1982-08-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an urgent matter relating to agriculture. It has now become evident in farming operations that the federal tax on farm fuel will have a counterproductive effect on agricultural production. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House request the government to remove the federal tax on fuels used for the purpose of farming so as not to have an adverse effect on the production of food in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, during yesterday's oral question period the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) said that he did "not play politics with defence" when he was questioned about the move of the naval reserves from Halifax to his home riding of Quebec City. What other answer can there be for this unnecessary move, other than for reserve naval personnel to be closer to our fighting ships in drydock? This is a pure and simple case of yet another giant slab of pork for the Liberal pork-barrel. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the Minister of National Defence cease thinking members of this House are as naive as he is, stop playing pork-barrel politics with defence, and allow naval reserve headquarters to remain where it is in sight of the Atlantic ocean.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESIDENT OF CANADIAN PACIFIC ENTERPRISES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which I think should obtain support from all hon. members of the House. Whereas the president of CP Enterprises, Ian Sinclair, has given enthusiastic support to the government's wage control policy of limiting wage increases to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year, and whereas the president of CP Enterprises has a salary of more than $500,000 per year, so that an increase of 6 per cent in the coming year would amount to an increase of more money than the bulk of Canadian Pacific employees make in the whole year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House calls on the president of CP Enterprises to put his money where his mouth is to show that he is really doing what he has been saying, by forgoing any pay increase in the coming year.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, there is money for Maislin Trucking but not for small business. In the month of June a record 348 bankruptcies were recorded by the region of Niagara. July was not far behind at almost 300 bankruptcies. At the same time, branches of two chartered banks within the region have indicated to applicants that no small business bonds are available from them. In view of the government's bail-out of Maislin, and in view of its stated commitment to the success of the bond program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the government treat small business in a fair and equitable way and restore the banks' confidence in the small business bond program by providing


loan guarantees of the type extended to Maislin for small business bond applicants.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, once again forest fires are raging out of control in northern British Columbia, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories, destroying vast areas of virgin forest land, the life and habitat of all species of wildlife, and causing extensive damage to property and serious threat to human life. This kind of natural calamity of course cannot be contained within political boundaries of territories and provinces, and it is for reasons of conflicting and overlapping jurisdiction and responsibility that the present situation in the north has once again reached such monumental proportions. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) and any other hon. member who wants to associate himself with this motion:
That this House urges the government to establish and maintain through the Ministry of National Defence, and in co-ordination with the provinces, the capability to respond quickly with equipment and manpower to forest fires anywhere in Canada and, further, to establish within the Canadian forest service a much improved program and capacity in the area of forest fire prevention.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, the newly released audit of all 1980 revenues of Canada's charitable organizations compiled by Statistics Canada confirms that the government would have saved money if, two years ago, it had implemented the "give and take" tax reform proposals of the national voluntary organizations. Since the government has never established a mechanism to measure either the employment capacity or the contribution to the gross national product of Canada's voluntary sector, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House urge the government to table for public discussion before the summer recess the background discussion papers on the national voluntary action policy and thereby seek advice for a divided cabinet from representatives of Canada's three million volunteers whose cost effective services are more needed now than ever before.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, according to a story in today's Globe, several informed Canadians, including CRTC's John Meisel, law professor Paul Weiler and Advocacy Centre's Andrew Roman, have questioned the legality of allowing a cabinet minister's budget statement to supersede existing legislation as it relates to applying the wonderful world of 6 per cent to federally regulated companies such as Bell Canada. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House instruct the government to come clean with the people of Canada and admit that it has neither the power nor the intention of controlling either the prices companies charge or the profits they earn, and that Bill C-124 was designed primarily to welsh on collective agreements with the federal public service and latterly to victimize the staffs of M.P.s.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, the current Government of Canada is obviously in its dying days and hopefully will lead to the demise of the Liberal Party in Canada in the same way that Lloyd George did with the Liberal Party in Britain. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the government be condemned for its outright pork-barreling by moving our broken, dispirited navy to inland waters from its strategic location in Halifax in total disregard of national defence.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, the government's announced decision to bail out Montreal's inefficient, debt-burdened Maislin Trucking company stands in stark contrast to this same government's embarrassing and unprincipled policy of slowdown of customs inspections of Japanese imported cars into ports in British Columbia which is forcing a number of small independent British Columbia truckers into bankruptcy. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this Flouse require the government to recognize the inconsistency and favouritism shown by taking immediate action to ensure the same generous and compassionate consideration for all independent truckers that it provides for its Montreal based friends at Maislin Trucking or, failing that, withdraw the Maislin advantage.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, Canadians who are concerned about the uncritically pronuclear power policy of the Liberal Party have been waiting for some two years to hear the results of the government's internal departmental review of nuclear policy. These Canadians want to know, for instance, whether the rumours about increased federal assistance to provinces willing to construct nuclear power plants for electricity export are true, and thus whether or not our tax dollars will continue to be poured down the nuclear drain out of technological vanity and the stupid commitment of this government to keep the nuclear power industry alive at all costs. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the government publish the conclusions of its internal review and that this be followed by a public inquiry in which many concerned Canadians will finally get a chance to tell this government that they reject the nuclear mania of the Liberal Party and are willing to embark on an energy future based on renewable energy resources, conservation and respect for the environment and future generations.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the allegations of relaxed, if not casual administration policies at Archambault, and that these policies contributed to the extreme brutality there, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the right of the public to know how the government operates the correctional system be honoured and that a full public inquiry be implemented into the administration of the correctional system and that the philosophy, the criteria for hiring personnel and the administration of prisons in general be included in the public inquiry.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



DEMAND THAT SALARIES OF MEMBERS' STAFFS NOT BE REDUCED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House direct the President of the Treasury Board not to reduce members' staffs salaries.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Bill C-48, the Canada Oil and Gas Act, is supposed to ensure that Canadians capture their share of industrial benefits associated with oil and gas exploration and development, and whereas Canada's Office of Industrial Benefits is a weak imitation of the British and Norwegian originals, and whereas it appears

Oral Questions
that Dome Petroleum is likely to build four carriers for the Arctic Pilot project offshore and is currently planning to build five LNG carriers in Japan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That the government admit that Bill C-48 fails to guarantee Canadians their rightful share of industrial benefits from oil and gas exploration and that this House urge the government to implement immediately a Canadian marine industrial strategy capable of capturing those benefits.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 19896 of Hansard:
-in so far as I know, Mr. Bronfman has made no representations, nor have his associates, to members of this government.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, while I must accept his word even though I may not believe it, has he checked with other members of his ministry to see if Mr. Bronfman did in fact make representations to them about Maislin?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would not accept my word and would not believe my word, why would he believe me if I were reporting on behalf of some other members?


REPRESENTATIONS TO MINISTERS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, whether I believe it or not, under the rules of the House I have to accept it. 1 am telling the Prime Minister, the leader of the land, that he must be more than the Pinocchio of political prevarication.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He has to show some principle here, and he must show some responsibility in checking with his ministers. I am suggesting to him that there were at least two ministers directly called by Mr. Bronfman, directly in relation to Maislin. In the time between yesterday and today, has the Prime

Minister checked to see if any of his ministers had been called by Mr. Bronfman?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will know that I am not interested in giving him any answers if he does not believe them.


Mr. Lawrence:: Caught!


Mr. Clark:: Might as well call off question period then.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Well, none of us believe you. Why do you not get out?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why do you not just get out?


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Even your own people do not believe you.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am with my colleague.


CRITERIA GOVERNING EXTENSION OF LOAN GUARANTEES
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What I personally feel or believe is not the reason I am asking the question of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has some duty with regard to a guaranteed loan in a brand new area of the service industry. Service industries across this country are crying for assistance. The reasons for the question, regardless of the effect of some people who may have lobbied on behalf of Maislin, involve the very fact that if the Prime Minister believes there is no political clout and if one does not have to be bankrupt to fit some form of criteria, then surely he owes some duty to the people of this country, the taxpayers of this country, and people who vote, to clarify these areas. If those are not the two reasons, political pressure and the fact that one must be bankrupt, will the Prime Minister or his officials publish the criteria so that other people can apply for help?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to deal with this problem, but I will not deal with it in answer to an hon. member who has sworn to me that he will not believe my answers.


CRITERIA GOVERNING EXTENSION OF LOAN GUARANTEES TO TRUCKING COMPANIES
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Even though the majority of the employees of a Canadian company are employed elsewhere and are not Canadians, what are the criteria by which such a company may secure a loan guarantee from the government to enable it to avoid bankruptcy? More specifically, what trucking companies in Canada, no


Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE
matter what their size, may apply to have their loans guaranteed at their lending institutions and thus save the jobs of their Canadian employees?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: First of all, Madam Speaker, I do not agree with my hon. friend's premise that the majority of the Maislin company's employees are in the United States. My information is that half of them are in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Andre:: You are right. It is not half full, it is half empty.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my understanding of majority is 50 per cent plus one. I know the opposition would like to have it otherwise, but that is still a majority. In any event, generally we want to see whether there are reasonable prospects for restructuring and returning to long-term viability on the part of companies applying for loan guarantee assistance. If my hon. friend knows of companies he would like to bring to our attention that might be considered because of their financial difficulty, and if there is a basis on the merits for their applications being considered, as I said before, I will be very happy to have the matter brought to the attention of my cabinet colleagues.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CRITERIA
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, the merits are that they are going bankrupt all over the country. Those are the merits. Last Friday the minister's colleague from North-umberland-Miramichi put it far better than I, that is, what is he to say to his business constituents who could be saved from bankruptcy and, therefore, have jobs saved, by the government guaranteeing their line of credit at the bank? Those are the merits. Having established that, I repeat, what are the criteria? Is it going bankrupt? Is it having 50 per cent of your employees in the U.S.? Is it knowing Charles Bronfman? Is it going to an All-Star game? Just tell us so that I, the member for Northumberland-Miramichi, and hundreds of others can come to the minister and say, "Please save these companies from bankruptcy the same as you saved your friends at Maislin."


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, for some time the federal government has had in place a program of offering loan guarantees in high-risk last-resort situations where, without that type of loan guarantee, the prospects of restructuring and returning to long-time viability of an enterprise would not be there. This program assisted a large number of companies even before the current Maislin situation. As I said before, if people will come forward with applications and make their case on the merits, they will certainly be considered.


FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS BY CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue, of which I have given him notice. When filing their tax returns, 50 people across the country made out cheques to the Peace Tax Fund representing 10.5 per cent of their income tax, which is the percentage that goes to the Department of National Defence. As conscientious objectors, they did not wish their tax money to be spent on weapons or the armed forces. Eight of these cheques were accepted by the department and were cleared by their banks or credit unions. Therefore, the minister is now holding a significant amount of money in the Peace Tax Fund. Since this money has been accepted and deposited, what is the minister planning to do with this Peace Tax money?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I am not aware that any funds so earmarked have been banked. Indeed, I know of one case where the cheque was sent back which had been addressed to the Department of National Defence because the Income Tax Act does not permit the targeting of tax dollars to any specific project, policy or fund. People may have views and may hold them very sincerely, but the withholding of income tax for special purposes is not a legitimate form of protest.


DEPARTMENTAL POLICY
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the answer, but it seems that the group which has been managing this kind of protest has recorded that, of the 40 cheques which have been handled by the department, there are at least five policies. First, the cheque is cashed and the taxpayer told he owes no more money. Second, the taxpayer is told that the cheque has to be made out to the Receiver General and that he still owes the money. Third, he is told that he has to pay the money with interest. Fourth, he is told that he has to pay the money with interest, plus a fine. Why is there so much uncertainty within the department if the policy is quite clear as to how to handle these kinds of things? They seem to have at least five different policies. How can the minister justify that?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, a number of cases have been brought to my attention. If the hon. member has other specific cases he wants to bring to my attention, I will be glad to deal with them. I must caution him, of course, that discussion of the situations of individual taxpayers is prohibited under the Income Tax Act, but to my knowledge there is one policy. Cheques made out specifically to policy or program areas are not acceptable, and the withholding of tax dollars as a form of protest is not a legitimate form of protest. However, if the hon. member has


Oral Questions
specific cases, I would be glad to hear from him on that matter.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question concerning Canada's naval reserve force which I would like to address to the Prime Minister because it really does involve important government policy.
The Prime Minister now knows that a decision has been made to transfer naval reserve headquarters from Halifax to Quebec City. What he may not know is that this decision has shocked both civilian and military officials because it does not relate to national defence. I want to ask the Prime Minister this: was the decision approved by the cabinet, does the cabinet endorse the decision and, if it was not so approved, will the Prime Minister immediately order a review of the decision by a committee of cabinet or a committee of Parliament? If the decision is sensibly reviewed, I know it will be reversed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would be happy if any minister wanted to raise this in full cabinet. We have a full cabinet meeting on Thursday and, if any minister wants to raise it, I would be happy to deal with it.
The reason why this decision was taken by the minister, on the advice of his officials and of military people themselves, is pretty straightforward. There is not a high enough percentage of Francophones in the navy, and we think it is important that some naval operations be conducted out of Quebec City. That is a simple fact established by statistics. Whereas in the armed forces in general some 26 per cent of the forces are Francophone, in the case of the navy I believe the average is around 13 per cent for other ranks and as low as 10 per cent or 11 per cent for officers.
I think this is an important and progressive move. It will not prevent the naval forces remaining in Halifax from growing. It will simply ensure that some of the services of the navy will be delivered out of Quebec City.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I think the real concern is that this is only the first in a series of initiatives designed to give the naval force a greater presence in the province of Quebec.


POSITION OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State, particularly in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has suggested a cabinet review.
The Secretary of State now knows that the reason for this move of naval reserve headquarters from Halifax to Quebec City is to increase Francophone participation in the naval
reserve and in Canada's navy. As the person responsible for the administration of the Official Languages Act I would like to ask him whether he thinks this is a fair extension of the provisions of that act and whether he thinks it is a proper exercise of power and authority under that act and within the intent of that act. Does he think that the interests of this nation in terms of national defence should govern over considerations like Francophone participation in the navy and the extent to which there is a certain number of Francophones versus a certain number of Anglophones? What does that have to do with guns, bullets, and national defence?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for FIR A regarding the 12 jobs that will be lost in the ridings of York East and Etobicoke-Lakeshore, both held by Liberals, if the government persists in its plan to force J.B. Lippincott of Canada to close. The company will be closed as a result of a FIRA decision because there is no Canadian buyer. If I may quote the most likely Canadian buyer, they said that "it would be more profitable" for Lippincott to close the Canadian operation and export books from the United States to Canada rather than selling to a Canadian. Given that description of Lippincott's problem by its most likely buyer, why does the minister continue to adhere to such a vicious double standard? In the Maislin case, American jobs are guaranteed with Canadian money, while in the Lippincott case, where 100 per cent of the


jobs are Canadian, the minister remains firmly and pigheadedly committed to putting 12 Canadians out of work and forcing those jobs into the United States.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the government is not forcing Lippincott to close. That is a decision of the foreign parent, which we deplore, and which it is not being forced to take by this government. It has a number of alternatives available, including making a new application to the government, including seeking a Canadian for a joint venture, and including selling to Canadians. The Association of Canadian Book Publishers has said that it knows of three Canadian firms willing to buy that company. So, Madam Speaker, we are not forcing the company to close. It is a decision of the foreign parent. It is the foreign parent that is putting Canadians out of work. With respect to Maislin, we are saving 2,000 Canadian jobs. There is no double standard; we are being consistent.


QUERY RESPECTING ACHIEVEMENT OF BENEFIT FOR CANADA
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, it is sometimes difficult to get ministers to listen. May I repeat what the most likely buyer, the president of Gage Publishing, had to say in The Globe and Mail this morning. Presumably the minister only read the headline. He said that "it would be more profitable" for Lippincott to close. The minister is saying that the new foreign investment policy of this country is that if a firm is profitable and can make money, it should get out.
FIRA's job is to decide whether substantial benefits accrue to Canada from foreign investment. Can the minister explain to the House, and to the 12 Canadians who will lose their jobs on November 20, what significant benefit is achieved for them or for Canada when their jobs disappear and there is no food on their tables?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the decision with respect to the Lippincott application was taken in June, 1981, by the cabinet. On the basis of the information presented, it was found that there was not significant benefit in terms of, among other things, consistency with the long-standing policy of the government to encourage a greater Canadian presence in book publishing and book distribution.
The government has not told Lippincott Canada to close. The announcement the company made the other day was not as a result of any order by the government but as a result of a decision taken by the foreign parent. That is a decision it does not have to take at this time, and it is a decision it has taken in spite of the fact that alternatives are open to it. If it does not want to take those alternatives, it has to bear the responsibility-a regrettable one-for the action that my hon. friend is talking about.
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Four months ago the government announced that it was appointing Pierre Juneau as president of the CBC. In the intervening four months no announcement has been made about who Mr. Juneau's successor will be as deputy minister of communications. When will the Prime Minister be making an appointment to that position, and will he give the House the assurance that the new deputy minister of communications will be someone who is experienced and who is drawn from the industry itself, and will not simply be one of the political proteges of the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will be attempting to fill that vacancy as soon as possible. I can assure the hon. member that I want to choose the best possible person to fill the post.


ASSURANCE SOUGHT ON BACKGROUND OF POSSIBLE APPOINTEE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the person chosen will be drawn from the industry and will be someone who has had first-hand, on-the-job experience in the telecommunications industry, not simply someone from the bureaucracy who has not had first-hand experience in this field?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there are many qualified people in many areas. 1 have no one in mind particularly now, but I can assure the hon. member that I will cover the field for the best possible candidate. I cannot give the assurance in advance that he will come from any particular branch of the industry or the private sector or for that matter, of the rest of the public service.


VIA RAIL
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The minister may have had a chance by now to familiarize himself with the recommendations of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Transport concerning passenger rail service in Canada provided by VIA Rail, in which the minister's reorganization of passenger rail system which took effect on November 16, 1981, is referred to as "an unfortunate ad hoc response that has detrimental long-term ramifications for the passenger rail system in Canada."
Does the minister plan any changes in government passenger rail policy in response to the undeniable national consensus that his decision of last year was an arrogant and dumb


Oral Questions
mistake, and would he be willing to be helped out of his errors by agreeing to the Senate committee's recommendation that a special joint committee of both Houses of Parliament be created for the purpose of analysing contemporary and future options for passenger transportation service in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I do not regret the decision that was made a year ago about this time. I think history will prove that this was the right decision to make. However, I must say, and 1 have already said it, there is no intention on the part of the government to effectuate other cuts in the VIA system of the size we made a year ago, and no intention of effectuating any major cuts in any way. I am prudent in saying that because there might be an opportunity for other changes.
With respect to the formation of a committee, I have already indicated to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transportation that I would most probably have a discussion paper to submit to its attention and competence in the fall.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, history has already proven the minister to be wrong. Empty trains are running from Regina to Winnipeg, the tourist business is a shambles in Jasper, and there are many isolated communities all across the country. But the minister does not listen.
My supplementary question concerns another way in which the government is allowing the proper role of railways in this country to deteriorate, and that is what it has allowed to happen to CN Express over the years. I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that Air Canada is cancelling, as of February 1, 1983, as was made known last week, its longstanding air express arrangement with CN Express? This move will affect approximately 200 jobs across the system in Canada. Does the minister approve of the apparent intention of Air Canada to contract out these services, and what does he intend to do to protect the jobs of the CN employees affected by this latest move?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as I have often said, I do not intervene in the day to day operations of Air Canada or of CN. I do not, and 1 repeat that, 1 do not intend to intervene in the day to day operations of Crown corporations. That is in the best traditions of government in Canada.
Occasionally they change their minds about what they have done in the past and decide to do things differently, that is their responsibility. On a number of occasions CN and Air Canada-and a speech was made recently by the vice-president of Air Canada on the subject-have ventured into other operations close to their main operation, that is, operating a
railway or an airline. In that recent speech the vice-president of Air Canada demonstrated that this has been very profitable for them and has created a great number of jobs in Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will know that yesterday we were advised in the House that the government has recalled the Canadian ambassador to Lebanon. He will know that Mr. Arcand had personally viewed his position in Lebanon as being one that would result in his taking a risk if he remained in that country despite the potential loss of his own life. In that regard he was following the fine tradition established by other Canadian ambassadors.
We know that at this time there were approximately 50 refugees housed in the basement of the building in which the Canadian embassy is located. What does the Prime Minister anticipate the effect will be of the withdrawal of the ambassador on those refugees housed in the basement of that building?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that the Canadian ambassador, Mr. Theodore Arcand, is at Juniyah, not quite five miles from the embassy office, that the embassy is open, that immigration files are being processed quite normally, and that the ambassador, from his office in Juniyah which is partly in the town hall and partly in a hotel, is in constant communication with our embassy, and finally, that the ambassador is free to go to West Beirut if he feels this is necessary. Thus, our embassy is still functioning, and I do not think we can blame the Secretary of State for External Affairs for having made this decision to protect our staff.


PROTECTION FOR CANADIAN CITIZENS
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, it was my understanding yesterday from the message that we received that the ambassador was being recalled. There are approximately 1,500 Canadians in Lebanon who need the services and, indeed, the protection of the ambassador. What efforts will the government make to place a full embassy staff at the disposal of Canadians and those, such as the 50 refugees to whom 1 made reference, who look to Canada for some kind of protection?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is confusing


the present situation with the normal rotation process that usually takes place at this time of the year, when transfers take place between various foreign postings. It was understood several months ago that Mr. Arcand was to return to Canada within a week or two. His trip to Canada has no connection with the decision we made a few days ago to instruct him to move a few kilometres outside the capital. Once again, in view of recent occurrences, it would seem that the Secretary of State's decision was the right one in the circumstances.


CANADIAN EMBASSY IN WEST BEIRUT-SECURITY OF PERSONNEL AND OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. I would appreciate some further clarification by the minister. This is very important, at least for Canadians who have to contact the embassy in Lebanon. Yesterday, the minister said the embassy was closed, and I quote what he said:
-I am recommending that the Canadian ambassador and his staff leave West Beirut, for their own safety and also to safeguard Canadian interests.
The embassy in West Beirut is either open or closed. If it is closed, there is no one there and in that case I understand there are security reasons. If not-and as 1 heard this morning-the embassy is still open and there is still staff there. Does the minister mean that the safety of the staff now working in West Beirut is not as important as the safety of the Canadian staff who were asked to leave yesterday and move elsewhere?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, of course we feel all lives are important, whether we are talking about Canadian or local staff. In fact, the latter volunteered to stay. Our ambassador told his local staff that they were free to stay home and not work any more. Some employees preferred to go on working, and that is why the temporary office located at Juniyah is in constant communication with our chancery offices. I can assure the hon. member for Saint-Denis that Mr. Arcand told his local staff that they were free to stay home. I am saying this especially because of the news received this morning that a member of the local staff was killed near the chancery. Once again, Mr. Arcand let them know that they were free to stay home.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister knows, I am sure, that under the National Energy Program greenhouse producers have been faced with crippling federal taxes which have risen from zero to 83 cents per mcf
Ora! Questions
for natural gas which they use. This increase has occurred over a period of less than two years. Coupled with the fact that the federal government imposes a 60-cent-a-gallon federal tax on farm fuel this constitutes a very regressive measure for the producers of Canada, particularly the small operators. Is the Minister of Agriculture doing anything at all to remove this unfair burden?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member keeps making representations and statements about how much producers are paying for energy. We have done a study on the costs of energy to farmers in Canada compared to costs of energy to farmers in the United States, a country with which we compete generally in agricultural production, both domestically and in international markets.
We can make comparisons. For instance, Alberta, which province has a tremendous amount of money, does not charge provincial tax on gas, etc. At mid-March gasoline cost 29.1 cents a litre and diesel fuel cost 28.8 cents a litre in Alberta, whereas gasoline cost 34.5 cents a litre and diesel fuel cost 31 cents a litre in Montana in the United States.


Mr. McKnight:: Try Ontario.


Eugene Whelan: Hon. members can see by those figures that the Americans were paying more than Alberta farmers were at that time. We are considering the cost of natural gas and we are putting together a presentation for my colleagues on the cost of food. As far as the cost of food is concerned, we are very concerned about it. We are most concerned about the total cost of food, in fact about any input into the cost of food.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the minister of Agriculture, either accidentally or deliberately, refused to answer the question which 1 posed. The question has to do with the imposition of an 83-cent-per-mcf tax on natural gas, a commodity which is used by the greenhouse operators. The greenhouse operators in the minister's own backyard are complaining bitterly about it.


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF TAX
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, given the fact that market gardening and produce grown in greenhouses offer Canada's best potential in terms of reducing food imports into this country, and since this tax on natural gas discriminates and reduces the competitive position of the greenhouse producers in Canada, is the Minister of Agriculture actively engaged in making representations to his colleagues to have this discriminatory tax removed retroactively?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, 1 hope that the hon. member is not suggesting the greenhouse industry can supply Canada with fresh produce.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 did not say that.


Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: He says it offers the greatest potential for production of those products. The greenhouse industry produces tomatoes and cucumbers.


Mr. Stewart:: Tell us about taxes.


Eugene Whelan: We know that the food value is twice as good from naturally processed foods as from products grown in greenhouses. They are luxury items. They are used in salads, etc., by our society.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member said they are in my backyard. I know that very well. He is trying to say now that I do not know what is going on. In the hon. member's own province there are many benefits for his producers because of the rich Heritage Fund. Funds are distributed easily. His province is not giving producers that much of a break-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY GREENHOUSE INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture will know when he speaks of facts that the greenhouse industry is located in his backyard and, indeed, in my riding. He will also know that for the last two or three years that industry has required access to stabilization by reason of non-profitability and non-return of the marketplace to the growers who obviously are having difficulty. 1 brought this matter to the minister's attention many months ago. I would be interested as well in knowing whether there is a time frame within which cabinet will deal with this issue and will, in fact, respond to members of the greenhouse industry in Canada which represents some $20 million in my riding alone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that I have a long association with that organization and that productive entity because-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: You are the best in the world, Eugene.


Eugene Whelan: -before redistribution, all that greenhouse industry was in my constituency. Most of it was built while I was the Member of Parliament for that area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I am saying that I am fully aware of the needs of those people. I am fully aware of what the stabilization board has said about the returns they need, etc. I am fully aware of what the Agricultural Stabilization Act says, about
90 per cent which is statutory, and about using a five-year average price with the current year's input costs. It does not show that there should be a pay-out on that, but if I move into 95 per cent or 100 per cent and make that recommendation, which would be an extra expenditure, there would be no payout at the present time under that program. I am just saying that, yes, I am as concerned as the hon. member-


Mr. Epp:: Then answer him.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Recently he announced a new policy of placement of inmates in a number of federal penitentiaries in double cells. Both staff and prisoners have strongly protested this policy, arguing that it will lead to increased tensions in the institution and possibly even to violence.
In view of the fact that this policy of placement of two prisoners in cells built for one runs completely contrary to the 1977 report of the subcommittee on penitentiaries, and contrary to any sound correctional philosophy, and could lead to serious incidents in the institutions affected, will the minister now agree to end this dangerous policy of double-cell usage in federal institutions? Further, particularly in light of the recent tragic deaths at Archambault, when will the minister finally implement the key recommendations of the 1977 unanimous subcommittee report which he has so far completely ignored?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, there are no double-cell occupancies in Archambault, so obviously that was not a factor in the tragic incident there. In general, my answer to the hon. member is that inmates are being put two to a cell in a limited number of institutions because we have no other place to put them. We do not have new institutions coming onstream to provide extra capacity for another couple of years. The indications I have from the correctional services are that they anticipate extra inmate population as a temporary problem and that it will decline within the next couple of years. I would like to put to him that at this particular point, with the responsibility we have at law to incarcerate federal offenders, what other option is there to double celling at this time?


Svend Johannes Robinson: One of the key recommendations of the 1977 subcommittee report was to look seriously at alternatives to incarceration. If we looked at that, perhaps it would deal with the question of overcrowding.


RIGHT OF ARCHAMBAULT INMATES TO SEE LAWYERS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary is also directed to the Solicitor General. Notwithstanding the assurance given last Friday to the President of the Quebec Bar Association that the right of inmates at the Archambault penitentiary to meet with their lawyers would be respected, yesterday, several lawyers were barred from seeing their clients. How can the Solicitor General justify the denial to inmates of fundamental rights enshrined in the new Canadian Constitution, and does the minister intend to reverse immediately this indefensible policy?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Regarding alternatives to incarceration, Madam Speaker, 1 am not responsible for such alternatives since it is up to the courts to decide whether a prisoner is to be sent to prison or elsewhere, and we at Correctional Service Canada are responsible for the people sent to us by the courts. So I suggest that the hon. member ask the courts about alternatives. As for lawyers being barred from Archambault, 1 am very sorry about the situation following last week's riot, but I can assure the hon. member that the prison will be open to lawyers of inmates as soon as possible. In fact, this morning I spoke to the President of the Quebec Bar and I told him that probably Tuesday next week the prison would be open to lawyers of inmates.


DOME PETROLEUM-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, on July 8, informed the House that consultations were going on with his staff members and certain representatives of Dome Petroleum, with a view to arranging either a loan or some form of financing assistance for that group. Bearing in mind that the group, out of a total indebtedness of $8.4 billion, has $1.4 billion coming due next month, would the minister indicate whether he has anything to tell the House concerning the government's involvement in this matter, or is the street talk true, that he is saving it until the House adjourns so that we may not be able to question him on this subject?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the street talk is not true.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister simply indicate whether it is
Oral Questions
true that there is an agreement in principle concerning an arrangement to help the Dome people and, if so, would he indicate what authority he feels the government has to make such an arrangement involving over $1 billion of federal government guarantees?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have not been informed that there was any agreement in principle, and I have certainly not given my assent to any agreement in principle.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for FIRA. It concerns another 85 Canadian jobs in the publishing industry. The minister will know that, as a result of the sale of the parent of Random House, Canada, the question of the future of Random House employees in Canada is now before FIRA, and indeed has been there for two and a half years. It is exactly the same case as the Lippincott one; they are on all fours. Will the Random House case be treated in the same way as the Lippincott case with the certain prospect of a loss of Canadian jobs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the decision in this case, as in the other cases in question, will be made by the government. Certainly we will have to give careful consideration to all the circumstances required by the law. We will certainly carry out our responsibilities in that regard.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the matter was first raised with FIRA two and a half years ago. It is now before the cabinet of Canada. The cabinet of Canada has already forced Canadians employed by Lippincott to lose their jobs. Will the cabinet of Canada force 85 Canadians employed by Random House to lose their jobs as well?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I reject the premise of my hon. friend that it is the cabinet of Canada which forced Lippincott to announce that it was laying off its Canadian employees. It has taken that decision on its own, which is something that we have not required it to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In the Random House case, we will certainly look carefully at all the circumstances, in the light of the requirements of the law, including the views of the provincial govern-


Oral Questions
ment. My hon. friend should know that a year ago when we considered the Lippincott case we received the views of the Ontario government, and it was in opposition to the acceptance of that application.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell me two things? First, will he tell me when the Random House decision will be taken by his cabinet and, second, is this policy decision by the Government of Canada, to throw Canadians who work for Lippincott out of work and to throw Canadians who work for Random House out of work, part of the reform of FIRA which was announced in the budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will inquire as to the date when this item is coming up for a cabinet decision. As to the second question, it is spurious and beneath contempt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION RESTRAINT ACT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Last week the President of the Treasury Board indicated that he would be restoring collective bargaining rights to the public service and to those Crown and private corporations that come under Bill C-124. He claims that the government would be doing so under the provisions of an amendment which reads in part, "The Governor in Council may by order terminate the application of this act in respect of an employee or group of employees to which this act applies."
How can we trust the government with this completely unbridled power which allows it to exempt the rest of the act from certain groups of employees and employers, keeping in mind the callous and discriminatory treatment that it has given to the employees of Members of Parliament and employees of the Senate by arbitrarily rolling back the present salaries of those workers? How can we trust the government with any more power, when it has already abused the power it has?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, in the course of debate on the report stage, when we look at the proposed amendment, the hon. member for Churchill will have ample opportunity to make his point of view known. I explained at the time the amendment was tabled what its purpose was, how it was intended to restore collective bargaining with those groups who agreed to the six and five limit. That is the position of the government. We
stand behind that position. I hope that we will have the comments of the hon. member in the course of this afternoon's debate, at which point I will be happy to elaborate on this brief answer.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the 317th Report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) on Monday, August 2, 1982, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, after consultation with my House leader colleagues in both opposition parties, we have come to an agreement on the following motion. If you seek unanimous consent, according to them and certainly myself, I think you will obtain it.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the time provided for government business under orders of the day on Wednesday, August 4, 1982, shall expire at 6 p.m.;
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of the House, when the House has completed its consideration of the business ordered to be completed by that time, it shall suspend its sitting until 8 p.m. that day and upon resumption of the sitting shall revert to Routine Proceedings for the purpose of taking into consideration the motion of the President of the Privy Council, now on notice, for an adjournment of the House;
Provided that if, at 10 p.m. that day, a message concerning the granting of the Royal Assent to Bill C-124, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, has not been received, the House shall adjourn, but proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 40 shall not take place;
Provided further that, if the House sits on Thursday, August 5, 1982, the business taken up under orders of the day shall be aforementioned motion by the President of the Privy Council;
Provided further that, if the aforementioned message has not yet been received by 10 p.m. on August 5, 1982, the debate on the aforementioned motion shall be deemed to have been adjourned; and
Provided that, when the House returns from the granting of the Royal Assent to the aforementioned bill, the aforementioned motion shall, not before 10 p.m. on August 4, 1982, be deemed to have been adopted without amendment and the House shall thereupon adjourn.
This has been the agreement we have been working on for quite a while. It seems that there is unanimous consent. I


therefore ask that you seek unanimous consent for that motion.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Does it give its unanimous consent to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by 45 Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament, demanding that the government immediately amend the provisions of Bill C-124 so that the restraint provisions will take effect for the staffs of Members of Parliament and senators only on the expiration of their present salary arrangement, as will be the case for everyone else in the public service; and that the staffs of Members of Parliament and senators not be singled out for punitive action by the government.
1 do so in the hope that the government will give credence to this particular petition before the bill is voted on later this day and that this discriminatory action not be taken by the government against the staffs of Members of Parliament-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and senators.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member knows that speeches are not allowed when presenting petitions.


Charles Joseph Clark: And none was given.

Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) What amount was spent by the government on French language advertising in Quebec during the referendum campaign period (b) to which creative advertising agencies were contracts awarded to produce such advertising (c) what was the value of the contracts signed by the creative agencies (d) were any of the contracts offered for tender?
3.	Were government advertising contracts awarded for the fiscal year 1980-81 to the advertising firms (a) Vickers & Benson Ltd. (b) Ronalds-Reynolds & Co. Ltd. (c) BCP Advertising (1978) Ltd. (d) Jean Prevost Inc. and, if so, in each case (i) was the contract publicly tendered (ii) what was its value?


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Multiculturalism Directorate:
1.	See reply to question No. 1,450 tabled today. Because no central control was developed prior to 1980, it is not possible to provide the government's total advertising budget for fiscal year 1979-80, or fiscal year 1980-81. Procedures are presently being established for a central control of the government's advertising budget for fiscal year 1981-82.
3. See reply to question No. 1,450 tabled today.
Canadian Unity Information Office:
2.	(a) $929,371.15. (b) PNMD Communications, Montreal, Ronalds-Reynolds & Co. Ltd., Montreal, (c) Contracts not to exceed $1,500,000 were awarded to both companies listed in (b). The contracts terminated March 31, 1981. (d) Due to the short notice regarding the launching of the campaign, contracts were not awarded through tender.
3.	(a) Yes. (i) The appointment of advertising agencies is made through the chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Communications upon recommendations from the Advertising Management Group as per chapter 485 in Treasury Board Canada, Administrative Policy Manual, (ii) Not to exceed $600,000. (b) Yes. (i) See (a)(i) above, (ii) Not to exceed $1,500,000. (c) No. (d) No.
Employment and Immigration Canada:
3. (a) Yes. (i) No.
(ii) $435,000 $490,000
$ 262 $	1,195.
(b), (c) and (d) No. (i) Not applicable, (ii) Not applicable.
Energy, Mines and Resources Canada:


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(i)
(iii)
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,439, 3,231, 3,501 and 4,185.
(a)	No.	Not	applicable(b)	Yes.	No(c)	No.	Not	applicable(d)	No.	Not	applicable
Not applicable $5,000,000 Not applicable Not applicable


Mr. Beatty: 1. What was the government's total advertising budget for the Fiscal year 1979-80 and what is the proposed budget for the fiscal year 1980-81?
Department of Finance Canada:
3. (a) Yes. (i) No. (ii) $2,415,000. (b) No. (c) Yes. (i) No. (ii) $760,000. (d) No.
Industry, Trade and Commerce:
Canadian Government Office of Tourism


Order Paper Questions
		(i)	(ii)
(a)	Yes.	No	$4,200,000(b)	Yes.	No	$ 511,000(c)	Yes.	No	$ 875,500(d)	No.	-	
Public Information Directorate
		(i)	(ii)
(a)	No.	_(b)	No.	-	(c)	Yes.	No	$ 225,000(d)	No.	-	-
National Defence:
3. (a) No. (b) Yes. (i) and (ii) The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence awarded, without tender, a contract to this firm, for a value of $1,625,000. (c) No. (d) No.
Public Works Canada:
3. (a) No. (b) Yes. (i) Contract awarded in accordance with government policy through DSS following Treasury Board program approval, (ii) The value of the contract was $200,000. (c) No. (d) No.
Other departments and agencies:
3. No.
make its views fully known to the legislators, based on good information.


Mr. Beatty: What amount was spent by the government for advertising in (a) 1979-80 (b) 1980-81 and what is the projected budget for 1981-82?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
Department of Supply and Services assumed responsibility for contracting for government advertising services on September 19, 1979. Since that date, the values of contracts placed by the Department of Supply and Services, by year, are as follows:
(a)	1979 (Sept. 19)-80: $22,500,000.
(b)	1980-81: $57,900,000. As of December 2, 1981, the projected budget for 1981-82 is $68,900,000.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): By (a) department (b) advertising agency, what was the value of all advertising contracts processed through the Department of Supply and Services for the fiscal year 1981-82?


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In each of the past three years, what was the total amount spent on advertising advocating government programs and what was the total for all three years combined?
2.	(a) For the same period, what was the amount spent by the government for advertising the constitutional views and the constitutional resolutions prior to passage by Parliament (b) what are all the reasons justifying the expenditure of public funds on one point of view on a question that was not the law of the land at the time?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: 1. See reply to question No. 3,501 answered this day.
2. (a) $5,900,000. (b) The Canadian Unity Information Office has a mandate to inform Canadians on their country, its system of government and the services offered by their national government. The objective of the advertising on the Constitution was to make Canadians more aware of the importance of what was being discussed without advocating any particular approach.
The government's policy was restated lately in a speech by the Hon. Gerald Regan on November 25, 1981, "In addition to explaining programs and legislation which have been approved by Parliament, the government has a duty to inform the public on its proposals before they have been decided by Parliament. This principle recognizes that without factual information about the government's proposals and the issues being addressed, the public does not have the opportunity to


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
tables below provide by department and advertising agency the advertising expenditures for the contracts processed through the department.
Departmental Advertising Expenditures Fiscal Year 1981-1982
Department
Expenditures ($000)
Agriculture Canada	2.5
Canada Post Corporation	1,668.1
Chief Electoral Officer	27.4
Department of Communications	12.2
Consumer and Corporate Affairs	640.2
Employment and Immigration	4,694.5
Energy, Mines and Resources	5,044.0
Environment Canada	249.3
Finance Canada	3 170.7
Fisheries and Oceans	253.4
Fitness & Amateur Sports	87 0
Health and Welfare	3,003.7
Industry, Trade and Commerce	14,484.1
Justice Department	j 2*738.3
Labour Canada	215.5
National Defence	3,835.8
National Research Council	21.7
Public Works Canada	1,269.3
Regional Economic Expansion	1,365.0
Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise	15.1
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	450.2
Secretary of State	2,765.6
Statistics Canada	L950.7
Supply and Services Canada	763.2
Transport Canada	1,563.8
Treasury Board of Canada	82.9
Veterans Affairs Canada	49 3
Total


[Stage Direction]
Advertising Expenditures by Advertising Agency Fiscal Year 1981-1982
Planning/Creative/Production/Rcsearch	Expenditures ($0C
Agence de Publicite Media Ltee	343.4
Baker Lovick Ltd.	170.0
BCP Group Ltd.	2,165.7
Buckingham, White, Solituro	74.0
Burgess Advertising Ltd.	5.5
Cabana Seguin Inc.	286.6
Cardon Rose Ltd.	45.0
Carleton Productions Division	7.3
Cattell Ray Ltd.	1.2
Charette Jacques & Associes	1.3
Cockfield Brown Inc.	207.5
Communication PNMD Inc.	394.4
Cossette & Associes	252.9
Crombie Advertising Ltd.	31.0
Currie-Irving Advertising	7.0
Day Personnal Adv. Services	150.0
Ethnic/Ad Inc.	15.4
Foster Advertising Ltd.	23.0
Glowinsky & Gee Advertising	88.1
Goodis Jerry Agency Inc.	1,108.8
Gordon Hill Advertising	552.3
Graetz Bros Ltd.	2.5
Hartford & Assoc. Inc. D.W.	45.8
Hewson-Bridge Associates Ltd.	3.5
IDM Communications Ltd.	444.0
Innovacom 82124 Canada Lt6e	5.9
John Doherty and Co.	21.8
Le Groupe des Communicateurs	654.0
Les Communicateurs Associes	63.0
Les Communications Wren Inc.	45.9
Leveille & Associes Inc.	27.9
MacLaren Advertising Ltd.	1,250.1
Marcom Incorporated	49.9
Martin Publicite Ltee	53.2
McCabe, Neill and Associates	15.0
McConnell Advertising Co. Ltd.	369.4
Palmer Jarvis & Associates	105.4
Payeur Publicite Inc.	52.2
Pierre Tremblay Publicite Inc.	209.2
PIR Advertising Ltd.	44.9
Planicom Publicite Ltee	1,092.9
Price, Rubin and Partners Inc.	222.8
Publi-Media Inc.	747.9
Publicite Intercom	20.0
Reidcorp	61.6
Richmond-GGS Advertising	427.0
Ronalds-Reynolds & Co. Ltd.	2,535.7
Rowntree Advertising Ltd.	50.0
RVHA Advertising Ltd.	63.4
Sainte-Marie, Gilles et Associes	800.0
Stringham & Grant Tandy Inc.	666.1
St-AIexander Advertising Ltd.	56.5
Vickers and Benson Ltd.	4,146.3
Warwick Bradshaw Inc.	398.9
Wilshar Advertising Ltd.	121.2
Adcom Research Ltd.	79.9
Crop Inc.	14.2
The Canadian Gallup Poll Ltd.	50.5
Commercial Associates Ltd.	2.7
Publitheque	4.4
Krohn Advertising Ltd.	7.4
Creative Concepts	44.7
JPL Productions	4.5
Centre de Recherche	25.0
Sub total	$21,037.6
Media	
CMC-Canadian Media Corporation	36,446.4
Richmond GGS	1,650.0
Day Personnel	850.0
Travel Times	248.1
Dir-Ad	87.6
MacLean Hunter	63.9
Canadian Wood Energy Institute	30.2
Tele-Direct	9.7 $39,385.9
Grand Total	$60,423.5
Order Paper Questions
[ English]
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,450 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 1,450 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	By organization, what was the government's advertising budget for each of the ten years beginning in the fiscal year 1970-71 and concluding with the anticipated budget for 1980-81 and, in each case (a) for what program was the advertising designed (b) what agency or agencies performed the work and was a formal contract signed with the agency and, if not, in which cases were contracts not signed and for what reason?
2.	Have there been any instances where one organization reserved media time or space with the intention of turning it over to a second organization within the government and, if so (a) what were the organizations involved (b) on what date did such an occurrence take place (c) for what reason was such a course of action followed (d) what was the cost of the time or space purchased and how was it ultimately used?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I once again ask the parliamentary secretary if he has forgotten question No. 2,042, which was asked on January 29, 1981. If the parliamentary secretary has forgotten what the question was, it stated:
1.	What was the total cost of the Prime Minister's December-January world tour?
2.	What percentage of the total cost of the trip will be paid by the Canadian taxpayer?
Would the parliamentary secretary indicate why this question is still not answered?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will look into the matter on behalf of the hon. member. 1 know that I have done so before, but I will make a further inquiry. Of course, I was so busy lately assembling the material in the response to the question which I tabled today-it weighed about ten pounds-that I


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
have been slightly preoccupied. However, I will look into the matter again.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, while the parliamentary secretary is looking into that, he might also look into why questions Nos. 3,216, 3,217, 3,218, 3,219 and 3,220, which also asked about other trips on the part of our emperor, the Prime Minister, to various parts of the world, have not been answered. These include a trip to New York in March, 1981, a trip to Algeria in May, 1981, a trip to Washington in July, 1981, a trip to Australia, Korea and The Philippines in September and October, 1981, and a trip to Cancun, Mexico, in October, 1981.
None of these questions has been answered in spite of the fact that they were asked almost a year ago. As we now know that the Prime Minister is planning extensive new trips, I think it is time the Canadian public were informed what these trips are costing them.


David P. Smith: Of course 1 will be happy to look into those matters on behalf of the hon. member, but lest anyone think the government does not take these questions seriously, I should point out that as of today 3,527 questions have been answered during this session.


Mr. Taylor:: Madam Speaker, I do not want to interfere with the happiness of the hon. member, since every time 1 ask a question he says he is so happy to look into it, but I wonder if he would make me happy and let me have an answer. When may I expect an answer to question No. 2,329?


David P. Smith: I would be more than happy to look into that matter on behalf of the hon. member and 1 will do so with holy haste.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, August 2, consideration of Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and motion No. 4 (Mr. Murphy).
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, perhaps before you leave the chair 1 could ask a question with regard to a ruling you made the other day. You indicated at that time that you were ruling Motion No. 1 out of order, and that at some later time I would be allowed to speak to that. 1 wonder when that time would be.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not now.


Madam Speaker:: That time has passed, 1 am afraid. When I gave the groupings of the different amendments which were up for debate, I ruled Motion No. 1 out of order and indicated that, if the hon. member wanted to make argument 1 was prepared to listen to him. 1 believe we have now gone through these motions up to Motion No. 7 or 8, if I am not mistaken, and therefore if the hon. member wanted to present an argument about Motion No. 1, he ought to have done that at the very beginning, especially considering the nature of the particular motion which has to do with the title of the bill. So 1 am afraid that the time at which the hon. member could bring argument has passed. I am very sorry that he did not take advantage of the offer 1 made to him at that time, but the time has passed and 1 suppose it would not be very useful to discuss Motion No. 1.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, 1 may have been misled inadvertently by your own statement. It is reported on page 19866 of Hansard of July 30, 1982, where in the second last paragraph on that page you say, referring to myself:
Unless the hon. member wishes to present argument on this point later, I intend to rule Motion No. 1 as not acceptable.
As we were going on to Motion No. 2 immediately afterwards, I presumed, maybe wrongly, that "later" was not immediately, that later referred to some time in the future. It certainly is the intention of this caucus to pursue the matter of the title of this bill. We believe that the present title does not really talk about the substance of the bill, and that the title that we have suggested, which says basically that it outlaws collective bargaining, allows the government to break collective agreements that it has already signed and so forth, is the real purpose of this bill and should be the title of this bill.
I would be in the Speaker's hands for her to indicate when "later" really is, because 1 certainly went on the advice of what she said at that time.


Madam Speaker:: Later was certainly later, but I gave no indication of how late that was. The hon. member must realize, since we do take up motions in the order in which they are numbered, that later meant that these objections had to be raised before we discussed that particular motion. I will quote what I said in my ruling on page 19866 of Hansard, July 30, 1982:
The long title sets out, in general terms, the purposes of the bill and should be amended only if and when amendments of substance are made to the bill which would necessitate as a consequence changes to that title.
Therefore, unless the bill is substantially changed 1 could not see any reason for changing that title. Therefore, my ruling has to stand. 1 am sorry that the hon. member did not raise his arguments earlier because I would have been more than happy to listen to them then; but I am afraid the time has passed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: On that same point, I guess I have a problem because again reading from what you said on page 19866 of Hansard:


Unless the hon. member wishes to present argument on this point later, I intend to rule Motion No. 1 as not acceptable.
There is no other reference to Motion No. 1 in your ruling. So you give an indication that 1 can speak later. You say that you intend to rule this out of order, but you do not rule that. My understanding was that you gave notice of your own intent.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am not as good as the hon. member at interpreting English, but "I intend to rule" is a soft way of saying "1 rule". I do not like to stand up here and be too affirmative, but I am sure the hon. member should have understood that that was my intention and was my ruling at that particular time.


Mark Willson Rose: Certainly, Madam Speaker, 1 can see how the hon. member might have been confused by your ruling; 1 am confused by the explanation. Surely the House is the master of its own destiny, and if the hon. member wishes to argue whether or not Motion No. 1 is out of order, this House through its generosity and fair mindedness could by unanimous consent permit the hon. member to put his argument at this moment.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, 1 listened very carefully to the words of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) and if that would help the House in its dilemma we would be quite prepared to give unanimous consent so he can put his argument.


Madam Speaker:: It is quite a dilemma because I have just given an interpretation of what my ruling said, and in my view it meant that I had ruled. If the House did not understand what I meant, I suppose there is nothing wrong with being generous. If the House generously wants to allow the hon. member to give his argument on Motion No. 1, I am sure we can listen to him; but in the interest of the House 1 would ask him to be brief. Subsequently I will look at his argument and rule on it in a definitive manner.
Mr. Murphy Thank you, Madam Speaker, and 1 thank the House as well.
It is our position that the title of the bill should reflect the substance of the bill. We believe as a result of suggestions in this bill and government amendments made to the bill that it is much better to have the bill named in such a way that the general public and the people affected by the bill clearly know what it means. Because of that we have argued, both in committee and we are now arguing in this House, that this bill should properly be entitled "An Act to break contracts, lower real wages and outlaw collective bargaining in the public sector of Canada".
That is the motion that we have moved. We sincerely believe that that would make the real intent and effect of the bill very clear to all Canadians. The titles offered by the government, both the long title and the short title, say noting on these very important factors in the bill and, as a result, many Canadians
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
do not know what the government, together with the official opposition, are doing with regard to the bill.
1 do not wish to speak longer on this subject. I do not want to delay debate because only one and a half sitting days remain for debate on the entire bill. But 1 would ask Your Honour to rule that titles should reflect the actual substance of a bill.


Madam Speaker:: 1 need not rule. That is a requirement. Titles should reflect the substance of a bill. I am afraid that the suggestion which the hon. member is making is that titles should be argumentative, as well. 1 decided that the suggestion in Motion No. 1 was argumentative, and I ruled it out of order on that ground. The hon. member has not given me an argument to change my mind. Therefore, 1 do rule that motion No.
1 is out of order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I understand that I have three minutes left in which to conclude my argument with regard to Motion No. 4 which stands in my name. The intent of that motion is to restore collective bargaining rights to employees of the Canadian Pacific railway system and to employees of the other four railways the government has decided to include in the bill, although all five of those railways are in the private sector. We will present a similar motion later on which would also state that Canadian National should be excluded from the provisions of this bill.
It is our belief that the railway system is a very important sector in the Canadian economy. Through good management in negotiation arrangements involving Canadian Pacific, Canadian National, the other companies and the unions, we have managed to have railway peace over the last number of years in this country. Therefore, not only do we find the bill itself to be repugnant, but we also find it very dangerous that the government will break a collective agreement which has already been reached between the railways and their unions. After negotiations have already been settled and after an agreement has been signed by the respective parties, 1 think it is very dangerous to break it.
This will result in many problems for Canadians in the future, not only for the companies and the unions, but also for farmers and communities which rely on those railways. That is because at the end of this wage control period, the members of those unions will want to catch up. For each of the next two years, they will lose 6 per cent and 5 per cent. At the end of that time, they will want to catch up. I and fellow members of my caucus cannot see how we can have railway peace two years hence when all those workers will suddenly attempt to catch up and regain the wages to which they had already agreed but which have been lost strictly because of the government's action.
We therefore argue that the amendment with regard to CP and our later amendment with regard to CN must pass. I would hope that Conservatives and Liberals from all parts of the country who are concerned about the transportation system would support our amendments.


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in the debate on Bill C-124, particularly because of the comments by hon. members from both opposition parties in the debate yesterday, which I had the opportunity to hear. Each hon. member from the opposition parties told us how the Canadian economy would be radically different if the government followed their prescriptions or if they were in power. They said it would be much improved and we would not be encountering today's unfortunate problems.
These prescriptions reminded me of a recent article in Forbes magazine. The article, an interview of the French historian, Fernand Braudel, was captioned "Inflation; poverty; dying industries: The crisis is universal, a great historian tells Forbes. Politicians who promise quick cures are fools or liars."
I believe that anyone listening to the debate in the last day or two and hearing these prescriptions from the two opposition parties would come to the rather rapid conclusion that we have plenty of fools and liars in the House. An illustration is the state of the auto industry in North America. We are all familiar with the problems it has had in the past several years involving imports and its production of automobiles which are not up to world standard. As a result, there have been tremendous lay-offs throughout the industry. There have been many studies of the problems of that industry. One which I recently had the opportunity to read was carried out for the task force on employment opportunities in the 1980s. This study, entitled "The Medium-Term Employment Outlook in the Canadian Automotive Industry", discussed the state of the industry and tried to predict the number of persons who would be employed in that industry in Canada over the course of the next ten years.
In 1980, the Canadian automotive industry employed approximately 98,000 workers. The study forecast that in 1985, not allowing for offshore procurement, it would employ somewhere in the neighbourhood of 64,000 to 73,000 workers, which would mean a decrease of approximately 34,000 workers, if one wants to take the lower limit. Allowing for offshore procurement, that is, if the automotive industry were to purchase parts from foreign countries, the automotive industry would employ only something in the neighbourhood of 53,000 to 60,000 workers in 1985. By 1990, even a further reduction is predicted. The forecast, again not taking into account offshore procurement, is that approximately 50,000 to 55,000 workers would be employed; or allowing for offshore procurement, only
41,000	to 45,000 would be employed.
You have there, Mr. Speaker, an authoritative study which predicted that even under the best of circumstances the Canadian automobile industry will employ in ten years from 1980, which is eight years from now, approximately half the number of workers it employed in 1980. I quote from the conclusion of this study:
Essentially we are looking at an industry whose size and work force in North America will contract, even if the same number of vehicles are purchased, because of changes in production technology.
1 defy the members of the opposition to tell us how they, if they were in power, would change this employment outlook. The problems which the Canadian economy is facing today are complex. They require all the ingenuity that Canadians can muster in order to solve them. To suggest that interest rates can be magically lowered, as is often proposed by the New Democratic Party, or that all of our problems can be solved by less government intervention, is foolish.
Recently we had an example of how the prescriptions or preconceived notions of the New Democratic Party fit in with reality in the study on bank profits. The two members of the NDP who sat on that committee walked out of the committee hearing when it turned out that the facts did not fit the ideas they had when the hearing started. As my colleague said, their attitude is "don't confuse us with the facts".
We had a similar example of the prescription of the Progressive Conservative Party, that less government intervention will solve all the problems. The best example 1 can cite is Chrysler Corporation. Because of the structural problems I was referring to and because of bad management and a failure to keep up with advanced technology in other countries, it was on the verge of bankruptcy several years ago. Governments in the United States and Canada decided that, given the importance of the automobile industry in North America, the number of people it employed and the subsidiary industries that relied upon the help of that industry, it was necessary to provide certain loan guarantees and government support in order to get that company back on its feet. Assistance was given only when it was assured the company had a plan and ideas to restructure itself and improve its techniques in order to produce more efficient cars which the public would be willing to buy. Naturally those in the Conservative Party abhorred that kind of government intervention. They felt the government should not get involved. Even today when the government sees fit to help other companies experiencing similar difficulties, we hear the same cry-"No, the government should not get involved".
What is the proof of the pudding? Several weeks ago Chrysler Corporation announced the largest last quarter profit in the past four or five years and seems to be well on the road to recovery. That is proof that simplistic solutions from the Conservative Party do not provide the answers to the ills of the Canadian economy.
This bill proposes that increases in wages of public servants be limited to 6 per cent and 5 per cent over the next two years. As could very well be expected, the plan has been vilified by both of the opposition parties and by members of the press. Jack McArthur, in a column in the Montreal Gazette of July 2, 1982, stated as follows:
It's not possible to have one group of Canadian workers and organizations heading for long toward a chilly austerity not noticeably suffered by the remainder. Over time, that would bring an indigestibly large number of economic distortions, demonstrations, strikes, resentments and political difficulties.
He has criticized our program. It is clear that the circumstances which he cites support our program. Certain parts of


the economy are suffering from the recession and from the transformation that is taking place in our society. They have been asked to bear the burden solely, without help from other segments of the economy.
There are two good reasons for supporting this program and this legislation. The first is on the basis of equity and the second on the basis of competition. As I was mentioning, certain industries are being asked to bear the burden of this recession and the structural changes taking place in Canadian society. Other sectors, such as the public sector, are not subject to market forces. They are removed from competition. The workers do not negotiate under the same constraints as those in areas of the economy that are subject to competition.
In those areas of the economy that are not subject to competition and the kind of technological change which is hurting certain sectors of the economy, it is only logical that those most fortunate people be asked to contribute to the improvement and restructuring of those parts of the economy undergoing such difficulties. In a few moments I will get into some of the efforts the government is making to help with the restructuring of the industries to which 1 was referring.
As I mentioned earlier, the second reason for supporting this legislation is competition. Certain sectors are facing competition from industries overseas and in the United States. I am familiar with a number of companies which bid on contracts in the United States or in other countries. 1 am sure all hon. members are familiar with similar companies in their constituencies or in their areas of the country.
As I mentioned yesterday in the few brief remarks I made, 30 per cent of Canada's gross national product comes from exports, whereas only 10 per cent of the gross national products of the United States and Japan are dependent on exports. This indicates the extent to which Canada has had to trade in order to survive. I am familiar with certain companies which in recent years have had to bid on contracts in the United States. They have had to put up with wage increases which have far exceeded increases in productivity and far exceeded the level of wage increases in the United States.
There is a particular company of which I am aware which has a plant in an area of Montreal and another plant in the state of Vermont. Some time ago I was talking with the president of that company-this was before the recent devaluation of the Canadian dollar-and he told me that he paid his workers in the plant in Vermont approximately $4 per hour less, all things being considered, including the exchange rate, yet the workers in the two plants were doing essentially the same work. Recently this company had to go through wage negotiations again. As we know, settlements in the United States have recently been in the order of 4 per cent or 5 per cent in some industries, but the Canadian workers in this particular company asked for increases of something in the order of 10 per cent. The president of the company said no, he would not go beyond 6 per cent, and he encouraged the
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
workers to follow the lead which had been taken by the Government of Canada and to understand the extent to which their jobs were dependent upon showing restraint. I am happy to say they agreed to that. They agreed to increases of 6 per cent, and hopefuly this company will continue to prosper and grow.
What would have been the case if the government had not changed its policy, if we were going along oblivious to the difficulties being experienced by many sectors of the economy and allowed increases in the order of 10 per cent or 11 per cent? It would certainly be a very difficult situation. It would be almost untenable for people in more competitive industries and those open to international competition to go to their workers and ask them to accept something less.
1 think I have demonstrated that this program can be supported both on the basis of equity and for competitive reasons.
1 believe my time is up. I wanted to say a few words about the national training program which has just been adopted by the government. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crom-bie) described it as the most significant piece of legislation we will pass in this session. Unfortunately, 1 did not have a chance to get into that. 1 hope to come back to that at an early opportunity, and I thank hon. members for this opportunity to express my views on this subject.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker,
1 rise to speak on Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and, particularly, Motion No. 4 which we have moved and which would strike out lines 6 to 17 on page 3 and substitute certain words to which 1 would like to refer, because the bill is very deceiving as it now reads. The bill is legislation respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada but, because of actions taken by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston):
This part applies to employees of Canadian Pacific Limited and its subsidiaries who are employed in the operation of a railway and to the employees of the following:
(a)	Ontario Northland Railways;
What is public about that?
(b)	Algoma Central Railway Company;
What is public about that?
(c)	Toronto Terminals Railway Company; and
(d)	Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway Company.
What is public about that?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Let's make them public. Let's nationalize them.


Sidney James Parker: We know Ian Sinclair came to Ottawa to head the private sector in pushing this bill through. In my speech the other day on one of the other clauses 1 questioned the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) about meetings they had with railway representatives. The government has added to this bill the railways 1 have cited with the consent of the Conservative


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Party, and the result for employees of these railways will be misery. The hon. member for Rosedale said that the New Democratic Party is not acting in a responsible way and that we are in serious trouble. Yes, we are in serious trouble, and one of the reasons is that since 1978, almost $30 billion has been spent on takeovers by large multinational corporations. Half that, a staggering $14 billion, was spent in the first nine months of 1981, but not one job was created by those takeovers.
Ian Sinclair is chairman and chief executive officer of Canadian Pacific Enterprises Limited, and the list of his directorships goes on and on. However, I will name only one. He is a director of the Royal Bank of Canada. It is interesting to note that other corporate elite tied into Canada's corporate structure also sit on the boards of directors of the Bank of Montreal and other major banks across Canada. This corporate elite is neatly tied together to dictate interest rate policy and other policies to the government. The Conservative Party is following suit with the corporate elite right down the line. Members of the Conservative Party want to steal money from workers while these takeovers take place.
Small businessmen are losing their businesses because all this money is tied into big multinational takeovers. The boards of directors of banks have clearly directed bank money into takeovers which have not created one job but have taken money away from small businessmen. A small businessman who walks into a bank wanting to borrow money finds that the money is already taken by the big corporate elite for the purpose of takeovers but not for the purpose of creating one job. I brought this matter up in committee and was told that this was done in the energy field. What energy is involved in the Hudson's Bay Company taking over Zeller's? Where are the extra jobs in such programs?
Another interesting gentleman sits on the board of directors of CP Rail, the Hon. John Turner, a former minister of finance with the Liberal government. Let me list his directorships. He is a partner in McMillan, Binch which is located in the Royal Bank Plaza in Toronto; a director of Canadian Investment Fund, Ltd.; Canadian Pacific Ltd.; Credit Foncier; MacMillan, Bloedel Ltd.; Marathon Realty Co. Ltd.; Massey-Ferguson Ltd.; Sandoz (Canada) Ltd.; The Seageam Co. Ltd.; Wander Ltd. Those are the directorships he holds. We begin to see the tie-in between the Liberal government, the former Conservative government and who they represent.
We heard members of the Conservative Party say how concerned they are about jobs. If they are so concerned and if the government is so concerned, then why do they not tell Ian Sinclair to build his ships in Canada and man them with Canadian merchant marines instead of flying the flag of another country? Those are the kinds of programs that should be put in place in order to put people back to work.
I want to speak about the bill as it affects workers, Mr. Speaker. I feel that members of this House do not understand the problems there are in the railways industry. The President of the Treasury Board has no knowledge of what is going on in
the Department of Labour. He has literally smashed Part III, Part IV and Part V of the Canada Labour Code.
Over the last few years the unions on the railways and in many Crown corporations have been negotiating contracts on actual problems and actual costs. They agreed to build a COLA clause into the last two contracts to provide that the money agreed to would be collected the following year. In other words, if the cost of living went up the year after, then they got an increase; but if it did not, then they received nothing. Of course, the cost of living is going up. The government knows that it will continue going up, so now it is going to freeze the wages of the people concerned.
If that is done, then what happens to the local union representation on the railway system? What happens to the people representing the workers and who have to deal with their problems? When you take away the initiative of having something to bargain for, the initiative to deal with health and safety problems, and you tell the workers these are monetary problems and cannot be dealt with, it is no wonder that people are reluctant to join the union executive.
I want to talk about the slides that come down the mountains, Mr. Speaker. When they shoot the slides down and the trains come down the hill and they wait, a clause in the railway workers' agreement says that after ten or eleven hours of duty they are entitled to go home. But many dedicated employees will wait and continue to carry out their duties. What kind of working relationships will there be when there is this kind of hardship?
When Mr. L. A. Hill, who is manager of Canadian Pacific's western lines at Vancouver, was superintendent of the Revel-stoke division, he wrote a letter commending the workers for their dedication during very, very serious snow conditions. That took place in a spirit of co-operation, not a spirit of confrontration, Mr. Speaker. The government has presented this bill to the House in a spirit of confrontation. How does it expect the workers of Canada to accept it and then perform beyond what is required of them when takeovers are taking place, excessive profits are being made and CP steamships are flying the flag of another country and manning its ships with workers from another country? All this is in the interest of profit and not in the spirit of building Canada. Yet the workers of Canada are being asked to try to help rebuild. The government's policies have destroyed Canada. In a manufacturing economy we have to start to build and put things back together. We have to hire employees, invest in the unemployed and put them back to work.
I should like to talk about other things that have taken place with the railway trade unions, Mr. Speaker. There is the problem of the grievance procedure. Who is going to devote his time to a local grievance committee which is 100, 200 or 300 miles away from the general chairman? This job of representing 200 or 300 employees carries no remuneration. Safety problems such as those with the Connaught tunnel where exhaust fumes overtook some employees and resulted in their being taken to hospital in the past cannot be discussed at a distance. A bill such as this requires that a monetary value be


placed on such incidents, and then it is declared to be a monetary issue and the workers are told to find the best solution they can to the problem.
I want to talk about train derailments on the CNR, CP Rail and the other railways. Employees go out to try to clear the track and get the trains moving again. Some of them work as long as 24 or 36 hours without rest in wet, cold and miserable conditions. An agreement has been signed, sealed and delivered by the unions and companies and voted on by the membership, yet legislation can take it away. Is that democracy? I call it hypocrisy.
Those are the things that this bill will do, Mr. Speaker. It will destroy the basis on which we have built a free collective bargaining system. 1 should have liked to ask the chief mediation officer, Mr. Kelly, for whom railway workers have the deepest respect, if he had been allowed to come to the committee, how he was going to deal with some of these problems. I would have liked to ask the labour relations officer who came to Revelstoke to investigate an illegal dispute over hours of work and meals on the job about all these things.
The grain people were blaming the railway workers and the railway workers were blaming the railways, while the truth of the matter was that so much traffic was coming in from the coalfields in the Kootenays, there was so much grain, so much potash and so much sulphur all arriving together, that the workers had reached their limit.
The labour relations officer went to investigate. The workers defied the law and they were told that although their problems were recognized they would have to wait until their bargaining unit went through the proper process. They pleaded with the judge and told him that they realized they had broken the law but they had to bring the issue to someone's attention. However, they were fined $500 each under the Canada Labour Code. Now the Canada Labour Code is going to be butchered in half. How are you going to have accountability from mediation officers, labour relations officers and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) when the President of the Treasury Board starts bringing in legislation that he knows nothing about? He denies the committee the right to have the Minister of Labour and his officials appear before that committee.
I want to say, and I say it with the deepest of thoughts, that I can see some very, very serious problems arising as a result of this legislation. I hope I am wrong. I hope to goodness I am wrong. We have had a free collective bargaining system working which recognized the cost of living. Our trade unions have operated in a responsible way and have said: "We recognize the problem; therefore, we will not put in our demands. But at the end if there is a cost of living clause, we expect to get it." People have been getting the cost of living increases. But what is going to happen in January when these workers are not only told that their wages on which they have a signed contract will be rolled back but also that their COLA clause has been destroyed? If the cost of living continues to rise, what
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
do you think is going to happen, Mr. Speaker? I can see the framework within each local union starting to disintegrate.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to take a position on a local trade union when his hands would be tied behind his back? How do you think this person would feel when he is faced by literally 200 or 300 members who plead for something to be done? Members approach their union representative on faith. You hear them say "I have my ten hours in; I want to get home. I was in Field for over 14 hours, I want to get home." Who in their right mind would take on those kinds of responsibilities?
When the AIB guidelines were in force, some of those things were recognized. They were serious. You cannot and you must not dictate policies when you have had the freedom of collective bargaining.
The trade union movement, especially in the railways, has come a long way working with the Ministry of Labour, working with various departments, whether in mediation, in conciliation or in labour relations. People had a feeling they would be heard. When things fail, there was a railway arbitration system to which they could go. People accept decisions of arbitrators. Yet almost 90 per cent of the time the arbitrator rules in favour of the company, but people accept these decisions because they were made through an arbitration system. Representatives of the railways, the labour unions and companies come to an agreement and they accept the arbitrator's decision. They feel that at least their case was heard.
How many cases will get that far now? The local process will be gone. The general chairman's authority will be criticized by every worker who will say: "You can do nothing for me. The bill is in front of us. Everything is tied up. What can you do for us? The law has been passed. We are severely dealt with. Where do we go from here?" Those are the kinds of problems this bill will create.
There is one more myth which I would like to refer to before I close. It concerns productivity. I refer to the U.S. bureau of labour statistics which in 1981 stated that hourly wages in manufacturing were 11 per cent lower in Canada than in the United States. Let us look at longer-term figures. Let us take a look at ten major western nations, including Canada. Every single country had higher manufacturing wage increases than Canada between 1975 and 1980. Here is the list: in Great Britain, manufacturing wage increases top 115 per cent; Prance up 104 per cent; Belgium up 100 per cent; Italy up 93 per cent; Japan up 93 per cent; West Germany up 91 per cent; Holland up 85 per cent; Sweden 76 percent; the United States up 56 per cent, and Canada up 48 per cent. Canadian workers are not pricing themselves out of the market. That is a myth which this government and the Conservative Party are trying to spell out across Canada. I think it is time the government started to deal with the serious problems of our economy. The government should not be taking it out on the workers and stealing money from the workers' pockets.


Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of six and five. I


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
believe this measure is one of the most important directions the government has taken in terms of getting the country back on the road to economic recovery.
An issue with this much intervention is bound to raise some controversy. Therefore, we must ask the question: Is it necessary? There are three very strong reasons why it is necessary. First is inflation. We have been fighting inflation in the western world through the mechanism of high interest rates.


Ian Deans: And it has not worked.


Peter Joseph Lang: High interest rates on their own are being used to curtail the money supply in an effort to reduce aggregate demand and to bring down inflation.


Ian Deans: That has not worked either.


Sidney James Parker: One failure after another.


Peter Joseph Lang: This measure deals with one cause of inflation, but there are other causes of inflation. There is the cost-push element of inflation with which we have not been able to deal in a voluntary manner until this point. The government has now introduced the six and five restraint. There is support in the country for it. I know that because I hear support for it in my riding, not only from businessmen or people in the academic world but from people in the public service, to whom this policy applies and who are making the sacrifice.


Sidney James Parker: Read your own study paper.


Peter Joseph Lang: People are supporting this restraint because they see a concrete direction being taken to get inflation down and, therefore, interest rates, which is the number one problem facing this country.
Second, we have to take this direction and make this six and five restraint work because of Canada's competitive level. Almost one-third of our gross national product depends on trade. If this country is not competitive in trade, it means higher unemployment, less economic growth and a drop in our standard of living. We have to decide whether we want to remain a competitive country.
The previous speaker listed a number of statistics through which he tried to show that Canada was still as competitive or even more competitive than the United States and other countries in western Europe. Over the last two years that has not been the case, particularly when it concerns our greatest competitor, the United States, with which we have 70 per cent of our trade.


Mark Willson Rose: What do we sell them?


Peter Joseph Lang: Wage settlements in Canada are running 5 per cent higher than in the United States.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Wages are lower and that is what counts.


Peter Joseph Lang: It is easier to take the popular stand. It might be a little harder to get up and say: "Look, if we don't restrain ourselves right now, you are going to lose your jobs." People
and workers know that, and that is why they are supporting the six and five policy.


Mark Willson Rose: Which workers?


Ian Deans: You are abusing their trust.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Tell us about the doctors. Are they willing to take six and five?


Peter Joseph Lang: We are having a problem with corporate liquidity. We are finding that the rate of return on common shares and on common equity for corporations is less than their debt expenses. To put that into layman's language, there is less money coming in than there is going out in the corporate sector.


Ian Deans: That is because of your high interest rate policy.


Peter Joseph Lang: If hon. members opposite would listen, I would indicate that if that continues, it does not take many brains to know that these corporations will go under.


Mark Willson Rose: Right.


Peter Joseph Lang: This is the reason we have to get interest rates and inflation down. In my view there is no excuse for trying to nickel and dime to death a very direct and positive measure which gives momentum to getting inflation down so that we can get interest rates down. We do not have time to dilly-dally any longer.
I would like to share with hon. members some of the views of Mr. Henry Kaufman, the economic guru of Wall Street, concerning how long we can last with interest rates so high. He gave us six months before suggesting that major corporations all through North America will be in serious danger of bankruptcy. We do not have time to waste on the fallacious or spurious arguments which have been raised. We have a solid six and five program which the people are supporting.
I challenge members of the opposition to get behind this measure so that we as Canadians can get inflation down, can maintain our competitive position in international markets, and can avoid the corporate liquidity crisis which we are facing. These are the three reasons that I believe this six and five bill is necessary.
It is also important that the bill be equitable. We have heard criticism from the opposition that we are picking on public servants, that they are the only ones who will be bearing the burden of the fight against inflation. Members of the opposition forget their own rhetoric. They forget the fact that small businesses have been bearing a very heavy burden in the fight against inflation. They forget that farmers have been bearing a very heavy burden in the fight against inflation. They forget that labour in the private sector, far from being able to obtain a raise of 6 per cent, are losing their jobs. They forget that home owners are having to renew their mortgages at rates which put a tremendous strain on their budgets, at tremendous


sacrifice to them. The public service is not the only one bearing the brunt.
We must keep in mind that there is much greater job security in the public service. This is not something we have to back up with statistics because we know it, but it can be backed up statistically. There is much greater job security in the public sector than in the private sector. In exchange for that job security, we are asking that the increases-not cutbacks-in the salaries be limited to 6 per cent next year and 5 per cent the following year. Many public servants in my riding are supporting this measure. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of complaints I have received. I have had more telephone calls of support. As most of my colleagues will know, it is rare that people will telephone in support of anything. Usually they are telephoning to complain. That is the general case, and as Members of Parliament we all know it.
On this issue people are telephoning us in support because they want some direction. They want to see the government taking a direct course of action which will have positive results in the near term, because they know that time is critical. For the first time in the last year we have seen representatives of business supporting the measures of government. We have seen bankers supporting measures. Even the occasional media person has supported them. People are beginning to realize that it is time we stopped this conspiracy of negativism that everything is wrong, that everything the government has done is wrong, that everything the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does is wrong. People do not buy that any more. They want to see constructive action.
Despite the lack of popularity of the Liberal Party at this time, of which we are all aware, this measure has received support because it is a good one and it gives direction. People in their intuition are sensing that we are on the road to turning the economy around.
I ask hon. members opposite to read the July report of OECD. This is an international organization, as hon. members are aware, of western world countries, gathering economic information to give governments an idea of how to co-ordinate their efforts to deal with the international economic problems facing us. In the economic analysis of the report they listed one of the main problems in Canada's economy as the lack of cooperation among various sectors. They talked about the confrontational attitude between business and labour, between government and business, and between government and labour.
I see that Mr. Speaker is signalling that my time is running out.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: I would not want to mislead the hon. member. As he and perhaps other hon. members know, from time to time I indicate to hon. members who are speaking that they have some minutes remaining. I made an error. The hon. member's time will expire at 4.26 o'clock, so I am informed, and 1 apologize for misleading him.


Peter Joseph Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The major problem in the report of this international organization, compiled by
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
international economists, is the lack of constructive co-operation. We in the House should really take that to heart and listen to what outsiders are saying. We should go beyond our own sphere.


Rodney Edward Murphy: What if they say "resign"?


Peter Joseph Lang: I hear the hon. member opposite. This is the kind of thing which will not lead to one more job being created, which will not lead to the interest rate being reduced by one point, which will not lead to the inflation rate being reduced by one point, or will not contribute in any way to economic recovery.
The fact is that the government was elected by the people of Canada. It is a majority government with a mandate for four years. If opposition members do not like a measure which the government has taken, they can oppose it. All I am asking is that they do it in a constructive manner rather than calling names and saying "resign". They should put forward their alternative proposals and, if they are good, people will buy them. That would be good for them politically. Rather than sitting on the fence and avoiding taking any position because they might lose a vote, they should take a position. They might find that people will say "Yes, they are putting forward alternatives".
We in Canada have many advantages over some other countries. I want to deal with this just for a couple of minutes because one of the major criticisms that has been levelled at us is that we are spending wildly and with abandon. If members read the July OECD report they will see government expenditures in Canada before World War II were running at about 10 per cent as compared to the GNP. Between World War II and 1970 that increased to 20 per cent. In the last ten years we have been holding the line between 20 per cent and 23 per cent.
These are international statistics. There is no bias in them. There is no reason for them to be biased toward the opposition or towards the government.


An hon. Member:: We know that is right.


Peter Joseph Lang: Maybe the NDP knows that it is right, but it is one of the major criticisms that the Conservatives have been levelling at the government and I think it is time we stood up and said: "Look, here are the statistics; read them and you see that this accusation is not a valid one."
Therefore, I ask the opposition not to try to discredit the government's attempt at bringing restraint into the economy by the fallacious criticism that we have been spending wildly, with abandon. The statistics do not bear it out and I am the last one that would be suggesting this, because 1 think I am fairly well known as being much in favour of reducing any government waste or fat.
The second myth that is being generated is that we cannot have an economic recovery until we get the deficit down to $10


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
billion or $5 billion; that the deficit is wildly out of proportion. I would like to point out that hon. members take a look again at the OECD July report. They will find that the country in the western world that has had the lowest inflation, the lowest interest rates, the lowest unemployment rate and the strongest economic growth consistently over the last 20 years has had a greater deficit compared to GNP than Canada; and that country is Japan. Japan has much less in terms of resources or advantages than Canada has. It was only 35 years ago that they had no economy, that they had to start over from nothing due to the devastation of the war. We all know that they do not have natural resources.
What does the July OECD report say? Why has Japan been able to have such a strong economy performance? One of the major things they have is again co-operation among business, labour and government and a general willingness of the people to see that their economy is going to be a strong one. The second major area in which Japan has had a tremendous advantage or head start on most countries in the western world is that it has recognized that we are in the third industrial revolution of history.
In the seventeenth century we had the first industrial revolution with the steam engine. In the 1870s we had the second industrial revolution, with electricity coming on line and with the combustion engine. We are now in the middle of the third industrial revolution, a revolution of technology and computers that will impact on every sector of society. The major reason that the Japanese have been able to get a head start is through this co-operative effort of sharing information and working with the various sectors of their society.
I suggest that the 6 per cent and 5 per cent measure puts Canada in a position where we can take part in a recovery, where we will have an opportunity at that time to improve the co-operative effort between sectors, which is part of the six and five program, and again get on board the technological revolution that is occurring now and can lead to tremendous prosperity. We have many more resources, human and natural, than Japan.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to be participating in this, the debate at the report stage of Bill C-124, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada. My pleasure, though, is not derived from any sense that the bill is a good one. In fact, the legislation is not only bad; it is also grossly unfair.
I say unfair because the bill discriminates wildly against one group of workers in the country, namely public employees, by forcing them to carry virtually single-handedly the burden of the government's restraint program. Maximum permissible increases in wage rates for them are to be set at 6 per cent in the first year of application and 5 per cent in the second, regardless of whether an individual is a $14,000 a year janitor or a $75,000 a year deputy minister.
Equally offensive to my party is that the principle of collective bargaining, including the right to strike, is being effectively suspended in a most unfair way as the government moves to impose unilaterally conditions of employment on its own employees.
We are now debating Motion No. 4. Regarding that motion, we on this side accept the principle of restraint embodied in the bill, even to the extent of the proposed 6 per cent and 5 per cent ceilings. We think that while increases in the total payroll of the public service should not exceed those percentages, collective bargaining rights should be retained to resolve issues like the particular pay packet of individual employees, as well as health, safety, grievances and other general issues.
My party does not object to the government's goal of restraining wages and prices in Canada to combat inflation. Indeed, we have been pressing the government all along to act, especially in the area of curbing its own voracious appetite to spend taxpayers' money. What we object to most in Bill C-124, however, is the arbitrary way the government has decided to impose restraint.
There are essentially two problems. There are others, but there are two in particular. First, the government has singled out public employees to bear the lion's share of the burden of the restraint program, as if, magically, by restraining their salaries alone, inflation would somehow automatically recede. Secondly, even within the public service, the burden will be borne unevenly from one employee to another, for the program is essentially regressive.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to deal first with the fact that public employees are being asked to carry more than their share. Public employees constitute a relatively small proportion of the total work force-conventional wisdom notwithstanding. The government's program applies to employees in line departments of government, to Members of Parliament and senators and their staffs, to employees of Crown corporations, to the RCMP, to judges, and to Armed Forces personnel. In all, some
500,000	people are affected.
I admit that this number is not insignificant but the total is small compared to the whole work force in the country, which numbered 12,192,000 in June, if I remember correctly. Even if the salary of every public employee in the country was slashed to $1, inflation would not disappear. Obviously, the government believes it needs a convenient whipping boy to blame for its mismanagement of the economy and to demonstrate that it has finally converted to restraint. Therefore, the public service is being made the scapegoat.
Once again we have evidence that the government is motivated, not by the public interest but by its own narrow, partisan interest. Opinion polls have demonstrated that civil servants are currently out of favour with the public. Highly publicized strikes in certain sectors, notably at the post office, and among air traffic controllers and others, have left a bitter taste with many people throughout the land. It does not matter, it seems, that most labour disputes in the public sector are settled amicably and without strikes. Unfortunately, the image of public employees is, unfairly I submit, at an all-time low. True to form, the government thinks that it can reverse its


plummeting fortunes coast to coast by flexing its muscles at the expense of the public service. Doctor Gallup and Mr. Goldfarb have told the government that those people are unpopular, so the government has decided to do battle with them in order to court public favour. That is exactly what Bill C-124 is all about. It is a public relations job.
After spending the country into bankruptcy during the last 14 years, the government has suddenly chosen to make restraint the rallying cry in its fight to win back public support. People can see behind the facade of this feigned conversion. They instinctively and intuitively recognize the essential unfairness of it all. The government is slapping 6 per cent and
5	per cent ceilings on allowable salary increases in the public service, no matter what the income level might be in a particular case.
For the high rollers at the upper levels of the income ladder,
6	per cent would mean an allowable increase of $4,000 or more, which is not a small bundle even in these times of debased currency. By contrast, the lowly junior secretary or maintenance person who receives 6 per cent on a $14,000 salary gets a paltry $840, which is hardly enough to pay the daycare bill of a single parent for half a year.
1 wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), who said during her excellent speech on Friday, that people at the lower end of the salary scale should be allowed a higher percentage increase than those at the upper end. In this respect, I would perhaps go even further. 1 believe the low-income group should be permitted increases on a sliding scale, beginning with something close to a full cost of living adjustment at the very lowest level. All these matters could be considered, within the constraints of the over-all 6 per cent and 5 per cent ceiling, through the normal collective bargaining system and not imposed on by the government on the public service. In this manner allowable increases could be less as one went up the income ladder. Obviously, increases could not be too great, except at the lower level, because the general 6 per cent and 5 per cent restraint ceiling must be respected. But in the case of the highest paid public servants-those earning $50,000 or more-salaries could be held down and perhaps even close to the existing levels. In a sense, such an approach applies the principle of the progressive income tax system by calling on the strongest among us to carry the heaviest load.
As the amendment at present before us and the amendments to be introduced later by our party later contemplate, the approach that I have in mind will help spread the sacrifice to be made in the name of restraint more evenly while preserving the cherished principle of collective bargaining. Rather than a scheme being imposed on the public service by the government, individual salary ranges and other matters such as health benefits-if consistent with the over-all objective of 6 per cent and 5 per cent limits-could be worked out following careful negotiations between both sides, instead of being imposed on one side by the other.
Of the 215,643 regular full-time employees of the federal government, which does not include employees of Crown corporations or other such agencies although they are also
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
covered under Bill C-124, 13 per cent earn less than $15,000, about 40 per cent earn less that $20,000, while well over half-60 per cent to be exact-earn less than $25,000. In all, 75 per cent earn less than $30,000. That is not a lot of money.
These figures belie the widespread notion that public employees are highly paid. They are not. Most of them are struggling with the same kind of income-related pressures faced by virtually everyone else in society. The problem is particularly acute for women in the public service. While 39 per cent of the total number of men in this sector earn $23,000 or under, 79 per cent of the total of women earn $23,000 or under. In its present form, Bill C-124 will perpetuate inequities such as this.
My riding of Hillsborough, which includes the capital city of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, and the small villages and towns surrounding it-


Walter David Baker: A great part of the country.


Thomas Michael McMillan: It is a great area, as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has rightly pointed out. There are many federal public employees in that riding in addition to provincial civil servants. I know many of them personally and others at least as acquaintances. My work as an MP requires me to work hand in hand with these people and their counterparts elsewhere in the Atlantic region, especially in regional head offices, and in Ottawa. My experience is that public employees are the most maligned group in society and no doubt partly due to their own deficiencies in the public relations area. They could be doing a great deal more than they are to present themselves as the hardworking, industrious and resourceful people they are in fact. Nevertheless, they are commonly perceived as being underworked, overpaid and too plentiful for all the good they do. However, the truth is that we in Canada have the best public service in the world, with the possible exception of Britain from which our public service has inherited its traditions of dedication and professionalism.
In my view, the extent to which the public service is taken for granted by Canadians is, in reality, a measure of how efficiently our public employees do their job; unobtrusively yet competently. By the same token, only when they are on strike, which is rare, do we sometimes realize how dependent we are on the services these fine people provide. Sure, there are exceptions, just as there are in any enterprise, be it public or private. Understandably, there will be more such underachievers in government, if government is the largest employer in a given community, just by virtue of their large presence in that community. But 1 know that, proportionately, government harbours as many diligent, competent and qualified employees as can be found in any field in the country. I defy anyone to demonstrate otherwise.
That, 1 think, is in the spirit of the motions that we are now debating at report stage of the debate on Bill C-124. Many people would be amazed to learn, as I have through my work,


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
how effectively public employees actually perform, frequently well beyond the call of duty. By requiring public employees to bear the lion's share of the burden of the government's restraint program, instead of including them in an over-all package of wage and price restraint, sensitive to the low-income people in particular, the government is both reflecting and contributing to the conventional myth that those people are responsible for the double-digit inflation in the country. Nothing could be further from the truth. The blame for our inflation, the blame for our unemployment, the blame for our debased dollar, the blame for investment capital fleeing our country from coast to coast, rests squarely with the political mismanagers in the federal cabinet, especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has been calling the shots for the last 14 years.
At the heart of the inflation problem, in particular, has been the government's 14-year spending spree which has seen government expenditures soar an incredible 630 per cent since the Prime Minister took office in 1968. The deficit of the federal government this year is several billion dollars more, probably as high as $7 billion more, than the total budget of the government in the Prime Minister's first year in office. Having increased its total spending this past year by some 20 per cent, having racked up a deficit of $19.6 billion in the current year alone, 80 per cent higher than forecast as recently as seven months earlier, the government now expects everyone, public servants and the general public alike, to settle for no more than 6 per cent and 5 per cent increases in their salaries.
Nothing else has contributed to inflationary pressures in Canada as much as has the government's overspending. That overspending is largely the result of the establishment of costly programs like metric which the public neither wants nor needs, as well as waste in the administration of programs which the public does want and does need. Little of the overexpenditure relates to bloated salaries of public employees or their numbers, except at the highest levels.
What we need is a resolve by the government, throughout the cabinet, to devise a total economic package, including low interest rates, to get people producing, selling and working again. Only when the one million unemployed in Canada are back in the labour force earning salaries, only when they are gainfully employed and paying income tax on those salaries, will we see a marked reduction in the federal deficit and in the multibillion dollar costs of our current unemployment insurance and welfare programs. The government should be attacking the unemployment problem in the country. Instead, it is attacking public employees whose formidable skills should be marshalled with those of the private sector in a real war against the serious economic crisis facing us all.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker,
1 am pleased to be able to speak in support of Bill C-124 and also in support of the motion before us, which I have not heard anyone discuss very much. It deals with allowing the CN and CP and other railway employees to be treated with equality
since they are part of one national, industrial collective bar-	I
gaining system across the country. I would like to give notice	B
of the fact that this is the motion before the House. In general,	B
my remarks pertain to CP employees, who are really included	B
in Motion No. 4.	B
The bill itself is a very important piece of legislation, not so	B
much for what it does, because it does not do a great deal, but	fl
because it is where we begin to restrict the growth of wage	B
costs and some administrative prices. It is important for what	B
it wants the country to do as an example, if we are successful	B
in making the bill work. For the last several months 1 have	B
heard hon. members on both sides saying that the government	B
should resign, resign, resign, call an election, put a new	B
government in power, and then all the problems would go	B
away.	H


Benno Friesen: Is there unanimous consent?	B


Paul Edmund McRae: 1 have not heard any significant contribution	B
from either party. Neither one has stated how it would go	B
about changing this very difficult world we arc in today if it	B
were in power.	H


Gordon Edward Taylor: No energy policy. No metrication.	B


Paul Edmund McRae: It reminds me of a statement H. L. Menken	B
made after he had spent a good deal of time at the Scopes	B
trial. In reference to complex problems and simple answers, he	B
made the statement "For every complex problem there is a	B
solution that is simple, neat and wrong." The solutions that I	B
find coming from the other side are simple, neat and wrong.	B
For instance, we heard from hon. members opposite the first	B
thing they would do if they were in power.	H


Ian Deans: They are supporting you.	H


Paul Edmund McRae: I do not want anyone to say 1 am not relating	B
my remarks to the motion or the bill, but what I am saying is	B
that the solution to our problems is very complex. The solution	B
they would offer-	B


Mr. Crombie:: -is simple.	B


Paul Edmund McRae: Their simple solution, number one, is to get rid	B
of the National Energy Program and tone down FIR A. They	B
say that would solve all the problems. 1 cannot even remember	B
if they had a second solution. Beyond that, there is really	B
discussion about spending. However, they do not mention any	B
programs. They talk about following Reaganomics. We will	B
discuss that later, but basically they feel that the whole	B
problem in the United States and the whole world stems from	B
the National Energy Program and FIRA and that it would be	B
solved if we would only get rid of the National Energy Pro-	B
gram and trim FIRA, in one of the most innocuous operations	B
possible.	B


David Edward Crombie: We are discussing Bill C-124.	B


Paul Edmund McRae: If one asks members in the opposition what	B
they would do about interest rates, why, they would do the	B
same thing. Not long ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.	B

Clark) made the statement that he would do exactly the same thing with interest rates.


Walter David Baker: We would make them climb more equitably.


Paul Edmund McRae: This particular bill is not simple or neat and it is not wrong. It would begin a recovery program in the country by doing one very significant thing. It would attempt to bring inflation down to a single-digit percentage, like 7 per cent or 8 per cent. It would start with salaries but it also embrace prices. We talk about Air Canada keeping their prices down and we discuss Bell prices.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Paul Edmund McRae: I will be glad to permit a question at the end of my remarks. I am not sure I want to accept a question now. The hon. member has not heard my dissertation. Once he has, I will be glad to answer a question based on it. Therefore, we can come back to this question at the end.
What we are trying to do with this bill is to get ourselves to the point where the inflation rate in this country is brought down to 6 per cent or 7 per cent. Some say this bill will not do that. Certainly it will not. This bill is the government's start in that direction. If the government does not do this, then why would anyone else? One has to give an example, to make a start.
If, and I am hopeful this "if' will come true, we are successful in convincing other sectors of the Canadian economy that this is the right direction and wages, prices and inflation are brought down, at that time the 6 per cent and 7 per cent will be the cost of living. Therefore, public servants should not suffer any more than the rest of the population. This is a reasonable approach to this situation.
There is no simple single answer. That is what H. L, Menken was saying when he was dealing with the Scope trial. That is what a lot of economists are saying today. There is not one simple thing you can do quickly. You cannot just spend more, gut the National Energy Program and all your problems will be solved. This is a very complex and dangerous period internationally in terms of economics. The simple act of passing this bill will not really solve all the problems. It is an indication that we want to start solving the problems.
We on this side, and I am sure those on the other side, are concerned about the serious difficulty we have to face, high interest rates. There is a very definite relationship between high interest rates and the rate of inflation. The term "real interest" is the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate. Traditionally that rate in terms of bank prime should be between 2 per cent and 3 per cent over an historical period of time. That rate is probably 7 or 8 per cent in the United States and 5 or 6 per cent in Canada. It varies depending on the inflation rate and, of course, changes in the interest rate.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Real interest rates are too high; no one says they are not. They should come down. In order to change interest rates significantly, we must bring down the inflation rate. If we get the inflation rate down to 6 or 7 per cent, then we can move. If the expectation is that it will stay down, we can move to considerably lower interest rates. That will have a tremendously stimulating effect on the economy.
This will not be accomplished by any simple means. It was very nice in the fifties and sixties when we could depend on Keynes. We could take some fiscal or monetary measures to stimulate the economy or slow it down, depending on the condition it was in. It was very simple and we could achieve considerable results. We were not always as successful as we might have been, but that was not because of Keynes. In most countries it was because the timing was off a bit.
That does not work any more. The failure of this to work, the reliance on simplistic answers, the simple need but wrong answers that we hear, show that it is that reliance that is wrong. There are some things we can begin to do, and this is one of them.
We often hear that the cause of the problem is government spending. As the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) stated earlier, the country with the highest spending in relation to its gross national product is Japan, yet that country has the lowest inflation and interest rates of all industrial nations. There are many reasons which indicate that huge government deficits are not the basic problems that we are facing.
This year we are going to have a deficit of close to $20 billion. It might be a little lower or a shade higher, but it will be in that area. In November it was projected the deficit would be about $10.5 billion. It climbed very rapidly in the last eight months.
The reason for the climb is not an increase in government spending. There has been some increase. Eighty cents of every dollar of that increase in the deficit has been directly due to decreased government revenues. Twenty cents of that dollar is due to increased government expenditures, mostly caused by a world recession. It has been because of a decline in revenue. Most of the increased expenditures have been caused by a global recession. It is not a simple matter to deal with.
Government spending is not the major source of all of the problem. This government will spend approximately $90 billion in the next fiscal year. Only 20 per cent of that amount will be spent on the operation of government, the part this bill deals with, although we are dealing outside of the public sector when we deal with those areas under the Canada Labour Code, as indicated in this motion.
Only 20 per cent of government spending is for the operation of government; defence, the post office, and all other operations of government. The other 80 per cent is transferred to Canadians in one way or another either through the provinces, directly to Canadians through pensions, or in other ways. We should have a good debate in this House about where the money comes from, where it goes and whether that is the way it should be done, rather than a debate on the


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
amount. Governments such as in Sweden and other countries transfer perhaps 50 per cent of their gross national product from one group to another. That is the debate we should be having. The amount of the transfer is not all that significant.
Again with regard to these simplicities we keep running into, I would like to compare our situation with that in the United States. Not long ago I was criticized for talking about the United States rather than Canada. The economy of this country for many reasons is tremendously dependent on the economy of the United States. One reason is the very large ownership factor. That was one of the reasons we brought in the National Energy Program, which the Tories would love to be rid of. Before that program was brough in, 75 per cent of our oil and gas resources were owned offshore, mostly by American companies. That was a very good reason why we brought in the national energy policy, and it is a very good reason to talk about the American economy and compare it with ours. I think that comparison is important.
One of the statements often made since the budget is that our deficit as a percentage of our gross national product is double the American deficit. That simply is not true. As a percentage of gross national product our deficit is about the same as the American deficit will be. There is a very small difference between the two deficits. The American deficit is $100 billion; we can probably say that is a close estimate, but the American deficit will not be $100 billion in the fiscal year coming up, it will be in the area of $160 billion to $170 billion. The total deficits of both countries will be approximately the same in terms of gross national product. Sometimes we use the ten to one ratio. The ten to one ratio is not adequate because our gross national product is larger than that of the United States. The ten to one ratio does not quite work. However, the deficits of the two countries are very, very similar.
One of the interesting things about the government's deficit is the deficit as a function of savings. The total Canadian gross national product will be about $360 billion in the current fiscal year. The government deficit of $20 billion represents about 5.1 per cent of the total gross national product. At the same time, Canadians have a gross capital formation-savings-in the order of 25 per cent of our gross national product.
I obviously do not like simplicity in this regard, but let me make a simple comparison. A family which spends something in the order of $2,000 more than it earns but actually saves $9,000 in another way is not in bad shape. Basically speaking, if we look at the Canadian economy and see the deficit at $20 billion but our gross capital formation at $90 billion, then we do not see that deficit as being so serious that we cannot live with it. That represents something like 21 per cent or 22 per cent of capital formation. In the United States the figure is closer to 30 per cent. Canadian problems in this respect are not more serious than American problems. They are problems, however, in terms of inflation.
Our inflation rate is still a good deal higher than the American inflation rate. It is probably three or four percentage points higher. It is hard to tell because the American rate has
been fluctuating quite a bit in the past couple of months. The American rate has been up considerably, but one can assume about a 4 per cent to 5 per cent difference in the rates. That is the problem this bill and this motion attempt to ease so that we can get interest rates down.
In this comparison there is one area on which we have not spent much time. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is one who can accept a lot of praise for her efforts in this respect. As a country we have not cut back significantly-we have not really cut back at all-the amount of money we provide for social services. There has been a very small cut in the old age pension. It is not really a cut; it is a reduction of the increase to 6 per cent for people who presumably have sufficient funds. It is not a cut for those who do not.
I would like to relate a short story about the situation in the United States to give some idea of what is happening there. In the middle of June President Reagan went to Texas and spoke at a testimonial dinner for the governor of Texas. Thirty-five hundred people came out to that testimonial dinner to hear their president, and each laid out $1,000 a plate for this dinner. In the same week that those 3,500 Americans-from Texas, mostly-laid out $1,000 each for a meal, the state of Texas put out a brochure indicating that people should not move to that state because there was a high unemployment rate in the south, particularly in Texas, because with no national energy program the oil industry was in serious trouble throughout the United States. That very week the state of Texas put out a brochure which said that people on welfare would get monthly incomes of $32 for food stamps and an additional $32. That is in a country where 3,500 people are able to lay out $1,000 each for a single meal.
The Government of Canada has not at any stage forgotten its social responsibilities. This government has not reduced expenditures for health, welfare and so forth. We are not cutting these things back. I noted that the social council gave some praise to the government for not doing that. I think that is one of the fundamental differences in the two countries. If this recession becomes worse, the base for any kind of recovery will be the fact that we are funnelling out money for unemployment insurance benefits, solving social problems and making sure people have some money to buy goods.
I could go into much more detail on the American scene than I have done. I am very much afraid that base is disappearing in the United States.
Hon. members opposite offer simple solutions to our problems. As Menken says, they look at a complex problem and come up with a simple, neat, wrong answer. I say this bill is a beginning. It is with this bill that we start to come together as Canadians to reduce our inflation. That is one step. There have to be many steps to solve the problems this country and the rest of the world face.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can put a question to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). The hon. member supports the government's proposal to limit


wage increases in the next two years to 6 per cent and 5 per cent and suggests that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am not certain whether the hon. member is rising on a point of order or whether he rises to enter the debate. May I inquire whether the hon. member rises on a point of order?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question. 1 wonder if the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan would permit me to ask him a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thought it might be that. That is why I interrupted the hon. member. The time of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) has expired. Consequently, in keeping with our precedents it is necessary for the Chair to seek the unanimous consent of the House in order that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) might put a question to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is supporting the government's proposal that wage and salary increases for public servants in the next two years be limited to 6 per cent and 5 per cent, and suggests that if this were done, along with other things, the rate of inflation could be reduced to 6 per cent. I would like to ask the hon. member how he can argue that the rate of inflation might be brought down to 6 per cent when it is government policy, through an agreement between the Government of Canada and the producing provinces, that the price of energy will go up between July 1 of this year and July 1 of next year by over 30 per cent. That means the cost of transportation, the cost of heating a home, the cost of travelling by car, bus or air must go up. The cost of producing food will go up substantially because of fuel prices. Does the hon. member really believe that the cost of living will be brought down to 6 per cent? Is it not more likely it will be 9 or 10 per cent this time next year?
[DOT] (mo)


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very serious question. If I had had another ten minutes I would have dealt with it. We have a strange situation in the country where one of the large contributing factors to inflation is the rising cost of energy. We have an agreement that our energy prices will go to 75 per cent of world price. At present our price is considerably below world price; it is coming down but our price is going up.
I suggest to the hon. member that if we were to raise our energy price to 75 per cent of world price tomorrow, our inflation would start coming down. It is a ridiculous situation but that is exactly what would happen. The inflation rate would descend and the expectations of higher inflation would also descend.
I think we can accept the fact that three or four percentage points of inflation will still be caused by energy prices. I do not
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
see how we can get around that because of the rather ridiculous situation we are in that other countries are not, since our price is so far below world price.
1 hope the government will renegotiate the agreement with Alberta and limit this at some point. It may mean that the costs of operating government may increase because the amount of transfers may have to increase. If government revenues decrease then we may have to find some other tax sources.
I think we have to understand that if we got 75 to per cent of world price for our energy tomorrow, our inflation rate would decline. It is ridiculous but that is the situation.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians must be wondering why the House has been sitting practically all summer. Well, I hope they realize that the present government is doing everything it possibly can to remedy the present economic situation.
Obviously, Bill C-124 is not a panacea. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I do not think any parliament, whether here in Canada or anywhere else in the world, has ever been able to come up with the ideal solution to all our ills. We do not claim that this measure is going to be effective on all counts but, as I said before, none of the laws passed by the world's parliaments has ever been perfect. Take old age security, for instance. If we had wanted to be absolutely fair, there are millionaires who certainly do not need the pension and there are other people who need it very badly, so it is impossible to come up with a measure that will please everyone.
Of course, my colleagues opposite-and I am not surprised, since they are fond of criticizing-are opposed to this bill and have said so during the hours this House has been considering this legislation. On the other hand, they have been unable to come up with any tangible solutions. These people are fence-sitters, because they are trying to please everybody. However, there comes a time, Mr. Speaker, when a responsible government must make decisions that, though not necessarily attractive to everyone, are aimed at correcting certain situations. Of course, the New Democratic Party especially is fiercely opposed to this measure to restrict wage increases. We must not forget, however-and I think everyone will agree, the members of the New Democratic Party as well-that the main problem, and this is nothing new, the main problem is, how are we going to fight inflation? We are also agreed that there is a price to pay if we want to fight inflation. And we know that this price is being paid today by the people who are being laid off: the last to be hired are the first to be fired. This price is also being paid by businessmen who are faced with high interest rates and are daily running the risk of losing their shirt. So there is a price to pay, and these are the people who are now paying the price for bringing inflation down to more rational proportions. So what do we do with the public service
19972


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
where people have practically absolute job security? Is the government supposed to go on handing out wage increases of up to 11 or 12 per cent and let these people who have job security take advantage of the fact that others have to pay the price for bringing inflation down to more rational proportions? Should we let them be a burden to the unemployed and to businessmen who are going bankrupt? Is the government supposed to turn around and give more to people with job security? Is it going to say, "Take your wage increase and take advantage of the fact that others are being squeezed dry in order to reduce inflation? Mr. Speaker, I feel that a Liberal government that has always been proud of the fact that the Liberal Party stands for justice, equity and sharing, would have failed in its duty to the country had it done so.
The reason why Canadians keep re-electing Liberal governments is that the Liberal Party stands up for everyone, for the rich and the poor and the middle class. It stands for justice. That is why we cannot afford to have something like this happen. Of course, if the economy were in very good shape, we certainly would not bother putting restrictions on wage increases. Unfortunately, it is like Petula Clark says in her song: Everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die! Everybody realizes that these are difficult times, but when they are asked to do their bit, they always want the other person to make the effort.
Of course, we must start somewhere. The New Democratic Party members opposite are saying that if we want to control wages, we should control prices as well. It sounds great, but we must not forget that we are living in a free enterprise and competitive society where prices practically control themselves. My colleagues opposite seem to think this is ridiculous. Well, if a perfect solution could be found, I would be the first to look for it. There is some talk of controlling prices; now, I am not necessarily against price controls, on the contrary. If there were a scientifically proven and effective way to control prices,
I would be the first to try it. Unfortunately, introduce price controls and you open up a whole can of worms. And 1 mean it, Mr. Speaker. For instance, people are complaining that CMHC housing is going up, and during question period we are constantly being urged to control the price of homes and control rents to keep increases at 6 per cent or less.
1 would like to remind these people that Canada is a trading country and that CMHC is in the housing business. Of course we could promise not to raise the price of houses by more than 6 per cent, even if that meant we would have the largest deficit ever. We cannot go bankrupt since we are the government. What I mean is, we are competing with the people in the private sector. What is going to happen? We are going to put these people out of business. They will not be able to survive if the government gives them unfair competition. It is unfair because as a government we can absorb deficits indefinitely, but how can we expect the small entrepreneur, who is already
losing money if he only raises prices by 9 or 10 per cent, to stay in business if he is restricted to 6 per cent? We have to remember that sort of thing. It sounds wonderful, this clamouring for price controls as well as wage controls, but it is not as easy as it sounds.
Mr. Speaker, I wish Canadians, and not just the people opposite, but Canadians in general, would give some serious thought to what the consequences would be if the government were to impose price controls in all areas. Obviously, if all our businesses were to go bankrupt as a result of excessive controls-it is not that I like to see companies making exorbitant profits, certainly not-but if price controls are excessive, we may be causing companies to go bankrupt. I really doubt that would be in the interest of Canadian workers.
I think that, generally speaking Canadians realize that a start has to be made somewhere, and we on the government side have decided to set an example and start putting our own house in order. We are often accused of minding everybody's business except our own, Mr. Speaker, but I think most governments have this habit of minding other people's business. But this time, it is our business, and it is up to the government to do something about it. The government is responsible for the public service and all Crown corporations, and therefore, in a situation like the one existing today, the government must act. Most public servants agree wholeheartedly with this measure. Of course, Mr. McDermott and the New Democratic Party and cohorts do not agree, but most public servants do. They know perfectly well that this is not a punitive measure, it is anything but, and it is not because we want to impose anything on anyone or because we resent anyone but, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, it would be absolutely unfair in our present society for people to be laid off while others enjoy absolute job security and are being granted more money.
Mr. Speaker, if I were a public servant and were earning $12,000 or $15,000 a year, in the circumstances I would rather have my salary increase restricted to 6 per cent than get my 11 per cent increase and be obliged to go on unemployment insurance or welfare. So I want to make it quite clear to all public servants that this is not a punitive measure, on the contrary. We realize that we are working closely with public servants, some of whom are our employees, and we want to treat them with dignity and respect. Of course, some people are going to be rather pleased because like the politicians, the bureaucracy is not necessarily well loved, and it was Balzac who said that the bureaucracy was a monster administered by pygmies. In fact, Mr. Speaker, although many Canadians may see the bureaucracy as a monster, these people often work, without recognition, to enhance the well-being of the entire population. So, these people understand perfectly our position and our reasons for taking this action.
Mr. Speaker, a start had to be made somewhere, and everyone knows that here in Canada we have had some very


good and prosperous years, and we have lived very well. Now we are going through a difficult period, and people should realize that they will have to make an effort to change their lifestyle. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will go outside to talk if they are not too much in a hurry; if they really want to talk maybe they could talk outside, it is a bit disturbing, Mr. Speaker, so 1 would say that a country's economic ups and downs are very similar to the human life or cycle, also just like in the bush: when there is a population explosion of certain animals and then there is an epidemic and they die and the situation goes back to normal. It is about the same in an economy. In good years, businessmen make more profits, they are more generous when business is good and give more substantial wage increases until they realize that they can no longer do so. The economy cannot always follow an upward trend. At some point, you have to face the facts, and this is what happens then.
We have to realize that we may have expected a bit too much. We have a population of 24 million people in Canada and there are 28 million credit cards in circulation. It will give food for thought to many people to know that 28 million credit cards are in circulation and that we have a debt of $200,000 per capita, for every one of our 24 million people, and that the child who is born today has a debt of $200,000. This is the federal, provincial, municipal and corporate debt. It amounts to $200,000 per capita.
I would like to know what opposition members believe would be a normal, acceptable debt for a country like ours. Of course, they will suggest something else because, generally speaking, members of the opposition wait to see what we are about to suggest. They like to play cat and mouse. As soon as we speak up to suggest something, they are against it. If we had suggested something else or made an alternative proposal, they would have recommended the very thing to which they are now opposed. It is obvious that the members opposite have no really constructive proposals to make, but they still stay in the House and delay passage of this bill without reason.
Mr. Speaker, we in the government can always intervene, but each time we do, it is an artificial intervention. We can only postpone the crunch and Canadians are beginning to understand it. Canadians throughout the country are now realizing that each time governments intervene by granting a subsidy here and a subsidy there to help such or such a company to remain in business, to prevent it from going into receivership or from closing its doors and to save jobs, it is a good thing for that specific company, but it is unfair to another one which is well managed. Every time the federal or provincial governments intervene, their intervention is artificial. Canadians generally must apply self-discipline. There are limits to the extent to which governments can put bread in the mouths of each individual. We shall now have to realize that we have had good years and that we must now make an effort and lower the thermostat by one degree if need be to make both ends meet. We shall have to work intelligently, the way it is being done now in European countries.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
In the past, Canadian businessmen, for instance, wanted to become millionaires within two years. This is all very well if you can afford it. It does not work like that in Europe. A businessman must stand behind his counter for years. Those are the facts! Workers will also have to be a bit more productive. Employers and businessmen will have to reduce their expenses.
I was in business myself and there were times when money was scarce and I had to get rid of certain items. I was sorry to do so because I thought, "Well, this pickup is nearly paid for and I have to sell it." However, that is what it means to go through a difficult period. Mr. Speaker, I know that the House will pass Bill C-124 this evening and that Canadians in general will understand exactly our position and our decision and I am certain that it will benefit the Canadian economy.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that Bill C-124 which is before us today will be seen by history as an injust bill, as a hollow gesture at fighting inflation. It will be seen as a bill which attempted to make scapegoats of public employees and other working people in Canada for the disastrous economic policies pursued by the government. It will be seen as a bill through which the government, cheered on by Conservative pretenders in opposition, deliberately sparked a confrontation with labour to deflect attention from the destructive impact of high interest rates, rapidly increasing energy costs, and monopoly control of the marketplace in the Canadian economy. Obviously my colleagues in this party and I stand opposed to the bill. The government has forced it upon the people of Canada and we have no intention of letting it slip by without doing everything in our power to attack the inequities of this contemptible piece of legislation and to support whatever constructive amendments are proposed.
My friends to the right, the Tories, seem to be stumbling over themselves to help the government sell this PR campaign. It is a campaign to try to convince Canadians that attacking collective bargaining and the incomes of working people is what is needed to fight inflation. The government is spoiling for a fight with labour to convince Canadians that it is doing something about the economic crisis. The Tories over here are right behind them, trying to limit the ability of working people to fight back within the realm of the law. Unlike the Conservatives, I do not support attacking the living standards of a typist in Winnipeg who earns $11,353 per year, or the people working in government hospitals who earn only $11,055 per year, in order to encourage Ian Sinclair and his blue chip cronies to take advantage of the 6 per cent world of recovery. That is what the bill is intended to do. Neither do I support an attack on the collective bargaining rights of working people in Canada in order to deflect attention from the government's ruinous economic policies.


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has moved a number of amendments, seeking to reintroduce real collective bargaining in the bill. The effect of his amendments is to return to those people covered under the bill the right, according to the Canada Labour Code or the Public Service Staff Relations Act, to negotiate a collective agreement and the right to choose between arbitration and strike action to solve disputes which may arise in negotiations. These amendments are constructive ones. They restore not just the appearance of collective bargaining but the very substance of it.
The announcement last Thursday by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) that collective bargaining would soon be permitted in the 6 per cent world of relapse was a crafty piece of public relations, but as we have seen, it really lacks the substance to deal with the charge that the government is undermining collective bargaining in Canada. With limits of 6 per cent and 5 per cent on all forms of pay, benefits and prerequisites, there is very little room for negotiation. All the President of the Treasury Board has given the people of the public service is the privilege of negotiating how their standard of living and working conditions will deteriorate, and then only if the government decides to permit negotiations.
According to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), that little statement by the President of the Treasury Board will go a long way toward quelling Tory opposition to the bill. When we scratch the surface, we find that there is really not much Tory opposition to wage controls. Just like their opposition to government economic mismanagement, the Tory opposition to wage controls is a bit of a paper tiger. There is very little to differentiate the Liberals from the Tories in respect of collective bargaining or their remedies for high interest rates, high unemployment and falling productivity in Canada. The Liberals and the Tories want to reintroduce the appearance of collective bargaining rights in the federal public service. That is all it is-the appearance of collective bargaing.
There is precious little for women working for the government who look forward to decent maternity leave provisions. There is precious little for those public service employees nearing retirement who hope for reconsideration of the restraint which will be imposed on their pension incomes. There is nothing for those people hoping for a return to their right .to collective bargaining.
What is the purpose of this bill? When he introduced it four weeks ago, the President of the Treasury Board moaned about the 25 per cent to 30 per cent of our productive capacity standing idle. He complained about the one and one-quarter million people unable to find work, and he gnashed his teeth over the businesses and consumers staggering under high interest rates. We must improve our production, he said; and 1 cannot think of anyone who would disagree with him. Our economy is being ravaged by this recession-cum-depression. It is a dismal picture and it is a picture that we in this corner have been trying to get the government to see for a long time.
We have no doubt it is the ruinous fiscal and monetary policies of this government and the Bank of Canada which have brought this recession upon the heads of Canadians, and the government knows that. It has known that would happen all along. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself has admitted that the object of his government's economic policies is to scare the wits out of Canadians with high unemployment, to reduce their demands on the Canadian economy; and it worked, it did scare the wits out of Canadians, but the only result has been more unemployment, less production and no relief from inflation.
Surely the Liberals cannot be surprised that Canada is now in the grips of a severe recession. They have brought it on intentionally to fight inflation. The Liberal Party, the government of this country, no less than the Tories who snap at their heels, has embraced the monetarist economic policies which are squeezing the life out of western economies everywhere.
The budget introduced in this House on June 28 was a crushing disappointment to the people of Canada. It was a prescription for social chaos and economic disaster. It is another chapter in the decade of Liberal and Conservative economic mismanagement since this crisis began in 1973. This budget held little for Canadians except the same bankrupt principles of monetarism, spiced with a pinch of the voodoo remedies of supply side economics.
The June 28 budget could have been the turning point at which the government abandoned the Conservative economic doctrine of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party of Canada. The government could have turned its back on the unjust economic schemes whose basic tenet is to take from the poor and give to the rich, hoping the rich will be enticed to invest in a more prosperous society. The government could have turned its back on this, but it did not. Instead it gave Canadians a repudiation of the principles of collective bargaining combined with another squeeze on the already falling incomes of ordinary Canadians. It gave Canadians pension cuts and further cutbacks in social services, and so as to sell it the government went scrambling to come up with what it thinks are catchy phrases like solidarity and sharing and a crusade on inflation and the 6 per cent world of recovery.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) was preparing his budget he brought in what The Toronto Star called an old Liberal warhorse to advise him on the revolution of semantics. A revolution of semantics, what a lovely phrase! That is the magic that the Liberals expected to sell this thing they call the plan for recovery. For a party that has not had a new idea in ten years I suppose the best thing that they could come up with is a revolution in semantics.
However, I think the Minister of Finance did not quite need to retain an adviser to stage this revolution. At much less cost and with a good deal more honesty he could have borrowed a phrase or two from the 1979 Conservative budget. No less than the Tories, the Liberals' only remedy for the economic


crisis is the short-term pain for long-term gain or rather, to be more honest, it should be short-term gain for long-term pain.
That is what this budget and Bill C-124 are all about: long-term pain for short-term gain. But it is not the $500,000 a year captains of industry and finance who will be hurting; it is the people of this country who work for the government and, after them, those working in the private sector. They are the ones being asked to be the foot soldiers in the government's crusade against inflation. Not only is their real income to be cut over the next two years, but with the limitations imposed on their right to bargain collectively, their working conditions as well could well deteriorate, while they have little power to demand improvements.
1 can see no sense in attacking the wages of working people, wages which have been falling against the cost of living. What makes even less sense is to attack the right to collective bargaining as part of a crusade against inflation. And whether or not the government decides to permit its employees to request negotiations on some parts of their contracts, this bill clearly attacks ferociously their right to collective bargaining under the guise of wage restraint. It is here that the government's logic is most transparent. Attacking collective bargaining may be good sport in the corporate board rooms but in itself the right to bargain collectively really has no impact on inflation.
Last year my party leader received an internal government document spelling out how the government would deal with the economic crisis. Let me quote a paragraph from it. It reads:
A program of consultation and public relations aimed at changing public attitudes and expectations would be useful, even though the main advantage of the program would be that it would enable the government to be seen doing something about inflation and to lay part of the blame for inflation on the private sector.
So that is what the government is doing now. But it is doing so under the rubric of wage controls, laying the blame for inflation not so much on the private sector as on the working people of this country. But even that same document recognizes that it is not wages which are fuelling inflation. That document says this, and I quote again:
We are not currently facing wagedriven inflation such as we were in 1975, instead real wages have fallen for four consecutive years.
That document was written last year. Wages have now fallen for five consecutive years. If wages are not the cause of inflation, and the government apparently recognizes that, can a 6 per cent world of recovery really be an honest attack on inflation? I think not.
Wage controls will not bring inflation down; they will not put people back to work. All they will do is to provoke fresh fights between government and organized labour. Union bashing is a popular avocation among some of Canada's editorial writers and conservative economic think tanks such as the Fraser Institute. With its 6 per cent world of recovery, the Liberal government is trying to woo support from the Conservatives. It is trying to show Conservative supporters it can be every bit as neanderthal, economically, as the Tories can.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
The last time Canadians had a bout with wage controls was from October 1975 to April 1978. Canadians were told that controls were absolutely essential to get the economy off the rocks. They were to be part of a concerted attack on inflation that would put an end to spiralling prices and give the economy a period of stability during which the government promised to do something about unemployment. After 30 months of controls, what did the government accomplish?
When controls were introduced, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) predicted they would bring the inflation rate, which was at 10.6 per cent, down to 4 per cent by 1978. Did they do that? We all know they did not. The rate of inflation in 1978 was not 4 per cent at all, it was 9 per cent. From 1975 to 1978, prices in the country rose by 38.9 per cent, but the control guidelines limited wage increases to only 19 per cent.
What about unemployment? In October, 1975, when controls were introduced, the federal unemployment rate in this country was 7.2 per cent. After 30 months of supposed stability during which the government said it would do something about unemployment, the unemployment rate actually increased to 8.6 per cent. That has to be a discouraging record for the proponents of wage controls, for the Liberals across the floor and for the Conservatives on my right.
The Canadian economy does not need restraint to get back on track. It does not need an attack on collective bargaining. It needs a major shift in economic planning by the government of this country.
Whether the government of this country is formed by Liberals or Conservatives, the only solution Canadians can expect is more long-term pain for short-term gain. The Conservatives are fond of accusing this party of being in collusion with this government, but the record of the House shows that it is the Conservatives who have supported this government's policies most often by votes in this very House. If there is an alliance brewing in this country, it is between the two parties of big business. When it comes to economic planning, the only difference between the two is a difference in style.
Was it not the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who said that the wage controls proposed in the June 28 budget were a step in the right direction? Was it not the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), after accusing the government of being adrift, who admitted that the Tories would not get elected if they now told the public what they would do if they were in government?
What kind of remedy does this Liberal-Tory alliance prescribe for the Canadian economy? They have made the war on inflation their number one priority and have bravely accepted the high and rising levels of unemployment and the farm and small business bankruptcies as the cost of licking inflation. To increase productivity in Canada, they want to strangle the economy with high interest rates, more unemployment and low productivity.
If that is not enough, they want to strangle the economy further by reducing domestic consumption through the imposi-


Business of the House
tion of wage controls and the deindexation of pensions. In both cases their solution rests on a fundamental redistribution of income away from working people and senior citizens, away from farmers and fishermen and from small businesses to the already rich and powerful.
1 think I have made it clear that we find the economic solutions put forward in this bill totally lacking. We find the bill which we are debating today to be unjust. It is a charade designed to hoodwink Canadians into believing the government is doing something positive about the economy. The amendments which we proposed and for which we are asking support of the House later this evening, would only address some of the excesses of Bill C-124. While we believe these amendments should be accepted, we cannot accept the plan for economic recovery that makes working people scapegoats of a government that is trying to get us to believe its hype about a crusade on inflation.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to a very important matter about which I would like some information. There has been a disposition among members from all three parties to deal with legislation which would overhaul Canada's rape laws. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) will know, we have been working very hard in the Justice Committee to bring forward legislation in this area. Canadian women have waited far too long for these overdue changes.
I want to ask the Minister of Justice, if I may, whether there is a disposition on the part of the government to move forward on this important matter because we, on our part, are prepared to proceed at six o'clock with a two-hour debate to deal with this very important legislation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the hon. member just said. We have worked for many months on this bill. We had many sessions last week that went late into the night. We have made an agreement that there will be a new bill to deal with the change in the rape laws of Canada and the child abduction laws. There was a disposition among the official representatives of the three parties to pass it between six o'clock and eight o'clock.
Further to that, in discussions this afternoon which we had with the two spokesmen of the opposition parties, we agreed to some amendments that will be acceptable to all of us. I could not accept these amendments in the committee because the drafting came quite late. We have now found some new wording, and there is a proposed agreement that two amendments per party will be allowed in order to permit some flexibility to all of us.
That was the understanding which we had. I am told by the House leader-I hope it is not true-that unfortunately the official opposition apparently no longer wants to agree to that. Of course I am very sorry about this because some of the members of the opposition parties have worked very hard on it and were very keen. They even twisted my arm somewhat, but now they cannot twist the arm of their own party. It is a sad state for a party which wants to form the government some day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I assume the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) is rising on the same point of order.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am simply prepared to say that we acknowledge the many months of effort which the committee has put into making an attempt to reach some consensus with respect to what would go in the bill. But the document which I have in my hand is Bill C-"blank" which will be coming before the House for the first time when it is introduced. The bill is dated today. This is the third printed document that was submitted to the committee and will ultimately be submitted to the House for consideration.
The justice and legal critic for the official opposition has taken the position on many occasions that it is the government's responsibility to bring in a bill to the House so as to let us know what we are up against. As far as we are concerned, we are prepared to discuss the bill whenever the minister is prepared to present it to the House for consideration.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to see the bill proceeded with. While we were prepared, and continue to be prepared, to give the unanimous consent necessary to allow the bill to proceed through all stages during a two-hour period this evening, we would also be prepared to do likewise tomorrow evening. We understood that the bill would be coming forward in the state that it is currently in. We were not taken by surprise; I do not think anyone was taken by surprise.
I recognize that it is not the normal practice for the House of Commons to receive a bill on the same day on which it is dealt with through all stages, but I also recognize that there is a great deal of demand from those most affected by it in the public, and they have made it clear that they would like to see the bill proceeded with and not delayed. With that in mind, we were prepared, and continue to be prepared, to deal with this bill.
Since there seems to be some dispute about proceeding with it, I would suggest that perhaps the prudent thing to do would be to delay until tomorrow at six o'clock. We should try between now and then to come to an agreement between the various members of the House to see if the matter can proceed tomorrow before the adjournment as we have already determined should occur.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, all members agree about tomorrow night. We will certainly consider that. I am dis-


appointed because I thought we had agreed for six o'clock. However, I see that the official opposition wants additional time to get its act together. Well, so much the better if they can march to the same tune tomorrow between six and eight o'clock. We will certainly consider that very seriously. The difficulty we are facing is that the Senate has already begun its preliminary study of the bill and 1 think that the official opposition will have to tell the Progressive Conservative Senate leader to toe the line because I think he does not see it quite that way. So, tomorrow between six and eight o'clock. 1 would certainly be in favour of that, but we shall see if the opposition can rally its members to reach an agreement, such as we on this side have come to after concerted efforts. I see that even the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) agrees with me. Since he does, Mr. Speaker, that creates a precedent of which we should take full advantage.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: 1 rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Hon. members always have the right to be aware of and to make use of the Standing Orders. I do not think it would be in order for the Chair not to see the clock much longer. Standing Orders require that the Chair recognize the clock. In an attempt to balance the interests of the House, if an hon. member wishes to put a motion on the floor which could be dealt with, then perhaps the Chair's duty would be to not see the clock. But I want to warn hon. members that there are some who may call upon the Chair to apply the Standing Orders, and the time is approaching. In order to pursue the matter, 1 will-


Yvon Pinard: Six o'clock!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize-


Yvon Pinard: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I see that we have reached an agreement with the NDP, but we might have an agreement with the Tories later.


Howard Edward Crosby: Progressive Conservatives.


Yvon Pinard: The Conservatives. Obviously the Tory member does not agree that we sit between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. to deal with that bill. I will therefore consult with the House leaders later today or tomorrow but, for the time being, 1 think that our time is being wasted. So I call it six o'clock.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask either the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) or the House leader a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has no choice now. One hon. member has called it six o'clock. I would have recognized the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland but-
Business of the House


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I think you are putting his rights ahead of mine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Well, then, I will ask hon. members to-


Ian Deans: Would you guys stop fighting?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I would ask hon. members to extend a certain courtesy to the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland who, after all, was on his feet prior to six o'clock. I will then recognize the time as being six o'clock.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my point in rising was merely to ask a question. The Minister of Justice has indicated that a brand new bill is available to hon. members of the House with respect to the whole question we are discussing. Most hon. members who have asked for a copy of that bill have not been able to get a copy. The second point is that with no new bill before us, the Minister of Justice then came along and said, within the last ten minutes, that he has agreed to new amendments which none of us has seen. My question to the Minister of Justice, if he were still in the House and had not been rude enough to leave, would simply have been: when will we see the amended bills-plural-and the amendments to which he referred so that we could properly discuss them?


An hon. Member:: Your critic has it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am here, I am here!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Where have you been for the last year and a half?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair extended a particular courtesy to the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, with the consent of hon. members, I thought. 1 will now make a ruling. Because it was a question by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, the Chair will not extend further consideration except to the Minister of Justice, and following that the Chair will call it six o'clock, unless there is unanimous consent to proceed otherwise.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 just said that the amendments have been given to the critic of the party opposite, the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), and we discussed the matter with him after two o'clock. He knows all the amendments 1 have been willing to accept. He proposed one amendment to us. I think that we have agreed to proceed with it. The NDP have also proposed some amendments. So for those who are interested in the bill and who have been present in committee, there were some informal discussions. All the information is in the hands of the critic of the official opposition and it is for him to communicate it. It was agreed that the bill was to be tabled for first reading in the House by unanimous consent. 1 cannot table it because the matter is in the hands of the opposition


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
and there is no more deal. When there is a deal, it will be tabled.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I suggest, with great respect to any hon. member who seeks the floor on a point of order, that it is now six minutes after six o'clock. Accordingly, 1 call it six o'clock and do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.06 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[English}

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and Motion No. 4 (Mr. Murphy).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. When the House took recess at six o'clock, the Chair had given the floor to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for dinner, 1 was about to tell the House how pleased I was to take part in this debate in early August in a session that will certainly turn out to be the longest ever. I want to say why I feel that it is our duty as parliamentarians to be here at the very time, when hundreds of Canadians have an opportunity to come and follow our proceedings and see just how seriously all parties in the House deal with the economic issue. 1 think that all Canadians fully realize that exceptional measures must be taken if we are to come to grips with the crisis that is currently undermining the country. Within the parameters of this debate on Bill C-124, 1 think we must warn all Canadians not to be taken in by such prophets as those of the New Democratic Party who claim to have magic and easy solutions. These are hardly times when irresponsibility, complacency and particularly petty politics are acceptable. I would suggest that the times we are going through are too important for the
1,250,000	idle Canadians who can only hope and entertain the thought that their government does not forget them. The magic solutions advocated by the New Democratic Party simply do not wash in economics or in sociology because, if we were to endorse their theory, everything would be a cinch, we would simply spend more money.
They fail to say where the money would be coming from but, as far as they are concerned, the way out is to spend more money. We heard them during the sittings of the committee when they claimed that the solution is not to cut back the salaries of the public servants, but to give them more money to enable them to spend and keep the economy rolling. If we were to do that, we would find ourselves in a situation where the Canadian people would have to pay a very steep price for a small minority, which happens to be among those who enjoy the best protection in the country. The real issue is that the time may not have come yet for the New Democratic Party to pay its debts to the unions that provide its financing. It would be better to let those unions realize the seriousness of the crisis and enable them to join the collective effort aimed at restoring in Canada an acceptable and profitable level of economic activity for all Canadians. There is no simple formula to curb inflation. To be here today and propose a-


An hon. Member:: And the high interest rates?


Mr. Lapierre:: If you will remain silent, I will talk about high interest rates later on. I did not interrupt you when you had the floor. Mr. Speaker, we all wish for a higher standard of living, we would all like to see Canadians live in a world of opulence, but the fact is that the standard of living is related to individual responsibility. We often have misconceptions about our wealth. People think that we are going to pull through this crisis because Canada is a wealthy country and that nobody will have to make personal sacrifices, but the reality is something else again. We have been deluding ourselves for the past five, six, seven or eight years by telling one another that the public coffers were bottomless. Today we are faced with the sad reality: Canadians can no longer contribute as generously as in the past to government programs. They simply cannot pay too many taxes and yet, at the same time, they expect the government to come up with solutions. Those who now bear the brunt of the economic crisis are mainly young people and women who make up the majority of the unemployed. They are also businessmen on the brink of bankruptcy because they cannot compete any longer on some markets.
It seems to me that if we went along with what the New Democratic Party is suggesting, the rest of the people would suffer, while unionized civil servants would be protected. It seems to me also that the Canadian people now have neither the means nor the desire to protect anybody. What they want is economic leadership. They want their government and all its elected representatives to lead the way. They rely on firmness and a sincere desire to end the crisis once and for all and to wrestle to the ground this inflation which would destroy us all sooner or later. When Mr. Karl Beigie appeared before our committee, he gave three causes for inflation. He mentioned, of course, that the main cause is increased costs. It is a fact


that energy costs have increased tremendously over the past ten years.
Labour costs have increased as well, and caught in a vicious circle, we say, "Because of the higher cost of living, give us more money without bothering about productivity!" And whenever we get an automatic pay increase of 12 or 13 per cent, does it really reflect an increase in productivity? And we realize that in the past few years in Canada, in spite of significant pay increases in every sector of the economy, there has been no corresponding rise in productivity; in fact, productivity has stagnated. Mr. Beigie felt also that the Canadian dollar in the 50's had been overvalued, although other economists may feel differently; yet, in his view and as he sees economic reality, from the moment the Canadian dollar found its true value, the cost of imported goods increased accordingly and fed inflation. We often hear people say that the value of the Canadian dollar should be set in such a way that it is worth one dollar to Canadians buying on the domestic market. A dollar is always worth a dollar, but because of the great many imports we buy-we have become more sophisticated customers, we appreciate imported and choice cheeses and other similar products-we are, as 1 said, sophisticated consumers, and this also feeds inflation, because our dollar is worth 80 cents U.S. and we import a tremendous amount of goods, this causes costs to rise.
Mr. Beigie referred also to a new phenomenon, namely, state control over increasingly larger areas of the economy. Under popular pressure, probably with the best intentions in the world, governments have taken an active part in the marketplace, have become involved in dozens of social and economic programs of every shape and form which are becoming increasingly costly for the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian economy as a whole. We have also contributed to the spiralling increase in the cost of living by individually and collectively deciding to protect ourselves against it by indexing social benefits to the cost of living; so, we have made monsters of programs which originally were quite modest but are now costing us an arm and a leg, Mr. Speaker, something that is forcing us to lower our expectations. We have to ask ourselves whether Canada can keep on spending, even with the best intentions in the world. But can the Canadian people still afford all those expenditures without complaining; are those expenditures synonymous with growth? We feel that growth can never be achieved unless we change our ways. The last few years have proved it beyond a doubt; unfortunately, that experience has made its victims: we must now turn to those victims, and the government must take drastic measures to remedy the situation.
Salaries, which 1 mentioned a moment ago, no longer bear any relation to productivity; it is a forgotten element of our language, an element none of the unions which came before the committee even mentioned. They merely said: We need more! But they did not relate what they deserve to what they
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
produce; that notion is unfortunately too often overlooked, which explains our problems in world markets. Yes, over the past five years, our productivity has been stagnating and the cost of labour at all levels of government has increased. We should ask ourselves what the rate of productivity is in government services. With all the resources of his staff, the Auditor General of Canada has assessed the productivity of the public service at 60 per cent compared with the private sector. I do not want to generalize because there are of course public servants who have a productivity of 110 percent. Others, unfortunately, must have a lower than average productivity, which would mean lower than 60 per cent, but none of those who appeared before the committee to speak on behalf of public servants mentioned productivity. I believe that other Canadians are becoming more and more concerned about productivity, whether in the private sector or in some public agencies, and they are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of being more productive if we want to keep our markets open.
The bill now under consideration is really part of a general restraint policy. Parliament has been asked to vote on this matter which is the most urgent of all the legislative and administrative measures put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), because if we want to convince everyone that the government means business, that it wants to practise what it preaches and that we are not just long on rhetoric when we talk about tightening our belts, we have to show the Canadian people that we are going to impose restraint first on ourselves, the members of the House of Commons and the Senate, on our own staff and on the public service in the hope that other public agencies and the private sector will follow our lead to give jobs back to those who need them so much and to bring down inflation, which in turn will bring interest rates down. I am convinced that with this bill we shall lead the way in this fight against inflation. Bill C-124 should be seen rather as a model for all Canadians to copy from. It is but one component of a general policy. If the government were to suggest that Bill C-124 will solve all our problems, I do not think the Canadian people would take it seriously. It is all very well to control wages, but prices too have to be controlled.
The Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) have made many announcements concerning prices because these two factors are interrelated. If we look at the recent announcement made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove)-if my hon. colleague would care to listen and learn, he would see that when the government talks about price control, it does mean business-no rent paid to the Canadian government-and we know how many housing units it controls in Canada-will be increased by more than 6 percent. Many other prices will be regulated and I am already convinced that the same will apply to Bell Canada and many others if we want this program to be effective.


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
All members of this House have to take this program seriously. If they are here only to score political points, as our colleagues of the New Democratic Party seem to be doing, if they are here to make sure that the program will not work, they are not discharging their responsibilities as the people's representatives who must see to the best interests of the whole population and not just clean up the slate with those who contribute to their party fund. I believe that it is important for all Canadians to realize that the New Democratic Party made no contribution whatsoever to the debate during consideration of the bill in committee. Most of its members did not even vote on the proposed amendments. They did not vote for a very simple reason, they wanted two things: first, to have an unblemished record; second, to pay their debts to the unions which fund them. Gentlemen, you succeeded. Now, Mr. Speaker, we must return to the Progressive Conservative Party which in spite of its differences of opinions with us has realized that this was not the proper time to play politics.
They have also realized that they should provide some leadership. Mr. Speaker, Canadian municipalities have been wiser than the New Democratic Party. The municipal representatives who are as qualified as we are have understood the message. They are aware that this is not the time for politicizing but to resolve the issue. They have decided to join us in the struggle against inflation. Many businessmen and union members understood. Of course, the executives of some unions which you so well represent do not understand because they are afraid. They want to justify their existence. And my hon. colleagues say that it is at the expense of workers. We are taking that step specifically to assist workers because the unemployed were former union members whom unfortunately the unions are now betraying. We are helping those people to make sure that they will re-enter the labour market and they will surely not do so thanks to your co-operation and your example.
This program, Mr. Speaker, does not discriminate amongst Liberal, Conservative or NDP ridings. The program is fair for everyone. All public employees will be subjected to restrictions. Canadians generally believe in such a program because they feel it is quite realistic. If the creation of 25 jobs in the Public Service was announced, you would see many applicants. There is no ... an hon. member is laughing over there. He knows that a large number of Canadians would like to become public servants specifically to enjoy security of employment which cannot be found in the private sector and to receive salaries which are ... 1 am convinced Mr. Speaker that the hon. member is trying to prevent us from making our comments and make me run out of time.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: There is no security of employment at the CN, my friend.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I hope you are going to call them back to order Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, that program is quite fair. It allows all unions-and there is no exception in the program, everyone is restricted to raises of 6 per cent and then 5 per cent-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: What about the 3,200 laid-off employees?


Jean-C. Lapierre: And also our staff Mr. Speaker. I hear my hon. colleague who tries to get stirred up because my staff is restricted to 6 and 5 per cent.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: And your staff also.


Jean-C. Lapierre: There is nothing more normal Mr. Speaker. 1 am not interested in promoting a minority. My staff understands it quite well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. 1 regret to have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but the time allotted to him has now expired.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-124, An act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 4 to 8 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:



"extended under Section 4 may amend any terms and conditions of the collective agreement or arbitral award other than wage rates or other terms and conditions of the compensation plan pursuant to the provisions of any act regulating collective bargaining between those parties or persons."


Frank Oberle: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-124, An act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 1 to 8 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. (1) Subject to subsection (2), parties to a collective agreement, or the persons bound by an arbitral award, that includes a compensation plan that is extended under Section 4 may, by agreement, amend any terms and conditions of the collective agreement or arbitral award, provided any amendment to the compensation plan takes effect
(a)	on the day immediately after the day the plan would, but for Section 4,
expire, or
(b)	on the day the first increase in wage rates on or after June 29, 1982
would, but for Section 8, occur under the plan,
or on the anniversary of the day referred to in paragraph (a) or (6), as the case may be.
(2)	The total value of the compensation, including wage rates and all other benefits and perquisites, weighted and averaged in the manner prescribed by the Treasury Board, provided for in any compensation plan included in a collective agreement or arbitral award that is amended pursuant to subsection (1) shall not, in the twelve month period of the plan following the first such amendment, exceed by more than 6% the total annual value of the compensation under the previous compensation plan for the same employees, and the total of the compensation in the twelve month period of the plan following the second such amendment shall not exceed by more than 5% the value thereof in the first twelve month period of the plan.
(3)	In the event of a dispute in the application of this section, the provisions of sections 155 to 159 of the Canada Labour Code apply mutatis mutandis."


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 6 the following:
"(2) Where the parties fail to agree, the parties shall retain the right to employ the dispute resolving mechanisms included in the Public Service Staff Relations Act or the Canada Labour Code, whichever is applicable."
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 6 the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, parties to a collective agreement or arbitral award may bargain collectively with respect to paid maternity leave as if this Act had not been passed."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting at this time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I apologize to the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). I recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) on a point of order.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it has occurred to us that since the House order reads that Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11 should be grouped for debate and voted upon in the manner described in the circular issued by the Chair, you might wish to recognize a member from the official opposition first. Extra generous time was given to the party to our left this afternoon. Those of us who have been here all day heard the debate go all
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
across the ball park. I think it would be time for other people to offer a balanced point of view.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I think the point raised by the hon. member who has just spoken is well taken. 1 beg the indulgence of the House respecting the hon. member for Churchill. In view of the fact that the motions have been grouped for debate according to an earlier decision of Madam Speaker, I think it would be in order for the Chair to have recognized the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River earlier.


Mr. Kelly:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order just so 1 understand what is happening. If the hon. member opposite in the official opposition speaks first, 1 assume he will have 40 minutes. Will the member from the New Democratic Party also have 40 minutes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Standing Orders provide for the mover of a motion at report stage to have 40 minutes. The same rule applies to any member moving a motion on behalf of another member. Both the official opposition speaker and the speaker for the New Democratic Party, since they have both moved motions, each will be entitled to 40 minutes.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I was identified. There had been consultations earlier today explaining that it is the New Democratic Party's motion that comes up for debate first. That procedure has been followed by each and every occupant of the chair with respect to this bill. It is our position that since you recognized me, in accordance with the procedures of this House 1 should be the first speaker.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 too rise on the same point of order. 1 think you made a ruling just a few moments ago and I think you made it on the basis of equity and fairness in terms of the debate. I think it was quite appropriate that you made it and quite supportable on that basis, certainly on the basis that you made a ruling and as well with respect to the equitable distribution of speakers among the three parties in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I thank the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for his contribution. I am afraid the Chair has put the House in this situation. The Chair, of course, cannot take cognizance of private negotiations. I am not aware of what goes on in the House privately or behind the curtains. I am afraid the point made by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River is a valid one. The Chair apologizes to the House for the situation, and 1 do now recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some reassurance. You have already recognized me. If you recognize a member of the Conservative Party for 40 minutes and if you recognize a member of the Liberal Party for 40 minutes, what happens is that the two parties that agree with this bill will monopolize the rest of the House time. In your capacity as Speaker you have already recognized me.


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Without the unanimous consent of the House 1 do not see how you can take away that recognition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: On that point the Chair may share the concern of the hon. member for Churchill. The Chair does not provide for the length of the speeches; the Standing Orders provide that. At this stage, having ruled, I think we ought to get on with the debate. Once again, I recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.


Mr. Heap:: What a rotten deal.


Mr. Keeper:: What about fair play?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I will probably not use the 40 minutes allocated to the speaker of the party introducing an amendment. It is my pleasure on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) to introduce Motion No. 9 and to speak as briefly as possible on this motion and the debate before us.
All of us realize that our country is in very serious and dire economic straits. We share this dilemma, admittedly, with a number of other countries in the western world. But nowhere in the world, particularly in the western world among the people with whom we trade, is this crisis as deep, as profound and as devastating as is our experience here in Canada.
We say that inflation is the cause of this serious problem. Up to this point it has been a favourite pastime of this government and of other important and powerful players in the economy, like the corporate sector and unions, to say that inflation is crippling our economy, destroying our freedom and destroying our ability to manage the resources of this great country in the manner best suited to our needs. We hear it said, "Let us all now step out and fight inflation". This is what is being preached throughout the land. But we also hear it said, "If 1 am not right there when we get started, just get started without me and don't wait. Somebody make a beginning."
But we have to come to grips with the problem of inflation to restore once again confidence and faith in our country and to give substance, belief and foundation to the great security systems that we have, and to the social contracts that we have planned and put in place for ourselves. As we all know, the government is in a position today where in some instances it is defaulting on social contracts in which it has entered. One example is the removal of indexation, which is part of the last instalment in the federal budget. That was a social contract. Another is the question of collective bargaining, which has caused all of us some difficulty and which has invited the wrath and the anger of our friends in the New Democratic Party.
As we all know, the best security system in the world and the best security system any government could offer is a job and peace of mind, knowing that one's savings will not be ravaged by inflation or a government's economic mismanagement.
Every speaker who has participated in the debate following the budget, particularly those who have participated in this debate, are to blame for the situation that we are in. Members
on all sides are to blame. We sought to attach blame for the incredible situation that we have got ourselves into. Even the government would have to admit that not all of the misery dispensed has been imported from some other part of the world. We have managed to shoot ourselves in the foot quite ably by ourselves. It was not the Americans or any other country that told us we should have a Foreign Investment Review Agency which, at the moment, does nothing else but scare and frighten away the scarce and much needed investment capital. No one in the rest of the world told us that we should have a National Energy Program, which has literally destroyed and probably rendered impotent the most vital sector in our economy today. These wounds are self-inflicted and the misery that results from them is distributed not in a very fair and equitable manner. As we all know, there are some people who actually profit from inflation and there are some people who actually profit from the misery of others.
We hear our friends to the left speak about equity, fairness and the equal distribution of wealth. They always say that, without accepting an equal share of the misery and the hardship and the determination to straighten out the mess. The necessity for that also applies to my friends on the left.
We know who is to blame. It is now believed that the term ministerial responsibility is really a contradiction because we see no examples of ministerial responsibility. Certainly in the last two or three years, none of our ministers of the Crown or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have accepted any blame for anything. They brought in a budget in November. In June they returned and said that they had made a little mistake. They have rendered thousands of small businesses insolvent and have thrown the country into bankruptcy. They said that they had made a little miscalculation; they thought the deficit was to be $10 billion and it turned out to be $20 billion. Now they say they have seen the light and have some new ideas. They ask us to hang on, that they will show us something different.
We all know that if there were any ministerial responsibility left, or if any of them were willing to accept ministerial responsibility, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) would have had to offer his resignation and let someone else try something fresh. This goes as well for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who fought tooth and nail a couple of years ago to bring in the National Energy Program, which was to secure energy self-sufficiency by the year 1990 and to ensure above 50 per cent Canadian ownership content. Now we know that neither of these goals will be achieved. But has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources resigned? Of course no, because as we all know the term "ministerial responsibility" is not in fact a contradiction in terms.
1 did not want to use the time available to me to attach blame to any one of the players in the economy, because 1 assumed that at least those who are in the chamber this


evening and, indeed, most people who take the time to turn on their television sets to watch our debates know full well who is to blame and where the buck should stop.
1 compare our situation to a ship which has run aground. Luckily there was no loss of life, but the ship is sitting on a sandbank and we are all floating away in lifeboats. When you are in a lifeboat, you do not make judgments or hold court on who is to blame for the predicament. What we do is all get together to try to make the best of the situation. We look at what the options are. Our aim is to stay alive as an important industrial nation in the world and as an equal and respected partner in the community of the western economy. In so doing, we have to make some fundamental commitments to change the way we have behaved as partners in the economy within our country. Again, it is up to the government to take the lead in showing some new direction.
Anyone listening to the debate over the last couple of days would know that it is simply not true that there were no constructive suggestions by the opposition to help the government find its way out of the dilemma. There is no easy and simple solution. This is a fact with which we all agree. But some constructive suggestions have been made in terms of Bill C-124, which was designed to portray the government as finally accepting some responsibility and showing the lead without, in the very initial period, imposing restrictive and comprehensive measures to force everyone into a certain stream.
The government has said that it will restrain itself and its employees to a wage package which will not exceed 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent the following year. Of course there are various complications with such an approach. Many of our friends and colleagues have pointed out some of these problems. The misery which a senior civil servant in the $90,000 to $105,000 range will have to suffer with a 6 per cent increase in his salary will of course be much easier to bear than that of a public servant in the $12,000 per year range. Usually both have to buy their groceries in the same supermarket, and yet one will receive a $6,000 increase and the other might receive a $700 increase in one year.
I have looked at the total package and have listened with great care to the defence of the government in support of this so called 6 per cent world. I am still very uneasy because I happen to think that the idea could work, if the government did not limit this restraint to its own public servants and, incidentally, to our own employees. It is grossly unfair that employees of Members of Parliament should have their salaries rolled back. 1 am not entirely convinced the arguments of the New Democratic Party with respect to this bill, which they are vehemently opposing in general, are correct. At the outset they said that regardless of whether we accept or reject their amendments, they are opposed to this kind of approach. 1 happen to think, as is always the case with socialists, that the greatest of all human failings, greed, applies to them more than it does to capitalists. They are really more interested in the 6 per cent reduction of their own salaries than anything else. It would be an exercise in intellectual honesty if they
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
admitted it. 1 personally do not think that Members of Parliament are overly generously rewarded, but I do not think that a system such as the one proposed would work unless we took the lead and showed some restraint. If this restraint were carried throughout the system, I think it would work.
Naturally I am disappointed already because we learned that the government has found ways to protect certain of its friends from the impact of this measure. We are told that regulatory agencies will be given certain guidelines. They can award to Crown corporations or to regulated industries increases in their charges and tariffs in excess of 6 per cent, but any such settlement or benefit to a Crown corporation will have to be reviewed by cabinet. There is no doubt in my mind-and I have watched the government now for ten years-that there will be certain friends who will convince the government that their input costs have been too great; that if they are tied to the 6 per cent rate they will have to reduce services, which will be harmful to its political welfare; and that they should be allowed to make additional charges. We have seen examples of this already.
It will be interesting to see how Bell Canada, other regulated Crown corporations and private agencies will be treated in response to their demands. When 1 say that I support and think the program will work, 1 qualify it by those comments. If we stick to our guns, when we return to our constituencies businessmen will be able to see their telephone rates, hydro bills and natural gas bills, restricted to a 6 per cent increase if the government forgoes further increases in gasoline prices. In other words, if all regulated industries, products and services dispensed throughout the country are restricted to a 6 per cent increase, the program would have an excellent chance of working.
1 cast my mind back to the time when I managed a business. Certainly, if I could have seen the government taking initiatives with conviction and strength, I would have had no problem convincing employees working in my firm that the time had come for all of us to follow the lead because there was a chance we could come to grips with some of the serious problems faced by the nation.
Let me come to the problem of one of the shortcomings in this bill which is the collective bargaining process. As we know, the bill introduced certain restrictions to this process of collective bargaining. Reasonably one could ask, "What is the sense of bargaining if you already know that you are tied to a 6 per cent ceiling?" The ceiling will become the floor and the floor will become the ceiling, so everybody will get a 6 per cent increase. Surely no one is going to bargain for anything less. So what is the sense of bargaining collectively?
If we were convinced this is a program that will work and will legislate this program into place, what was the reason for saying then that you cannot bargain collectively? It follows logically, except of course that there are other things that unions and groups of workers bargain for. We have certain commitments to affirmative action programs, for instance. I


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
have said that the bill is unfair in terms of the great differential in the wage scale where we have senior bureaucrats earning in excess of $100,000 and we have some employees of the federal government who are in the very lowest of pay scales. Therefore there could have been a process of collective bargaining to close this gap and to make some necessary adjustments. There are some legitimate problems that the women's groups have made us aware of and that are involved in this affirmative action program. Maybe there is room for some collective bargaining to overcome and straighten out some of these problems. Unfortunately, the government moved to restrict the process of collective bargaining, and that is terribly unfortunate because certain groups who are crucial to making this program work will, for that reason, opt out.
If you cast your mind to the time in 1974 when my party proposed a program of wage and price controls you will recall that we had intended to introduce a 90-day freeze. When I think back to that particular election campaign, I remember that it was not very difficult for me to get people to join us in that campaign because we were able to make the commitment that for 90 days the price of gasoline, butter, bread and whatever you needed to buy would not increase. There was no need to set up a monitoring agency or police force because if anyone in any supermarket or anywhere else increased their prices it was quite obvious that it would not have taken more than 30 seconds for someone to know that someone else had been breaking the law.
You will also recall that after that 90-day freeze we had proposed an 18-month period of adjustment, and that is precisely the kind of adjustment that we had in mind, because, as we all know if we want to be honest with ourselves, we have established in our society and in our economy certain elites. Those are, first of all, the corporate or the public elite, the government and its friends, the bureaucracy, insensitive, stubborn, with ravenous appetites for our tax dollars, and, as I have already said, accountable to no one. That is a certain elite and I am not including in that elite the lower paid public servants who are performing throughout our country a very useful, vital and essential service to all of us.
Then there is the other elite and that is the corporate elite. That is mainly the control sector of the economy. Those are the people who, again in a monstrous and ravenous way, have gobbled up all the available resources of the country, not to create new jobs, not to create new enterprises, but to use all the money that our banks have available, and even some the government had available that it had taken from other taxpayers, to gobble up existing companies, to enlarge their sphere of influence and to concentrate and to integrate their large corporate entities.
One cannot blame the large corporations for doing that because no one in their right mind would start any new enterprise today at a time when there is such uncertainty about where the government is going and what the future intent of the government will be in becoming involved as an active partner in the economy.
If the National Energy Program and Canagrex are any indication of what the government intends to do in the future, I certainly, if I were free to do so tomorrow, would not start a new business in this country. 1 suppose that a lot of large corporate decision-makers have come to the same conclusion. So what do they do? Instead of expanding their plants, creating new jobs, doing research and development to produce new products and getting out in the world to sell these products, they have simply engaged in an exercise which I call corporate cannibalism by gobbling up other companies and enlarging their sphere of influence in that way.
That has had a devastating effect on the economy, particularly since the banks were willing partners in this scheme of corporate cannibalism. Some banks are in such dire straits today. There is no question about that, because of loans they have handed out to Dome Petroleum and to other major companies which are, for all intents and purposes, insolvent today, that they have to call back loans made to small businessmen who are paying their interest and struggling away, despite the adversity and the difficulties that they are encountering.
We have this corporate elite. It is usually the regulated sector of the economy. The government tells them to what extent they can increase the cost of their services or the products they produce, and the government has them completely regulated in every way. Unfortunately, if we compare our corporate sector with that of the United States, we find that our large corporations have always been very willing to be regulated by government. The reason is that they felt there is a certain amount of security in that, because should they get into trouble the government will give out, offer letters of comfort, loan guarantees or even cash. As long as they are big enough, as long as they employ a lot of people, the government will come to their aid.
And their judgment was right. If you look at Dome Petroleum, no one in their right mind really believes that this government will allow Dome Petroleum to go under. They have been too willing and too helpful in bringing the National Energy Program about, and friends always help each other, so the government will bail out Dome Petroleum. Unfortunately, the government of course will not be able to bail out everybody, so it has to be very selective in the way that these bailouts are being conducted. Some peple who have the ear of certain ministers will, of course, get help and others will be allowed to go under and die.
The third elite is the labour elite. When one looks into the background of this elitism which is in charge of our economy, one finds that the one third of our labour force, numbering approximately 12.2 million, that is unionized, is employed by the corporate elite of which I have spoken. While it is not fair to say this about all organized labour, to a great extent the organized one third component of the labour force that is

u:



unionized works for the corporate elite. The corporate managers no longer understand, and certainly this government has long forgotten, the most basic principles of a free market economy, which is supply and demand, or the invisible hand which regulates the economy. I have said before in the House that the invisible hand has become the invisible handshake. It is the invisible handshake between Dennis McDermott, the CP group of companies and these large corporations whose products are regulated but whose future is protected by the government, the third partner in the elitist conspiracy.
The present situation is that this blue chip elite, made up of corporations, is now in dire straits. These are the same corporations which the government is now calling in to advise it this fall on what it should do in terms of developing better measures to turn the economy around. I shudder to think what the outcome of that dialogue will be. However, these people are now in dire straits. The corporate elite is not producing any revenues for the government, so it is defaulting on its social contract. The corporate elite is in dire straits because it can no longer increase its prices according to what the union demands because the government wants to regulate the end price of their products. This reaction has caused our ship to run aground.
When the system is running smoothly and everyone is able to eat, has a place to live and can afford to go on a vacation once a year, even the low-paid paid worker, then of course no one complains. But the corporate elite and the labour elite are now being asked to take a share of the misery that our present economic circumstances dictate. Therefore they are squealing. The squeals are heard no louder than those of our friends to the left, the New Democratic Party. That party represents no one else in the House but one partner in that group of elite. That is, labour. They are upset because of this attack on collective bargaining.
To conclude, 1 would like to focus on that particular component. I firmly believe that as long as our unions insist, so stubbornly on adhering to this adversary process in which they like to engage, we will not be able to repair the damage that has been done to our economy on a permanent basis. As long as this juvenile and outdated method of collective bargaining in industrial relations continues we will simply be unable to devise and chart a plan of economic recovery.
1 would yet have to meet a union boss who would not much rather sit in the boardroom to help make decisions that would ensure the health and welfare of the company and create new wealth, which could ultimately be passed on to the employees of that company, than sit in the lunchroom and plot how to destroy the company and hinder any effort on the part of the corporate managers to create new wealth. I would yet have to meet a union leader who would not much rather discuss profitsharing, for example. However, if he had to discuss profitsharing with his boss he would also have to accept the responsibility of working together with his boss to create wealth and profit before sharing it.
That is why we call people who never appear to have anything and want to share it with everybody else socialist. You cannot distribute wealth that you have not first created. That
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
is as true for the smallest business as it is for the largest corporation. It is certainly true for the managers who are in charge of looking after the public interest.
1 am not blaming the corporations for our present situation or for their contribution to our present problems. 1 am not saying that the unions are to blame. As I have said, the buck stops at one place only, and that is here, at the treasury benches across the aisle.
If the corporate sector behaves responsibly there is no need to compete with it in the public interest. We should proceed as does every other country, which is to make laws and regulations within which the corporate sector must operate. If free enterprise has been the basis of the prosperity of a nation such as ours, it then must operate within certain principles of the free enterprise system. This means competition. Perhaps we should be considering competition laws, or anti-trust laws as they are called in the United States. When a corporate entity becomes too integrated or monopolistic, or when a group of corporations become too oligopolistic, a government should intervene and force them to divest themselves of certain holdings to assure the maintenance of fair competition.
The blame belongs to the government for its deliberate policy of neglect which allows this kind of situation to occur and for giving the banks the leeway which they have to plan with the corporations in the scheme of corporate cannibalism.
The unions are not to blame for the power which is not due to any group of workers. Under present circumstances, two thirds of the workers are not unionized and do not have an opportunity to be unionized because the large unions are not interested in those who work in the private sector and have to compete in the free market economy. They are the ones who are paying the bills.
I am not blaming the unions, either for the power they have, which is a power, if one can imagine it, to compel every person who works in the federal or provincial public sector to be in the union. Every person who wants a job with the federal or provincial government is compelled to belong to the union. We have a great chartered principle of democracy called freedom of association which was entrenched in our Constitution, in the wisdom of those who supported the entrenchment of certain aspects and principles of democracy. This applies to every Canadian except to members of unions. They have no choice. They either belong or they do not work for the federal or provincial government or the CP group of companies or any other large integrated corporate entities. It would also include any large industry where wages are usually double those in unregulated industries, like the construction industry, teachers, and so on. Those are the people who are compelled to belong to unions.
That is totally inconsistent with one of the most cardinal principles of democracy. When we speak about embarking or setting out on a road of economic recovery, and we look around at the rest of the world, at Japan, Sweden, or Germany, and we ask why it is that some of the problems we are experiencing are not experienced in those parts of the world,


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
we may find that it might well be for reason. For instance, it is said that Sweden is mainly a socialist country and West Germany is certainly a socialist country. Yet that cardinal principle, freedom of association, is respected. In fact, I have statistical comparisons. In the West German labour force, it is precisely one third of the work force which has chosen to belong to unions. But every person who works, any worker in any sector of the economy, has the opportunity to belong to a union, because a union does not obtain certification from any of the provincial governments or the federal government unless it makes itself available for membership to every person who works.
Would your Honour agree with me that that would be a much better system? Would union leaders in this country not be much more responsible if they had to compete for the affection of their members instead of behaving as if they lived in some kind of one-party democracy to which some of the Iron Curtain socialist countries subscribe? Would Your Honour not believe that a fellow like Dennis McDermott would think twice before he stood on the steps of this place and said that, "The next time we meet, we will be meeting inside if these turkeys in there do not behave"? Would Your Honour not believe that a fellow like that would have to think twice before he said that because otherwise he may well see mass resignations?
I happen to think that the workers in the country, at least the people who support me, the people with whom I sit in the lunchroom, the people who have worked for me over the years, have as much at stake in this economy and in the future of this great country and love this country as much as you and I do, and they want to do as much for it as you and I do, and do not want to be irresponsible. They do not want to break the laws of this country deliberately. Certainly, they do not appreciate their leaders doing and saying things which are irresponsible and derisive.
Therefore I say that before the NDP gets up in this House and fights for the survival of the collective bargaining process, a process to which I subscribe wholeheartedly, but under different management and circumstances, its members should seek counsel among themselves and say what it is about this collectivism that they are defending. It is the kind of collectivism which operates in socialist countries behind the Iron Curtain, this kind of one-party collectivism, this one-party democratic process where people can elect someone but the choice is limited to one party.
I would like to conclude with just one sentence. It does not make sense for us to criticize this bill if we are not prepared to take the lead ourselves in setting some goals and objectives which will be reasonable and will signal to the rest of the country that we, ourselves, are serious. We have said that we will reduce our own salaries by 6 per cent. We have said that we will insist that the people who work for us will restrain themselves to a 6 per cent increase. I think that that is a signal, and if we are earnest and serious about it, the rest of the country might follow.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the last anti-union tirade, I am in some ways grateful that I
am able to speak after that rather negative representation made by the representative of the Conservative Party. Since the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) allowed the hon. member who just spoke to speak as his replacement with regard to his amendment, I presume that what the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) stated is the policy of the Conservative Party when it comes to unions in this country. I find that interesting. I only have about 15 minutes in which to speak, if I am also to allow the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) to contribute in the time remaining. I find it interesting that very few of the Liberal or Conservative members from whom we have heard in this debate have really spoken about the effects of this legislation. When it comes to collective bargaining, there is an assumption in the country that the government has moved to allow collective bargaining actually to take place. Let me read from the bill which is before us. Clause 7 states:
The parties to a collective agreement, or the persons bound by an arbitral award, that includes a compensation plan that is extended under section 4 may, by agreement, amend any terms and conditions of the collective agreement or arbitral award other than wage rates or other terms and conditions of the compensation plan.
What that government position means is that not only must the employees want to negotiate, they must also seek leave and permission of their employer before they can even start negotiations. That means that Ian Sinclair's workers at Canadian Pacific must receive his permission before they can open negotiations. That means that the employees of the various Crown corporations must seek the permission of those Crown corporations before they can negotiate. That means that workers who work for the public service, for the people of Canada, will have to receive the permission of the various ministers and of the President of the Treasury Board before they can even open negotiations. That goes against every principle of negotiating under the laws of this land, against the right to negotiate, not only one's salary but the other terms and conditions of one's work. That is a right which cannot be arbitrarily denied by one's employer, be it government, Crown corporation or private sector company.
We should consider the Conservative amendment because they have spoken as though they had some new solutions, as though they had a different approach to the whole debate. Amendment No. 9 states:
Subject to subsection (2), parties to a collective agreement, or the persons bound by an arbitral award, that includes a compensation plan that is extended under section 4 may, by agreement, amend any terms and conditions-
That is, with the exception of money. Again, the Conservative Party members, who parade in this House as the people who are fighting to bring back collective bargaining rights, are admitting by their own amendment that collective bargaining will only occur with the gracious permission of the employer. So let us not have any more hypocrisy in this House. Let us have the truth from the Conservative Party. The Tories will vote for the bill, but their amendment will not restore collective bargaining. Their amendment will not even guarantee that workers will have the right to open negotiations.


Let us presume that the negotiation procedure has been opened, that negotiations on non-monetary items have proceeded, and that there is still some sort of dispute or deadlock. What would happen under the provisions of this bill? Under the provisions of the bill as it now stands, nothing would happen. If the workers and the employers disagree, there would be no solution to the impasse.
In committee, the President of the Treasury Board said that perhaps they could agree to voluntary arbitration. It is very unlikely that employers will agree to voluntary arbitration on items they cannot negotiate with their employees. They had just gone through a process of negotiation. They have not come to any resolution of the disputes they have. Now, according to the President of the Treasury Board, they may try voluntary arbitration. Obviously that is not a solution.
What does the Conservative amendment say? It says that these measures could go to binding arbitration, as long as there is no talk about money. They deny the right to strike, which is guaranteed to many workers under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code. In other words, they are against legislation presently existing on the books of this country.
They also say by their amendment that maternity leave, pensions and other items that are negotiated must come under the 6 per cent. That is the position in the amendment they put forward.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) stated in the House last Friday that negotiating within the 6 per cent is a good idea. It allows for maternity leave, for pensions and for workers at the top of the scale to get 2 per cent and for those at the bottom to get 9 per cent. That in principle sounds wonderful to the Conservative Party. They fail to recognize that within most collective bargaining agreements, the range is not that wide. You are talking about somebody earning $20,000 receiving a 2 per cent increase and somebody earning $10,000 receiving a 9 per cent increase.
That is the reality of what the Conservative Party is saying. It sounds great. You get the impression from the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands that somebody earning $80,000 or $90,000 would settle for a 2 per cent increase in order to help someone earning $10,000. In reality, with most collective bargaining agreements the spread is not that much and they tend to be lumped together. The low-paid tend to be lumped within one collective agreement and the high-paid within another. Therefore, the 6 per cent solution is no solution at all.
As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) said, the people who will suffer tend to be in the bargaining unions which basically represent women workers, those with low salaries. They are the bargaining units that tend to represent those in the cleaning or clerical jobs, those who, according to the Public Service Commission annual report of 1981, earn between $10,000 and $15,000. Thirteen per cent of the government workers fall in that range and 29.3 per cent fall in the range between $15,000 and $20,000.
In that 43 per cent range you find most of the poorly paid workers, most of whom are women. How are they going to
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
resolve the problems they face with the Conservative and Liberal 6 per cent solution?
It is interesting at last to see the minister responsible for the Status of Women in the chamber. It is unfortunate that she has not said one word in this debate. It is unfortunate that the Liberal members on the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee who studied this bill clause by clause would not allow the minister responsible for the status of women to appear in person, regardless of what her position is on this legislation.


Mr. Kristiansen:: She has one more chance.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, I will sit down in five minutes. I challenge the minister to get up in this House and state her position on this bill. Our position is that the laws passed by Parliament, the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act should be used to complete each and every set of negotiations. The government may have some guidelines of 6 per cent and 5 per cent or it may change that guideline to 10 per cent and 9 per cent, depending on what happens to the cost of living. However, the regular laws of this land which allow unions and companies to open negotiations and negotiate in order to come to some dispute-resolving method if negotiations break down are the procedures which should be followed in his country.
I wish to quote from a letter from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) to The Globe and Mail. It is very nice to see him in the Chamber. His letter reads in part:
The right to strike is one of the important cornerstones of a free and democratic society ... There is clearly room for greater co-operation between unions and employers, and Parliament has entrusted to Labour Canada the responsibility for assisting in the development and maintenance of constructive relationships.
Parliament has entrusted that responsibility to Labour Canada. Where was the Minister of Labour when this bill was being debated? He did not speak once in the last month during this debate. Nor did he appear before the committee. That same Liberal majority refused to allow that minister to appear, if he had the courage to do so. We will never know because the Liberal majority prevented that. It is interesting to see his remarks on the right to strike, it being an important cornerstone in a free and democratic society. It is important to note that this bill denies and takes away the right of those groups within the Crown corporations and, in some cases, government workers.
Collective bargaining has not been restored. The Conservative Party does not wish to restore it. The Liberal government will make sure it is not restored. The Minister of Labour will remain silent.
Our Amendment No. 11 in my name and the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East guarantees that maternity leave can be negotiated and also guarantees that it will not be considered part of the 6 per cent and 5 per cent. In our amendments Nos. 2 and 11 we exclude maternity leave from the


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
definition of compensation and from the 6 per cent ceiling that this government wishes to impose.
It is our belief that this basic human right, which speaks to the very heart of equality and is of concern to so many families, cannot be ignored by this Parliament. I challenge all members, whether Conservative or Liberal, to get up in this House and support an amendment which guarantees that maternity leave can be negotiated and that it will not come from the pockets of the very poorly paid workers within that bargaining unit.
We have suggested similar treatment for pensions in Motion No. 2 and in Motion No. 14. We have said that pensions must be excluded from the definition. We have said that workers in their last two years of work will make sacrifices in addition to limiting increases in their wages to 6 per cent and 5 per cent for the next two years. They will be making sacrifices each and every day of their lives, and so will their families. Their spouses will be sacrificing each and every day of their lives. Most pensions which are adequate-and they are not for the most part in the country-are based on the last five years' income. By restricting the incomes of workers in the last two years of their employment we are restricting their incomes for the rest of their lives. In addition to that, the 6 per cent and 5 per cent provisions of this bill will exclude the right of unions to negotiate to strengthen weak pension plans. These are reasonable amendments made with restraint in mind with the recognition that there is some need for government leadership on this issue, but this bill does not provide that leadership. It does not even come close to providing it.
I recognize my time is limited. I would like to say one more thing before sitting down. I remind the Conservative members of what their leader said in an interview published last Thursday. I remind them of this because they will be voting in I 5 minutes. Their leader said:
1 would reject controls. And I wouldn't allow my PMO to be issuing rumours that they were coming in while I was saying that they weren't. I think that controls won't work.
I agree with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and I will be very interested to see how he and his colleagues will vote in 15 minutes.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few minutes in which to raise a few points in response to the comments of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). I would also like to leave a few minutes-unfortunately, they will be very few-to my friend, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), who has indicated some interest in making some comments before the debate closes this evening.
Much has been made by my friend, the hon. member for Churchill, of the fact that Bill C-124 would restrict collective bargaining. We agree that it would indeed restrict collective bargaining, and we tried in the course of the committee hearings-I would like at this point to thank the members who participated in those hearings for their very constructive
contributions-to open up the collective bargaining process through the amendment to Clause 7. This now permits parties to negotiate non-monetary items-the one which immediately springs to mind is the issue of health and safety-during the course of a collective agreement.
I suggest that the hon. member for Churchill and his colleagues have tended to discount the significance of that provision. 1 suggest to hon. members that it indeed restores one of the most important aspects of collective bargaining and preserves collective bargaining during the period when the program envisaged by the bill is in effect.
We have heard much exaggeration. I cannot help but go back for a moment to the principles of the ILO to which I referred the other day. Those principles are found at page 19873 of Hansard for July 30. The following statement is made in the ILO Geneva-77 principles at page 15:
-the (ILO) supervisory bodies have not ignored the serious problems that may arise in certain circumstances in the economic field, and they have accordingly stated that it would be difficult to lay down an absolute rule concerning voluntary collective bargaining because, under certain circumstances, governments might feel that the economic position of their countries called at certain times for stabilization measures during the application of which it would not be possible for wage rates to be fixed freely through the medium of collective bargaining. Nevertheless, any such restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards.
I cite that again because clearly the program of wage restraint introduced by the government in Bill C-124 is indeed on all fours with the criteria set forward in that statement from the ILO.
Let me turn for a moment to the specific amendment which stands in the name of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). It is argued that that amendment would do more than what we have proposed in terms of providing for a degree of collective bargaining during the period of this program. In fact, if one looks carefully at the proposed amendment-and I see the hon. member for Rosedale in the House-one will see that in many important respects the amendment is more stringent and places more of a strait-jacket on the parties than what we have proposed in our amendment, which also stands on the Order Paper. Specifically, the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Rosedale suggests a total compensation approach within the limits of 6 per cent and 5 per cent. Our own amendment is very flexible in that it does not propose such criteria. I have stated that it is the government's intention that when parties-employers and employees-are able to reach an agreement within the over-all criteria of 6 per cent and 5 per cent, they can be released from the application of the law or the law can be terminated with respect to that particular group by order in council. In the case of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Rosedale there is a strict adherence of total compensation to the six and five approach. 1 suggest this means that any incremental adjustments which would otherwise be available, particularly to those groups at the lower end of the pay scale, would have to be included, under the terms of this proposal, in the 6 per cent and 5 per


cent, and therefore this would make it impossible to provide some of these groups with compensation to which they would otherwise be entitled in accordance with the government's proposal.
Specifically, I refer to the example of clerks which was raised in committee. It is clear that in the case of clerks in certain instances there will be incremental payments moving clerks toward job rates which could be as much as 3 per cent, thereby in certain cases, at the lower end of the scale, providing for compensation increases in a given year of as much as 9 per cent. It was specifically to prevent incremental steps taking place at the higher end of the scale that an amendment was introduced by the government in committee which is found in Clause 6(5) where it states:
Employees or groups of employees whose salary range as of June 29,1982 has a maximum that equals or exceeds forty-nine thousand five hundred dollars shall not-
For the period of the program.
-be entitled to the merit increases or performance awards that would, but for this subsection, form part of their compensation plan.
This includes incremental increases. Under the proposal of the hon. member for Rosedale lower paid groups, those who earn less than $49,500-I think of clerks in particular, who have often been cited by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald)-would not be entitled to receive incremental increases except within the 6 per cent and 5 per cent total compensation package which, I suggest, is much more stringent than our proposed approach under the amendment which has been tabled by the government. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rosedale is considerably less fair to lower paid groups.
I presume it is for one of these reasons that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands lauded the amendment which was tabled by the government last Thursday night. I referred earlier to her comments as reported in last Friday's Citizen where she said that the announcement goes a long way toward quelling Tory opposition to the bill. She said that the federal government had done a complete somersault on the bill during the past few days and that the amendment should help workers at the lower end of the wage scale. She said, "I think it will give much more equity within the six and five limit."
I was struck and pleased by the objectivity of her comments, notwithstanding the fact that there was also a Tory announcement which was also directed toward opening up the collective bargaining process.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the intent of our amendment, to permit groups to strike their own deal, reach their arrangements within the six and Five limit and then be released from the application of the law through an order of the governor in council, is much more appropriate, much more flexible and much more equitable and also preserves in total collective bargaining within the six and five limit.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
It is true that the Tory amendment also suggests that there should be a system of arbitration making reference to the Canada Labour Code in the proposed amendment and specifically, as I recall, to certain sections, namely Sections 155 to 159 of the code which are for the adjudication of dispute purposes and not for the arbitration of interest purposes, and use those sections to settle disputes between the parties.
I suggest that arbitral awards during the period of this program would very likely establish precedents which would be unacceptable and which would not have taken place in the normal course of collective bargaining. These awards would undoubtedly prove more expensive in the longer term. We saw an arbitral award earlier this week in the Province of Ontario, which greatly extended maternity leave benefits, for example, during this period of restraint. Our purpose is to restrain costs, not increase costs, and I suggest that arbitral awards could increase costs during the duration of this program.
Nor only that, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that many parties would object to the imposition of compulsory arbitration during this period, where we have provided a means of sound, firm and fair collective bargaining.
I would also remind hon. members that with respect to binding arbitration under the Canada Labour Code, 1 am advised that there is no appeal to a higher authority. Therefore, I submit that any form of arbitration-and I have much more to say on this subject-would be most inappropriate.
I must leave at least a moment to my friend, the hon. member for Capilano, to make at least some comments. I regret that the clock does not permit me to offer him more time for his comments.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) for the courtesy of allowing me a minute to offer a few remarks. I wish him well with the voluntary restraint program which he is appealing to the country to accept in Bill C-124.
When he talks about the arbitration aspect of this bill I have to wonder why he has not given the House of Commons and its staff the opportunity for arbitration through the Commissioners of Internal Economy. Instead of having Treasury Board reach its arms and tentacles into the management of the affairs of the House of Commons, surely the arbitration of pay for the staff that serves individual members of the House should come under the Commissioners of Internal Economy and not under Treasury Board. It is most unnatural and unjust that Treasury Board should roll back awards that have already been granted to the staff that serves members of the House of Commons.
It is most unfair that Treasury Board would take this action against a small group of unorganized employees who serve us without tenure, work long hours into the night and sometimes early in the morning-this unorganized group is saving the government about $480,000 per year through this Treasury Board action. The government wastes more than 200 times that amount on advocacy advertising.


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please, it being 9.45 p.m., pursuant to the order made Monday, August 2, 1982, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 9 in the name of the member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended by striking out Clause 8.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Clause 9 by adding immediately after line 19 at page 7, the following:
"(3) For the purpose of calculating pension benefits payable under any Act of Parliament to employees to whom this part applies, subsection (1) shall be deemed to increase wage rates proportionally to increases in the consumer price index for the calendar years corresponding most nearly to the periods referred to therein."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those opposed to the said motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended by striking out Clause 12.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 14 to 16 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"an annual increase in wage rates that is greater than the latest annual
increase in the consumer price index that is available at the date of the
increase in wage rates."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: In my opinion, the nays have it.

Hj



And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The question is now on Motion No. 17 in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston).


Donald James Johnston: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Part III by adding immediately after the heading "Commencement" at page 11 the following:
"16. The Governor in Council may, by order, terminate the application of this Act in respect of an employee or a group of employees to which this Act applies."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on Motion No. 18 in the name of the member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 18
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Schedule II
(a)	by deleting at page 17,
"Canadian National Railways, as defined in the Canadian National Railways Act"
(b)	by deleting at page 20,
"VIA Rail Canada Inc."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Order, please. The House will now proceed with the deferred recorded division on motions at the report stage of Bill C-124 respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we all know there are many motions to be voted on tonight. To avoid too many recorded divisions and to save time, we have discussed among House leaders and other representatives of different parts of the House and have agreed to follow, in the presence of the Clerk, a certain pattern for the voting procedure tonight. Therefore, once in a while I will have to rise on a point of order and mention the terms of the agreement. The first one is that we think that if Your Honour would ask for unanimous consent, you would obtain it to vote on Motion No. 3.


Madam Speaker:: Do we have unanimous consent to vote on motion No. 3?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston).
The House divided on Motion No. 3 (Mr. Johnston) which was agreed to on the following division;
	(Division No. 236)	
	YEAS	
	Messrs.	
Allmand	Comtois	FoxAxworthy	Corbin	FrithBachand	Corriveau	GarantBeauchamp-Niquet	Cosgrove	Gauthier(Mrs.)	Cousineau	GcndronBegin (Miss)	Cullen	Gimai'elBerger	Cyr	GourdBlais	Dawson	(Argenteuil-PapiBloomfield	De Bane	GourdeBockstael	dc Corneille	(Uvis)Bossy	Deniger	GrayBujold	Dingwall	HendersonBussicres	Dion	HerbertCaccia	Dubois	Hervieux-PayetteCampbell	Dupras	(Mrs.) '(Miss)	Duquet	Hopkins(South West Nova)	Erola (Mrs.)	HudeckiCampbell	Ethier	Irwin(Cardigan)	Ferguson	IsabelleChenier	Fisher	JohnstonChretien	Fleming	JoyalCollenette	Flis	Kaplan
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
(Division No. 237)
Kelly	MacLaren	Prud'homme	Killens (Mrs.)	MacLellan	Regan	YEAS	Lachance	Mal6part	Reid	Lajoie	Maltais	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Messrs.	Lalondc	Massi	Roberts	Landers	Masters	Robinson	Althouse	Heap	MurphyLang	McCauley	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	Anguish	Ittinuar	NystromLa pierre	McRae	Rompkey	Benjamin	Keeper	OrlikowLapointe	Munro	Rossi	Blackburn	Knowles	Parker(Charlevoix)	(Hamilton East)	Roy	Blaikie	Kristiansen	RobinsonLapointe	Nicholson	Savard	Broadbent	Manly	(Burnaby)(Beaucc)	(Miss)	Schroder	Deans	Miller	RoseLeBlanc	Olivier	Smith	de Jong	Mitchell	SargeantLeduc	Ostiguy	Tardif	Fulton	(Mrs.)	SkellyLefcbvre	Ouellet	Tessier	Waddell-26.Loisclle	Parent	Tobin	Lumley	Pelletier	Trudeau	NAYS	MacBain	Pepin	Veillettc	MacEachen	Peterson	Watson	Messrs	MacGuigan	Pinard	Wcatherhead	Mackasey	Portelancc	Whelan	Alima nd	Ellis	Lefebvre
Allhouse
Andre
Anguish
Baker
(Ncpean-Carleton)
Beatty
Benjamin
Blackburn
Blaikie
Bosley
Brcau
Broadbcnt
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cook Cooper Corbett Crombic Crosby
(Halifax West) Darling Daudlin Deans dc Jong Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Do mm
Ellis
Epp
Fennell
Forestall
++NAYS
Messrs.
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Gass
Gilchrist
Guilbault
Gurbin
Gustafson
Hawkes
Heap
Howie
Huntington
Ittinuar
Jarvis
Jelinck
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Kushner
Lawrence
Lewis
MacDonald
(Miss)
Manly
Marceau
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nowlan
Nystrom
Obcrle
Orlikow
Parker
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Rose
Sargcant
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(V ictoria - H a I i bu rton) Shields Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Towers Waddell Wilson Wright-90.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Johnston) agreed to.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent for you to call Motion No. 5. The vote on Motion No. 5 will dispose of Motions Nos. 2, 6 and 7. The same tally will apply to Motions Nos. 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 18, and the votes will be recorded separately in Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree that we now call Motion No. 5?


Some hon. Members:: 
Tardif	Tousignant	Weatherhead	Loiselle	MunroTaylor	Towers	Whelan	Lumley	(Hamilton East)Tessier	Trudeau	Wilson	MacBain	NeilThacker	Veillette	Wright	MacDonald	NicholsonTobin	Watson	Yanakis-187.	(Miss)	(Miss)MacEachen	NowlanMacGuigan	Oberle


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Murphy) negatived.
Motions Nos. 2, 6 and 7 negatived.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Murphy) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.	
Motion No. 8 (M	r. Murphy) negatived.	
The House divided on Motion No. 10 (Mr. Murphy) v		
was negatived on the following division:		
	(Division No. 24/)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Aithousc	Ittinuar	Ny stromAnguish	Keeper	OrlikowBenjamin	Knowles	ParkerBlackburn	Kristiansen	RobinsonBlaikic	Manly	(Burnaby)Broadbcnt	Miller	RoseDeans	Mitchell	Sargeantdc Jong	(Mrs.)	SkellyFulton Heap	Murphy
NAYS Messrs.	Waddell-26.Allmand	Bocksiael	ChretienAndre	Bosley	ClarkAppolloni	Bossy	(Yellow head)(Mrs.)	Brcau	ClarkeAxworthy	Bujold	(Vancouver Quadra)Bachand	Bussicres	CollenetteBaker	Caccia	Comtois(Ncpean-Carlcton)	Campbell	CookBeatty	(Miss)	CooperBeauchamp-Niquet	(South West Nova)	Corbett(Mrs.)	Campbell	CorbinBegin (Miss)	(LaSalle)	CorrivcauBerger	Campbell	CosgroveBlais	(Cardigan)	CousineauBloomfield	Chenier	Crombie
Messrs.

Crosby	Hopkins	McMillan	(Halifax West)	Howie	McRae	|Cullen	Hudccki	Munro	Cyr	Huntington	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	$Darling	Irwin	Munro	,Daudlin	Isabelle	(Hamilton East)	Dawson	Jarvis	Neil	De Bane	Jclinek	Nicholson	de Corneille	Johnston	(Miss)	Dcniger	Joyal	Nowlan	Dingwall	Kaplan	Oberle	Dion	Kelly	Olivier	iDionne	Kempling	Ostiguy	(Chicoutimi)	Kilgour	Oucllet	Dionne	Killens (Mrs.)	Parent	(Northumbcrland-	King	Pelletier	Miramichi)	Kushner	Pepin	*Do mm	Lachance	Peterson	"I1'Dubois	Lajoie	Pinard	%Dupras	Lalondc	Portclance	Duqucl	Landers	Prud'homme	Ellis	Lang	Regan	Epp	Laniel	Reid	Erola (Mrs.)	La pierre	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Ethier	Lapointe	Roberts	Fennell	(Charlevoix)	Robinson	Ferguson	Lapointe	(Etobicoke-1.a keshore)	Fisher	(Beauce)	Rompkey	Fleming	Lawrence	Rossi	Flis	LeBlanc	Roy	Forrestall	Leduc	Savard	Fox	Lefebvre	Schroder	Fretz	Lewis	Scott	Friesen	Loisellc	(Hamilton-Went worth)	Frith	Lumley	Scott	Gamble	MacBain	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Garant	MacDonald	Shields	Gass	(Miss)	Smith	*Jg.Gauthier	MacEachen	Speyer	Gcndron	MacGuigan	Stevens	Gilchrist	Mackasey	Stewart	GimaYel	MacLaren	Tardif	Gourd	MacLcllan	Taylor	(Argentcuil-Papineau)	Malcpart	Tessier	Gourde	Maltais	Thacker	(Levis)	Marccau	Tobin	Gray	Masse	Tousignant	Guilbault	Masters	Towers	'Gurbin	Mazankowski	Trudeau	Gustafson	McCain	Veillctte	Harquail	McCauley	Watson	Hawkes	McCuish	Weathcrhead	Henderson	McDermid	Whelan	Herbert	McKinnon	Wilson	Hcrvieux-Payette	McKnight	Wright	(Mrs.) '	McLean	Yanakis 187.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.		
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Murphy) negatived.			
The House divided on Motion No. 1		2 (Mr. Murphy) which	
was negatived on the following division			
	(Division No. 243)
 YEAS Messrs.		
Althouse	Ittinuar	Nystrom	Anguish	Keeper	Orlikow	Benjamin	Knowles	Parker	Blackburn	Kristiansen	Robinson	Blaikie	Manly	(Burnaby)	Broadbcnt	Miller	Rose	Deans	Mitchell	Sargeant	de Jong	(Mrs.)	Skelly	Fulton Heap	Murphy	Waddell-26.	
++NAYS
Messrs.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act (Division No. 245)
Allmand	Ferguson	MacLaren	YEAS	Andre	Fisher	MacLellan	Appolloni	Fleming	Malepart	Messrs.	(Mrs.)	Flis	Maltais	Axworthy	Forrestall	Marceau	A It house	Ittinuar	NystromBachand	Fox	Masse	Anguish	Keeper	OrlikowBaker	Fretz	Masters	Benjamin	Knowles	Parker(Nepean-Carleton)	Friescn	Mazankowski	Blackburn	Kristiansen	RobinsonBeatty	Frith	McCain	Blaikic	Manly	(Burnaby)Beauchamp-Niquet	Gamble	McCauley	Broadbenl	Miller	Rose(Mrs.)	Garant	McCuish	Deans	Mitchell	SargcantBegin (Miss)	Gass	McDcrmid	de Jong	(Mrs.)	SkcllyBerger	Gauthier	McKinnon	Fulton	Murphy	Waddell-26.Blais	Gcndron	McKnight	Heap	Bloomfield	Gilchrist	McLean	Bockstacl	Gimai'el	McMillan	NAYS	Bosley	Gourd	McRae	Messrs.	Bossy	(Argentcuii-Papineau)	Munro	
Breau Bujold Bussicrcs Caccia Campbell (Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Chretien
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Collenette Comtois Cook Cooper Corbett Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cousineau Crombic Crosby
(Halifax West)
Cullen
Cyr
Darling
Daudlin
Gourde	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Allmand	Epp	Lewis(Levis)	Munro	Andre	Erola (Mrs.)	LoisclleGray	(Hamilton East)	Appolloni	Ethier	LumlcyGuilbault	Neil	(Mrs.)	Fennell	MacBainGurbin	Nicholson	Axworthy	Ferguson	MacDonaldGustafson	(Miss)	Bachand	Fisher	(Miss)Harquail	Nowlan	Baker	Fleming	MacEachenHawkes	Oberle	(Nepean-Carleton)	Flis	MacGuiganHenderson	Olivier	Beatty	Forrestall	MackascyHerbert	Ostiguy	Bcauchamp-Niquct	Fox	MacLarenHervieux-Payettc	Oucllet	(Mrs.)	Fretz	MacLellan(Mrs.)	Parent	Begin (Miss)	Friescn	MalepartHopkins	Pelletier	Berger	Frith	MaltaisHowie	Pepin	Blais	Gamble	MarceauHudecki	Peterson	Bloomfield	Garant	MasseHuntington	Pinard	Bockstael	Gass	MastersIrwin	Portelancc	Bosley	Gauthier	MazankowskiIsabelle	Prud'homme	Bossy	Gcndron	McCainJarvis	Regan	Breau	Gilchrist	McCauleyJelinck	Reid	Bujold	Gimaiel	McCuishJohnston	(Kcnora-Rainy River)	Bussicrcs	Gourd	McDcrmid
Joyal Kaplan Kelly Kempling Kilgour Killens (Mrs.) King Kushner Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Landers
Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkcy Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
CWnicr
Chretien
Clark
Dawson	Lang	Shields	ClarkeDc Banc	Laniel	Smith	(Vancouide Corneille	La pierre	Speyer	CollenetteDeniger	Lapointe	Stevens	ComtoisDingwall	(Charlevoix)	Stewart	CookDion	Lapointe	Tardif	CooperDionne	(Beauce)	Taylor	Corbett(Chicoutimi)	Lawrence	Tcssier	CorbinDionne	LeBlanc	Thacker	Corriveau(Northumbcrland-	Leduc	Tobin	CosgroveMiramichi)	Lefebvrc	Tousignant	CousineauDomm	Lewis	Towers	CrombieDubois	Loisclle	Trudeau	CrosbyDupras	Lumley	Veillette	(HalifaxDuquet	MacBain	Watson	CullenEllis	MacDonald	Weather head	CyrEpp	(Miss)	Whelan	DarlingErola (Mrs.)	MacEachen	Wilson	DaudlinEthier	MacGuigan	Wright	DawsonFennell	Mackasey	Yanakis-187.	Dc Bane
Madame Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Murphy) negatived.
The House divided on Motion No. 14 (Mr. Murphy) which
was negatived on the following division:
de Corneille Dcnigcr Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Do mm Dubois Dupras Duquct Ellis
(Argcntcuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Guilbault
Gurbin
Gustafson
Harquail
Hawkes
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Howie
Hudecki
Huntington
Irwin
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jelinck
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Kempling
Kilgour
Killens (Mrs.)
King Kushner Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Landers Lang Lanicl La pierre Lapointe (Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Bcauce)
Lawrence
LcBlanc
Lcduc
Lefebvrc
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
McRae
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Munro
(Hamilton East)
Neil
Nicholson
(Miss)
Nowlan
Obcrlc
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellct
Parent
Pelletier
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelancc
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kcnora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- La kcshorc) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Smith
Speyer
Stevens
Stewart
Tardif


Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Taylor
Tessicr
Thacker
Tobin
Tousignant
Towers
Trudeau
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Wilson
Wright
Yanakis-187.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Murphy) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 15 (Mr. Murphy) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 16 (Mr. Murphy) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Murphy) negatived.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, further to the same discussions, we suggest that you call Motion No. 9.


Madam Speaker:: The question is now on Motion No. 9.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Murphy) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
Motion No. 13 (Miss MacDonald) negatived.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, still further to the same negotiations, we suggest you call Motion No. 17.


Madam Speaker:: The question is now on Motion No. 17 in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston).


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion agreed to.
Motion No. 17 (Mr. Johnston) agreed to.
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board)
moves that Bill C-124, an Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, as amended, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea. Some hon. Members: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members. Shall we dispense with the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has not been an agreement on the following, but due to the spirit of collaboration which seems to have developed tonight, perhaps if you seek unanimous consent we could deal with the third reading of this bill tonight so that we could deal with Canagrex tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). When shall the bill be read the third time, at the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: It being after 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 11.07 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, August 4, 1982