of gas and electricity will be coming on stream. However, by 1986, we can expect a 30 per cent deficit in our total energy needs. With a good conservation program, that can be reduced to 20 per cent. One problem is, there is no discernible program for crossing over. We are told that more supplies of gas are coming in, but the cross-over just is not there. We will run out of an extremely vital resource necessary to propel our automobiles and so on. There will not be the technology to use some of these other materials at an early date.
I say to the minister through the parliamentary secretary that a crisis situation is developing. A white paper should be produced at the earliest opportunity, if possible before this parliament dissolves, clearly setting the conservation alternatives before the public. It should set out the alternatives in terms of available technology to make the cross-over, the changes required in our automobiles, and much more drastic changes than have already been announced.
Changes in the price structure may bring about conservation. There may be a possible need for rationing almost immediately, well before we run out of oil. I believe that there is a global oil crisis. There will be shortages everywhere, not just in Canada, and we must anticipate these shortages. I believe it is essential that a white paper be produced so that Canadians can better understand prices and take part in the

April 6, 1978
Adjournment Debate
discussions which will decide how we must approach the super conservation program which is required.


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of the oil supply situation in Canada as foreseen for the next ten years, it can be noted that the country's production of conventional crude oil is forecast to decline from 1.4 million barrels a day in 1977 to the level of 900,000 barrels a day in the mid-1980's.
In order to minimize reliance on uncertain supplies of oil imports, this production would not only have to be supplemented by production of close to 200,000 barrels a day from the two oil sands projects now developed in the Athabasca oil sands, but also by a further production of 200,000 barrels a day from as yet undeveloped sources in the heavy oil areas and the oil sands, to provide for a total production of 1.3 billion barrels a day. Expected oil demands in 1985 will be over 2 million barrels a day, which indicates that between 700,000 and 800,000 barrels a day would have to be imported. This would be a minimum level of imports, in view of uncertainties regarding the timing of projects to bring on new heavy oil and oil sands sources.
The situation of extensive dependence on oil imports, to the extent of 800,000 barrels a day, raises two major concerns. Such a large reliance on oil imports would impact seriously on Canada's balance of payments position. Imports of 800,000 barrels a day would represent a drain on the country's balance of payments by some $6 billion in 1985, or possibly even more should the international price of oil escalate faster in the 1980's than now anticipated.
The second problem, one of even more significance, is the question of import dependence from a security of supply point of view. In the event of international oil supply restrictions or serious supply disruptions, the eastern part of Canada would be in a major deficit position after existing storage supplies were exhausted. In preparation for such an eventuality the government is considering several possibilities of developing underground oil storage facilities to lengthen the period in
which Canada could sustain itself in the event of an overseas supply curtailment. However, there are limits to storage development and, in any event, supply interruption would also be dealt with through some form of energy use curtailment.
To this end the government has developed an emergency preparedness plan which, in the event of a prolonged emergency, could be carried through to a rationing phase. The government has recognized that an emergency could occur at any time and, consequently, has actively been developing a preparedness plan since the occurrence of the 1973-74 Middle East crisis. This is a contingency plan to meet emergency circumstances. Other steps are being taken to reduce the dependence on overseas supplies in addition to the acceleration of oil resource development.
To reduce the gap between supply and demand as now projected for the mid-1980's, increasing emphasis is being placed on conservation measures. This includes measures to reduce energy use in the home, such as the Canadian home insulation program, measures to reduce gasoline and diesel oil consumption in transportation, and a number of programs to improve the efficiency of energy use in industry.
In summary, the government has prepared for the possible eventuality of international oil supply curtailment through the design of an emergency preparedness program. It is also taking steps to minimize the projected energy supply gap in the next decade through incentive policies designed to accelerate oil resource development and through conservation programs directed to the residential, transportation and industrial sectors. All these programs, whether for emergency conditions or to meet the normal problems of supply and demand, are part of the government's energy policy. The country's energy policy in this and other respects has been developed to respond to the circumstances of a dynamic and ever-changing international energy economy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, April 7, 1978