1982-07-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the importance of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty for North-South relations and the securing of the world's oceans as the common heritage of mankind, in light of the fact that the treaty has been signed by 130 countries after a decade of careful negotiations and preparation, and in light of the refusal of the United States to sign the treaty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House express its grave disappointment and great concern that the President of the United States has refused to sign the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, the Liberal government totally ignored 52 per cent of the population of Canada when it failed to appoint any women to the committee of prominent Canadians considering the budget. The embarrassed minister responsible for the status of women refused to make a formal announcement that the Liberal government has finally appointed two women to the committee, possibly because the committee held its first all-male meeting last week. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House urge the Liberal government and the minister responsible for the status of women to accord the women finally appointed to this committee equal treatment by formally announcing their appointment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, the views of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on socialism are well documented. He wrote, in one of his articles under a chapter entitled "The Practice and Theory of Federalism",
Federalism must be welcomed as a valuable tool which permits dynamic parties to plant socialist governments in certain provinces, from which the seed of radicalism can slowly spread.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: The Toronto Sun columnist, Lubor Zink, understood this all too well, as shown by his recent columns. Therefore, as an ameliorating effect, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Prime Minister hire Mr. Lubor Zink as an executive assistant and guiding light to show the Prime Minister that left is not right, and ne'er the twain shall meet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot.


FINANCE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, one of the major objectives of the government's economic policy is to decrease the inflation rate in Canada. Since all parties in the House of Commons hold the view that it is desirable that we manage our nation's economy with a lower rate of inflation, although there is disagreement on method, and since the cost of food is a major factor in determining our nation's inflation rate and it has been noted that food prices in Canada have

July 13, 1982
already increased 8 per cent this year over last, and are projected to increase another 2 per cent, or 10 per cent over the full year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this Parliament encourage the Minister of Finance to commence a set of actions so as to cause the decrease or elimination of the federal farm fuel tax which presently constitutes 60 cents of the price of every gallon of farm fuel, or 40 per cent of the fuel costs, and therefore its existence has a retrograde effect on inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[Translation}


TRANSPORT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the fate of 1,500 employees at Davie Shipbuilding in Lauzon depends on the federal government allocating $40 million for the construction of a ferry for CN Marine, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House demand that the Minister of Transport immediately release the necessary funds for this project instead of leaving this responsibility up to other ministers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, over the weekend the minister responsible for housing was quoted as saying that there is no question but that the government's proposed mortgage reduction plan will be implemented and that the government's commitment to this plan is total. Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said here in the House that he could not give any guarantees about this necessary and desirable program which, indeed, would
have already been in place for over two years under the former Conservative government. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook):
That, as the minister responsible for housing seems determined to plunge every budget brought in by this government into ever-increasing chaos, this House inform the home owners of Canada that in the case of the minister responsible for housing, the lights may be on but no one is home.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, December last the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) burned his Ottawa office. As an encore, he is responsible for a conflagration raging throughout the Northwest Territories. A fire which was deliberately set by his officials was an experimental burn before getting completely out of control. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That this House warns its pyromaniac Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development not to play with matches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


LAW OF THE SEA
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in view of recent developments in the area of the Law of the Sea, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs, at the earliest possible opportunity, make a statement on motions outlining the repercussions as far as Canada is concerned of the recently announced decision by the United States to withdraw permanently from the Law of the Sea talks, and in that statement that the minister lay a special emphasis not only on the effects of that action on Canada's fishing and mining industries, but also on our coastal protection as far as pollution, immigration and smuggling are concerned.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 13, 1982


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity regarding the future for female clerical workers in Canada. The recent conference, "Women and the Impact of Microtechnology", which drew together 500 participants representing community groups, concerned women, trade unions and employers from across Canada, pointed out that technological advances in the office workplace will have dramatic and adverse effects on the clerical service sector. The overwhelming majority of these workers are women, and over 40 per cent are in danger of losing their jobs to rapid microtechnological advances in the office environment. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King):
That the members of this House urge that measures be taken by employers and the government to ensure that the problem is properly defined and that appropriate training and retraining be done on a large scale to prevent massive unemployment and to ensure that these positive advancements in the office workplace do not result in adverse effects on the majority of women who work there.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I too have a motion under Standing Order 43. Since April of this year in British Columbia, over 2,300 hospital workers have been laid off and 10 per cent of the acute-care beds have been closed. Last Sunday these cutbacks led to the death of a patient who had been waiting two months for heart surgery. Considering that it is the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to maintain adequate standards of health care, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare immediately convene a meeting of provincial health ministers with a view to re-establishing adequate standards of health care in Canada and that she go to the meeting prepared to offer the funds necessary to meet the federal government's responsibility for these standards so that more lives will not be in jeopardy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the need to eliminate wasteful government spending, and whereas the Canada Post Corporation is now contemplating a further increase in the cost of a 30-cent postage stamp, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That the President of the Canada Post Corporation be instructed to cancel immediately the very expensive renovation and redecoration which is presently under way at the Vancouver main postal plant at a cost of more than $200,000, which will replace the customer services' department with a lavish new employment centre, complete with very expensive draperies and carpets which are totally unnecessary, and that the proposed postal increase be cancelled accordingly.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) recently announced changes to the capital cost allowance provision contained in his November 12 budget. This altered the one half capital cost allowance in the year of purchase for the daily car rental businesses, but left out the dealer-leasing businesses. The dealer-leasing businesses should be included, as both groups operate on the same principle, one on the day basis and the other for longer periods. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House recognizes that to leave out the dealer-leasing businesses would be discriminatory and that without this change scores of these businesses will go under; and recommends that the dealer-leasing businesses be included in the said change in capital cost allowances.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 13, 1982
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who only last Thursday indicated to the House that the government had been approached for a financial assistance package to be developed with respect to the Dome Petroleum Group. In view of the Southam News story today that a combined $1 billion package to ensure Dome's survival is now being actively considered by government, would the minister indicate whether he will be seeking parliamentary approval before he makes any commitment with respect to a Dome Petroleum financing bail-out; and would he indicate the size of the figures that we are being requested to cover on behalf of this group?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, there have been no further developments since the last question put by the hon. member in this House. The situation is exactly the same, and there are no proposals I can submit to my colleagues at this time.
officials upon seeing a Canadian company obtain a SI billion contract in the city of New York, a contract whose impact will be to provide tens of thousands of person-years' worth of jobs in Canada, and especially in Quebec. As a result, Bombardier, a Canadian company, will have truly established a bridgehead in the urban transportation field in the United States, making it one of the most advanced companies in the world in the urban transportation sector, which is very important for Canadian jobs and Canadian exports.


EXTENT OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOME PETROLEUM
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Dome is faced with a debt that will be due for renewal or replacement, of $1.4 billion by September of this year, what is the nature of the negotiations being undertaken on behalf of the people of Canada with respect to that type of monumental indebtedness run up by the Dome Group?


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, could the minister indicate who, on behalf of the people of Canada is specifically negotiating this Dome Petroleum Group bail-out? I ask this in view of the fact that we are dealing with huge figures. As of June 30, Dome's total indebtedness, including payables, is $8.4 billion. The amount due by the end of September will be $1.4 billion, and of that amoung $1.3 billion is in United States dollars. Who is acting on behalf of the people of Canada as negotiators?
We must bear in mind that only this morning in Washington we were laughed at, at a press conference, where Robert Cornell, Deputy Assistant Treasurer, Secretary for Trade and Investments, suggested that Canada, with respect to the Bombardier deal, had been duped by clever New York negotiators, in that they could have got the contract at 11.25 per cent interest as opposed to the concession financing given by the Canadian public.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member is referring to comments made by certain American


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, once again, representatives of the banks concerned approached the government some time ago, and government officials are having discussions with the banks and with representatives of Dome Petroleum. No clear offer has been made for submission to the government at this time. Discussions are under way, and I have no new developments to report in this respect.


QUERY RESPECTING SOURCE OF FUNDING
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister, who has indicated that discussions are under way between the government and Dome Petroleum. It has also been reported that the government will be using the Canadian ownership charge to make Canadian consumers pay for the bail-out of Dome Petroleum similar to the way Canadian consumers had to pay for the purchase of Petrofina through higher prices at gas pumps and for home heating fuels. Is it the intention of the government to make Canadian consumers pay for the bail-out of Dome Petroleum?


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Madam Speaker, the government has not indicated it would participate in any bail-out. I do not know what "bail-out" means exactly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
July 13, 1982


Marc Lalonde: If it means what 1 suspect the hon. member thinks it means, that is not the type of thing in which we are interested. I indicated several times in answers to previous questions that there is no proposal ready to be made and put forward to the government, and I have no report to make on this.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I noticed that the minister very carefully evaded the question with regard to Canadian consumers. A great many people across the country are concerned.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT ON SOURCE OF POSSIBLE FUNDING
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources give us what I might describe as a firm commitment-I know that is not an ironclad guarantee-that the Canadian ownership charge, which would directly increase the cost of oil and gas products to consumers, will not be used by the government or, indeed, that he will not introduce any special excise tax on these products to bail out or reimburse Dome Petroleum?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I know of no plans to increase the Canadian ownership tax or to levy an excise tax.


Mr. Epp:: That is not the question.


HOUSING
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for housing. For months now Canadians have been understandably concerned about the extraordinarily high cost of mortgage money. In Toronto at the weekend the minister offered unequivocal guarantees that the government would be producing a scheme which would bring down mortgage interest rates by 3 per cent to 6 per cent. As reported in The Toronto Star, he said:
There is no question . . . The plan will be implemented. The government is committed to doing it.
Yesterday in the House of Commons the Prime Minister said something quite different. He said the government could not guarantee such a scheme would be forthcoming.
My question is straightforward. Will the minister clarify the government's confusing policy and tell Canadians what the reality is when it comes to a 3 per cent to 6 per cent reduction in mortgage interest rates?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, on budget night, while the Leader of the New Democratic Party was out talking to the public and the press and describing the budget as a no-hope budget, the Minister of Finance announced in his budget a $400 million infusion of support for the housing industry. In that, first of all, is the immediate stimulus of a $3,000 grant which is available to
Oral Questions
people buying new homes and available to first-time buyers of resale homes.
In addition to that, and for longer-term security, the program of assistance for people renewing their mortgages was enlarged so that any Canadian family paying more than 30 per cent of their income for housing will now qualify for up to $3,000 of assistance at the time of mortgage renewal.
However, more than that, the Minister of Finance indicated a plan of indexed security instruments, a new financial plan on which he will ask the business community, the public at large, and this House, to comment. He described that plan and, if the hon. member will take the time to go back to the speech made by the minister, he will see that in talking about the proposal the minister said this:
These proposals would introduce major innovations in our tax system as well as in financial markets.


Mr. Clark:: Order.


Paul James Cosgrove: I underline the following sentence:
The government intends to implement them quickly once their feasibility has been confirmed.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, Canadians have come to tolerate a lot from this shifty government, but they will not put up with that kind of answer from the minister.


CONSEQUENCES OF MINISTER'S REPORTED STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that yesterday the Prime Minister unequivocally said that no guarantee could be offered until the House dealt with legislation-"until it was dealt with by the House" are the words of the Prime Minister-does the minister not see that what he did in Toronto on the weekend involved potential serious damage to thousands of Canadian families who may go out and buy a home on his advice and then, if the blue ribbon committee that looks into the proposal finds that it is not feasible, will be confronted with the fact that there is no legislation before the House of Commons, and therefore no law? They will be stuck with a house that they cannot afford.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, on the contrary, the damage that is being done to Canadians concerned about security for their homes and home purchases is being done by the Leader of the New Democratic Party who obviously has not read the budget papers or documents that the minister tabled in the House. For example, in the preface to the document that will be the new financial instrument the minister said, "In order that this does not cause them to delay these purchases," referring to Canadians in the market, "any legislative provision limiting qualifying property by an effective date will include purchases made after the date of the issuance of this paper."
I wish the hon. member would read the budger papers. I wish he would not be so negative. I wish he had not voted

July 13, 1982
Oral Questions
against the $350 million intended to produce jobs and rental accommodation in this country. I wish he would be more positive. I wish he would come along with the rest of Canadians who have been ringing the phones off the walls at CMHC looking for help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister cannot be here to defend his own words today, not mine, that completely contradict what the minister has said.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER GIVE COMMITMENT TO HOME PURCHASERS
John Edward Broadbent: As a preface to my next question I would point out that in his budget address, to which the minister has just alluded, the Minister of Finance said, "if implemented", such and such would follow. He was clearly taking the approach that the Prime Minister took in the House yesterday when the Prime Minister said that he would not support his minister responsible for housing; when he said that the minister was incorrect in contending that there would be a guarantee, if that is what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That is what he said. Therefore I want to ask the minister if he is prepared to give unequivocal guarantees this afternoon to a family which acts on his advice and makes the most important purchase of its life and buys a home, that they will get the 3 per cent to 6 per cent reduction in their mortgage retroactively. In Toronto at the weekend that is what he said would be the case. Would he answer yes or no to that?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have carefully reviewed the questions put by the Leader of the New Democratic Party to the Prime Minister yesterday. I have gone over them carefully. I noticed that the Leader of the New Democratic Party indicated that I used the word "guarantee". At no time did I do that, Madam Speaker. There are only three things that are guaranteed: death, taxes and the negative attitude of the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INQUIRY RESPECTING DECISION ON MORTGAGE REDUCTION SCHEME
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could put a question to the minister responsible for housing, who once again has demonstrated his ability to raise expectations in this country that he cannot seem to fulfil. Has a decision been taken to implement that provision of the budget which calls for a 3 per cent to 6 per cent reduction in mortgage interest rates? Have consultations taken place with the so-called blue ribbon committee? I want to know if
that decision has been taken, because the people of Canada want to know.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, once again I would refer the hon. member, who is the official opposition critic for housing, to undertakings given by the Minister of Finance in the budget speech itself and in the preface to the document introducing the financial instrument. I would indicate to him further that the chairman of the blue ribbon committee, so described, is meeting with a number of business sector representatives. For example, he met last evening with HUDAC in metropolitan Toronto. He has indicated that the response of the industry is positive; they are confident that the undertaking of the government, in the budget and in the document, will be fulfilled. They are confident that this new mortgage instrument is indeed the answer to long-term security for home purchasers.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the question is: has a decision been taken? The minister said on "The Nation's Business" last Sunday night over national television, "there is no question of chance; the plan will be implemented". He then went on to say that "the government will implement a system of providing loans at 3 per cent to 6 per cent below the market rate." When the Minister of Finance introduced the budget he talked about "if implemented", and he referred to this plan as being referred to the so-called blue ribbon committee. We want to know whether a decision has been taken.
Perhaps while the minister is on his feet, Madam Speaker, he might also tell the House if the government, when it met with the labour leaders last Friday, gave an undertaking that in return for labour supporting the 6-5 wage restraint legislation now before the House, it would in fact implement this 3 per cent to 6 per cent universal reduction in mortgages?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in my comments on Sunday evening, yes indeed I said the government "will"; I used the word. That decision has not been taken as yet or else 1 would have said that. As to the intention of the government, the member knows full well, if he takes the time to read the budget document, that the Minister of Finance wants that committee to report to him by September 30.


Charles Joseph Clark: Which of your statements can we believe?


Paul James Cosgrove: I hope, Madam Speaker, that I find a note of optimism in the member's question and that he will support this provision. 1 hope the support comes faster than the support for rental construction which was delayed for three months, because we need the support of the opposition and of all Canadians to get jobs going in that industry today.
July 13, 1982


TRANSPORT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. A few months ago, CN called for tenders for the construction of a ferry, and the contract was awarded to Davie Shipbuilding Limited in Lauzon. Today, a Montreal newspaper is quoting the minister as saying that the fate of 1,500 employees of Davie Shipbuilding Limited in Lauzon is now in the hands of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could the Minister of Transport responsible for that department inform the House whether the ferry is still needed and, if so, has the minister taken any action to give the company that won the contract the assurance that it can keep its 1,500 employees?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, first of all, no contract was awarded, and the question was improperly phrased from that point of view. That is the situation.


Charles Joseph Clark: There's the professor.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Better a professor than a student forever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the situation is as follows. CN Marine wanted to have a ship, the Gulf Span, built for use in its ferry service between North Sydney and Port-aux-Basques. It called for tenders, and Davie Shipbuilding Limited answered the call with a contract worth $143 million. This was brought down to $130 million. CN Marine had $70 million in the bank to spend on that contract and could borrow $30 million more, which means that we had to find another $30 million. I put the case to my colleagues and, at the time, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was discussing in Quebec City the construction of other facilities and equipment for the construction of offshore drilling platforms. So, at that time the ferry boat project was set aside. However, now that the drilling platform construction project has been not cancelled but postponed, building a ship again becomes a possibility. The matter is being discussed again, and that is where I stand with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economical Expansion.


INQUIRY WHETHER CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FERRY IN LAUZON REGION HAS BEEN ISSUED
Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary. It is very important for Canadians to know what the minister wants. In his statement, the minister said that because of a drop in traffic, the need for such construction has faded. The public would like to know whether the government needs a ship, and Davie Shipbuilding Limited would like to know
Oral Questions
whether the ship is going to be built. Could the minister himself inform us, instead of referring the matter to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, whether CN needs the ship and, if so, whether the contract which seemed likely to be awarded to Davie Shipbuilding will stand? And I would ask the minister please not to shift the responsibility to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has enough problems as it is.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I shall make myself very clear. The need for a ship is no longer as urgent as it was, partly because of a drop in traffic in that particular area. But if it would suit the plans of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion-


Roch La Salle: Do we need the ship?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -and the interests of our shipyards, I am quite willing to reopen the discussion on this possibility.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. With Canadian fishermen being permitted to sell some 30,000 tonnes of herring over the side to foreign vessels, only 26,000 tonnes have been left for the seafood producers of Nova Scotia. The artificial price of $305 a tonne paid by communist countries, which pay no taxes to Canada, has placed Canadian processors at an unfair disadvantage in trying to meet the competition. Since the pricing impasse will throw 2,500 people out of work in Nova Scotia, on top of the 1.3 million already unemployed in Canada, with an estimated loss of some $8 million in wages, what steps is the minister planning to take to provide suitable employment for these workers in the Canadian fishing industry?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, that question might more appropriately have been addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but it is my understanding that in this case both the fishermen and the processors are negotiating that particular matter today. In addition to that, of course, we have in place a number of employment programs, and we will be making announcements in a very few days concerning the direct employment programs and how they will be utilized in provinces like Nova Scotia to provide alternative employment for those presently impacted by the downturn in the international market.

July 13, 1982
Oral Questions


INQUIRY RESPECTING SALE OF HERRING TO JAPAN
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of State for International Trade. I realize negotiations are going on today in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, but they have been going on since June 1 and the impasse has not been resolved. Since this has affected Nova Scotia's commitments for the sale of herring to Japan, whose representatives have indicated they may have to go elsewhere to secure their herring supplies, has the minister held any discussions with the Japanese in an effort to secure a negotiated sale price for herring which would secure these markets for our Canadian producers?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, 1 find it very interesting that the hon. member is trying to put on the record a scenario which, unhappily, does not totally correspond to reality. What he forgets to point out to members of this House who might be interested is that for many months-sometime before Christmas-I asked the local processors what their intentions were as to the volume of herring they intended to buy, and whether they were negotiating with the fishermen. This was because the herring fishermen, through their own organization, had requested permission to sell directly over the side. In the absence of an answer, at a certain point a few months ago, I had to give the Canadian fishermen the answer to which they were entitled, as to how they would sell the fish in which obviously the processors were not interested.
I find it very strange that the hon. member should now be telling us that Canadian processors are today desperately looking for the herring which they refused to negotiate for a few months ago.


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. No doubt he will be aware that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have indicated that each minister is required to contact government agencies in his or her jurisdiction in an effort to achieve the 6 per cent world. Has the Minister of Finance instructed Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to limit all rental increases in all units under its jurisdiction to 6 per cent or less in the coming year, and to 5 per cent or less in the following year?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I was asked a similar question with respect to an agency under my responsibility as Minister of Public Works, namely, a land company at Mirabel. In response to that question I indicated that the statement made by the Minister of Finance in the budget speech-and I presume in any
communications we will be sending to ministers-referred to regulatory agencies. I am of the view that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation probably does not fall within the definition of regulatory agencies as described by the minister, as the intention of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: Nonetheless, just as I did with the company at Mirabel, 1 have asked officials in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in the Department of Public Works and in the National Capital Commission to review the minister's statement, and to advise me about the implications of applying the guidelines voluntarily, that is, without being subject strictly to such a rule, to see what the cost implications are so that we can put ourselves in a position that would be in compliance with the spirit of the policy, if not the law, announced by the Minister of Finance.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, without my reading it into the record, I urge the minister responsible for housing to read the Prime Minister's answer to a question I asked yesterday. It concerned the requirement of ministers to instruct those persons within the various agencies that regulate in any way matters affecting the Canadian public, to keep increases to 6 per cent and 5 per cent in the years ahead.


RENT INCREASE IN TORONTO PROJECT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that the minister has seen fit to support the imposition of 6 per cent and 5 per cent guidelines, and in light of the fact that the minister has seen fit to impose restrictions on pensions for the elderly, will he review the condition which my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Beaches, raised with me, that at 1338 Queen Street East, Toronto, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has asked tenants at that address for a 25 per cent increase this year, and will he hold that increase back?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to increases in rents by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in some projects in metropolitan Toronto. Indeed, 1 have responded to the hon. member indicating that increase, which was some months ago-I think it was five or six months ago-was not apparent in his question. But the corporation has reviewed that increase. The objective of the corporation was to bring rents up to market rates.


An hon. Member:: That is wrong.


Paul James Cosgrove: But if in so doing we found any renters who were paying a disproportionate amount of their income toward rent payments-for example, above 30 per cent-there is a provision for them to be assisted on a "rent geared to income basis."
With regard to the particular question raised by the hon. member, it is an old question that has been dealt with.
July 13, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: My answer to the first question applies generally to any increase that would occur in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. Possibly in his absence another minister could answer the question for him. The minister will know that the president of Canada Post is reported to have stated recently that he will find it almost impossible to meet the deficit guideline laid down by the government. He will also know that different vicepresidents have said that, in their estimation, another postal rate increase will be necessary.
Will the minister tell this House whether Canadians can expect another postal rate increase either this year or early in 1983? At the same time, will the minister confirm for the House that any such rate increase this year or next year will follow the guideline laid down in the budget, that is, no more than 6 per cent?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have no information for the hon. member in response to the specifics of his question. However, I will refer the matter to Canada Post and I will get back to him at the earliest opportunity.


T.A. Bud Bradley: I am used to those types of answers. They come from the minister as well, Madam Speaker.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BELL CANADA RATE INCREASE APPLICATION
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Communications. The minister is reported as saying yesterday that he would not intervene to restrain rate increases for Bell Canada which could increase the costs to Canadians of making telephone calls by as much as 35 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


T.A. Bud Bradley: This would be much in excess of the 6 per cent guideline laid down in the budget. The minister said there may be exceptional circumstances in Bell Canada's case. Could the minister tell the House just what those exceptional circumstances might be?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I quite properly said that I would not intervene now
Oral Questions
because I have no authority to intervene now. The process for Bell to obtain increases in rates is for Bell Canada to file a request for an increase in rates with the CRTC. It is then up to the CRTC to hold a hearing to determine what is a justifiable rate. The rest of my answer yesterday is the same as I gave in the House last week, that the message in the budget is crystal clear. Agencies administering price increases for federal agencies will be expected to follow that type of increase unless, as is indicated in the budget, there are exceptional circumstances.
In the case of Bell Canada, if there were an increase above the 5 per cent or 6 per cent level, there would be an appeal to the governor in council-to the federal cabinet-and under the appropriate legislation the governor in council has the authority to change a decision of the CRTC in the field of telecommunications and to set the rate itself if it feels that a rate increase is unjustified.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It relates to the Shoal Lake development. The citizens of Winnipeg have received their drinking water for many years from this lake. A cottage plan is now being developed for the Indian people. This is economic development which they would like to pursue. Has the minister given his personal guarantee that that development will not in any way affect the quality of drinking water for the residents of Winnipeg?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member means by personal guarantee. To be specific, I do not know of any minister of any government who goes around giving personal guarantees.


Mr. Nielsen:: Except for "Old Ironclad."


Mr. Nowlan:: He is cast in iron.


John Carr Munro: I do not know whether the hon. member, while he was Minister of Indian Affairs, was in the habit of giving personal guarantees, but I would rather assume he did not.
I can tell him that as minister I have funded the chief and the Indian band with moneys to hire the very best consultants to determine, if they went ahead with the development, whether it would in any way prejudice the water supply for the city of Winnipeg which, of course, is an event we could not countenance. Those consultants have reported and have indicated that if certain safeguards are adhered to, the

July 13, 1982
Oral Questions
development would not seriously impact on the water supply. I am studying the reports of the consultants even further to be absolutely certain that this is the case, before taking any further action.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, what I meant by personal guarantee was that the minister had, in fact, approved the project and had also approved a sewage project.


LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If, in fact, there is a diminution in water quality for the residents of Winnipeg, does the Government of Canada hold itself liable for any filtration or additional costs which the residents of Winnipeg might have in view of that development and the loss in water quality?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I think the situation is quite simple. You cannot argue on the one hand that we should put needless impediments in the way of the Indian people and, on the other hand, argue that we should be doing everything for the Indian people in the way of economic development. It is a very inconsistent posture for the hon. member to be taking. What the situation is here, as he knows from being a former minister of Indian affairs, is that these Indian people were denied employment because they were prohibited from fishing in the area. They then turned to another possible venture for economic development, which was the development of their land for cottage lots as, indeed, other people have done in this area.
Now, all of a sudden there is this very real concern that, because of what they wish to do as opposed to other cottagers on this lake, the water supply in the city of Winnipeg will suddenly be deleteriously affected.
We are doing everything we can, prior to giving any approvals, to ensure that there be absolutely no adverse impact on the water supply. If there is, I think the Indian people would be the first to agree, as indeed would the city of Winnipeg, that it should not be done. In that case I think it is reasonable to expect, after all the expense to which the Indian people have been put to ensure that there is no adverse impact, expenses that others on this body of water have not been put to, that the city of Winnipeg consider buying the property in question. The mayor and the city council there have indicated that is an alternative, depending on how the consultants' reports turn out.


HOUSING
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief and simple question for the minister responsible for housing, and an equally brief and simple supplementary, which both require very brief and simple yes or no answers. 1 read from the transcript of "The Nation's Business" last Saturday, July 10, where the minister of housing is quoted as having said this:
The Canadian government will implement a system for providing loans at 3 per cent to 6 per cent below the market rate to ensure your long-term security.
Was that statement the truth?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have answered that question twice in question period. I refer the hon. member, for the sake of brevity, to those answers.


Erik Nielsen: It would appear to me that the minister is reluctant to admit to the truth of that statement.


MINISTER'S REPORTED STATEMENT IN &quot;TORONTO STAR &quot;
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question also involves a direct quote from The Toronto Star of July 10, 1982, where the minister was reported as saying, "There is no question of chance. The plan will be implemented", referring to the 3 per cent to 6 per cent plan. Was that statement the truth?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, once again I refer the hon. member to the sections of the budget upon which I relied in support of that statement earlier in question period today. I would similarly draw his attention to the context of that statement and to the concluding paragraphs wherein I said that we are confident the three quarters of a billion dollars commited by this government within the last two budgets, within the last seven months, will bring short-term and long-term security to home owners and therefore will put the housing business back on its feet.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it is supplementary to the sequence of questions asked by the hon. member for Provencher. It concerns the role of the city of Winnipeg via-a-vis the Shoal Lake Indian band. Can the minister give assurances to the House that the city of Winnipeg is now prepared to cooperate with the consultants by providing them with the necessary water quality data which it had originally refused to
July 13, 1982

make available to the consultants, so that we can find out exactly what was the status of the quality of water that was moving from Shoal Lake to the aqueduct at Winnipeg?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member. According to the Indians and the consultants, there was some difficulty in getting that needed data. I met with the mayor and the city council and the Winnipeg city manager, I believe his title is, to see if we could facilitate the gathering of that data so that an accurate study could be made by the consultants for the Indian people. As I understand it, most of the data they wanted was made available, finally.


INDUSTRY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and concerns the Industrial and Labour Adjustment Program. The minister must know the member for Frontenac says that the government is refusing to designate the town of Thetford Mines because one of the principal employers is the Societe nationale de 1'amiante which is controlled by the Government of Quebec. My first question: was the hon. member correct in making this accusation? My second question: are there any other reasons for the government's refusal?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the member for Frontenac has gone to a great deal of trouble for his riding, and his constituents should, and I think they do, appreciate that. Decisions on community designations are cabinet decisions, and the situation in his riding is still under consideration. I think one part has already been designated, and he was very anxious for us to review the situation in order to have decisions on the rest of the area he represents.


REASON FOR GOVERNMENT'S REFUSAL OF REQUEST BY MARINE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have had a sign of weakness from the member for Frontenac. Now 1 have a question about the region of Sorel-Tracy. Why did the government turn down an application by Marine Industries Limited in Sorel?
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is referring to an application for a contribution to support a study by Marine Industries Limited. One of the rules of the Industrial and Labour Adjustment Program is that it must have proof that a company is unable to proceed with a project without financial support. The Enterprise Development Board looked into the case, and decided that Marine Industries Limited was able to proceed without this contribution, but I am sure the Board would be willing to examine the company's other applications.


WINDSOR COMPANY PRESIDENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce personally acquainted with Mr. W. A. Doherty who is the president of the private company involved in building the Hilton Hotel in Windsor?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker, and so are tens of thousands of other people in the Windsor area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONDITIONS GOVERNING ASSISTANCE TO WINDSOR HOTEL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister will know that the Government of Canada, through its insurance programs of CMHC, has already been involved in the failure of two hotels, Quai D'Orsay in Ottawa, and the Howard Johnson in Montreal. Has the minister set safeguards in place to ensure that there will not be a similar failure in the Hilton venture in Windsor, and can he give us an assurance that all of the private funding necessary for that project is now secure?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Enterprise Development Board that made the decision on the application for loan assistance to the project has set forth various terms and conditions designed to provide security for the contribution that would be made, and there is no question that any of the loan funding would be advanced unless and until all the conditions are met, including the putting in place of the financing by the private sector entrepreneur.

July 13, 1982
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


TICKETS ISSUED TO EMPLOYEES FOR TRAVEL ABROAD
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. I am sure that he recalls a letter which he sent to me last week. Could he provide a little information to the House? As he knows, between May 3 and June 10 of this year 1,569 tickets were issued for trips for public servants going outside Canada. That specifically excludes External Affairs and the Department of National Defence, so there is no question of security if the minister is to provide the names and the purposes of the trips that were taken by public servants from Ottawa to outside Canada. If he cannot do that, I note that he has already taken two tickets from those 1,569, one for an employee of Energy, Mines and Resources and one for an employee of Communications to travel to Argentina. If he cannot give us the names and the purposes, could he give us xerox copies of those tickets?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: First, Madam Speaker, 1 would like to indicate to the hon. gentleman that from his Standing Order 43 yesterday he seemed to have misunderstood some of the information that I provided to him in that letter. He will recall that the letter was in answer to a question that he put on the Order Paper. I recommend that he do the same with reference to his particular question now.
In the information that I provided to him, I did identify the 1,500 tickets of which he speaks, but 1 would like to point out to him that those tickets referred to travel from any place in Canada toward foreign countries, not only from the national capital region. In terms of the balance of the information, 1 would ask him to solicit it in the normal course.


James Ross Fulton: 1 have the minister's letter here in my hand and, number one, I did not put it on the Order Paper. It was a letter. Second, quoting directly from his own letter, he said it is based on "statistical data which was recently gathered on international travel out of the National Capital Region". So, he is wrong on two counts.


REQUEST THAT NON-ESSENTIAL TRAVEL BE TERMINATED
James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who, I am glad to see, is reading, in both French and English, the Bell document that I gave him yesterday. Since his cherished Bill C-124 will create chaos in the lives of thousands of underpaid public servants who earn incomes in the neighbourhood of $12,000 a year, and since damned few of them are flying internationally on these flights, I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board would give a commitment to this House that he will try to get the names of those people from his colleagues and that he will issue a directive to all the cabinet that non-essential international travel be immediately terminated.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, 1 actually appreciate very much the document on long distance telephone services which the hon. member for Skeena sent me yesterday and which I have read in both French and English, at least in a cursory manner. The issue of non-essential travel is one that I would like to address because all travel is authorized travel and, under the guidelines, it is essential travel. The numbers do seem high. I was very pleased to note a decrease between 1979 and 1980 of 6 per cent in travel. But the numbers which the hon. member has brought to our attention for a period of one month in 1982 suggest that there may have been an increase. I will indeed look into the matter.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Monday, July 12, 1982, and that he finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: Since the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) is in the House today, I would like to rule on the question of privilege which he raised on June 17 and which arose out of his dissatisfaction with answers given to him by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). The Minister of Justice is not in the House today, but I feel 1 should rule anyway because I would not want to delay the ruling any further; it has been standing for quite some time.
I submit to the hon. member for Halifax West that, in accordance with the custom of the House, we do accept hon. members' explanations of what transpired. In the case that he raised, those explanations were obviously given in good faith as far as the House is concerned. An hon. member's word is usually taken for the statements he makes in the House.
I would like to emphasize, however, that even had the minister declined to give any explanation about the particular case of interest to the hon. member, that would not constitute the basis for a question of privilege either.
Therefore, I must rule that I do not find a prima facie case of privilege in this particular instance, since there was nothing in the exchange which could convey the impression that the
July 13, 1982

minister was in any way misleading this House, and delaying an announcement does not constitute contempt of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicted by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,289, 3,899, 3,960, 4,087 and 4,088.


Mr. Dantzer: 1.	At what point in the future if there is no change in premiums will (a) Canada Pension Plan contributions no longer cover payments to beneficiaries (b) Canada Pension Plan contributions plus interest no longer cover payments to beneficiaries (c) the Canada Pension Plan Fund cease to exist?
2.	What are the assumptions that will have a bearing on the answer to part I, including the assumed rates of interest earned by the fund and the changes in current mortality rates?
3.	(a) What changes in premiums would be necessary by (i) 1986 (ii) 1991 (iii) 2001 (iv) 2011 (v) 2021 (vi) 2031 in order to maintain the current real dollar value of the fund (b) what changes in premiums would be necessary to maintain the current real dollar value of the fund by (i) 1986 (ii) 1991 (iii) 2001 (iv) 2011
(v)	2021 if benefits from the plan were doubled?
4.	What is the (a) interest rate earned by the Plan (b) lowest Bank of Canada rate (c) average Bank of Canada rate (d) amount of monies borrowed from the fund by each province for the (i) third quarter of 1979 (ii) fourth quarter of 1979 (iii) first quarter of 1980 (iv) second quarter of 1980 (v) third quarter of 1980
(vi)	fourth quarter of 1980 (vii) first quarter of 1981 (viii) second quarter of 1981?
5.	Is the fund invested solely in 20-year Government of Canada bonds?
6.	To the knowledge of the government, are public or private pension plans invested solely in one instrument and, if not, with specific reference to the government regulations that apply to both public and private sector plans, what are the reasons?
7.	If the CPP were to accept no new entrants as of September 30, 1981, but all current entrants were to continue to contribute at the current rate, what would be the deficit in the fund when it was wound up, in current as well as 1981 dollars?
8.	What would be the value of the fund as of September 30, 1981, if from the beginning of the fund monies had been invested in the following alternative instrument (a) 91-day Government of Canada treasury bonds (b) 180-day Government of Canada treasury bonds (c) 1-year Government of Canada bonds (d) 10-year provincial bonds, assuming each province borrowing funds borrowed at their provincial rate (e) 10-year corporate bonds, using composite provided by the Bank of Canada's Statistical Review?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: I am
informed by the Departments of Insurance and Finance as follows:
1.	In the last complete statutory actuarial report on the Canada Pension Plan, (Statutory Actuarial Report No. 6 tabled in the House of Commons on December 18, 1978) it
Order Paper Questions
was estimated, assuming no change in the 3.6 per cent contribution rate, that (a) expenditures would exceed contributions in 1985, (b) expenditures would exceed contributions plus interest in 1993, and (c) the fund would cease to exist in 2003.
2.	The answers in Part 1 are affected by many assumptions, a partial list of which is as follows:
1.	rates of increase in average earnings
2.	rates of increase in the Consumer Price Index
3.	rates of interest on new investments
4.	mortality rates
5.	migration rates
6.	participation rates in the plan
7.	earnings distributions
8.	retirement ages
9.	rates of incidence and termination of disability
10.	rates of emergence of spouses' pensions
11.	proportions married, age distributions, and relative
earnings distributions of husbands and wives
12.	remarriage rates of widows and widowers.
These, as well as other assumptions, are described in considerable detail in Statutory Actuarial Report No. 6.
The combined effect of all assumptions on expenditures and contributions for the three calendar years 1978 to 1980 has been that actual expenditures have averaged about 92 per cent of estimated while actual contributions have averaged about 97 per cent of estimated. The net result shows that actual experience has been somewhat more favourable than estimated, and if this trend should persist, the actual dates of occurrence of one or more of the three contingencies considered in Part 1, assuming no change in the contribution rate, may be slightly later than those estimated.
As to some specific assumptions, the annual rate of increase in average earnings, the annual rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index, and the annual rate of interest on new investments were projected to decrease from experience levels in 1978 to ultimate levels of 5.5 per cent, 3.5 per cent and 6.5 per cent respectively for 1983 and later. While these ultimate rates appear to be definitely on the low side, at least for the short-term future, it should be emphasized that the estimates in Statutory Acturial Report No. 6 are affected much more by the assumed differentials between these rates than by their absolute levels. For example, again assuming no change in the 3.6 per cent contribution rate, if ultimate assumptions of 11.5 per cent, 9.5 per cent and 12.5 per cent had been used instead (i.e., assumptions involving the same differentials but 6 percentage points higher), (a) the year when estimated expenditures would exceed contributions would still have been 1985, (b) the year when estimated expenditures would exceed contributions plus interest would have been 1995 instead of 1993, while (c) the year when the fund would cease to exist would have been 2002 instead of 2003. Evidently, these changes would have been relatively minor.
19268

July 13, 1982
Order Paper Questions
3.	(a) If the 3.6 per cent contribution rate is retained as long as the real dollar value of the fund in terms of the Consumer Price Index increases, and if it is thereafter annually increased as required to maintain the real dollar value of the fund, it is estimated that the contribution rates required would be (i) 3.6 per cent in 1986, (ii) 3.90 per cent in 1991, (iii) 5.12 per cent in 2001, (iv) 6.02 per cent in 2011, (v) 7.77 per cent in 2021, (vi) 8.90 per cent in 2031 and (vii) 8.54 per cent in 2041, based on Statutory Actuarial Report No. 6 assumptions, except that the starting fund was taken as the actual fund at December 31, 1980 instead of the actual fund at December 31, 1977, and actual experience through 1980 was substituted for estimated experience.
(b) If benefits from the plan were doubled, effective 1983, the contribution rates required to achieve the same objective, and based upon the same assumptions as for (a), would be (i) 6.68 per cent in 1986, (ii) 8.62 per cent in 1991, (iii) 10.67 per cent in 2001, (iv) 12.33 per cent in 2011, (v) 15.73 per cent in 2021, (vi) 17.93 per cent in 2031 and (vii) 17.16 per cent in 2041.
4.	The information sought by the honourable member is equally accessible to him, being reported annually in the public accounts of Canada, monthly in the Bank of Canada Review, and quarterly in the Canada Pension Plan Statistical Bulletin.
5.	No.
6.	Public or private pension plans, to the extent that they operate invested funds, invest either directly or indirectly in a variety of instruments. Subject to statutory or regulatory restrictions, the investment policy normally aims at maximizing yields within acceptable limits of risk. Relatively smaller plans tend to be insured or to participate in investment pools. It is possible that some plans invest exclusively in government bonds or exclusively in mortgages, etc.; however, it is normal to see diversified investment. Presumably, this may be attributed to active or passive acceptance of the principle that diversification enhances the security of the investments and tends to allow acceptance of a higher level of individual risk leading to a higher expected rate of return.
7.	Based on Statutory Actuarial Report No. 6 assumptions, it is estimated that assuming the fund would be wound up about the year 2088, the deficit in the fund would then be approximately $211 trillion. This would be equivalent to a deficit of about $246 billion at September 30, 1981, accumulated with interest to the year 2088.
8.	The calculation of fund values as requested by the honourable member would require an inordinate amount of calculations to be conducted by the limited resources of this government; therefore, no answer is provided. The investment alternatives suggested in parts (c) and (d) do not exist for all the time periods in question and therefore any result calculated would be hypothetical. Information necessary to calculate the requested result in parts (a), (b) and (e) is equally accessible to the honourable member from the sources outlined in the response to part 4.


Mr. Cossitt: How many items of first-class mail were mailed within the Canadian postal system (a) between January 1 and January 31, 1981 and not including items deposited prior to midnight on December 31, 1980 (b) between January 1 and January 31, 1982 and not including items deposited prior to midnight on December 31, 1981 ?


Gary Francis McCauley: The Canada Post Corporation has informed me as follows: (a) 388.4 million; (b) 350.6 million.


Mr. Cossitt: How many items of all classes of mail, other than first class, were mailed within the Canadian postal system (a) between January 1 and January 31, 1981 excluding items deposited prior to midnight on December 31, 1980 (b) between January 1 and January 31, 1982 excluding items deposited prior to midnight on December 31, 1981?


Gary Francis McCauley: The Canada Post Corporation has informed me as follows: (a) 203.0 million; (b) 164.1 million.


Mr. Cossitt: How many items of first-class mail were mailed within the Canadian postal system (a) between February 1 and February 28, 1981 and not including items deposited prior to midnight on January 31, 1981 (b) between February 1 and February 28, 1982 and not including items deposited prior to midnight on January 31,1982?


Gary Francis McCauley: The Canada Post Corporation has informed me as follows: (a) 387.6 million; (b) 360.4 million.


Mr. Cossitt: How many items of all classes of mail, other than first class, were mailed within the Canadian postal system (a) between February 1 and February 28, 1981 excluding items deposited prior to midnight on January 31, 1981 (b) between February 1 and February 28, 1982 excluding items deposited prior to midnight on January 31, 1982?


Gary Francis McCauley: The Canada Post Corporation has informed me as follows: (a) 198.4 million; (b) 178.6 million.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 4,343 and 4,350 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.
July 13, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1981 (b) 1982, were outside lawyers in New Brunswick employed by the Department of Justice and, if so, in each case (i) what was his/her name (ii) what amount was paid?
Return tabled.

Question No. 4,350-Mr. Crouse:
In the fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1981 (b) 1982, were outside lawyers in Nova Scotia employed by the Department of Justice and, if so, in each case (i) what was his/her name (ii) what amount was paid?
Return tabled.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council when I may expect an answer to question No. 2,329, which has now been on the Order Paper for more than 15 months.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to look into that matter on behalf of the hon. member. I would be delighted to do so.
I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order in connection with the response given by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) yesterday in reference to the question of the passage of Bill C-201 last week.
Concerning how the matter proceeded, the President of the Privy Council stated, in part, as reported at page 19215 of Hansard:
-that Thursday, the day before, notice had been given to the representatives of his party, the whip and the deputy leader, in the House-
In perusing the record of proceedings of Thursday, the particular day in question, I find no reference by the President of the Privy Council that he did, indeed, give notice that Bill C-201 was coming up. I just wanted to draw to his attention and to the attention of the people of this country that that matter was not drawn to the attention of the House during the period of time allotted to him to make it known to the people of the nation, and particularly to hon. members of this side of
Point of Order-Mr. Corbett
the House. It was just another way of duping and defrauding the people of the nation.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I just want to repeat that proper notice was given to the Conservative Party and to the NDP of the intention of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) to proceed with Bill C-201 on Friday. Proper notice was given on Thursday evening.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Not in the House.


Yvon Pinard: That is what I was told and that is what is usually done with all private members' bills. The hon. member should check with people in his party and find out about the notice.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear the government House leader say what he did, on his own behalf. Obviously, he has been supplied information by someone else in his party. My deputy House leader did not receive any such notice. I received no such notice. Our whip received no such notice. I might also inform the government House leader that the provisions of Standing Order 75 with respect to notice were not complied with.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the notice was given in writing and sent by hand to the appropriate offices. If the hon. members responsible have not seen it, it is not my responsibility-


Erik Nielsen: That is not true.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, with reference to this point of order, I do not have the mailing list in front of me, but I do know that Mr. Beatty, who works in the office of the opposition House leader, was on that list, as was the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).
In response to the question raised by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), it is not the practice of the government House leader to raise on Thursday afternoon, when he answers his weekly question, what is to be dealt with in private members' hour. He discusses what will be dealt with under government orders, but not under private members' hour. This is the fundamental distinction which I would suggest has been totally forgotten by the hon. member, or perhaps he is unaware of it.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, the fact is that the President of the Privy Council stood up in this House and stated that our whip and our deputy House leader were advised that that bill was coming before the House. That is not correct. The other fact is that the Standing Orders of the House say that unless there is an emergency, notwithstanding the fact that the House is master of its own fate, a bill will be given successive readings on different days. That could certainly not be construed as an emergency debate.

July 13, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Deans


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I can only reiterate what 1 have already said. I am told that proper notice in writing was given by hand to representatives of both opposition parties. With regard to the emergency about which the hon. member speaks, I agree with him that it is the principle. 1 was not here but I have been told that there were representatives of all parties in the House. Unanimous consent was granted by the representative of the hon. member's own party, a representative of the New Democratic Party and, of course, representatives of the Liberal Party. Therefore, there was unanimous consent. Anything can be done in this House by unanimous consent. The representatives of all parties agreed to the process.



MR. TAYLOR-APPLICATION OF S O. 15

['Tomorrow.']
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clear up something that 1 think should be done. Under Standing Order 15 we are advised whether it is an A day or B day. Consequently, we can turn to our list to see whether it is an A day or a B day. However, it does not go any further than that.
There are 200 or 300 bills on the Order Paper. It has not been the practice to go through the list consecutively. If we want hon. members to know, they should be given the chance to look in the Orders of the Day, particularly on the day it is coming up, or by that time, so that they know which bill will be coming up.
Second, it has been the habit to post this information on the bulletin board in the lobby. Why is it not posted each time? It is not fair to a member to have this brought on after that member has made proper arrangements to leave for constituency business, and he then finds on his return that a bill in which he has a vital interest has been passed in ten minutes by 12 members.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid there is not much I can add to this exchange except to say that the House went through certain procedures. We cannot go back on those procedures.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I made an error with respect to Standing Order 75. It was not the Standing Order that I wanted to quote, so I rise simply to correct that. The Standing Order I am thinking of is the one requiring posting of a notice on the members' bulletin board. That notice applies to private members' bills.



Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given official notice. I would now like to follow up on it, if I may. You will be aware that at page 18880 of Hansard for June 28, 1982, the
Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) made the following statement:
Tonight, I am tabling a consultative document containing proposals which, if implemented, would have the following major key effects:
-Buyers of new homes would be able to secure mortgages at significantly
reduced interest rates-3 to 6 percentage points lower than prevailing rates.
I draw that to Your Honour's attention because I claim that, inadvertently or otherwise, the minister responsible for housing has misled the public of Canada and the House of Commons. I recognize that it is a very serious matter. I want to indicate for your consideration, hopefully overnight, the reasons why I believe that happened.
Taking into account that the Minister of Finance clearly stated that the measure to which he was referring was not yet government policy and that he made it quite clear he was talking about the possibility of action being taken by the government, subject to the approval of both the cabinet and Parliament, the minister responsible for housing subsequently, I hope in error, when appearing on a television program which was copyrighted but which I would claim to be published material, said the following:
The Canadian government will implement a system for providing loans at 3 to 6 per cent below the market rate to ensure long-term security.
He then went on to say:
I stress again people who purchase new housing will do so with the confidence that they can renew their mortgages at lower than market interest rates.
Yesterday in the House of Commons the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was asked whether the Government of Canada had in fact come to a definitive conclusion with regard to the implementation of that policy, whether that policy was in effect and the Prime Minister could give assurance to those people who were advised by the minister of housing to proceed on the basis of that proposal contained in the budget to purchase a home, and whether the government through the Prime Minister was able to assure those people that that reduction in interest rates would be forthcoming.
The Prime Minister, again referring to Hansard, said quite clearly he could give no such assurance at the moment. The minister	responsible	for	housing	was	subsequently asked
whether he was stating government policy, whether he had been misquoted or was in error.


Erik Nielsen: Whether he was telling the truth.


Ian Deans: He was even asked whether he was stating the truth. The truth is something that is always difficult to determine. It is very much in the mind of the individual making the statement. The more relevant question was whether the minister	responsible	for	housing	was	stating government
policy.
My question of privilege is simply this. The House of Commons has the right to expect that it will be told the truth. The House of Commons has the right to expect that statements made by ministers of the Crown, affirmative, assertive statements, will in fact be a reflection of the government's policy.
July 13. 1982

As a result of the statement by the minister responsible for housing, I was asked by a number of people from across this country whether in fact it was now government policy and could they proceed. I could not give that answer. As a Member of Parliament, 1 could not either affirm or deny what the government policy was, given that the minister responsible for housing was making a statement that was quite contrary both to the budget statement and the statement by the Prime Minister. I therefore ask-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. He has just stated what his question of privilege is. I realize that he is dealing with two matters. The first is a statement made outside the House which in the circumstances, and taking into account the substance of the statement, cannot constitute a question of privilege. He is also speaking about the statement made in the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the statement made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove). He finds that those statements are contradictory.
The hon. members recognizes the difficulty the Chair would be in if it had to determine which of those contradictory statements was correct. I suggest to the hon. member that this is obviously a matter of debate. It was debated in the course of the question period. I am afraid the hon. member is now debating it again.
The hon. member has the right to debate this matter, but certainly not under the aegis of a question of privilege. Therefore, I must interrupt the hon. member and tell him that he does not have the basis for a question of privilege. He has a matter that he would like to debate, but he must do that at another time.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask whether you could at some point deliberate and report to the House on how we in the opposition can get the truth out of this government.


Madam Speaker:: I can answer that now. Question period is a time when members can question ministers of the Crown on their policies and programs. That is done daily. There are other occasions when questions may be asked of ministers. That is obviously the avenue. If the answer a member receives from a minister is not satisfactory in his view, there is nothing the Chair can do about that. The Chair can ensure only that the hon. member will have a chance on another occasion to elucidate the question that he is concerned with.


Mr. Paproski:: Make them tell the truth.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, may I comment on this matter?


Madam Speaker:: No, I have ruled on it, I am sorry. There is no basis for a question of privilege; therefore, I cannot hear a second member.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to transgress the rules but it seems to me that it is incumbent on the minister to rise in his place and state that he was in error or that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in error. For the minister to sit there and say nothing certainly is contrary to the practices of the House. I am not questioning your Honour's ruling but surely the House is entitled to an explanation from the minister responsible for housing.


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. minister had risen before I ruled, I could have heard him; but since I have ruled that this is not a question of privilege and cannot be debated at this particular time, hon. members will have to take another opportunity to elucidate the matter.


Erik Nielsen: Tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation}

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, July 12, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston that Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Dollard):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, in the first part of my speech, I mentioned that inflation is at the root of our problems. I also mentioned a number of disastrous effects inflation was having on our society, and 1 said that it was because of this high inflation rate that our economy was in its present state, and that 1,300,000 Canadians were out of work. I also said that we were asking the nine million Canadians who were employed to help us protect their jobs and to find work for those Canadians who are unemployed today. I also mentioned that the government was spending $2 billion per month on its income redistribution programs. I also tried to illustrate what $1 billion represents. I could explain it another way, namely, that one billion seconds ago, the Second World War ended. One billion minutes ago, Jesus Christ was on earth and one billion hours ago, man was living in caves.

I was responding, Mr. Speaker, to the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, who says he could not understand how wage cuts could help get our economy moving. In this sense, I would like to quote a portion of a Financial Post article entitled "Wage restraint does matter". I might add that this also answers the challenge that was put to us yesterday by

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). The article states as follows:
In general, evidence of the need to moderate wage demands is all around us. Look, for example, at the U.S., our biggest customer. In the first quarter of 1982, U.S. wage settlements in the industrial sector average increases of only 2.2 per cent in the first year of contract. Excluding the teamsters and the auto workers, who accepted a wage freeze, the average increase was still an extraordinarily modest 6.8 per cent. For 1981, U.S. settlements in all sectors were about four percentage points below Canadian settlements. The U.S. federal civil service has been limited to a 4.8 per cent increase. In the face of these trends-and the wage restraint in other countries with which we must trade and compete-the reaction of Canadian labour leaders to Ottawa's proposals has been disappointing. In particular, the response so far of Canadian Labour Congress President Dennis McDermott, with personally offensive references to the Finance minister, and hints of a general strike, is a perfect example of just what we don't need.
I say to Mr. McDermott: "Do you think that by pricing ourselves out of the market through wage increases about double what they are in the United States, we are going to help our economy recover?" 1 might add that I was encouraged by the reaction of Mr. McDermott after his meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and I can only hope that this will carry through to a positive reaction on his part.
The federal government in its budget is facing reality. What the federal government has done is to show strong leadership, the kind of leadership our country needs and the kind of leadership that 1 am convinced Canadians will respond to in a very positive way. I would like to suggest to the members opposite, and particularly to those in the New Democratic Party, that they forget about criticizing our approach in order to try to win votes. I would say to them: "If you really want to help your constituents, you will encourage them to join the fight against inflation and to restrict their wage demands to 6 per cent."
There are countless suggestions, Mr. Speaker, as to how to solve our economic problems. The first difficult task, of course, was to select and put forth a plan of action. Strong leadership requires this and our government is providing it. It is time now for all Canadians collectively to adopt this policy and to win this battle.
It was suggested yesterday by the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) that this bill is unfair. I would like to remind him that it is going to be unfair only if the nine million Canadians who are working today refuse to co-operate, refuse to help us find jobs for those Canadians who are out of work. The hon. member is assuming that Canadians who are working will refuse us that help. He has adopted a negative attitude.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that when I was head of Canada Steamship Lines and I had to hire people, I looked for four things: first, their knowledge; second, their skill; third, their habits; and fourth, their attitude. No matter how good their knowledge was, how perfect their skill, how good their habits, if their attitude was negative they were absolutely worthless. I might say to the member for Kootenay West that under that program I could not have hired him.
As I said at the outset of my speech last night, I think this is probably the most important piece of legislation on which this House will have to pass.


James Ross Fulton: Is that why there are four Liberals here?


Louis R. Desmarais: Inflation has to be brought under control for the simple reason that the alternatives of more unemployment, higher interest rates and greater deficits are absolutely unthinkable.
Let me review some editorials which I think will help us make a few points. Under the headline "The Wrong Whipping boy" the Montreal Gazette of July 8 wrote the following:
There is nothing necessarily wrong with paying people a lot of money. What is wrong is to pay high wages and salaries that are not earned through increasingly efficient production. Canadian efficiency-our productivity-has been lagging dangerously behind that of competing nations.
Those hon. members who speak about our purchasing power have a tendency to forget about this principle.
On July 6 under the headline "Unemployment data should be a warning", The Globe and Mail stated:
The OECD, in a report on the Canadian economy last week, warned that Canada has poor prospects for restoring sustained and balanced economic growth as long as present trends continue-even if it turns out there is a recovery in export markets.
With a faster rate of inflation in Canada than in the United States and, contributing to the inflation problem, a markedly higher rate of increase in wage rates under collective agreements, this country is in a poor position to take advantage of any opportunities that may develop in export markets.
In the longer run, if pay increases under collective agreements do not soon move down to 6 or 7 per cent from a recent rate of about 12 per cent, Canada's job prospects must remain bleak. It would seem obvious that, if Western Europe lacks confidence in its ability to compete against Japan and the United States in high technology products and against Japan and the newly industrialized nations in labour intensive goods, then Canada has even more reason to worry.
Mr. Leo De Bever, who is a director for Chase Econometrics, was interviewed on the CBC as follows:
Is the 6 per cent solution in fact a solution to this sort of thing?
Mr. De Bever answered:
Well, I think so. Obviously, the key element in this budget that would make a lot of difference ... would be if the private sector were to agree with what the finance minister is asking for. The likelihood of that happening is obviously very small. I think there are a lot of people in this economy who would be willing to do what the finance minister says if they were assured that, say, 75 or 80 per cent of the population were in the same boat.
The second question by the CBC was the following:
You mean workers would be willing to accept that sort of thing?
The following is the answer:
I think so. I don't think anybody advocating large wage gains at this point is a friend of labour because ultimately those gains are going to be eroded. It would be much better if we all throttled back, if we all decided look, enough is enough. Let's just forget about making short-term gains. Let's just take that 5 per cent cut in standard of living that we would be accepting if we were going to go to 6 per cent. And let's get it over with. Let's get back on the track that is sustainable.
An article in the Montreal Gazette of June 29 by Hugh Anderson entitled "After three tries. MacEachen finally rates a pass" states:
July 13, 1982

The government plans to control what it has direct power over (its own employees' pay cheques), to influence pay and prices where it can do so indirectly (telephone bills and farm-product prices, for instance) and persuade or shame the rest of us into line.
There is even the promise that the pay of cabinet ministers, members of parliament and senators will actually be cut. That might make the whole thing popular enough to succeed.
I certainly hope so. Under the headline "Six per cent or bust", The Vancouver Sun of June 30 stated:
The proposed 6 per cent limit on public-service pay increases (to drop to 5 per cent next year) was essential. The provinces have to go along with it as well as with similar limits on cost increases for public services. Those in greatest need will get inflation-indexed assistance but everyone else will be fairly limited to 6 per cent increases in benefits.
But Mr. MacEachen has appealed only for voluntary controls in the private sector. Will Canadians respond? They should, but the battles this summer between labour and employers will probably be fierce and costly.
If the incomes policy works it will bring down inflation. Mr. MacEachen said the government will not budge from its tight monetary policy, which will also help in reducing inflation.
The final editorial is from the Regina Leader-Post and is entitled "New budget offers us chance to bind rather than bicker". It states:
The pay measure is a restriction of 6 per cent on federal salaries this year and 5 per cent next year. The opposition's quick support for this move was encouraging, for it suggests that the Conservatives intend to help, rather than impede, solution of the national crisis before it can become an economic disaster. That does not mean that there is not room for the opposition parties to make suggestions to fine-tune MacEachen's budget proposals. But with Canada facing the need to mobilize economically, this is the time for what the Americans call a bipartisan approach-make that tripartisan, if the NDP agrees-to provide expeditious passage of effective economic remedies.
I think we are entering a period of our history in which we have to fight for our lives. We have to fight to save this country, which will go down the drain economically unless we do something, I think we have to forget our bipartisanship. We have to get together. We cannot afford to lose this battle. 1 implore all Canadians wherever they may be to do their bit to help cure our economic ailments so that Canada can remain the best country in the world, which it is today.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a good deal of pleasure, albeit very anxious pleasure, to speak in this debate on Bill C-124 entitled the "Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act", a bill which provides legislative authority for public sector compensation restraint, the so-called six and five rule announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his budget speech on June 28. The bill would also restrict-in fact cut-the salaries of Members of Parliament and senators for the balance of the present fiscal year. Surprisingly, the bill also includes within its framework a provision which effectively eliminates the right of public servants in Canada to strike upon the expiry of their present collective agreements.
I noted with interest the remarks of the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Desmarais) who was partially correct in identifying the problem as inflation. He suggested that we must all form part of a positive initiative to reduce the toll that inflation is taking of society as a result of the devastating effects of unemployment, increasing business bankruptcies and related factors. Although the hon. member said the problem is caused
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
by inflation, he did not point out where inflation originates. I should like to point out to him that it is not wage earners or workers or taxpayers who cause inflation; it is governments that create inflation and it is governments that have the power to reduce or eliminate it.


Mr. Kelly:: Garbage!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who interrupts knows very well that it is governments that overprint the money supply in advance of election campaigns in order to be able to give away various goodies and gimmicks in an effort to coerce and mislead the voter. It is governments that subsequently raise taxes in a malicious and devious way, in total violation of their election promises.
I might single out this government in particular. It said it was going to hold the increase in the excise tax on gasoline to less than 14 cents per gallon. It is governments that allow the continuation of high interest rates, that borrow heavily and incur massive deficits to the extent that the financial requirements of the private sector cannot be raised. It is governments that create more and more Crown corporations and more and more means of intervention to frustrate, restrain and ultimately eliminate the private, competitive economy.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Dollard has left the chamber, Mr. Speaker. I think he should realize that if we in opposition sometimes appear negative-after all, it is our role to provide constructive criticism-it is because we do not always agree with the initiatives the government is taking. We most particularly do not agree with the suggestion that there is only one way to solve the problems confronting our economy and that that is the way of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance. Apparently it is to be six and five or we all go down together, and then we will be faced with controls, as the Prime Minister has threatened.
The suggestion of the hon. member for Dollard that anyone who speaks against the government's legislative program is taking a negative and pessimistic view is repulsive to members of the opposition. Some of us may feel that certain initiatives in Bill C-124 and in the budget are positive and good for the country. Yet, we are entitled to stand in this House and speak negatively or creatively to use a better word, about measures proposed by the government or about the lack of measures that we believe should be taken to deal with the current economic plight of the country. We agree that inflation is a serious problem for Canadians and that negative attitudes are bad. Incompetent leadership is worse, however, and that is what has brought this country to its economic knees.
The measures contained in Bill C-124 which would ensure that salary demands within the public service are limited to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year are, I believe, a small step in the right direction. They are certainly not fair and equitable in that they show no selectivity in terms of eliminating the wasteful practices of the government; nonetheless, they are a small step in the right direction. However, they

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
assume that every clerk, every employee, every deputy minister who receives this 6 per cent restriction is equally important to the goals of our nation and that, rather than eliminate the waste and inefficiency that exist in government, we should all equally pay the price. Although this is a small step in the right direction, it avoids the crucial and central reasons for our economic dilemma.
It is all well and good to bring in the 6 per cent and 5 per cent limits which in the projections for the fiscal year 1982-83 will save the government some $500 million, or an average of $1,000 for every public servant. Yet, in itself, $500 million is a very small amount when compared to the gross national product of the country which, even in a state of decline, is $300 billion. Because of the policies of the government and its inability to manage the economy, a 2 per cent decline in the gross national product is predicted for the coming fiscal year. That means a $6 billion decline in our net economic output. Will that be overcome by restraining increases in public service salaries by $500 million? The serious structural problems in our economy will cost the country over $6 billion in lost potential, just to maintain the same gross national product as last year. That is 12 times the savings in salaries expected as a result of this bill.
This bill and its parent, the budget of June 28, does not come to grips with the problem of a $6 billion decline in the gross national product. Even if the bill might be seen as a small step in the right direction, the savings will amount to but a pittance. It will not help us or the health of our ailing economy, nor create the jobs that are so desperately needed. Furthermore, it will not ensure that there will be equity for public service employees. Some people may be entitled to an increase higher than 6 per cent, but there are others whose salaries could justifiably be cut, including cabinet ministers whose salaries, I submit, should be cut to $1.
The budget of June 28 is based on economic intervention and redistribution of income by actions of the federal government. Instead of creating new wealth for all and placing emphasis on productive economics and finding ways to unburden the private sector, it is based upon redistribution, upon pessimism and upon a lowering of our expectations. This is the most bountiful nation in the world but we are not realizing our potential.
Many commentators on the budget, including the well-known columnist Mr. Don McGillivray, have said that we will not solve the problems of the economy by raising taxes once again. In spite of the $20 billion deficit and the dangerous implications of this for the country, we cannot continue to expect to raise taxes as a means of pulling Canada out of this difficult dilemma. Taxes are only a measure of the production of the country. If productivity is not increased, if the gross national product is not increased, if the return on an hour's labour is not increased, then we have no hope of solving our economic problems.
If we cannot encourage people to work harder and engage in more entrepreneurial enterprises, the gross national product and the tax flow to government will not be increased. The budget of November 12 increased taxes massively by $10
billion to $12 billion through several concealed devices. Through its deindexing provisions, the budget of June 28 raised the taxes paid by an average couple with two children and an income of roughly $25,000 per year by $1,000 over and above any inflationary increment.
Once again the government, which should have realized the errors of its ways from the damage caused by the budget of November 12, has brought in another budget which raises taxes. In raising taxes by more than the inflationary increment, it has the gall to tell Canadians, particularly public servants, that their incomes have to be restrained to something less than the inflationary increment. There is something seriously wrong, Mr. Speaker, in a government which approaches the problems of this nation in that way. This program, and the budget which encompasses it, creates more work for bureaucrats, creates more programs, and expands the centre of gravity here in Ottawa. To you, Mr. Speaker, that may be a welcome initiative, but to many of us representing other parts of Canada it is at the heart of our national dilemma.
The budget shows no understanding of the remedies needed for the fundamental structural problems plaguing our industrial and primary resource sectors. The government is preoccupied with cutting 5 per cent or 6 per cent from government payrolls and creating a bunch of new programs which will keep a lot more bureaucrats running around like squirrels, receiving applications, judging them, weighing them and comparing them with income tax records and StatsCan statistics. Then, after a panel sits in judgment on every application, perhaps there will be a decision made. All that does is delay things, Mr. Speaker, and add to the inefficiency of this government.
There is no mention, Mr. Speaker, in these current economic initiatives of the collapse of Alsands and what might have caused it. They do not mention that we would have had 30,000 more jobs in this country today had the Minister of Finance opposite and his NDP colleagues not brought down the Clark government in December, 1979. There is no mention of the cancellation of the Cold Lake project and the Alaska gas pipeline, or the decline of our manufacturing industries and productivity as measured by every index, as has been cited over and over again in this House.
We in this party, Mr. Speaker, want to see a positive attitude restored to Canadians. We want to see confidence restored in the decisions which affect the development of our economy. But we cannot see that happening as long as the government persists in wrong-headed initiatives. These show how incompetent the government is. It is unable to understand that our economy was built and is based on, and has thrived for more than a century because of, the business and private sectors.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, would be happy to stand up in this House and commend the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, or anyone else who would get up and say yes, maybe we made a few mistakes. Maybe some opposition members have been saying the right things for the last two years. Maybe
July 13, 1982

they are not all just a bunch of screaming radicals from Newfoundland, western Canada or the western Arctic. Maybe they do know something about the way the people out there feel about the values, initiatives and talents which can be brought to bear in resolving our national economic dilemma. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not hear that from members opposite. We certainly do not hear it from the Prime Minister, who admonishes us for not getting on to the six and five bandwagon. Well, I for one will be part of that bandwagon inasmuch as most Members of Parliament feel they are worth every dollar they earn around this place. But I would be much happier about it if this government had the competence and the courtesy to recognize that other people know something about economics and the dilemma that faces our nation.
We should be taking positive export-oriented initiatives, Mr. Speaker, instead of finding more gimmicky programs to redistribute the existing and ever-diminishing pool of wealth. The population is not diminishing, so why are we taking a protectionist position in terms of world economics and trade? Why are we cutting ourselves off from world markets while at the same time borrowing ourselves ever further into debt and obligations to lenders in the U.S. and elsewhere? If we are to believe, as the Prime Minister tells us, that all industrialized nations are in trouble, who are these lenders who are doing so well? Who is profiting because of our ignorance, Mr. Speaker?
I think many of us in this Elouse know.
A country, just like an individual, must produce more than it consumes if it is ever to support growth, prosperity and an optimistic outlook on the future. The country must produce more than it consumes and earn more than it spends, and that means we just cannot isolate ourselves from the world, as this government will eventually lead us to do when it brings in foreign exchange controls with the support of the NDP. We cannot afford to take that kind of small-minded outlook when we have more resources per capital than any other nation in the world. We have more natural and human talents than any other country in the world, but we are frittering them away because of an incompetent understanding of the way the country works.
The deficit is of severe concern to every Canadian, Mr. Speaker. When I was home shortly after the finance minister brought in his budgetary statement and announced that next year the deficit would be up from $10 billion to $20 billion, every person who approached me said: "$20 billion! They must be out of their minds. Our kids are going to have to pay for that. If we are spending that money to stimulate growth for a successful economy, why is it not developing that way? There must be something wrong in Ottawa."
The second thing they told me, Mr. Speaker, was to go back to Ottawa and find a way, one way or another, to get rid of the government. Members opposite know that because once in a while they do go home to their ridings. They know that every one of their seats is in a very precarious position at this point, along with their indexed pensions and everything else. They know that as soon as the people get the chance they are going to throw them out. If they cannot do it by parliamentary
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
means, Mr. Speaker-and this frightens me-they may resort to other tactics. It frightens me because of the implications for my family, my friends and my community. I see signs of violence in the initiatives reflected in Bill C-124 which, in order to avert a labour shutdown in the public service, brings in a measure which abolishes the right to strike. That is the measure of the government's lack of confidence in its ability to convince Canadians of the rightness of its policies.
If the government is so right, why can it not convince the people of Canada? The best way to do that would be to call a general election and let the people decide. Oh, hon. members laugh! They know what the consequences would be. They know that three-quarters of them would lose their seats. If the people were allowed to be the judge, they would throw them all out.


An hon. Member:: So simple.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening he would realize the problem is not so simple.


An hon. Member:: You are so simple.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It is not as simple as six and five. It has a lot to do with the fundamental mismanagement of our economy and a misunderstanding of the structural problems which are at the heart of our national economic dilemma.
There has been no clear-cut evidence, Mr. Speaker, in this budget, the previous budget, or in anything else this Prime Minister has done, that he cares about improving the efficiency of government or exercising restraint. It is absolutely unfair for the Government of Canada to ask people, starting with the public service, to restrain their salary expectations and then bring down a budget which has increased government spending 22 per cent over the last budget; to increase taxes far in excess of the rate of inflation, thereby contributing to inflation; or to allow interest rates to run out of control without any positive initiatives except a gimmicky program to hand back $3,000. There are no positive initiatives to eliminate waste in government or make senior public servants accountable. There is no attempt to eliminate the God-awful, foolish and extravagant throw-away programs that this government is so guilty of. I do not need to enumerate the whole list but I do want to give a few examples of why it is that in the future of this country Grit times will be known as hard times.
First is the metric promotion. Already over $60 million has been spent unnecessarily. If we had a healthy, buoyant, expanding economy, maybe we could afford that. But in addition to the $60 million spent on promotion, advertisement, brainwashing and brain-twisting people to accept the government's unwise initiatives, the businesses of Canada have had to incur major expenses to buy new scales and to convert their units of measurement. These businesses have had to go outside of Canada to obtain them because we do not supply the means to do that. It might be great for trade with France, Holland and West Germany, but it does not do Canada one bit of good.

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
That is the kind of foolish, extravagant and incompetent decision that is at the heart of our national dilemma.
Over $100 million has been spent in government advertising. Almost $1 million a day has been spent plastering our countryside with slogans like "A new Constitution for Canada"; "Working together", and so on. All of that garbage does not turn people on when they see interest rates out of sight and unemployment such that every person knows two or three friends or neighbours who are faced with that spectre.
Next is funding, and guarantees which must be purchased to buy insurance for loans to communist countries. Why are we doing that through the Export Development Corporation and other initiatives? I for one believe we should be encouraging far more trade. But if, for example, we extend an EDC guaranteed loan to build a new copper mine in Bolivia, I want to know what the benefits are to our Canadian engineering consulting community and how many dump trucks will be ordered from the United States and elsewhere to their specification in relation to the salaries generated in Canada. I want to know the impact of that on the world competitive situation. I want to know to what extent we are hamstringing our mining industry by encouraging our consultants with low-interest government guaranteed loans to go and do business and build new mining ventures in other parts of the world.
We are arguing vigorously at the United Nations through the Law of the Sea that we want to ensure adequate controls so that Canada's nickel mining industry is not adversely impacted by the drive to get on with seabed mining. We want to protect our Canadian mining industry, but while doing that, we are going about assisting and encouraging Canadian companies who want to open new mines in Bolivia, South America, Central Africa or wherever. I am in favour of that if someone would put the sums down on a piece of paper and come clean with the people of Canada, telling them how many jobs will be lost in return for the few hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue earned by consulting firms.
There is something that has bothered me for a long time, and I am glad to see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is in the House because the matter concerns her jurisdiction. 1 have a large family. I do not need to mention how many children I have, but my wife and I need the income we enjoy and we have always benefited by the family allowance. But I cannot understand why the government has not had the political courage to streamline the program of child tax benefits and spousal taxation on income received from family allowances. My wife receives family allowance cheques every month because we have children. I pay income tax on those moneys and then I have to declare child exemptions on my income tax. My wife has to file an application for child tax credits, which means filling out an income tax return.
That involves several different offices, several different bureaucrats, several different addresses and several pieces of paper. This costs the people of Canada an unnecessarily large amount of money. It is absolutely ridiculous that this government has not had the political courage to sort that situation out. It could be done by one annual tax credit payable to one
or other spouse. This would not proliferate and multiply the number of income tax returns for wives or husbands who do not work. But why did we encourage the virtual doubling-at least a 30 per cent increase-in the filling of income tax returns in the way the child tax credit was implemented?
It would have been far better if this government had had the smarts, the intelligence and the political will to rearrange the whole system so that one taxpayer could file for a tax credit for his or her children. You could get rid of the family allowance system, if necessary, which could be replaced with the equivalent or increased benefits to the parents of families. This could well be afforded because a huge amount of waste could be eliminated. We have taxpayers' money not going to the good of those who need it; it is going to support government bureaucrats who have a summer cottage in the Gatineau and a winter home in Florida. These people have indexed pensions and are anxious as heck to pass the age of 55 so they can retire early and go down to Florida in the winter and live in their cottage in the summer. That is where that money is going, instead of going to the parents, the children, the handicapped, the old age pensioners, the widows and the war veterans who are the ones who should be getting it.
This government lacks the political courage to restructure our whole social welfare system. This government should get rid of waste and inefficiency. This government does not have the courage to do that. I know members on all sides who are a little skeptical about family allowance. I do not say abolish it; I say supplement it. But let us extend it in a way that eliminates all the unnecessary waste and overlap in the present system. This government does not have the resolve to do that.
1 am talking about real measures of restraint which would have a substantial impact on the budgetary deficit of this country, not about $500 million cut by restraining public servants universally to a 6 per cent salary increase. They will still be able to look forward to having homes in Florida, their winter and summer trips. But that does not solve the problem of the guys in my riding whose businesses are collapsing. Nor does it solve the problems of those people in Port Alberni who do not have jobs in the pulp mill, or those unemployed in the mining industry in Labrador, Sudbury and Trail. Their jobs are gone for the summer and probably until next winter. This does not solve their problems one iota. Where are the guts, the political courage, that could bring about a real solution to this disastrous situation in Canada?
Canada is going to build a new embassy in Washington. That might be great. It is like the desire to have a new airport terminal that many people would like to see here in Ottawa. That may be desirable, but why do we not solve our economic problems first? Why is that embassy not put on hold? Why do we not send Arthur Erickson back to Vancouver? Pay him off if we have to, but stop the embassy, Mr. Speaker.
1 know what I am going to speak about next is a little sensitive here in Ottawa, but I understand the Prime Minister has promised $500 million to $800 million to build a new art gallery and a new national museum here. I like to entertain
July 13, 1982

people in Ottawa. It is the greatest city in the world other than Vancouver, and Richmond, from where 1 come. There are a lot of museums to see in Ottawa. People who come here have an awfully good time. Maybe they need something to look forward to in ten years' time when they come back. But right now this country cannot afford a national art gallery and a new museum when people out in my part of the country are hungry and are losing their homes.
Where is the courage to eliminate or delay those decisions? The government knows that it cannot delay these things because its members know they will not be in office for a long time after the next election. This government is playing for votes with the arts and the cultural community in this country, and that is wrong.
Next let me mention travel allowances for government employees and members. We all enjoy 52 trips a year. I think it is important that members be allowed to go home to their ridings. If you wanted to cut out some of the wasteful government spending, Mr. Speaker, maybe you could save a lot more than is being saved by restraining salaries by reducing the frequency of members' trips to their ridings. I think the Canadian people would understand that, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian people expect us to be here in Ottawa sorting out this horrendous problem. It is not just the $20 billion debt this year which means that every Canadian citizen has another $1,000 debt in their pocket. It is another $4,000 per capita because the gross public debt of the Government of Canada is $100 billion.
Why does this government not continue to sit in Ottawa? We do not have to go home quite as often. We still have our telephone privileges. We still have radio, television and newspapers. Why do we not take some of those kinds of initiatives I have mentioned? Where is the positive enthusiasm on the other side for them? I think some Liberal members would be happier staying in Ottawa these days than going home.
What about travel allowances for deputy ministers and senior bureaucrats who flit around the world? These have been mentioned by some of my colleagues. These people stay only at the best places and eat the best meals, and they travel first class if they are above a certain rank. Where are the guts to resolve that kind of waste?
I have another small example. The post office in Vancouver has had a customer service office for many years where people went in to get help with their mail. Gosh knows, they needed a lot of help! Now they have some ambitious young person with a cushy government position; she is friendly with the-well, I will not say more. But for some reason the customer service area in the Vancouver post office is undergoing a major transformation. Over $150,000 will be spent on new draperies and carpets to change that area into an employment centre.
People need to be employed in the country but not by the post office. We are told that the volume of mail has diminished considerably since the 30-cent stamp was introduced. We are now hearing, as we did in the House today, that the stamp price might be increased to 33 cents or 35 cents, but probably
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
in excess of 6 per cent. This is so that they can have new draperies, and carpets to boot, in the new employment centre in the Vancouver post office. Whoever made that foolish decision ought to be fired. Canadians cannot afford such extravagance at a time when there are hungry, hurting and unemployed people across the country.
Now let me turn to the area of government printing. I am fully sympathetic to the objectives and the implementation of the Official Languages Act. I think we could print every government document in both official languages and serve the needs of all Canadians in all parts of the country by having those documents available in either English or French. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we publish everything in both official languages in one volume, as in the case of documents which members receive in their offices. Usually they are back to front and we have to flip them upside down or turn them around.
I would be happier to pick the English or French version off the rack. This wastes high quality, polished Canadian bond paper which is an export product. We are burning it. Half the pages in everything we receive are read, and I doubt whether members even read 10 per cent of what they receive. Half of those pages are wasted; they are absolutely unnecessary. I have many constituents who have now adopted the practice of sending those documents back to me to send on to the minister. These are elected officials in my own riding. They cannot stand the sight of that absolutely unnecessary waste.
When we have the printing press and the typeset to print in either English or French, we could make documents half as thick. We could print many less copies because we would need approximately half as many copies to serve the same number of people. This is just another example of the foolish extravagance which the government does not have the courage or intelligence to confront.	,
Turning to the area of new cars for cabinet ministers, let me indicate that they ride around pretty comfortably. 1 do not envy them; I know they have many pressures on them and their lives, but why do they need new cars every year? Why are we not exporting cars? If we were building cars for export, we would not become involved in the type of mess in which we became involved with Iraq. We should really build cars for export the way the Japanese do; but no, we build cars for cabinet ministers because taxpayers like to see them ride around in comfort and style! Why does the government not cut the budget for the motor car allowances of ministers? I did not see such a provision in either of the last two budgets.
When I drive around Ottawa at night I see those glorious buildings across the river in Hull all lit up. All the lights are on, and there are probably a few on Parliament Hill as well. Why? Some people will say that hydro power is cheap and that Quebec provides it, but the Government of Canada and ultimately the people pay the bill for all those lights. We have a crisis in the country but the burning of lights and the setting off of fireworks does not give a stranger visiting the country any notion that we have a serious financial problem. However,

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
we know we have a problem and the government ought to have the courage to rectify that situation by turning out the lights every night. Some people say that those lights are on time clocks. Well, where the heck are the people who used to pull the switches? That is the problem; everything is on a time clock and no one really puts oneself out to help the country out of its national dilemma. Ultimately and finally that charge has to be registered with hon. members opposite, because they have the power of the vote in the Elouse and the authority to make such changes, but they do not have the political will to do so.
Why are we purchasing new Challenger jets for cabinet ministers to flit around the country with their friends? I rode in one of those a time or two and I noticed there were often quite a few ministerial aides and others riding along. They were treated pretty well. Now we will have more ministerial aides, more deputy ministers, more senators and others flying around in nice new Challenger jets. They were supposed to have been a product to make money for Canada. Let us export them, if they are any good at all, and make money for Canadians.
I was offended about a week or so after the new Constitution was proclaimed to see a man come down the hall outside my office and unload huge packages of junk; a nice fancy display kit which someone, who obtained the government contract, prepared to display all the fancy paraphernalia and printed material to proclaim the grandeur of the great constitutional coup of the Prime Minister. Why are Canadians being asked to pay for that and all other paraphernalia which we can ill afford at this particular time in our history?
Also there are flags and the pins. I like to give people little lapel pins, as we all do, at parades and on sports days, but right now we cannot afford them. It does not make a cent for Canadians. I am concerned about national pride, but I think Canadians would be more proud of their country if it were economically healthy and people were working. I do not think we need those fancy little desk flags with screw-in bases which are all packaged up in nice red and white boxes, most of which contain hot air. They are shipped out in rail cars to western Canada, for example to my constituency office. They are shipped in huge boxes which take up three-quarters of my office space. Why were those flags not neatly rolled up around little round sticks, with the bases in plastic bags, and shipped out that way? The reason is that the incompetent government has no understanding of value and value for money; it decreed that they should go out in those nice little red and white cardboard boxes. By the way, we do not need the boxes. They are manufactured from a lot of nice Canadian newsprint, pulp and paper from my province, which is being thrown away foolishly.
There are countless examples of waste in which the government could save money. We do not need bilingual games and records to encourage physical fitness, nor do we need maps issued by the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) at a time when we are faced with a serious economic dilemma. Of course, all these things are given away free.
I know I have to support this bill because we all have to show the resolve to bring about restraint, but I have only indicated one aspect of a much more severe problem. It might save the government $500 million. It does not make a dent in the $20 billion deficit, and it does not do anything about the $6 billion decline in our gross national product year over year from last year. Fundamentally I am irritated the most when government members stand and claim with such hypocrisy in the House that anyone who does not go along with them is negative, paranoid and pessimistic. I would be prepared to accept those allegations being part of the problem if hon. members opposite would also stand up and admit that they are part of the problem.
We have had the November budget of the Minister of Finance, the National Energy Program and 500 Crown corporations. These things are all part of the national problem. Also there is the foolish, extravagant waste on many unnecessary frills at this very grave time in our national history. These are really at the heart of our national dilemma.
I expect the government to take the lead. I hear it will raise the parking fees at Vancouver International Airport by 50 per cent this year. I think that would be foolish. I expect the price at Petro-Canada pumps will rise far in excess of the rate of inflation; I think that is wrong. Government must show its commitment to restraint.
I will resume my seat momentarily, but is it fair to ask public service employees and the workers of Canada to exercise restraint while the government allows continual increases in personal income taxes which destabilize and contribute negatively to our economic growth? It allows increases in income tax, in energy taxes, in interest rates and in user charges for government services. This cannot go on.
In conclusion, I must say that if the government does not wake up and listen to the message from Canadians, if the government does not stop painting everyone else as villains but looks at itself in the mirror, the people of Canada will rise up and throw the Liberal Party out of office for so long that we will not know what was the Liberal Party.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-124 is the most immoral and divisive bill which I have witnessed since being elected to the House in 1979. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) presented what he called a solidarity budget. Bill C-124 is the reverse of solidarity. This bill will victimize one group of workers in Canada, those in the public service, by imposing wage controls, by prohibiting collective bargaining, by denying the right to strike as last resort, and by denying constitutional rights to women workers.
The misnamed solidarity budget cut back cost of living increases for pensioners, and for families receiving family allowances. Under Bill C-124, the government will bring in wage controls and cut back wage increases to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year for public service employees. Of
July 13, 1982

course, as we know, the budget did nothing to control profits or to control prices. It offered no economic policies to deal with the causes of inflation or to increase consumerism, productivity and permanent jobs, not just temporary, make-work kinds of projects.
Bill C-124 mocks the very principle of solidarity as people know it in the honoured labour movement. The only solidarity that exists, as far as I can see, is the solidarity between the Tories and the Liberals, all of whom are in favour of wage controls. We will fight this bill just as long as possible. We will continue to oppose it in co-operation with the labour movement in Canada.
My colleagues have covered many of the general criticisms we have concerning Bill C-124. In the time allotted to me, I would like to summarize some of these points and then concentrate primarily on Bill C-124 as it affects women workers in the public sector and, of course, as it affects women workers across Canada.
There are a number of myths which the government and its allies in the private sector have promoted concerning workers' wages and public servants. First of all, Bill C-124 is based on the false premise that controlling wages will reduce inflation. This point was proven to be fallacious in the past. Wage controls under the Anti-Inflation Board did not reduce inflation. During the four years of wage controls, wages were reduced from 20 per cent to 7 per cent while inflation went down only about 1 per cent during that four-year period. This proves that controlling wages will not have a significant impact on inflation, yet the government for some strange reason is determined to play games on the backs of public service employees.
Second, the government introduced no policies to counteract the causes of inflation, no industrial strategy, no price controls, no controls on profits and no reduction of interest rates. This is the main inflationary policy which makes it so difficult for workers to survive. Instead, the government has once again used workers as scapegoats. As a build-up to this situation, both the Liberals and the Tories, as well as the capitalists in our society, have been promoting political propaganda. There has been a deliberate campaign to mislead the public, to encourage people to think that wage controls are a solution and that it is the civil servants who cause inflation.
The worst aspect of Bill C-124 is that it takes away collective bargaining rights, bargaining rights which we were assured by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), I might say, would be retained and guaranteed under the Constitution. Since he is here today, I would like to refer him back to the proceedings of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, issue 43, page 69, wherein the Solicitor General stated:
Our position on the suggestion that there be a specific reference to freedom to organize and bargain collectively is that it is already covered in the freedom of association that is provided already in the declaration or in the charter.
The Solicitor General was apparently on weak ground since his own government is now ignoring the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the freedom of association provision. In effect, it
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
is taking away all collective bargaining rights from public servants for a period of at least two years.
Another myth which has been promoted is that public service wage increases are higher than those in the private sector. Here again, the facts show that public service wages have consistently been lower than those in the private sector. In 1978, private sector wages increased by 7.7 per cent while public service wages increased by only 6.7 per cent. During the first quarter of this year, private sector wages increased by 12.3 per cent and public service wages increased by 11.5 per cent. Public service wages, then, have lagged behind those in the private sector, yet this is the sector which the government has chosen for wage controls. Of course, these wage controls in the public sector are just the first target, which the government hopes will be expanded to include all Canadian workers.
The fifth myth is that wage increases have been higher than inflation. Here again, if we look at the facts we learn that not once has the percentage of wage increases in the public service been equal to the consumer price index. It is, then, apparent that wage increases, which have been won only after very hard bargaining on the part of public service unions, have been a response to inflation. They have not been the cause of it. They have been a method by which public service workers and workers throughout the country have tried to survive so that they could raise their families, pay for their groceries and live in times when the cost of living is so high. As I said earlier, the government must get at the causes rather than penalizing the victims of inflation. But of course, we know from history that it will not do it.
Finally, Bill C-124 is a bullying bill, brought in by a bullying government. The government has picked on pensioners and families in its budget, and now it is picking on workers under Bill C-124. This comes at the very time, of course, when negotiations in the public service sector are crucial, because the next two years will be the years when high technological change will be greatly increased and the impact on public employees will be very great, particularly on women employees. Instead of analysing the causes and developing positive solutions, the government again projects the blame on a scapegoat. I want to point out that psychiatrists describe this kind of sickness as a "projection mechanism", putting the blame on someone else instead of facing and trying to solve one's own problems. Therefore, it is typical of the government, a sick government, to use a sick syndrome, typical of a very sick situation which it has created itself and with which it cannot cope.
I now want to focus on Bill C-124 as it affects women workers in the public service in particular. We believe that the hardest impact will be felt by women because they are the lowest wage earners in the public service. On July 6 I questioned the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) in the House, stating that the lowest wage earners are women and that they will therefore be the hardest hit by the government's wage controls. Many single parents need increases in order to put food on the table. As hon. members will recall, the minister

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
responded by saying: "Our intention is to bring inflation down to 6 per cent"-he was quoting the Prime Minister-"in which case no one will suffer."
Well, is that not a nice platitude? We all know that he is dreaming because past experience shows that wage controls will not have any appreciable impact on inflation. Therefore, workers, particularly women workers with very low rates of pay, will receive an increase of 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year. Women workers in the public service who are ghettoized in the lowest paid secretarial and service-type jobs will have their wage increases slashed by about 50 per cent over the next year. A Public Service Commission report entitled "Women in the Canadian Public Service, 1980", states that, compared to the total population in the public service, women are unrepresented in all occupational categories except the administrative support group, a category in which the lowest paid occupations are found. This means that 70 per cent of public service jobs paying $10,000 and under are held by women. Some of these female public servants earn under $5 an hour. Many of them are trying to raise a family on their own. Either there is no other wage earner in the household, or perhaps the other partner is unemployed. Therefore, they are living at the poverty level. These are employees of the people of Canada. These are the workers whom the government, through this bill, will cut back even further with wage increases of 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent the year after.
Let us look at some of the figures. Of approximately 268,000 public servants, 35.6 per cent are women. Sixty per cent of those women workers are in teaching, nursing, clerical and secretarial occupations, hardly the kind of occupation that pays a luxury salary. Women represent 54 per cent of employees earning under $18,000. Only 12.4 per cent of all employees earn over $22,000. Most women workers earn far below the average income in the public service.
I now want to talk about the clerks. There are 50,000 clerks in the public service. Most are women employees. Many face job loss as a result of technological change. The average wage for a typist last year was $11,000. Many of these are single parents trying to raise a family on their own. They face increasingly high costs.
The situation is similar in the provincial public sector. I recently read an article about a male clerk in the province of Quebec who, after calculating his income and family costs, said that he would have more take-home pay if he were on welfare compared to his wages in the provincial public service. Last night the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) gave a number of examples of women he had talked to in skilled, service-oriented jobs who are in desperate financial straits. Let us not kid ourselves: we are not talking about high-priced executives, Members of Parliament and judges when we talk of the impact of this bill. We are talking about 50,000 female clerks who simply cannot stretch their pay cheques. It is a myth that the majority of public servants are overpaid.
I now want to deal with what has happened to clerks in recent years. In 1980 the CRs in the public service, mostly female clerks, organized and negotiated. After not having been able to negotiate wage increases that they desperately needed and deserved, for the first time in their history they went on strike for better wages. It was a first. It took a hell of a lot of guts for women workers who had no experience with that kind of activity. They picketed for several weeks, negotiated and eventually won.
That was not easy. It is not easy for workers at the low end of the pay scale, who are insecure about their jobs and have families to support, to go out on strike. That was the last thing they wanted to do. Finally, they realized it was the only way they were going to be recognized in order to negotiate for salaries that would begin to bring them up to the levels they deserved. I congratulate those public service workers and their brothers and sisters in the labour movement who supported them.
As a result of that strike action, public service clerical workers won a 16 per cent settlement, bringing some of their salaries to $10,000 or $11,000. However, that settlement was for last year. This year they are due for a 12.5 per cent settlement. It was promised to them by Treasury Board, with the President of the Treasury Board kicking and screaming all the way to the bank. The same man who is bringing in this bill has consistently opposed progressive policies that would benefit female employees.
What will happen now? Their employer, the head of the Treasury Board, has betrayed them. They bargained in good faith and won. Under Bill C-124, these rights and promises will be taken away from them. Instead of the 12.5 per cent raise which was negotiated and which they were promised for next fall, they will get only 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent the year after. They are going backward instead of forward in that category of jobs where workers are grossly underpaid.
Bill C-124 is an outright attack by the Liberal government on labour, especially low-paid women workers. It is a deliberate attack on these 50,000 clerks who fought so hard to get a decent wage. It is a union-breaking tactic that this government is bringing in designed to undermine organized labour, collective bargaining and the right to strike, which is so essential as a last resort, as I illustrated, for workers such as these female clerks. Those rights are gone for two years.
Coming back to the cost of living, we hear the argument that costs will be down to 6 per cent and everything will be rosy. Workers will get a 6 per cent increase next fall. They will be able to cover everything as though there was no change or reduction in their pay increase. I wonder how many Liberals have gone shopping lately. I wonder how many are paying off mortgages. Today we heard the minister responsible for Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation again trying to present his wishful thinking as government policy. We know that mortgage renewals are costing many workers 65 per cent of their wages, especially those with a one-year renewal contract. The last policy brought in gives no benefit to these workers.
July 13, 1982

Rents are going up. I will be very surprised if anything is done to reduce them by next fall. When a woman goes to the grocery store, she finds that food prices are up 9 per cent. General Foods will not bring down the price of groceries by next fall. Even though the government is trying to penalize farmers and fishermen by controlling their income, transportation costs and home heating costs are going up. They have been going up continuously. Energy costs will rise by 24 per cent as a result of deliberate government policy.
There is little money left in the family cheque for child care. Of course, working parents cannot deduct the cost of child care for income tax purposes. Obviously there is little money left for clothing. There is no money left for holidays for the woman worker struggling to raise her family. Bill C-124 will reduce wages by 6 per cent, bringing the wages of women even lower. They are already the lowest paid employees in the public service, and most will remain in those ghettos.
The next concern about this bill as it affects women workers in the public service-and this is an example of workers in all sectors of the economy-is the whole question of affirmative action rights, the right to equal job oportunities in the public service for men and women. Affirmative action will not be negotiated under Bill C-124. This is a very serious aspect of this bill. At first, people may not think so. However, I hope that members will think about it very seriously. It will restrict the chance for women to have equal jobs in the public service and equal rates of pay at the very time when an increasing number of women are being, or are about to be, laid off because of technological change.
Let us not kid ourselves: there are changes in every public department in practically every office which has anything to do with government services. In those offices, of course, are the women workers who will be laid off or through attrition are not being replaced. So it is most important that there be very firm affirmative action policies in place so that the jobs that are here are equally shared and together men and women can work for protection for workers in a positive way to counteract the negative effects of technological change.
In my question to the minister on July 6, I accused the President of the Treasury Board of denying women workers the right to bargain for affirmative action. I do not think he really heard or chose to hear the question; certainly he avoided answering it. Undoubtedly he is embarrassed by the very disgraceful record of this government on affirmative action.
It was the Treasury Board and, of course, the President of the Treasury Board who were supposed to be providing the leadership to establish a whole new progressive policy of affirmative action. You will recall that they started in three public departments, one of them being Treasury Board. They started a study and were going to implement changes that would be a model for all of Canada. Mr. Speaker, nothing whatsoever has happened. We have studies. We have had studies before. We know what few jobs in the higher paid category there are for women, but nothing is being done about it. Under Bill C-124 there will be no collective bargaining, so
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
workers and unions will have no chance. They will be prohibited from negotiating strongly for this very essential policy that we must have in the public service.
Let us look at all the facts concerning women in public service fields of employment. An excellent article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on July 9. I recommend it to all hon. members. The article quoted the Public Service Commission Annual Report. It stated that only 4.3 per cent of public service executives, the top-ranking employees, are women. Only 4.3 per cent after all these years. Also, there are very few women in middle-management positions. Only 3.1 per cent of those earning over $50,000 are women. This represents an actual decrease over the past year, not an increase under affirmative action but a decrease. There has been almost no change in the position of women in the higher paid jobs in the public service from the 1970s, despite the many competent and experienced women who are in the public service and who should have opportunities for advancement.
According to Bonnie Carroll, who is from the Public Service Alliance, the equal opportunities program has not gone far enough. As a matter of fact, she says, it has not even gone anywhere. There is no teeth in it. There has been a rather polite program. She stated that in effect there has been no improvement in equal opportunities for women in the public service field.
This is really a very sad commentary, Mr. Speaker, on a government which has heard from so many women's groups, and from men as well, across the country who fought for equal rights in the Constitution. There were women who came back a second time to have Section 28 reinstated so that the provinces and the federal government could not override Section 15. It is a very sad commentary for ministers and leading departments who gave lip service to affirmative action and said that it must be compulsory.
Time and time again on this side of the House-at least, in this party, not in the party to our right-we have questioned those same ministers about affirmative action and asked what they were going to do to make it compulsory. The only way to ensure equal rights for women in the workplace is really to have mandatory affirmative action. At first there were three members who stood up, including the minister responsible for the status of women, and said: "We are all for mandatory affirmative action; we need it in the public service departments themselves and in government departments and we also need it in private sectors."
We pushed them on this and asked: "Every time you give out a government contract, why cannot you require affirmative action as part of the deal you have with the private sector, who are getting these jobs and getting paid by government?" However, how long did they stand up and really try to fight for mandatory affirmative action? No time at all. Very quickly after cabinet ministers had laid down the law-and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) undoubtedly-the minister responsible for the status of women was saying: "We really cannot do this right now; we cannot be too tough on the private

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
employees, we have to wait for this two or three-year study in the public departments, so we really cannot get on with affirmative action."
Therefore, it is not really surprising that this government, supported by the official opposition to my right, has brought in Bill C-124. It will protect the regressive status quo for women workers. It will prevent unions from bargaining aggressively for affirmative action to give women an equal place in the federal work force.
What about equal pay for work of equal value? I mentioned this in the House the other day, and the government side responded, obviously concerned about this, the day after. This is a major right which is threatened by Bill C-124. I have already documented the low wages which are paid to most women workers in the public service who work in job ghettos. However, not only do women not have an opportunity for advancement, but they are often paid lower wages than those of men working in similar types of jobs.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last year a very significant battle was won when 3,000 general service workers, most of them female workers, won equal pay for work of equal value under the provisions of the Canada Human Rights Act. This was a very historic decision. The President of the Treasury Board, the instigator of this bill we are debating today, after first refusing to comply with the decision of the Human Rights Commission, was eventually forced to pay out $17 million in back pay to these service workers. Many of them were workers in cafeterias and in maintenance jobs. They had been paid some $2,000 to $3,000 less than male workers in similar categories. Female librarians also last year fought and won their case for pay equal to male librarians.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, there is a very important case before the Human Rights Commission, which we hope will rule in favour of hospital workers. Many hospital workers are female workers, of course, and are on very low rates of pay. There is very serious concern that under Bill C-124, Clause 8, this whole case before the Human Rights Commission, which is an equal pay for work of equal value case, will be endangered. Clauses 6 and 8 of this bill state that all other government acts can be overruled, so presumably Section 11(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act itself will be overruled. The government may even override the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, which supposedly protects women against discrimination based on sex.
On July 7 the minister, attempting to clarify my question of the previous day, said that he would move on to enforce this section. Wookie-doo! In view of his past record of broken promises where women's rights are involved, we are very seriously concerned that his word is not good enough. I am sure the women of Canada are concerned, and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women I know are equally concerned.
The minister must withdraw the bill, since it is so harmful to public service workers in many respects. Legal advisers of NAC are also concerned that this bill contravenes the Human
Rights Act. Even if the minister amends the bill, the question of the rights of employees in Crown corporations still remains. Crown corporations might very well appeal this measure and have the Human Rights Act provision overruled.
If the minister is serious in his proclamations, he will not just amend this bill but withdraw it in favour of women workers and public service workers generally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Women are becoming increasingly disenchanted with the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), who happens also to have a secondary portfolio tacked on-her responsibility for the status of women. She is the minister of mines who undermines women. This minister is an all-talk-noaction minister. It is time she realized that charm and PR are simply not enough to advance women's rights in Canada.
I want to put on the record today at least five different incidents. This minister was appointed to work aggressively for the improvement of the status of women in Canada. She has made promises which she has either broken or on which she has refused to act in any meaningful way.
First, there was the whole Constitution debate. The minister reponsible for the status of women said to women who came to her that they should not worry. She did not say "dear," but it almost sounded like that. She told them the government would look after them and that Section 15 is all right. She told them she did not think they needed to worry that the provinces would override equal rights for women. Fortunately, the ad hoc women, who organized and were very expert on this question, realized the minister was wrong and they fought hard to get Section 28 in the Constitution.
Second is the question of pensions. This is the minister who took a very tough stand and promised action on women's pensions within one year. As we all know, this is a very urgently needed reform because pensioners are suffering. Women pensioners in particular are suffering, especially those living alone who in most cases are living below the poverty line. However, it is this particular minister who has supported this budget and this bill which would cut back cost of living indexing for pensioners. This, of course, will hit women pensioners the hardest because they are the poorest group.
Third, the minister promised to rescind Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act, which discriminates against Indian women. Nothing has happened in that regard and, if the minister does not start soon, nothing ever will.
Fourth, the minister came out strongly in favour of mandatory affirmative action and then backed down and said: "We can't do it."
Finally, the minister has said she supports Bill C-124. In fact, in the past she has said that women in the public sector are "doing nicely" compared with women in the private sector. However, figures tell us that women in the public sector are doing exactly the same as, or perhaps even worse than, those in
July 13, 1982

the private sector because they are still in occupationally segregated job ghettos. This is reflected in their pay scales, just as it is in the private sector. This minister has a lot of accounting to do to the women of Canada.
In the time I have left I want to refer to other changes in this bill which will be particularly hard on women workers. Many, many collective bargaining rights will be denied by Bill C-124. Women will be denied the right to negotiate health and safety matters and particularly the whole impact of VDTs and similar kinds of electronic equipment which pose very serious health risks, particularly for women workers. Women workers are faced with spending long hours working at this equipment and in environmental conditions which are quite dangerous and a risk to their health. It is essential, then, that unions on behalf of all workers, and particularly women workers, bargain collectively for safe and healthy working conditions and job security, which is threatened by technological change. This will not be allowed under Bill C-124.
Recently I attended a conference on technological change. The conference was about women and the impact of microtechnology. It was held here in Ottawa on June 25. Women came from all across Canada representing many organizations. At the end of the conference they endorsed a charter of rights to protect workers from the impacts of technological changes. I want to refer to the seven points they endorsed. I feel very strongly about them, and I know my party will feel they should be part of collective agreements with the federal government right now.
The first point is that all technological changes must be negotiated between unions and management. Bill C-124 will not allow that.
Second, employers are responsible to inform workers about all proposed technological changes. Workers and unions must have access to all information about types of change, types of equipment proposed and the likely health effects.
Third, there should be no reduction in the work force because of technological change, and the federal government has a responsibility to protect the jobs of women in particular.
Fourth, employers should be compelled to invest in retraining. The federal government must be planning and retraining workers who will be phased out of their present jobs for new skills and for non-traditional areas of work so that they will have jobs in the future.
Fifth, there must be limits on deskilling. Jobs must be broken down into smaller components.
Sixth, there must be strong health and safety protections.
Seventh-and this is very important for all federal departments-technological changes must be introduced step by step and phased in rather than being instituted all at once, allowing no chance for negotiations and planning on matters which involve workers and their unions.
I urge the federal government to adopt this charter. That is unlikely to happen because we do not believe the minister when he says his voluntary association for employees and
Adjournment Motion
members will work out these problems. That is ridiculous. We know the government is the employer and has control. Any employer which would introduce this kind of bill certainly does not have the interests of workers at heart.
Another thing which will not be negotiable is parental leave. Over the past couple of years two public unions have won paid maternity leave for women workers after very tough fights. We know this would not have happened if these women had not had their unions and if they had not been militant about it. Under Bill C-124 parents who want and need time off for the birth of a child and for early parenting will have no union rights to negotiate for this. It is the dark ages again under Trudeau, MacEachen and Johnston. There will be loss of benefits in all areas and there will be no chance for workers to negotiate for these.


Norman Kelly: There will be no loss of benefits.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The crucial time to ensure sound planning for technological changes is right now. We are too late even now, but over the next two years it is crucial. Civil liberties are being endangered as well. People are becoming appendages to machines. The federal government should be leading and demonstrating good work conditions and also showing other communities what kinds of things are needed to humanize our communities and to have progressive planning rather than retrogressive controls.
In conclusion, I just want to say again that Bill C-124 is a retrogressive, tyrannical piece of legislation which cuts workers' pay. Of course, there are no cuts or controls on prices and real inflation. The bill denies workers their rights to collective bargaining. It contravenes the Canadian Human Rights Act. It will further restrict women workers to low-paying job ghettos and, in fact, probably will boot many of them out into the field of unemployment. The bill would prevent positive negotiations and planning for the devastating impact which may come as a result of technological change. The bill is a typical attempt by this government to victimize workers and make them scapegoats in an economic situation the government created but for which it has no solutions. Wage controls and denial of collective bargaining rights will not reduce inflation, we know that. Only a positive economic policy for economic recovery will do this. We will never support Bill C-124. It should not be amended; it should be withdrawn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before 1 recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Kelly) on a point of order, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Papros-ki)-The Press-Payment of Government Account to Ethnic Newspaper; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Labour Conditions-Health and Safety of Workers under Federal Jurisdiction; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Social Security-Request for Increase in Benefits.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston that Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, if there is time remaining in the hon. lady's speech, may I ask her if she may have unintentionally misled the House. She stated that as a result of Bill C-124, workers would lose their benefits and many female workers would lose their jobs. May I ask if I heard her make those statements and, if she did make them, if she meant them?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The time of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) expired at 4:59 p.m. It would require the unanimous consent of the House to allow her to answer. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: If the hon. member was listening, I think that throughout my remarks I illustrated that women are facing a terrible situation in the public service. They are facing unemployment and will be laid off as a result of technological change. This bill prevents them from bargaining collectively.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
unions. He does not say it directly; he just implies that those people are causing the problems to a great extent and we have to move in and control them.
It is easy to adopt the Prime Minister's attitude. It is very easy to take advantage of the backlash against the public service of Canada because in some cases wage increases have been out of line. In many cases people in the public service are receiving salaries greater than they would in the private sector. But that is not to say that the public service is the author of the economic misfortune we have in Canada. We have to be very careful when we look at legislative measures such as Bill C-124 to try to remedy this situation. We want to be very careful that the prescription is directed at the right patient. We do not want simply to assume that the public service is contributing to inflation and by crushing down on the public service we are going to limit or in any way control inflation. I do not believe that, and I do not think too many members of this House really believe that if we do that, there will be any great changes taking place in Canada.
I can say without any fear of contradiction that what we really have to establish in Canada is a spirit of voluntary restraint. We have to convince Canadians that spending by government has gone too far and has to be limited or our inflation will continue.
However, Mr. Speaker, we do have to convince Canadians first of the correctness of a course of action. We have to ask Canadians to participate voluntarily in applying a remedy, which of course involves limited wage increases. But using legislation to ram it down the throats of Canadians has very small chance of working. In fact, it will work only if Canadians in the public service and the private sector willingly co-operate in what the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) described as a crusade. It is unfortunate that he used the terminology "a crusade". I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from my reading of history, that no one was conscripted into a crusade. They were asked to volunteer because a crusade, by definition, appealed to those who believed in its purpose, that is what a crusade is, and I cannot point out the error of the government's ways any better than that. The government uses the word "crusade" to apply to a mandatory program of wage controls when the whole purpose of a crusade is to understand it, believe in it, endorse it, and participate voluntarily.
The government has sunk so low that it cannot make that kind of appeal any more. It cannot call in the leaders of the public service and say: "Will you co-operate with us in a crusade for the betterment of Canada and Canadians?" This government has sunk so low and the regard in which the government is held by the public service is at such a level that that kind of rapport cannot take place. That is a shame and that is the shame of this legislation, because Canadians, the Government of Canada and its employees cannot get together to resolve an evident problem. Instead, the problem has to be resolved by force of legislation.
I want to look very briefly at the background of the public service. I have said that there was an idea abroad in Canada that the public service, over a long period of time, has forced its salaries and benefits upward beyond those provided in the private sector. I do not know what the exact scientific comparisons are today, but I can tell you this, that the federal public service won the right to bargain collectively only in 1967. The process has been going on for only 15 years.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act was passed on February 14, 1967. The history of this process is quite recent. Not only that, the Liberal Government of Canada in 1977 through the medium of Bill C-28 and again in 1978 through the medium of Bill C-22 tried to break that collective bargaining process. In 1977 and 1978 we went through a process which was known among those concerned with the process as federal public service bashing.
The provisions of Bill C-28 in 1977 and Bill C-22 in 1978 were designed to provide another method of determining the salaries of federal public servants beyond the collective bargaining process. The device to be used was a pay research board which would determine each public servant's salary and what each class of public servant's salary ought to be. I well remember the outcry and uproar that came from the public servants and their representatives against these two bills. Many of us sat down and talked to them about these provisions and it transpired that there was a tremendous need for consultation in these areas, because the only way to resolve labour difficulties is through a consultative process.
I would have thought that the Liberal Government of Canada, through its experiences in 1977 and 1978 with its amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, would have learned a lesson. I would have thought that the Liberal government would have learned that the way to get along with the Public Service of Canada is to consult with its representatives, not to present legislative measures and then try to ram them down their throats. That only invites confrontation and opposition. Apparently the Liberal government has not learned that lesson. Apparently the Liberal Government of Canada has not learned anything from its sad performance in past years and from its deteriorating relationships with the Public Service of Canada, because here we are faced with Bill C-124 at a time when all Canadians are agreeable to restraint measures.
Canadians have finally realized, and it took a $20 billion deficit to make them realize, that the federal government is spending too much money, and this is causing problems for all Canadians. It causes problems when Canadians go to the bank to borrow for a new car. It causes problems when home owners' mortgages expire and renewals must be negotiated. This situation is causing problems right across the economy for small-business men, farmers and fishermen. The Government of Canada is in the market borrowing too much money and this is driving interest rates upward. The provincial governments are right there beside the federal government at the same trough. In that situation, what chance has the consumer,
July 13, 1982

the home owner, the small-business man, the farmer or the fisherman to pay the kind of interest rates which this demand on the market creates?
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, 1 think Canadians are beginning to get some grasp of these problems and are realizing that there is a solution to them. It may well be that, properly approached, not only public servants but all those in the private sector could be convinced that the way out and the solution is certainly, in part, restraint on wage increases.
I have no difficulty explaining to Canadians to whom I speak that it is much better to receive a 6 per cent increase and have an inflation rate of 6 per cent than to receive a 10 per cent increase with an inflation rate of 11 per cent. I do not think you have to take too much time to explain that because with the experience Canadians have had over the last decade, the deteriorating value of the dollar, the dramatic increases in food and services, the dramatic increases in the cost of housing and other essential things, they now realize a dollar is no longer worth a dollar. It is not even worth 40 cents any more.
I think the time has now come in Canada when you can reach out and tell Canadians what is happening and deal with them in a realistic way. The real point is, do you do that by beating their heads with a hammer, or by convincing them that the right course of action is to exercise constraint on a volunteer basis? But that kind of opportunity unfortunately was thrown away by the introduction of budgetary measures of the Minister of Finance on June 28 and by the legislation that he will introduce to implement them. Bill C-124 is only the first step.
I have to remind my colleagues to the left in the New Democratic Party that they did the Public Service of Canada and all organized labour in Canada a disservice when they objected to the inclusion in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of a provision that would guarantee property and related rights to all Canadians. Because if the Public Service Alliance and other public service unions had a guarantee of property rights and related rights through a constitutional provision, the Government of Canada would not now be able to reverse those contracts as it intends to do.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member would like to know that it was the premiers who opposed property rights being included in the charter.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, you learn something every day. I guess that means the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), was aspiring to be a premier in Canada. He was the one who spoke in my hearing against the inclusion of property rights in the Constitution.


Mr. Riis:: But he voted in favour of it.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, whether we blame members of the New Democratic Party or whether we blame the premiers of Canada-of course, the hon. member was probably talking about the NDP Premier of Saskatchewan, as he then was-the
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
fact of the matter is that failure to include property and related rights in the Constitution is creating a difficulty for organized labour in Canada today.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Property rights have been in the British North America Act since 1867. They are still there. They will continue to be there and they will probably always be there. They fall into the purview of the provinces. There has been no change as a result of the constitutional amendment made last year. The people of Canada should keep that clear in their minds as well.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, you learn something every day. I leave grain growing and transportation matters to people of the west. Maybe the people of the west should leave constitutional expertise to some other people because that, simply stated, is not true. However, those people have to bear the burden, not us.
I am one of those who was in favour of the inclusion of property and related rights in the Constitution of Canada. If those rights had been included in the Constitution and if I were representing a public service union today, I could say today to the Prime Minister of Canada: "You are not imposing wage restraints on me because I have a guarantee of my rights through a contract. That guarantee, through that contract, is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; this House of Commons cannot take that right away because it does not have that right."


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, but I was wondering whether he would entertain a question.


Howard Edward Crosby: At the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker. Before I was interrupted by a series of comments by hon. members of the New Democratic Party, I had begun to talk about the Canadian Constitution and its effect on property and related rights, which include the collective bargaining process.


James Ross Fulton: You voted for it; tell the truth.


Howard Edward Crosby: 1 voted for freedom of information too.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You voted for the Constitution.


Howard Edward Crosby: Let me go on record as saying that I am in favour of legislation which is generally beneficial although it may have some flaws. I work to improve legislation like the freedom of information legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I want them to be enacted, I want Canadians to have the benefit of those provisions which are beneficial. I am not like the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who held up, in the House of Commons and in the committee of the House of Commons, the freedom of information legislation to the point where it was not going to be passed. Canadians have suffered for the last year and a half because the hon. member for Burnaby, a member of the New Democratic Party, stood in committee and refused to allow passage of that bill which would have given all kinds of

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Canadians access to all kinds of information. This is what we call cutting off your nose to spite your face: to refuse to deal with a minor provision of a large piece of legislation. I want to make it very clear to members of the New Democratic Party that I do not believe in that approach. I believe that if it is basically good I am prepared to support it.
As the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker said, "You don't follow rabbit tracks when you are after big game", so I will get back to Bill C-124 and deal with each provision which may be found to be onerous by a great many public servants. This bill not only affects 500,000 public servants, including those in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Armed Forces and others employed by Crown corporations and agencies, but it affects public servants in provincial spheres and eventually it will affect public servants in municipal spheres. I believe that it will have an effect upon all institutional employees across Canada, whose institutions are supported by government funds. That includes hospitals, universities and a wide variety of similar institutions. When we talk about the Canadians affected by this bill, we are not talking about the 500,000 federal public servants, including members of the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces, we are talking about another
500,000	Canadians, 300,000 of whom are in provincial public services and 200,000 of whom are in municipal services. In addition, we are talking about probably another 500,000 persons who are employed in institutions like hospitals and post-secondary educational institutions as well as public schools.
There is a broad interest and concern with this bill. It is for that reason that it demands serious consideration by all members of the House. Also it demands us to inquire whether the provisions of the bill are fair and proper in the circumstances. This is the question which I now want to address-is this bill and its provisions fair and proper in the circumstances?
Of course, and unfortunately for the Government of Canada, for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and for the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) who flies back and forth wasting money all the time, the bill is not fair. It is patently unfair because it takes a 6 per cent criterion and applies it to a deputy minister receiving $100,000 per year. It takes the same 6 per cent criterion and applies it to a clerk making $13,000, $14,000 or $15,000 per year, if there are any of those people in the Public Service of Canada any more. How can we support a provision which says that the government will limit Michael Pitfield to a $6,000 increase and at the same time limits a $15,000 per year clerk to the same 6 per cent increase? It is patently unfair.
I do not think anyone on the government side of the House would dare stand up and say that that kind of legislative provision is fair. How could they possibly say that it is fair? They know that lower level employees, those receiving less funds from the federal public service, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and all federal corporations, are battling against an inflation rate which is over 12 per cent. They are battling in some places to renew their mortgages at 19 per cent, 20 per cent and 21 per cent.
They are battling with increases in true prices. They are battling to pay increased transportation costs, increased costs of transportation fuels. They know the problem exists, so how can they go to these people and say that they will be giving them the same wage increase limit as they are giving Mr. Michael Pitfield who was already paid $110,000 when he left his job, whom they already sent all over the world and flew down to Boston to visit his family, and who was given all those benefits, which he has probably blown away, amounting to $100,000 or $200,000? How can they apply the same rule to these two persons?
When the Government of Canada tries to do something like that, no wonder public service unions and labour representatives of the public service rise up and complain. No wonder they send around material to Members of Parliament and form an Inter-Union Committee Against Wage Controls. No wonder they complain that Bill C-124 violates International Labour Organization conventions. No wonder they are upset. No wonder they are contemplating actions which would probably be detrimental not only to the public service itself but to all Canadians. They recognize that that kind of unfairness is patent and cannot be tolerated. If they take that kind of action and do not react to it, they know that they will be emasculating their organizations for all times.
What about the other side of the coin? Are public servants to rise up and revolt through their union representatives? Are they to join with the Canadian Labour Congress and Mr. Dennis McDermott and knock down the walls of Parliament in order to get the government to change its view? We certainly do not want that, and we certainly do not encourage any such confrontations. But they should not back someone into the corner. They should allow them some room within which to manoeuvre. That room could have been given to the public service in the form of allowing for some kind of graduated scale of increases which would take into account the large amounts received by those at the top. Also it could have taken into account the small amounts received by those at the bottom. But to force upon the public service an across-the-board 6 per cent limit is to challenge them and to say, "We will make you the scapegoats of our restraint program; we will organize public opinion against you, the public servant." It will not help them, it will not help Canadians. It will not help the private sector or even those executive officers of private corporations who think that there may be some benefit to setting an example and that they will be able to use the same guidelines. It will not work that way because, if we do not know anything else about constitutional law, we know that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
That is what will happen in the public service if these restrictions and restraints are forced upon its employees. They will simply cut back and will not produce. They will find methods not to comply with the commands of their superiors and at the same time to avoid loss of employment. It will set a pattern in the public service which will bring the country, if not to a standstill then something very close to it.
The government has taken a very dangerous course of action. Given the course of action which the government has
July 13, 1982

taken, one which is obviously wrong in the sense that it wipes away 15 years of effective collective bargaining and wipes away any sense of comparability or fairness in wage packages,
I say to members of the public service inside or outside the House that they must realize the level to which the Government of Canada has sunk. I say to them, "Do not blame Parliament or Canadians for what is happening to the Public Service of Canada. It is the fault of the Government of Canada." As I said, it simply indicates the level to which the government, that group of persons, has sunk that it would try this kind of action.
What is the hope for the future? The hope for the future is that in two years' time-and hopefully earlier-there will be a general election and the people of Canada will no longer have to put up with the government and its errant ways. Then the public service will be able to look forward to a situation in the future in which it will be treated in a decent and fair manner by the government of the day, which will not be the Liberal government. Also I suggest to the public service and its leaders that they should not react violently without regard for the welfare of other Canadians faced with the piece of legislation contained in Bill C-124. But consider beyond the narrow and short-term future to a future in which they will perhaps see a different kind of government, a different kind of attitude on the part of government, a different respect for employees of the Government of Canada, a government that will recognize the value of consultation and recognize that the way for an employer to deal with an employee is to sit down and work out the problems which may exist between them for the benefit of all Canadians, not only for that of the employer and employee.
I would like to close with just one example of a relationship between an employer and his employees that came to the point of total collapse. It concerned the Canadian postal service. What did this Parliament do? We terminated the Canadian postal service and created a new corporation called Canada Post. I want to look around this House and the nation and ask everyone whether they can see any difference in the service provided by Canada Post since its creation. I see no difference in the service, and I do not mean to criticize its management, nor do I want to criticize my postman, your postman and the postal employees upon whom I must depend a great deal of the time. The fact is, there is no difference in the service.
The point I want to make is that these kinds of changes are superficial and meaningless. When one is dealing with people, it must be on a proper basis. One must respect the people with whom one is dealing. One must listen to their opinions and respect their judgments. One must deal with them on a humane basis. One cannot merely bring into the House of Commons a piece of paper saying that one will do this and that, because people will not pay any attention to pieces of paper. What people pay attention to are sensible rules and regulations. What employees pay attention to is an employer who provides sensible rules and regulations governing the
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
terms and conditions of their employment and their remuneration. Unless the Government of Canada learns that lesson, unless it sits down with the public service and enacts sensible rules and regulations governing their employment and remuneration, there will be no peace in the Public Service of Canada. The message I want to bring to Members of Parliament is that the way to a solution is through consultation, not through arbitrary, statutory action.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Does time permit me to ask a short question of the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Sure!


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question is twofold, really just for clarification, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask whether or not the hon. member indicated in his remarks that during the discussions on the Constitution the provincial premiers, acting together, were one of the moving forces behind the exclusion of property rights from the Constitution? My second question is whether he did or did not vote in favour of the Constitution motion when it came before this House.


Howard Edward Crosby: The hon. member ought to know, in the first place, that it is a matter of record as to how one person votes in the House; but if he is too lazy to check the record, I can tell him. I voted in favour of the constitutional provisions. I am proud of that. However, if I were to explain that, I would say that I think in terms of the greater good. I do not take the position of members of the New Democratic Party, like that of the hon. member for Burnaby. I have no desire to hold up progress for days, weeks or months, or even a year and a half, and deprive Canadians who think of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as being a benefit to them of that benefit. But with respect to the premiers, I suppose there is a difficult situation experienced by some premiers in that. Property and civil rights have traditionally been within provincial jurisdiction. The provinces of Canada regulate property and civil rights. The inclusion in the Charter of a provision guaranteeing property and related rights might have been seen by someone, probably the Premier of Saskatchewan at the time, who embraced the New Democratic Party philosophy-


An hon. Member:: Prince Edward Island.


Howard Edward Crosby: -as an intrusion on the civil rights jurisdiction of that province.


An hon. Member:: Nova Scotia.


Howard Edward Crosby: For that reason, its inclusion was opposed. I respect the view expressed by some provincial representatives at the time. I can understand how a province might consider the inclusion of a property and related rights provision in a constitutional document as being an intrusion on their rights. But in that respect, I would personally support a greater authority which gives to all Canadians, in one document, the right to hold property and to retain whatever rights flow to them from a negotiated contract or similar document.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I know we will find great interest in seeing how Howard votes on this bill.

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
It is clear 1 am rising to speak against Bill C-124. I do not hide in a lot of rhetoric how I plan to vote on this piece of legislation. I make it clear from the very start because it seems to be a weapon for use against inflation, but it is certainly far from that. It is certainly no more than a vicious attack on the clerical staff, teachers, policemen, military personnel and others who provide much needed public services across Canada. They as a group are already paid below what their contemporaries receive in the private sector. There is no doubt that wage demands are a factor in the process of inflation. However, the 11 per cent inflation we find today is, at root, a social phenomenon. It results from a wide array of social problems in our economy and in society generally. It is a reflection of the competition and the process of distribution of the total goods and services produced in Canada.
Any effective solution for dealing with inflation must attack the problem at its roots in the underlying structure of our economy. The open adoption of the monetarist and neoKeynesian solution by the Liberals and Conservatives at this time clearly defines for Canadians the fundamental difference in approach taken by the NDP on economic matters. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) says, "Successive reductions in money income demands will be required year by year if declining inflation is to be achieved", many Canadians are right in rejecting such rubbish. It is clear beyond any doubt that the road to economic security is predicated upon a much greater degree of democratic control over basic investment decisions which determine the timing and direction of our economic growth.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to place on the record some facts about Bill C-124, contrary to what hon. members involved in the Liberal-Tory coalition have been doing here today. It has been clear from the very start in the comments of the leaders of the Liberal and Tory parties that those parties support the smashing of collective rights. Joe says that it is a step in the right direction and Pierre says that it is necessary to show that he is serious. Well, if isolating less than 5 per cent of the work force for economic punishment is fairness and leadership, then those two parties have more serious problems of political dishonesty and senility than most Canadians have suspected to date. Why not isolate men between the ages of 40 and 45, 5'10" tall, weighing 165 pounds, with brown hair and blue eyes, to be the victims? It is in that very metaphor that the truth lies. It is in polls, used extensively by the right wing parties in this country, to support their ill-founded theories. Many Canadians believe that public servants are lazy, stupid, overpaid, overpensioned, in positions where they cannot be fired, with unlimited job security.


Howard Edward Crosby: It is the New Democratic Party which thinks that.


James Ross Fulton: My friend, the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), says that it is Tory policy. That is very interesting. But today I have had an opportunity to meet with the representatives of the trade unions of CN, and I found that the problem which has been created by Bill C-124 in relation to the collective agreement jointly shared with CP will create an
incredible amount of chaos on the railroads and in the transportation sector of this country. It will do untold harm, not only to grain shipments out of Canada but also to interpersonal relationships between railroaders. It has long been held that they all bargain in terms of a private sector agreement, and some very unfortunate incidents will occur in relation to railroads as a result of Bill C-124.
Before I was interrupted by the hon. member, I was pointing out that many Canadians believe that public servants do not do a great deal of work, that they cannot be fired and have unlimited job security. Many of these same Canadians who believe that sleep a little better if they know the public servants are having to accept lower pay and suffer, even if unfairly, at the hands of government. However, let us look behind the myths. I noticed here today quite a few smirking faces among the Liberals and the Conservatives. They know how right I am that the honesty of Bill C-124 is not the issue. The politics of supporting it and collecting the public credit is all that the Liberal-Tory coalition is about.
Let us look for a moment at a public servant earning $12,000 a year. That is not at all uncommon either here in Ottawa or across the country. Next year, rather than getting an increase tied to inflation, he or she will get 6 per cent. If that person has a loan on a car at 20 per cent or 21 per cent, it will still be at 20 per cent or 21 per cent next year. A mortgage will likely run in the low 20 per cent range. Inflation has been introduced structurally into the Canadian economy, and that fact was accepted in all the figures put before this house by the Minister of Finance. It is for that reason we have to look very carefully at Bill C-124 and the philosophy that is behind it.
Forcing that individual to take a real loss in income for a sixth and seventh year in a row is both savage and unnecessary. The business community has somewhat reluctantly come forward again to praise Bill C-124 as a good start, much as the Conservatives have. Sure profits are generally down, and when they are down, business is very co-operative with government, looking for any handouts, loans, legislation or whatever they can get their hands on. It is a different story when the economy is flush. Business is quick to move capital out of the reach of workers and government alike.
The public and workers must help bail out Massey-Fergu-son, Dome, Imperial, Consolidated Computer-a loss which alone would be able to provide the financial and wage requirements for the existing public service contracts. The list is endless. When has a corporation in this country ever given the public purse a comparable return to what they take when times are hard? It is not likely and it is not ever likely as long as the Liberal-Tory coalition is in power in this country.
How long will it be before Joe and Pierre come out of the closet, or should I say Allan and John, the friendly financiers? How long before we see the coalition of various and sundry right-wingers as we have in British Columbia? After all,
July 13, 1982

Socreds are nothing more than an unhealthy alliance of Liberals and Conservatives.
How many of those same Canadians who dislike public servants are aware of the fact that in this session alone the Tories have voted 33 times to keep the Liberals in power? The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) 1 am sure feels very guilty, being the only Tory here to carry the blame for his party for having continually supported the government, keeping it in power day after day after day. I wonder if your constituents know, Frank, how dearly you love to keep Pierre Trudeau in office.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair let it go by the first time, but this is the third time the hon. member has used individual names. We sometimes hear them referred to as Mr., but certainly not by their first names. I therefore ask the hon. member to refer to other hon. members by their constituencies.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to remind the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who likes to throw around names, what happened on that crucial evening in December 1979. It was his party which helped to put this government back in power. It, in turn, is dispensing all the misery we are now suffering. It was his party which made that crucial decision.


Mr. Kaplan:: Good old Bob Rae!


James Ross Fulton: I am always pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. He knows it was the people of Canada who threw them out. The problem was that his House leader did not know how to count. He could not go one, two, three, four, five, and so on. The Tories do a lot of crying about why they were thrown out of power, but they do not acknowledge that it was democracy that threw them out of power. This is democracy. Many people in this country will be glad to be rid of them, and will soon be glad to get rid of that other group so that we can get the New Democrats over there.
How many of those same Canadians who dislike public servants are aware of the fact that in this session the Tories have voted 43 times to keep the government in power? I have corrected the record, Mr. Speaker. How many Canadians are aware that there is an informal agreement between the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) representing the Conservatives and the Liberals in this House in business and on legislation? Bill C-124 is just another example.
The Tories are playing both sides of the street. They say that to isolate the public servants is unfair, as we just heard from the hon. member for Halifax West, but that it is a step in the right direction. It is unfair and a step in the right direction. How far would they go? That is something we all need to ask ourselves. The Liberals are so deep in the swamp of intellectual and political dishonesty that to describe their integrity as a roorback is a compliment.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Let us look for a moment at the bill and see what is in it. In the application section we see under subclause (1) that it is going to apply to employees in all departments or ministries of state of the Government of Canada, boards, commissions or corporations, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Senate and the House of Commons. Subclause 2 applies to staffs of ministers of the Crown and of members of the House of Commons and the Senate. The third subclause applies to persons appointed by the governor in council. Clause 4, the extension section, reads:
Every compensation plan that is in effect on June 28, 1982 for employees to whom this part applies, including every compensation plan extended under Section 5, shall be extended for the period of twenty-four months.
Then we get to a couple of interesting sections. Clause 6(2) is called an exception. It reads:
The Treasury Board may, where it deems it appropriate, authorize any change to any terms and conditions, other than wage rates, of a compensation plan that would, but for Section 5, have expired before June 28, 1982.
Perhaps, for the learning experience of the Liberals and Tories still in the chamber, they should read that clause and get some understanding of it. It means that Treasury Board can change the actual working components of a collective agreement, not just wages alone. It is called contract busting.
Then there is Clause 13 which is when, as a result of the six and five policies, in some areas of the public service sector, we get to the point where there is no one left in some areas of the departments, special powers are given to Treasury Board. It states as follows:
The governor in council may, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, by order,
(a) substitute, in respect of a compensation plan or a class of compensation
plans, a percentage different from that set out in paragraph 9(1 )(b), where he
considers it in the public interest to do so on grounds of labour shortages;
Employees can be hired above the six and five, but only after those departments have been completely bilked by a rate of attrition. It is interesting, in looking back on the public record, as I have been doing in the last few days, to see what was said by all parties in this House about collective bargaining and the right to strike during the rise in popularity of Solidarity in Poland. The Liberals and Conservatives all touted themselves as the true supporters of trade unions, touted their policy that trade unions were the fundamental basis or cornerstone of freedom, particularly in the Eastern Bloc.
They have now received word that the Gallup poll reveals otherwise in Canada, and there goes their support. Their bottom line is that collective bargaining and the right to strike is good for the Soviet Union but not so good for Canada. When Commie-bashing is in, the Tories are all up on their feet and so are the Liberals. At that point human rights and collective rights are the order of the day. When profits are down and the Gallup shifts in Canada, so too goes the rightwing Liberal-Tory coalition.
Opinion polls do in fact show that two out of three Canadians believe that unions are too powerful, this opinion being a result of continued misinformation provided to the public by the media, the government and big business. When was the

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
last time a group of loggers, or fishermen owned The Globe and Mail? Liberal and Tory governments particularly like to bargain in bad faith and to introduce bills such as Bill C-124. They love to dare public service unions to strike or fight back. They know that only the public will be hurt, and the public has historically always blamed the unions, not the government. That seems to be a quick way of trying to get back into office.
Thus we start to see the reason behind Bill C-124. It is not to try to bring down inflation, not to bring down interest rates, not to show the way for the settlement of private contracts for the next two years. The reasoning is tragically dishonest. Union-busting is popular with the public, and the Liberals are clutching at anything because they have allowed our national economy to reach the stage where in fact for many it has already collapsed. I will call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) had the floor.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to continue speaking against Bill C-124, and I hope that in the days and weeks coming we will have an opportunity to hear from the Liberals and the Conservatives as to why they support this legislation. With 1.3 million unemployed officially and perhaps another 1 million out of work, there are four or five times the number out of work as there are affected by Bill C-124. Rather than argue the merits of a major plan for job creation or economic stimulation, we are here in this House debating the values of punishing public servants for the mistakes of an incompetent government.
What kind of politicians, Mr. Speaker, single out the victims to blame? This kind of action, taking purchasing power away from workers and consumers, is not even a stopgap measure. It is precisely the same kind of chiselling as in the budget, taking $1.3 billion away from low and middle-income earners by hiking the income tax. Bill C-124 is, in my view, a floater, to assess public reaction to full-blown wage controls. This is a plan that no doubt the Liberals are hurriedly preparing for the October Speech from the Throne.
The slide and the depression over the summer will simply add fuel to the false premises of the Liberals and Conservatives that the root of the problem we have in Canada is wages. It is clear beyond any doubt that the high interest rates and the fundamental structure of Canada's externally manipulated economy are the cause of our problems. Cynically to manipulate public opinion into believing that wage controls will refloat Canada's economy is reprehensible.
The Department of Finance has been actively preparing the ground to save the face of the Minister of Finance from further sand and gravel burns with such documents as "Setting the Climate for Wage Controls". That document said, in part: "A strategy of controls could only be contemplated if the country was widely recognized as facing a major emergency."
Let us head on into the seedier side of this issue. Who stands to profit from continued high interest rates, the demolition of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and wage controls? First, let us look at who encourages support for the high interest rates. It is none other than the Minister of Finance, with his 19.5 per cent Canada Savings Bonds. What better way for a street dealer in economic misery to find the equivalent of a downtown Vancouver junkie? It is a quick "fix" for a collapsing government and a psychological introduction of acceptance and desire for higher rates to tens of thousands of Canadians. Who really benefits from the higher rate? Only about 5 per cent of Canadians who have surplus thousands or millions of dollars to put in the bank. Who pays so that they can profit? The public servants, the workers, small business, the home owners, all pay roughly 20 per cent on borrowed money. This trend, Mr. Speaker, leads to a major realignment in the economy, with a small group gaining enormous economic advantage during times of inflation, high unemployment and general recession.
Wage controls simply shift part of the burden of a floundering, poorly-planned economy onto the backs of working and unemployed Canadians. It is high time that those corporations that have been shovelling billions of dollars in profits and dividends out of Canada, brought some back and helped to revitalize the economy that they have played a major role in upsetting. In one recent five-year period, Mr. Speaker, some of the large corporations took $32 billion worth of capital gain in Canada out of the country. Surely no thinking Canadian blames the problems of Massey-Ferguson on the meagre pay packet of the worker who instals tractor engines or sets the hydraulics on farm machinery? Surely it is time management took their share of the rap, and sat down with labour leaders, workers and small business and mapped out a means of bringing this economy into the twentieth century.
Why are interest rates three times those of Japan and West Germany? They are three times the interest rates and now almost three times the percentage of unemployed. Why is nothing done when the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs finds that the oil companies have ripped us off for $12 billion at the gas pump in recent years? Therein lies the answer, or at least part of it.
Let us look for a moment at restraint measures in the boardroom. I am sure many members to my right and across the floor have had a look at these, but I think it is worth putting them on the record, Mr. Speaker. For example, the President of Alcan, David Culver, received $392,000 in 1980, and his vision of restraint took him to $532,000 in wages last year, a jump of $ 140,000 in one year.
July 13, 1982

Bell Canada, who want a 25 per cent increase, certainly found that in the boardroom. Mr. Grandpre went from $514,000 to $626,00 in one year. Canadian Pacific, Mr. Burbidge, went from $318,000 to $457,000 in the last two years. Falconbridge Nickel, Mr. Cooper, did not get quite as much, but he went from $132,000 to $252,000 in one year, a jump of almost 100 per cent in pay. Husky Oil, Mr. L. M. Rasmussen, went from $296,000 to $378,000. There is a real kind of restraint. Ranger Oil, Mr. Pierce, went from $233,000 to $398,000. Westcoast Transmission, a good British Columbia company, Mr. E. Phillips, went from $257,000 to $444,000.
If that is restraint in the boardroom I would like to meet with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and say: "Wage controls on those Canadians earning $12,000 or less is really the way to go, to get in there and take that out of the hides of the poorly paid clerks and public service staff."
Economists have noted that, "This recession has been unique in serveral respects. An examination of the cause of the downturn rather than its effect show it to be a recession deliberately brought about and fostered by government to a degree that has not occurred before." That is a quotation from Peter Cook of The Globe and Mail of April 17, 1982.
The Liberals and the Conservatives both operate now, Mr. Speaker, on opinion polls-no matter if the polls reflect the basic misunderstanding of facts. The 1982 Goldfarb report said the following, and I am sure that this is the foundation stone of Bill C-124: "There is a desire to see some measure of punishment of the civil service ... a feeling that it is some sort of elite group . . . that has insulated itself from the hard economic realities of the day."
Some examples are deserving of scrutiny so that all members of this House, when they vote for or against this bill, will know why. Here are some examples from salaries in 1981: typists in the public sector, $11,658, and in the private sector on average, $12,226; labourers in the public sector, $15,611, and in the private sector, $17,197; financial administrators, public sector, $40,458, and in the private sector, $52,002. Pay scales, Mr. Speaker, in the public sector are consistently lower than in the private sector.
The Prime Minister demonstrated his government's total insincerity in Banff on June 20 of this year by saying that he would "scare the hell out of people by creating more unemployment," if they failed to respond to his dictates. In the past week the Prime Minister has threatened mandatory controls, denied the threat, apologized for the threat, and then restated the threat. We are dealing with the same Liberal-Conservative strategy as in 1974-75, a campaign promise not to bring in controls and then swiftly bring in wage controls.
This government, hand in hand with the Tories in this House and with all the provinces except Manitoba, is deliberately bringing in policies which put people out of work. We have a staggering 1.3 million out of work officially and another
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
1 million unofficially out of work because they are no longer collecting unemployment insurance or are on the "active list".
Bill C-124 breaks existing contracts; let us not forget that, especially when the impact will be to push some federal employees, such as clerks, below the poverty line. I am sure hon. members of this House have seen recent articles respecting members of the public service who have gone to welfare offices across the country and, in fact, get more take-home pay by being on welfare than working for the public service. This happens in the military as well.
By contrast, let any Liberal or Tory rise and inform this House of a 6 per cent or 5 per cent rollback of loans, mortgages, oil prices, electricity, water, rent or anything else. And let us not forget that there are eight Tory premiers who support this kind of thinking wholeheartedly. There is silence, and perhaps for good reason. There are some interesting parallels between the Liberals and the Conservatives on economic direction and high interest rates. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the previous minister of finance in the Tory government, said the following in a CTV interview on June 7, 1981:
Yes I would continue to back Mr. Bouey. I agree that our interest rates have to track those in the United States.
The previous prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), was reported by The Toronto Star on May 5 of this year as saying:
We have looked for a solution other than the government's, but we couldn't come up with an alternative ... At this moment I don't have a better solution.
No doubt the Leader of the Opposition is having trouble with his leadership.
On honesty in federal politics, on "The Watson Report" on February 4, 1979, the hon. member for St. John's West said:
-our leaders have got to be a little less honest ... we're not being devious and tricky enough ... I am criticizing us for that.
What kind of political animal would say those things? The same previous minister of finance said, as recorded in Macleans magazine of July 12, 1982, that the government:
-is adrift; it has no answers. If I told you what I would do, we'd never get elected.
That is good Tory policy for you.
On controls on wages, the previous prime minister said the following on July 5 of this year:
What is in the budget? There is one important initiative-the introduction of restraint on public sector salaries.
Day after day we have seen Tories trying to dance around the issue. They have tried to speak in their ridings on behalf of the public service, yet knowing full well that the whips will be on and they will all have to vote for this Neanderthal legislation.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to say:
That is a field in which the government has lagged behind several Canadian provinces. We are relieved that it is beginning to accept that government spending is a major cause of current economic problems ... it is a step in the right direction.

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
That is Tory policy on Bill C-124. The Tories cannot dance around that any longer.
This kind of one-sided back-alley bludgeoning of collective agreements will, in my view, introduce a new and potentially explosive ingredient in employee-employer relations in this land. In my previous employment in the courts of B.C. and as a shop steward with a public service union I came to understand and appreciate the logo I think many of us know that justice must be done and be seen to be done. Bill C-124 is a completely unfounded Neanderthal approach to economics. Slamming the hands of the public service in the doorjamb may bring cries of support from some sectors of Canadian society; however, being seen to be just is a far cry from being just.
A 6 per cent rollback of the salary of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), whom I am glad to see here tonight, is more money than many Canadians make in a year. Let me give an example of the impact of the June 28 budget and Bill C-124 on a relatively well-paid federal employee. A clerk with two dependants earning $20,000 by 1984 will see the controls of 6 per cent and 5 per cent cost her $2,204 in salary. A 52 per cent increase in UIC premiums will cost another $300. Loss of full indexing of family allowance will cost another $104. Increasing taxes as a result of partial deindexing will cost another $450. A slight gain is the $100 child tax credit increase. All of this means a total cut over the next two years of $2,958, or 15 per cent of the original $20,000 salary. I just wonder how many Liberals and Tories will go back to their constituencies and say that is not a scandalous chopping of the public service they say they support.
The shoe, however, is on the other foot when it comes to higher income earners. The Liberal proposal is to offer investors taxation only on that return on investment which exceeds inflation. Thus, an investment of $20,000 at 12.2 per cent when inflation is running at 11 per cent would mean $2,200 of investment income would be protected from tax. At a marginal tax rate of 50 per cent this would mean a reduction in taxes of about $1,100.
It is clear that the advice given to the Liberals and accepted by them and the Tories is to control wages in the public sector first and then across the board this fall, thus increasing available capital to government and big business. Small business, workers, the elderly and the unemployed are expected to live on what they can find. High interest rates and low levels of taxation will allow an accelerated accumulation of capital, real estate and whatever by a small economic elite. It is no small coincidence that this group is similar to the list of campaign contributors to the Liberals and Conservatives.
In conclusion, let me touch on the highlights of the Reagan-Thatcher-Trudeau-Clark proposals.
Fact: Over 11 per cent of the work force is unemployed and, despite the expenditure of more federal funds in my riding, for example, in the past year and in the coming year than in any other federal riding in Canada, we now have 25 per cent unemployment due to accompanying federal policies. Nationally, industrial production is down 10 per cent. Real income is
down 10 per cent since 1976 and plant utilization is down 30 per cent, in some regions 50 per cent and in some industries, such as mining and forestry now, down 100 per cent.
The intent of the budget and Bill C-124 is to cause this income decline to accelerate, and that is based on quotes I have taken directly from the Minister of Finance.
The source of the current recession is an economic philosophy and practice, not Washington alone and not the cracked crystal ball of the Minister of Finance alone. When Canadians come to realize-and I truly hope it will not be from a dusty history book ten years from now-that this phony legislation of the Liberal-Tory coalition is designed to protect the wealthy few and some chosen business sectors, then the will and the sentiment of the country to be sovereign, secure and peaceful and to have a cornerstone of free collective bargaining will be unleashed, and most members of the Liberal-Tory coalition here today will be voted out of office.
Bill C-124 is a slice out of federal workers. Big business will demand extension of it by the Liberal-Tory coalition to all workers so that they can finance their corporate debt and liquidity problems. The question is whether workers, small business, the unemployed and the elderly will stand idly by while they lose their homes, their jobs and their dreams.
Also within Bill C-124 is the disposal of the right to strike. I think what the impact of removing this right from the public service means is important and worthy of very serious consideration. There is no doubt that the strike is the most misunderstood of social activities in Canada. Surveys historically have consistently concluded that Canadians view strikes as an abuse of union power and a restriction on their access to goods and services. There is however, no ready replacement for this tool. There is no less combative way of settling labour-management disputes. Many Canadians support removal of the right to strike from public service unions. In fact, some Canadians- as a matter of fact, some members to my right-support legislating unions out of existence completely.


Mr. Murphy:: Make a distinction.


James Ross Fulton: The far right, the Tories.
The myths which have allowed such opinions to develop require close scrutiny. It is a fact of history that unions have reduced the numbers of strikes globally. Deprived of unions, what useful vehicle would there be for the peaceful settlement of disputes over health and safety, technological change or many of the issues affecting workers every day when they are at work? Strikes would proliferate at a rate previously unknown in this country. Production and co-operation in the public sector may be lost already to absenteeism, staff turnover, slow-downs, shoddy work and so forth. If we take an hour's pay away from a worker without making consistent changes to the cost of living, we must expect-in fact we are encouraging-chaos. Something Liberal members should take into consideration when blindly supporting this legislation is that it will cause a chaos we probably have not seen in the public sector in the history of this country.
July 13, 1982

Strikes have been going on on this planet for the past 8,000 years, ever since the workers constructing the pyramids in Egypt walked off the job. Those countries governed by dictatorships which tightly control unions suffer from serious production losses due to unresolved employer-employee conflicts. Removal of the right to strike from public service unions is totally unacceptable. It is an invitation to civil disobedience.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think members of the House might be interested in a couple of quotations that I should like to put on the record. The first is the words of Pope John Paul II who said:
The justice of any socioeconomic system deserves in the final analysis to be evaluated by the way in which work is properly compensated ... The organization of workers into unions is necessary to protect the rights of workers, especially the right to a just wage ... In this connection, workers should be assured the right to strike, without being subjected to personal penal sanctions for taking part in a strike.
Another interesting quotation comes from a well known labour mediator, Dr. Noel Hall, who said:
There's no sense in talking about banning strikes in the public sector. That will not make labour unrest disappear. All we would be doing is passing a law that otherwise good, law-abiding citizens would ignore . . . Nor is the answer to impose compulsory arbitration. The real problem with both methods is that they come dangerously close to a system of compulsory employment. We would be telling people: "You must set your alarm clock. You must get up. And you must go to work." Are we really willing to issue this kind of order?
When the Liberal and Conservative members rise to vote for this legislation, as they seem intent on doing, I hope that they will keep in mind that they are encouraging many of the
500,000	people in the public service unions of this country to become involved in civil disobedience. These people are normally law-abiding Canadians. It is a shameful thing to force any Canadian into that kind of trap.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have mixed feelings about speaking in this debate on second reading of Bill C-124, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada. Before we can go into a study of this bill in depth we should look at some of the background to it.
I should like to address a few comments to the budget presented in this House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on June 28. It was apparent from the minister's speech that evening that the budget had two objectives. The first was to bring down inflation and the second was to shore up investment and confidence in the economy.
With regard to the first objective, the government told us that it is going to point the way to recovery but that it cannot get going on its own. It told us that we must tackle this task together. I find it strange that members of the government would say that we have to work together to "beat inflation to the ground", at the same time that they are asking everyone else in the country to accept a 6 per cent wage increase in the 1982-83 fiscal year and a 5 per cent increase in the 1983-84 fiscal year. In that same period the government will increase its budget by 20 per cent. It seems to me that it is only paying
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
lip service to these objectives in order to try to impress upon the people the dire economic crisis that the country faces. It is true that the country faces a dire economic crisis but the government only pays lip service to it. If it were serioius it would not ask the Canadian people to accept a 6 per cent increase while it increases its own budget by 20 per cent.
We also have a serious problem when the government says that we must beat inflation to the ground at the same time as it introduces a budget with a deficit for this year of $19.6 billion. That in itself is not nearly as great a problem as the deficit accumulated in the years this government has been in power, which to date is estimated at $135 billion. We cannot tell how accurate that figure is because there is no place in government where it can be checked.
If the government is serious about beating inflation to the ground why, then, do we have an accumulated deficit of $135 billion? When it was in the area of $80 billion it took $1 in every $5 of government revenue to service the interest; now, with the amount at $135 billion it takes close to $2 in every $5 that the government raises to service the debt. I do not know when we will ever recover from this debt.
The former auditor general, Mr. J. J. Macdonell, and the incumbent auditor general, Mr. Ken Dye, have both said that we are on the verge of economic collapse in this country. That is not surprising when you consider the record of the government.
What happens when a federal government accumulates such a large deficit, Mr. Speaker? It can either turn up the printing presses and issue more money, but, if there is not adequate production in the country to back that up, it is inflationary, or it can take huge sums of money out of the marketplace. The effect of that is that the government is competing for the available money against small businesses, resource companies, manufacturing companies and most of the people who are sitting in our galleries tonight who may want to borrow money to buy a home or a car or even to consolidate their debts. If the federal government competes against the people of Canada for money, that forces interest rates up and in turn inflation is also forced up. It makes one wonder what the federal government is really trying to do.
I should like to address now some of the concerns that I have about some provisions in Bill C-124 which will take the public sector employees away from the negotiating table and away from collective bargaining rights. They will have no right to bargain and will not be able to exercise the right to strike. That might prove popular with some people in the country but not with New Democrats. If we examine it more closely, I think it would be unpopular with many people in Canada.
Employees will have no right to bargain or to exercise their right to strike. That is what is happening and what has happened in Poland, Mr. Speaker. We know how people in this country feel about what is happening to the common, every day, working individual in Poland today. They do not have the right to free collective bargaining or freedom of assembly. They are dominated by a dictatorship, a military junta which

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
is not much different from what this federal government is trying to do today, Mr. Speaker. And I maintain that it would not be any different under a Conservative government. We know that the Hon. Robert Stanfield, former leader of the Conservative Party, campaigned on a promise to bring in wage and price controls. However, they were more equitable than what we see the Liberal Party bringing in today. Like tweedle-dee and tweedledum, Mr. Speaker, there is not a whole lot of difference between the old line parties.
If we look very closely at this bill, Mr. Speaker, and members on all sides of the House come to their sanity and not pass the bill just because it is a popular thing to do among some members of our society, then I think this bill will be withdrawn from the floor of the House and not pass into law, especially the way we see it now. It contains many dangers, and I think we can find those dangers when it gets into committee. We will have to look at this bill very seriously at that stage.
I know we in the New Democratic Party will be proposing changes to make it much more equitable than it is now. For example, what happens to the equal pay for work of equal value provisions of the Human Rights Act? We think those provisions must continue to apply, but that is certainly not in the bill as such. We also wonder about the equity of the bill when you find that it paints all public sector employees in this country with the same brush. By limiting civil service employees to a 6 per cent increase in the 1982-83 fiscal year, and 5 per cent in the 1983-84 fiscal year, you are being much more generous to those who earn $100,000 a year or more, which some in the public employ do. Those at the upper end of the scale are getting increases of around $6,000, and others are getting $600. That seems to be grossly unfair, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be better to have those people at the upper end contributing more through the tax system, which is the best method we know for redistributing income?
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there is the inequity of lumping elected representatives in this bill. I suppose they are not all elected because senators are included as well. We all know that those in the pork barrel of the Senate do not have to answer to anyone. However, could this bill not be split so that, yes, Members of Parliament have to take a pay decrease, but they can do that by voting for it and show leadership to the rest of the country? The other part could deal with public employees, and then maybe even have a third part which abolishes the Senate. I think that would do a lot to curb inflation in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Keith Anguish: But public employees should not have to bear the brunt of this anti-inflationary practice as devised by the government. I find it very strange that wages in the public and private sector, averaged out over the last five years, have not kept up with the rate of inflation. Yet there are increasing demands on wage earners who are being fingered as the people
who cause inflation. We in the New Democratic Party maintain that wages are not a significant factor in causing inflation. That is just not so. What are some of the things which cause inflation in this country? The government deficit is very inflationary. As I mentioned, a total of $135 billion accumulated over the years. Interest rates are very inflationary as well. I maintain that the government would have been much better off in its budget to address the very serious problem of high and fluctuating interest rates than it has been to carry out this public relations exercise in an attempt to place the blame for our very bad economy on the backs of wage earners in this country. It is not their fault; the government knows that, and I think all members of the opposition know that. However, if it is politically expedient to blame one sector of society, then the government will do just that because it does not want to address the very serious problems we have in this country.
When people wake up some morning and find their life savings have been cut in half by a stroke of the pen of this government, then they will finally realize that this government has lost control, Mr. Speaker. Earlier I referred to Mr. Mac-donell, the former auditor general. He told the Canadian people years ago in his reports that Parliament had lost control over the purse strings. This bill is more proof of that. It is not the institution itself; it is the inept government we have which has been unable to control the public purse. Some of the things we think we could <io to improve our economic outlook have to do with interest rates. Our leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Br oadbent), has consistently asked this government and the government before it to initiate a low interest rate policy. Wh ,t would that policy do, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member for Diuphin (Mr. Lewycky) says it would help the farmers in his riding. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) says it would help the fishermen in his riding. The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) says it would help the small-bi.siness men in his riding. It would help every sector of society if we could bring down those interest rates. We can do that. Put it is politically distasteful for the old line parties to do so. t might affect their friends, the bankers, and some of the larg' holders of capital in this society who find it distasteful to have lower interest rates. With lower interest rates, if they are to become effective, you have to have the imposition of some monetary controls in this country.


James Ross Fulton: Nixon and Kennedy did it.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa has asked that we lower interest rates to one per cent above inflation. In years gone by-and I hope they have not gone by forever-it was traditional that the interest rate was 2 percentage points above the rate of inflation. That is no longer so. There seems to be no connection any longer between the rate of inflation and the interest rate in Canada.
We want the interest rate lowered and pegged for a period of time. Even worse than high interest rates, if they are not bad enough, are the weekly fluctuations of the rates. Small
July 13, 1982

business people and people who are planning personal budgets cannot project a year at a time. The interest rate might be 15 per cent one day, but it could just as well be 25 per cent on another day. Who can plan in a wild economy like that?
In the New Democratic Party we have also said that we want to increase manufacturing in this country. It is much more advantageous to our economy to bolster the manufacturing industry than it is to bolster the resource sector, even though the resource sector in some areas needs help right now, helped by some firm plan, some guiding light by this government. Rules of the game should not be changed once you are involved in a game. At half time you cannot have the rules changed. The bolstering of the manufacturing industry would be most advantageous to this country. I think we should start looking at areas in Canada which can become self-sufficient so that we can make this country into what it deserves and has the potential to be.
Canadians have a high level of education. We have a well trained group of public employees who do serve us well and do not deserve to bear the brunt of inflation. Likely we have more resources than any other country in the world. Why can we not have some kind of an industrial strategy? Why can we not have some kind of manufacturing strategy? Why can we not have some kind of resource strategy? All of them could make this country self-sufficient. We have the tools to do it. But under the Conservatives and the Liberals we have never had the leadership to attain that here in Canada. Why does Canada have to have a branch plant economy for other countries of the world? We maintain that we do not have to have that.
Once we have looked at the areas where we can gain selfsufficiency in this country, we should look at the areas where we can seriously compete internationally. We should pick out the products that we can produce and manufacture so we can have a hand in the international market.


Norman Kelly: Give us an example.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Those are some of the things that will help us gain better control.
The government has really lost control. That fact has been pointed out by the Auditor General and by the opposition parties. In fact, in some of the secret memos in the minority reports from within the Liberal ranks of backbenchers it has been admitted that the government has lost control in Canada. Maybe the magnitude of it is too large for them to comprehend what has happened. Maybe the 24 million people that we have in this country are spread over too large an area and, because of the centralist type of government we have, its members do not know how to react or be sensitive to the needs of the country's citizens.
1 think we could decentralize much of what we have here in Ottawa so that other people throughout the country can appreciate some of the luxuries that people have had in central Canada for many, many years. Out west the people refer to this place, the triangle from Toronto, to Ottawa, to Montreal, as eastern Canada. It is not really eastern Canada that we talk
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
about in the west. If you look closely, you find that it is the golden triangle. The people in that golden triangle, even in the 1930s, never suffered from the Great Depression that we had.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Where were you?


Douglas Keith Anguish: People in Newfoundland actually sent salt codfish to people in Saskatchewan to help them. There was some feeling in this country among the different regions. But this golden triangle area has, I think, lost some sensitivity because of the heavy concentration of people here, the strength of the Liberal Party and the strength which sometimes the Conservative Party has drawn from this area of Canada. However, we are going to find that this situation will change. Some indication of it is the result of the recent byelection held in Hamilton West which was won by the NDP. That seat was formerly held by the Liberal leader in Ontario, and before him the seat was held for many years by the Conservative Party.
We all agree that this inflationary cycle and mentality must be broken. It cannot be disproportionately placed on any one group in our society. But this is what Bill C-124 will do.
I think about distribution of income. If any government has a mandate, besides running the affairs of this country, it has to be to see that the income of the country is spread proportionately over the population as much as possible. There has been virtually no change in the distribution of income for the last 30 years.
In 1951, the bottom 20 per cent of families received 5.9 per cent of the income. In 1951 the top 20 per cent got about 40 per cent of the income. That situation is exactly the same in 1981 and 1982. There has been no effective redistribution of income in Canada. I blame that situation on successive Liberal and Conservative governments.


James Ross Fulton: Right on. They do not know what they are doing.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I think we have pointed out very adequately that wages do not create inflation. High interest rates and lack of direction from government are the cause. Maybe people should not rely on governments as much as they do. But over the years politicians have built up that tendency and those expectations. Now they must honour them. As a result of their findings, their incompetent solutions and band-aid measures, they have run into very deep and serious economic problems which they are no longer able to address. I think the country is heading into bankruptcy. The country can no longer afford to keep up the expectations which they have created.
We cannot expect to earn more money each and every year forever. It cannot go on and on year after year, but some groups cannot afford to lose step. 1 am thinking about the people at the lower end of the scale who are affected by Bill C-124. They could be federal government employees living below the poverty level in the country. I think that is shameful. I am thinking about pensioners and those on fixed incomes. In fact,

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
in most areas of Canada today there are families earning under $25,000 per year who cannot afford to purchase their own homes. We in Canada have grown to expect to own our own homes, perhaps not when we are just starting out as young persons or young married couples, but certainly at some point in our lives. Because of the richness of the country we expect to be able to own our own homes. I do not think this is unreasonable.
What has inflation done to take-home incomes? With the rises in inflation, it now takes an income 2.7 times greater than that of 1970 to maintain our purchasing power in 1982. Some people at the upper end of the scale do not need that, but surely some of those at the lower end do. It saddens my heart that because of the inflation strategy of the government more than half the number of single people in Canada over the age of 70 live in poverty. Two thirds of the elderly women in Canada live in poverty, mostly because of the strategy of the federal government and its attitudes toward what causes inflation and what we need to do with inflation to beat it to the ground.
Bill C-124 is being touted as the primary measure to move the economy back onstream. I hope I have pointed out that this is not so and that subsequent examinations of the bill will further prove my statements this evening, that is, in committee examination and during third reading of the bill. The bill is an ill-conceived attempt to shift the blame, to take the heat off government and to make Canadians forget that the Liberal Party has no economic plans, no national strategy, and no sense of Canada's future.
The government denies the right of workers to negotiate. Is there private sector acceptance of the 6 per cent and 5 per cent mentality? No employee or group of employees will voluntarily accept wage increases of 6 per cent when inflation and the cost of living are running at 12 per cent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) met with private sector representatives and obtained acceptance of the program. It was not total acceptance, but the government and the Prime Minister received some acceptance. But from whom? It was from presidents and chairmen of various corporations who have, some of them, earnings in excess of $500,000 per year. Someone earning $500,000 a year could quite easily accept a 6 per cent increase because it means another $30,000, which is three times what some people in the federal public service make. We think that is unfair.
This scheme only increases the problem as it applies to hospital workers who might be earning $11,055 per year. It could extend to teacher's aides working at $9,631 per year. It could extend to typists earning $11,353 per year, or to general office workers who earn approximately $11,379 per year. These are average figures across Canada from the melding of the public and private sectors. The last anti-inflation program redistributed income, but it was all done upward. This time it will be even worse.
The government admits that this is a public relations exercise. I am sure Martin Goldfarb, the renowned pollster of the Liberal Party, pointed out that it was a popular move to
impose wage controls in the public sector, but I am also sure that Canadians will look deeper and will not accept the premise under which the federal government is working.
Let me look at some of the increases in wages in other countries since 1975. These countries are not placing the burden upon the backs of workers. For example, since 1975 wage increases in West Germany have risen by 91 per cent and in the United States by 56 per cent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They are our trading partners.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I hear the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). His comments bring to mind another point, that our federal deficit per capita is twice that in the United States of America. Disgraceful! In Japan, since 1975, wages have increased by 95 per cent. In Great Britain, since that year, wages have increased by 116 per cent.


An hon. Member:: And look at the situation in Great Britain!


Douglas Keith Anguish: But since that time wages in Canada have only risen by 48 per cent. This is much lower than the increases in the other countries to which I have referred, but Liberals opposite heckle about what I have to say this evening. It is an indication of where we are going in the country. They are not willing to listen to the constructive criticism of opposition parties. It will bear testimony in the next federal election when Canadians will not be able to find many Liberals elected to Parliament.
Bill C-124 is a bad law. It is unfair, unwise and counterproductive. It places the burden of our society's ills on the shoulders of people who are least able to afford it. It is blatantly inequitable, as I have already pointed out this evening.
Today we have unemployment insurance and welfare to soften the blow of what is happening in the country. When the effects of this recession-and some people even argue that we are going into a depression-really hit us, the government might not be able to afford these programs any longer. 1 do not think the government has managed our resources and our people very well in this country. We will see all hell break loose when millions of people are unemployed and there is nothing for them to do, no programs to help them feed their families or even to maintain a bare existence. It will make the 1930s look like a tea party. That is exactly where we are headed in this country.


Norman Kelly: Fantasy.


Douglas Keith Anguish: In 1975 the Anti-inflation Board review tried to achieve the same thing as this government is now trying to achieve by wage controls. The Anti-inflation Board was a failure in 1975 and it tried to control prices and wages. Now that we have forgotten about prices, we will let Adam Smith's free hand in the marketplace control that. We will let the invisible hand of Parliament control people's wages in this country so that they cannot cope with it. If the government does that and things get worse economically, which I predict
July 13, 1982

they will, then we had better beware of the very dire consequences. Under that Anti-inflation Board in 1975, the target was to bring inflation down to 8 per cent. It did not work. It was supposed to be 6 per cent in 1977. It did not work. It was supposed to be 4 per cent in 1978. It did not work. If that target had been reached, we would have had a zero rate of inflation today. But now we have a 12 per cent inflation rate instead. The government is trying the same sick remedies that have never worked for us before.


Ian Deans: It is the same sick government. That is why.


Douglas Keith Anguish: It is because it is the same sick government, the same government which cannot change its direction. I do not know what the problem is. The federal government has been told by provincial governments, by the business community and by opposition parties that the direction in which it is going is wrong, but it will not change it. It seems destined to follow one course. Of course, it either cannot, because of outside pressures, or will not change. By the effects of this, when that demand is depressed and productivity is cut, unemployment is increased. This government cannot really understand that. One looks at the budget and at the couple of objectives that I outlined earlier-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, may I make a comment on this point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent? Does the parliamentary secretary rise on a point of order?


Norman Kelly: If one gives unanimous consent, does that mean that the hon. member has unlimited time? Could we give consent for him to speak until, say, 9.20 p.m.?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent or is there not unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, there is not unanimous consent.


Douglas Keith Anguish: What do you mean, there is not unanimous consent?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's allotted time has expired. I will now recognize the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt).


Douglas Keith Anguish: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent, for the extension-


Douglas Keith Anguish: Are you saying that this House will not extend the courtesy of allowing me to finish my speech? I have only a few more brief lines.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's allotted time has expired and there is not unanimous consent to the extension of his time.


Douglas Keith Anguish: That is very typical of this government, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Throughout this debate we have given hon. members one or two minutes in which to finish their remarks. I think it only fair to let the hon. member finish the statement he was just making. I would suggest that we ought to do that, out of courtesy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to extend his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This matter is presently under discussion in the committee considering the regulations of the House. Unfortunately, as Your Honour is aware, when unanimous consent has been given, the hon. member can continue to speak indefinitely, the rest of today, tomorrow, or for as long as he wishes. Under these circumstances, if the hon. member had said, "I need two or three minutes to finish my remarks"-


Ian Deans: That is not true. Sit down.


Harold Thomas Herbert: -it would be very easy for us to give the required consent.


Some hon. Members:: He did say it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is perfectly well taken. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to extend his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence and that of the House in allowing me to have a few moments more in which to wrap up my remarks on Bill C-124.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the two objectives that I saw in the budget were to bring inflation down and to shore up investment and confidence in our Canadian economy. In conclusion I would like to say that the indicator as to whether or not we will bring inflation down will come over the ensuing months and years. We will then see
19300

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
whether or not the actual rate of inflation does decrease. I maintain that it will not. 1 do not think that we are looking at a 6 per cent world of recovery, as the government has said, because there are too many factors over which this government has lost control. It will certainly not bring inflation under control by imposing the very harsh demands of Bill C-124 as they apply to public employees in Canada. I would ask this government to please consider withdrawing this bill.


Norman Kelly: Never.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Before I conclude my remarks, 1 would like to refer once again to the matter of shoring up investment confidence in the Canadian economy. I think it is very obvious that what this government has done has not raised confidence in the Canadian economy because the indicator that one views must be the value of the Canadian dollar on the international market. The day after the budget was introduced, on June 29, the Canadian dollar saw its worst record in history on a post budget day. It dropped one cent during the day and recovered a bit by the end of the day, but we still have a dollar which is well under 80 cents compared with the American dollar.


Norman Kelly: Has it gone up since the budget?


Douglas Keith Anguish: 1 think that all indicators show that the budget has failed. It will be an even more dismal failure if the government insists on instituting the provisions of Bill C-124. I ask the government to withdraw this bill. If it does not, I urge all hon. members of the House of Commons to vote against Bill C-124.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-124 respecting compensation to the public sector of Canada. But before getting into the meat of my remarks, which I want to put on the record tonight, I would like to say that I cannot help but take exception to some of the remarks just enunciated by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) in the House, especially when he referred to the fact that eastern Canada and, more specifically, the golden triangle of eastern Ontario, did not feel the effects of the Great Depression. Talk about uttering words of disunity in this country! I have never heard the like. On a previous occasion in the House I stated that I personally felt the effects of the Great Depression in the early thirties. 1 remember, when I was a boy, my father pulling me on a sleigh in the wintertime, to the relief store, which is the equivalent of a welfare office today, to get a box of groceries, some shoes or overshoes, and that type of thing.


An hon. Member:: You had a sleigh!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: But this young hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake said that eastern Canada, specifically the golden triangle of Ontario, did not feel the effects of the Great Depression. He referred to the lack of manufacturing in the country today. That is the heart of manufacturing in Canada. The hon. member would not remember, as he was not born at that time, that during the Great Depression that was the very heart of the country that really felt it, along with the
prairies, with western Canada, of course, and with all of this great country of ours. Therefore let us not hear any words of disunity such as those we have just heard tonight from the hon. member in the NDP.
I would also like to take exception to his voice of doom and gloom. We are all in this together.


Ian Deans: Some are more in than others.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Exactly. Some are in more than others. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has said it and I fully agree with him. However, if a member of the House says there is no hope and predicts even greater failure, what hope do we have? What hope is there if members of Parliament cannot rally to the cause of inflation and the economic ills of the day? That is what we can expect from members of the NDP. Talk about promoting disunity.
As we know, the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) two weeks ago had as its main theme the fight against inflation-to bring inflation down to 6 per cent. This is the target for which we must strive. Federal public servants, Crown corporations, regulatory agencies as well as members of Parliament and senators are being asked to participate in this program. It is hoped that with this approach, the provinces, municipalities and the private sector as a whole will follow suit and join in this concerted effort to wrestle down inflation.
The intent of this bill, as we all know, is to limit wage increases to 6 per cent and 5 per cent. It means that some
500,000	people in government and in Crown corporations will get no more than 6 per cent.
A very significant point, something we have to underline, is that this will free some $250 million this year and $550 million next year. That money can be spent on programs to stimulate the economy and create much needed jobs.
Members of the opposition, especially the NDP, fail to bring out the point that because of this particular program, nearly $800 million will be directed into much needed job-creation programs. This is without further adding to the current deficit which is of concern to all of us. There is no doubt about it, we have to wrestle down the deficit. However, we cannot get the deficit down until we get inflation and interest rates down. Therefore, we must all work together.
Let us hope that provincial and municipal governments look hard and long at the decision of the federal government in this matter. Let us hope that the big corporations, the utilities and the labour movement will consider this idea very carefully. If all sectors of society could agree voluntarily to the 6 per cent limit, we would bring inflation down and provide far more jobs that will be needed in the future.
Would it not be an outstanding achievement if, as Richard Gwyn said in his column today, we could see the emergence of a national will to defeat inflation? That is the intent of this government, to create the atmosphere for that national will to
July 13, 1982

take place so that we can defeat inflation, getting it down to a more reasonable rate of 6 per cent and, hopefully, then to 5 per cent.
The rate of recovery must begin with a realistic assessment of what this country is all about, what this country can control and what we cannot control. Our country cannot deal with its economic problems in isolation. We can ease if not eliminate the impact of some problems, but the solutions to other difficulties depend on events beyond our borders.
We must know what we can realistically change and what is beyond our power to change by ourselves. While recognizing the force of world conditions, we must acknowledge that many of our problems originate here at home. No doubt about it, we are responsible for many of the economic problems we face today. We cannot put all the blame on outside forces or world powers. An inflation rate of 11.8 per cent is far too high. Our cost structure is becoming prohibitive. To be honest, we are pricing ourselves out of world markets. We are losing our competitive edge. All this we have done to ourselves.
Rather than accept what the previous speaker said, voicing doom and gloom, I have confidence in the Canadian people. I have confidence that what we have done we can also turn around. We can reverse this trend. If we all work together, we can bring inflation down. The government is taking the lead by asking all those associated with the federal service to join in this battle against inflation and to take the lead themselves by limiting their wage expectations.
In many ways, expectations are at the heart of our inflation problems. In recent years it seemed natural for all of us to believe that our prosperity would continue to spiral upward. We never gave much thought to or questioned the roots of our prosperity. Many believe we have grown up in a very selfish society-me first, never mind the other person. We did not look at the world situation, consequently our impending vulnerability. This is where we are affected by outside forces. Canada is a trading nation and is affected by the ups and downs of the world economy.
For some time a few Canadians, the poor, the aged, the helpless, the weak, paid the price of these inflationary demands. Today only a few groups can pursue their expectations, the powerful, the protected, the privileged. It is the many who pay the cost in unemployment, in bankruptcy, in loss of opportunity. Certainly the expectations of the over one million unemployed have been shattered. These are the people who are hurt and whom we must help. This is where people in the federal service can share what they have. They can share their job security with those who are less fortunate. While there has been some criticism from some members of the federal public service arguing against being singled out, I suggest that those employed in the federal public service can be the heroes of the day by accepting the idea of reduced compensation to help in this fight against inflation. This does not mean that all the other benefits enjoyed by members of the public federal service will be done away with.
This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) suggested that federal public servants would see a reduction in their benefits. That is absolutely incorrect. It is
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
wrong. No federal public servant will lose his job because of this program, no one will see a reduction in benefits.
The hon. member for Vancouver East was quite critical of the minister responsible for the status of women. She said the minister was all talk and no action, and she expressed concern about what this bill was doing to female workers across the country. She was right about the talk as far as that minister is concerned. No other member of this House does as much as that minister in promoting the cause of trying to help women in the work force across this country. Women's rights across this country are upheld by the minister responsible for that department.
The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) expressed concern about the future of equal employment opportunity programs and affirmative action programs in the federal public service. It is the intention of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) to continue with the development of affirmative action programs in three government departments and to pursue their introduction in other departments. The introduction of affirmative action programs is not related to collective agreements or compensation plans and consequently will not be affected by Bill C-124. We must make sure that is on the public record.
We know too that many times the federal civil service is criticized for what some term a lack of compassion and caring for those with whom they deal in the private sector. But by taking the lead in lowering expectations as to wage increases, the federal civil service will indeed be showing that they do have the good of their fellow citizens and the country as a whole at heart.
Some people and some members of the House have irresponsibly suggested that some members of the public service and the government took advantage to the situation by settling wage negotiations in the public sector prior to the June 28 budget. For example, the hon. member of the New Democratic Party for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) indicated the other day that it was reprehensible that the government should have approved a 10 per cent wage increase for lawyers in the Department of Justice just hours before the June 28 budget. I would like to advise hon. members that the Department of Justice lawyers are excluded from the collective bargaining process. Earlier this year, the lawyers employed in other government departments and agencies negotiated an 11 per cent wage increase for 1982 with the government through the collective bargaining process. The government approved the wage increases for the Justice lawyers in order to treat them in the same way as the bargaining unit lawyers. Both groups of lawyers will receive and will be limited to an increase of 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent increase in 1984.
As I earlier mentioned, Mr. Speaker, members of the federal civil service can be the heroes of the day in this program. This is a fight against inflation and members of the federal civil service are the front-runners in this battle. But having said

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
this, we know too, that the federal civil service cannot win this fight alone. We all have to become involved. We all have a stake in the outcome. We all must share in the effort, each according to his own ability. I believe that Canadians are willing to make sacrifices so that others can be helped. It was refreshing to read in a letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen on July 8, a letter from a federal public servant and a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada who said:
As a federal public servant and a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada I wish to dissociate myself from the almost hysterical response of Alliance leaders, other public service unions and superannuates groups of public service salaries and pensions. 1 thank God for both the job security I enjoy and the fact I am not suffering a reduction in my salary, (many Canadians would be so lucky). My family and I will adjust to a salary increase marginally lower than the expected cost-of-living increase when the time comes.
In another letter which appeared in the same July 8 edition of the Ottawa Citizen there is this:
May I also reluctantly endorse the reduction in government spending, including my own wages. The measures being taken by the all-too-many private firms with money problems are certainly by necessity more severe.
These are letters to the editor which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen from two federal public servants.
Let me read from another news item in the July 3 edition of the Ottawa Citizen comments from retired public servants who are ready to sacrifice to help the economy, comments such as, "Annual increases unless they will buy more are useless. I agree with MacEachen and his 6 per cent and am happy to bear my share." That is from a retired federal civil servant.
Another believes cutbacks:
-might set an example for private industry. But, by the same token, anyone who is suffering should get special consideration.
Another retiree said:
If it will help, then I'll reduce my living standard.
And so it goes, Mr. Speaker. I do believe that Canadians will accept these sacrifices so that others can be helped.
What about the private sector, the provinces, the municipalities? Before the budget of June 28 there were many groups demanding action by the federal government to cure our economic ills. Many of those same groups obviously do not like the action taken by the Minister of Finance. The trouble is that those sectors of our society have conflicting interests. For example, some union leaders want interest rates and inflation to come down but they will not agree to limit their inflationbuilding wage demands. Businesses want wage controls but not price controls. Provinces still demand more money from the federal government. Individuals want tax cuts but still demand more services. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the country can evade the truth for only a short time. There must be a willingness on all our parts to share and share alike. There must be willingness on the part of the provinces and municipal governments, private business and the rank and file of the labour movement to lower financial expectations.
Here I might mention that members of the council of the city of London, the area which I represent, last week voted to reduce their salaries to increases of 6 and 5 per cent. I believe also that members of the council of the city of Kitchener have done likewise. I am sure there will be other municipalities
across this great country of ours following the same suit. Some have said that the dollar figures involved do not really amount to much. That is it not that important. On the other hand I think it is the action taken by members of the London city council that is important. I congratulate them for following the federal government's stand in this matter of a 6 per cent and 5 per cent wage increase.
On the other hand, I was rather dismayed to learn through an editorial which appeared in the London Free Press, the newspaper in that city, that secondary school teachers in London, or at least their leadership, are demanding far more than the federal anti-inflation wage guideline in their current bargaining with the London Board of Education. The editorial says that elementary school teachers as opposed to the secondary school teachers in London recently settled for a 12.5 per cent increase, which is still more than double the 6 per cent and 5 per cent suggestion. The editorial asks the question: "Where is restraint in teacher bargaining?" It suggests that negotiators for the secondary school teachers take a second look at what they are demanding in this matter of salary increases.
So we can see, of course, that there is much to be done in this country of ours, in our own local areas, of course, in trying to influence members of various sections of society who have a specific interest at heart, whether in contract negotiations or just wishing to try to contribute to this over-all fight to wrestle inflation down so that we can help those who are sorely in need not only today but, more important, those in need in the future.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I emphasize that we must all be in this battle against inflation, for we all have contributed to the economic problem of the day. Some people continue to say that rising wages and salaries have nothing to do with inflation, that it is a matter of prices which have fuelled inflation. I believe that an hon. member of the New Democratic Party, the previous speaker, referred to this. But when the cost of producing goods and services, of which wages and salaries are a major factor, rise faster than our production, they do contribute to rising prices. In the July 10 Toronto Star David Crane wrote:
In spite of sizeable pay increases over the past three or four years, few Canadians feel that they are much better off. That's not surprising. By and large, pay increases have simply led to more price increases and a more inflationary environment that has wiped out the pay gains.
The missing ingredient today is productivity, our best measure of economic progress.
He went on to say:
Education, job training, innovation, good management, research and development, sizeable investment in new machinery and equipment, government policies that encourage efficiency and the shift of resources from dying industries to growth industries all contribute to good productivity growth. And it is in these areas that Canada is lagging behind its industrial world partners.
Yet here is the important point: Pay increases can only have real value when they are matched by productivity increases. If an employer grants a wage increase and has productivity growth, then he does not have to increase the price
July 13, 1982

of his product to pay for the wage increase. But if he grants a wage increase and has no productivity growth, then he must either increase his prices or accept lower or zero profits, which means the eventual collapse of his business.
But again, we cannot put all the blame for rising prices and thus increasing inflation on wage and salary increases. Governments at all levels, business and labour, individuals and almost all of us have contributed in some degree to the economic problems of the day. And it has usually been out of selfinterest. Because of Bill C-124, limiting wage increases to 6 per cent and 5 per cent in the federal public service sector, there are some hopeful signs that other sectors are listening as well. The meetings which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have had with provincial leaders and with business and labour leaders, at least at first glance, give some hope for the future. For example, an article in The Globe and Mail of July 9 says:
The federal government received pledges of support yesterday from 39 senior Canadian business leaders for its goal that private-sector wage increases be voluntarily limited to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984.
I will get to the reaction of labour leaders in just a few minutes.


Ian Deans: 1 am not going to say a word.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: The article continued:
What the business leaders appeared to promise the Government was that they would give voluntarism their best shot. Ian Sinclair, chairman of Canadian Pacific Enterprises, said there was "great support for the position adopted by the Minister of Finance."
And William Mulholland, chairman of the Bank of Montreal, said the private sector "would do its best" to emulate what the federal government was doing.
William Hamilton, president of the Employers Council of British Columbia- "the situation is far too serious for politics and I think that whatever Government is in power it is going to face some difficult times. I don't think that any government can produce a total solution at this time."
According to the Montreal Gazette:
In a startling reversal, Dennis McDermott, one of Canada's foremost labour leaders, said he was "encouraged" by his meeting yesterday with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
The Canadian Labour Congress president went into the meeting loudly condemning Trudeau's economic policies and saying the Prime Minister never listens to labour. But, he came out saying: "The door appears open ... (there are) avenues for an exchange of ideas, of persuasive arguments."
I suggest that other sectors of Canadian society are in fact listening to what the federal government is suggesting in this matter of trying to control wage increases and trying to bring about an attitude of restraint. We are trying to restrain not just wage increases but all areas of government spending. We are trying to do this not only at the federal government level; we are trying to encourage provincial governments, municipal governments and individuals as well to get into the act and join the force in the battle to try to wrestle inflation down to a reasonable level, perhaps 6 per cent, in the years ahead. There is some indication and some hope that other sectors are listening.
I am sure my friends in the New Democratic Party will not agree with the following quotations, but I must use them because they represent the view of business organizations across the country. If we did not have business organizations,
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
we would have no labour force, and that is a fact we cannot overlook. Sam Hughes, the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, has indicated that he intends to use his influence to urge his provincial counterparts, the chambers across the country, to get into this 6 per cent solution so that we can all be in this battle together. Mr. Hughes intends to urge provincial chambers and local boards of trade to join in this call for a 6 per cent wage ceiling, in line with the one being suggested by the federal government.
I think we can see some signs of hope. There is no question that we face extreme and enormous problems, but if we listen to some hon. members opposite, those voices of gloom and doom which have nothing positive to say but are strictly voices of negativism day in and day out, we will never get out of the economic mess in which we find ourselves. If we listened to them, the deficit would be even higher. We would be far deeper into the hole than we are now because all we hear from them is spend, spend, spend and do this and do that-


Ian Deans: You know better than that, Jack.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: -with financial incentives. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain says I know better than that.
I know what is fact. That is why I say that all we get from hon. members opposite are cries of spend, spend, spend. If they are at all concerned about the federal deficit, they should certainly reconsider the vocabulary they have been using throughout this debate. Individuals with whom I have spoken, as recently as this past weekend in my constituency of London West, share the belief that this bill is a step in the right direction. Indeed, federal public servants can be the heroes. 1 emphasize that because I feel that in the end we will see that they will be the heroes of the day for having gone along with this program and helping in the long run to reduce our inflation rate and thus ensuring that no one will continue to suffer economically, as many are doing today.
We certainly cannot go on as we have in the past. We cannot throw up our hands and say all is lost, and sit helplessly by while inflation rages and unemployment grows. If we can work together, we can do more than simply preserve our economy. We can turn it toward growth. People have been touched by economic adversity and, if we do not act together, more will be hurt. That is the seriousness of the matter. The challenge before us is to share in the sacrifices and to join in a collective effort which will turn our goals into realities. That is the message and the challenge I bring into this debate. If we all play our parts, I am confident we can overcome our difficulties and return to better times.
Let us not forget that despite the enormous economic problems we face today, Canada remains a land more blessed than most. I just wish many hon. members of this House, especially hon. members opposite, would mention that in this debate on Bill C-124. I cannot stress enough that we in this country still have a far better standard of living than those in many, many other countries in the world. Canada remains a land more blessed than most.

July 13, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member would be prepared to entertain a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) entertain a question?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Sure.


Ian Deans: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member in advance. I will keep my question very brief. In his speech the hon. member made reference to the intention of the government not only to limit the wages of civil servants but also to take action in those areas over which it has jurisdiction, including Crown corporations and agencies of the government.
Thinking back through the proceedings this afternoon, I wonder if the hon. member would admit that it seems a trifle unfair to limit wages of someone to 6 per cent but then not to take similar action with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and to require of the corporation that it keep rent increases within the same range. Does he think it reasonable that people whose wage increases would be limited, would be asked by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to pay a 25 per cent increase for rental accommodation beginning in September?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, I believe that matter is being investigated at the moment.


Ian Deans: I am just asking if the hon. member thinks it is fair.	.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: No, 1 think it is not fair. As the minister indicated in his answer this afternoon, that increase was announced in April or May. I agree that it is not fair.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I would call to the attention of the House that there is only a limited amount of time for questions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I wonder if I too could direct a quick question to the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt)?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I thank him in advance for the opportunity. He spoke about the need for co-operation and for public servants to provide the leadership and the model for other Canadians, but I do not think he referred to the fairness of the decision. Does he feel that the proposal for a 6 per cent increase for the federal public service should be applied equally to people who are earning $12,000 and those earning $102,000 per year?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to look at that wide range of salaries paid to federal civil servants. If you were to ask some members of Canadian society about this, they would feel that certain elements of the public service are being paid too much.


Ian Deans: Like cabinet ministers!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: No, some employees. We should take a moment to look at the position of some members of the Canada Post Corporation, for instance. Just a year ago much of Canadian society was upset by a postal strike and could not believe the exorbitant demands that were made and that the government gave in to those demands and awarded a very high salary increase to many of those workers. Many Canadians feel that that was not warranted. There is quite a gap there. I think we have to look at all sections individually and try to close that gap. The person making $12,000 or $14,000 per year does not have the same standard of living as a person making $50,000 or $60,000 per year who wants to maintain his standard of living. Everything is relative, and I think the hon. member should keep that in mind.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, before we see the clock tonight and when we resume tomorrow there are a few things that I should like to put on the record with regard to Bill C-124. This wage control package is a key element in the government's anti-inflation strategy, even though everyone knows that wages have been falling behind inflation for the last five or six years, and so tonight I should like to examine the subject in the total economic context.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made it clear on a number of occasions that the public sector is to be made an example and an instrument by which wages in the private sector will be brought into this 6 and 5 per cent world which the government intends for the Canadian people.
In my riding, workers at the CN shops in Transcona will be affected by the bill, as will workers in Montreal, in Point St. Charles, in Moncton and throughout the system all across the country. It is particularly irritating to me, and it is an example of the continuing injustice done to railway workers in this country, that the people in Transcona have been told that they will be laid off for eight to ten weeks more than the normal summer lay-off-and even that was extended for a few more weeks-and then on top of that they are now told that their collective bargaining achievements for 1983 will not be respected, but instead broken through the legislative instrument of Bill C-124. The increase of 9 per cent which was scheduled for 1983 will be reduced to 5 per cent.
Apart from the obvious injustice of workers in CP shops making more than workers in CN shops by January 1983, CP Rail will be required to pay out more in wages than will the CNR. Thus, if the government does not withdraw this bill, there will be a test of its theory of economic competitiveness. If this theory is correct, the profitability of CN will soar in comparison with that of CP because CN will not have to pay its workers as high wages. According to the government, that is what affects the profitability of Canadian corporations. So we will wait with bated breath to see if that will be the case.
On a national level we are dealing with an accumulation of years and years of Liberal policies. The chickens are coming home to roost now that the United States' domination of the world economy is not what it used to be. Canada has been tied
July 13, 1982

to that economy for decades. The Liberals, with Conservative approval, openly sought the integration of the Canadian economy with the United States economy. Now we are shamefully dependent on the United States economy and on investment decisions made in that country and also in the head offices of non-American multinational corporations. Many years ago when the CCF and subsequently the NDP complained that this was not a good thing, they were regarded as the party poopers in Canada. People claimed that foreign investment was creating jobs, that there was growth, and an increase in consumer goods and services. And all that was true as long as the economy we were tied to was the dominant world economy. In a way, we regret that we were right and that the things we said about the price we might some day have to pay for this dependence on the American economy have come to pass.
I should like to share some of my views with the House on why we are in this position now. What has been going on in this country, is a strike by capital. Some would credit that to the abhorrence the private sector had for the National Energy Program. God only knows why because it was the most milquetoast Canadianization program you could imagine. But that is the extent of the pettiness and dominance of the international investment community that such a paltry move on the part of the Liberal government could cause them to take such a bruising in terms of international confidence.
There has been a capital strike going on in this country, not just since the NEP but accumulating over the years. What we have now is a Liberal government which has capitulated to the strikers. It is always amusing to me to see the criticism workers receive from the community at large when they say that unless they get a certain return on their labour, they are going to hold out until they do. Yet when the investment community in this country does that, it is called good business, initiative. It is called looking for more incentives. But when the working people of Canada do exactly the same thing, to all intents and purposes they are reviled and called upon to sacrifice and cooperate.
There are a number of things going on, Mr. Speaker. As I said before, for some time now the Americans have been suffering from a reduction in the predominance of American-controlled corporations in the global economy. Americans themselves have been the object of investment decisions by multinational corporations based in other countries. What is happening, it seems to me, is that President Reagan is saying, through his high interest rate policy, support of the American dollar and various other hidden protectionist measures, that they are going to re-establish the American economy as the predominant force in the western world. If that means putting the economy of all their allies and other industrialized countries on the block, so be it. Indeed, even if it means the sacrifice of farmers, small-business men or even larger corporations within the American context, then that is the price they are prepared to pay in order to re-establish that dominance.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
However, another thing that is going on, Mr. Speaker, is that in the final analysis the Americans will not be able to reestablish their predominance over the global economy in the way they hope to because there is a restructuring of that economy going on which very few of us, including myself, can comprehend at this moment. What the American policy adds up to can be summed up in this way: "If there is a global restructuring going on", says President Reagan, "we are going to be the last to go down. We are going to be the last to have to face up to those North-South realities, those global realities, or face up to the need for a new economic order. We are going to be the last to face up to the need for new international cooperation". And nothing can provide more concrete evidence of that than the recent decision by the Americans not to sign the international Law of the Sea Treaty. They are saying, "No international co-operation for us; we are going to hold out and reign supreme."
I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in the comments of the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt). I believe he said that we are pricing ourselves out of business. That is a very interesting argument and I want to go into it. It is an incorrect argument, but it has an element of truth in it. It is not something we did ourselves, as the hon. member tried to say in his speech. The fact of the matter is that this analysis of why we are not competitive on foreign markets, if indeed that is the case-and it is the case to some extent-does not ask the question: how are we supposed to compete with slavery? How are we supposed to compete with children working 12-hour days, seven days a week in South Korea in export plants set up by multinationals? How are we supposed to compete with the decisions made by the multinationals to invest in Third World countries which do not have labour laws, child protection laws, or environmental laws? Is that what the Liberals want us to compete with? There is only one way to compete with that, Mr. Speaker, and that is to become the kind of country those countries are. And that is what we in this party are not prepared to see Canada become in order to remain competitive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is what you are talking about, my friend, whether you realize it or not. All this rhetoric about pricing ourselves out of business and staying competitive in international markets is nonsense. We are talking about the difficult position-I quite agree-that the western industrialized economies have been put in by the decisions of a handful of very powerful global corporations to locate the manufacturing and assembly end of their businesses elsewhere.
The hon. member asks: if we do not compete, what is our future? I take that as a sad admission that what I am talking about is on the right track. What we can do, Mr. Speaker, is try to tell our people what is really going on. It will not be easy, but we have to begin here at home to get some independence from that system. It will take a long time, but we have to work in international circles for the kind of economic order in which the people of South Korea and the people of Guatemala

July 13, 1982
Adjournment Debate
will not be played off against the people of Canada and West Germany. That is the long-term job, and I would not be half as angry about this particular measure if I thought you guys were working for that kind of reality. But you are not; you are just capitulating to international economic forces, just as you have done ever since the day you first took power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: If I could see anything else but capitulation going on over there, then I am sure I, along with the Canadian people, would be willing to respond to reasonable requests for sacrifice and co-operation that we so often hear in the rhetoric of the Liberal Party. But that is not what we get. We get short-term, ad hoc and cowardly decisions which use the Canadian people as scapegoats by telling us, like the hon. member for London West did, that we really brought this on ourselves. It is as if the Liberals had not been in power for God knows how long. It seems like an eternity. That is what is being said, Mr. Speaker.
I will have more to say about this tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, but I dare not see the clock just in case you think I have given up my right to speak. So I will keep talking until you tell me to sit down. I have learned not to trust this place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on June 8 I spoke in this House about the Liberal government's increasing attacks on fundamental freedoms. In particular, I warned that attacks on freedom of information are designed to enlarge Liberal power at the expense of our freedoms. For example, the Kent commission is a blatant attempt to control the press. Another attempt to control the press is through huge government purchases of advertising space. The Liberal propaganda machine, running flat out to brainwash Canadians with massive amounts of taxpayers' money, to be exact $500 million, will stop at nothing to influence the media. If you do not play the Liberals' dirty game you do not get the advertising.
1 have in my hand a letter from Ira Kissin, editor of the Toronto Jewish Press, an independent newspaper in Toronto. Mr. Kissin complains of discrimination against his newspaper when he did not receive certain government advertising. He gives examples of dubious practices of paying commissions to Liberal "brokers". He has recoiled from the slimy touch of the
Canadian Media Corporation, yet another of those shadowy bodies set up to distribute Liberal propaganda and to carry on the government campaigns of discrimination, restriction and influence peddling.
Why does this government discriminate against the ethnic communities in this country? Why does it continually brand as racism any attempt by ethnic communities to be treated fairly and equally? When the government accuses them of racism it is itself racist. I brought this kind of conduct to the attention of the House in a question to the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism (Mr. Fleming). I repeated it on June 8. With typical disregard for the feelings of ethnic communities the minister's parliamentary secretary brushed off the insult to ethnic communities. He thinks I put too much pepper in my pirogis. I would like to put some pepper on his tail to make him do his job.
The attitude of this minister and his parliamentary secretary are typical of the Liberals. Ethnic peoples are taken for granted. The Liberals look on them as second-class citizens. They say there are two founding peoples and the rest are nowhere. The Official Languages Act has been extended to increase discrimination. The Liberals discriminate in favour of the so-called founding peoples in arranging job quotas in the public service. They designate more and more jobs in favour of these people. They claim they are correcting what they call "imbalances" by "affirmative action".
Affirmative action is clearly a program of discrimination. The Liberals say they have to discriminate to correct injustice. What they really do is create injustice.
Canadians should ask what is the Charter of Rights when the government openly practises discrimination, blatantly twists and restricts information and flagrantly ignores Parliament, the people's instrument of democracy.
I say that we are all Canadians and we should all be equal, whether we are Polish, French, Indian, Chinese, German, English, Ukrainian, Jewish, Italian, or whatever our racial extraction; whether we eat pirogis or pasta; whether we have funny names or speak with strange accents. What sort of equality is there when the second largest racial group in Toronto is Italian but not part of the affirmative action programs?
As a Member of Parliament, I speak for all Canadians, not just for the founding peoples, and as a true Canadian I ask for equality for all, not like those people over there, superiority for those who provide my electoral base. I recognize one Canada in which all are equal, truly equal; a Canada in which we should all be free, truly free, free from creeping government run by dishonourable men.
I look at the perverted ideology of the Kent commission and I listen to the insults of the Minister of State for Multicultur-alism. I hear the smart aleck evasions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his corrupt cohorts; I weep for my country, brought low, robbed, defiled by men without honour, without
July 13, 1982

dignity, without integrity. They call themselves Liberals but they are vampires and leeches, sucking the blood and draining the vitality of this country, clinging to power with the grace of the serpent and besmirching authority with the integrity of thieves.
Like many Canadians I feel the spreading plague ot totalitarianism in this country. I see it in the face of our Prime Minister. I see the terrible blight caused by the sheer incompetence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), a man- and I use the term loosely-who tried hard to outdo his Prime Minister in his contempt for Parliament and in his absence of integrity. The evidence of their crimes against the Canadian people is there in their own budget figures. The evidence of their character, of their utter lack of concern for Canada, is in their holding on to power when all the country wishes them to go. They are diseased parasites in the blood of Canada.
If I may paraphrase a former more eloquent politician, for God's sake, get out of this House! If at this late date you can pretend to be men, for God's sake go.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, last night I had the great pleasure to rise and discuss some serious issues with several serious members of the Conservative Party.
I regret tonight that I have had to stay until this late hour to listen to the comments we have just heard. I understand that we are supposed to stay around and discuss government policy, but I do not know how we can possibly react to comments that are nothing but an emotional diatribe. The hon. member opposite is a former minister and I will give him credit for assuming that he has made a mistake.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is that all you can do? Shame!


LABOUR CONDITIONS-HEALTH AND SAFETY OF WORKERS UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity tonight to address a few comments in the late show debate to the question which 1 put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on March 26, relating to the idea of the federal government moving ahead on health and safety legislation for workers under the federal jurisdiction by centralizing it in one agency in the Department of Labour and, by this action, improving the health and safety of all federal jurisdictional workers.
In responding to my question, the Prime Minister indicated that that was the preferred course of the federal government. However, he indicated that a number of discussions were taking place among various concerned departments of government, but that in the long run the government preferred to move in that direction. I was pleased with his response.
This has been a continuing problem as we become more conscious of health and safety issues, as problems relating to these issues have become more complicated over the years, and as greater regulations have resulted. The concept of the
Adjournment Debate
centralized agency to deal with health and safety matters has been adopted by some provinces, including the province of Ontario where it was centralized in its department of labour. During the past year the Canadian Labour Congress supported the idea of one central agency to co-ordinate all federal activities in this regard.
Last November 9 I met with representatives of the CLC, especially representatives of United Steelworkers of America from Elliot Lake who are under federal jurisdiction in the uranium mines there. We went over the CLC report which proposed the idea of a centralized agency in the federal government. For instance, they pointed out that 15 departments and agencies of the federal government are concerned with health and safety, including the Treasury Board, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Atomic Energy Control Board, Labour Canada, the Department of Transport and many others.
In the brief which was presented at that time they also urged the upgrading of Part IV of the Canada Labour Code and the establishment of basic national health protection standards. What was true in that presentation on a national basis can be seen in microcosm in health and safety legislation and in the problems of uranium miners, about which I am very familiar because of the large mines in Elliot Lake, which is in my constituency.
Originally, conventional health and safety were under provincial jurisdiction. A ruling by the Department of Justice in 1978 put the responsibility for conventional health and safety under federal jurisdiction, and gradually the federal government has been taking over full responsibility for health and safety.
The Atomic Energy Control Board sets standards for radiation. Responsibility for conventional health and safety now comes under Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, but, because of the historic situation, the Ontario occupational health and safety act has been referenced to the Canada Labour Code. Inspection is gradually being taken over by the federal government, with the federal government paying for all the costs already incurred by the province, indicating that it wants to have the federal government ultimately take it over. A study is now being carried out.
But what we are looking for is a new centralized agency within the federal government where the Canada Labour (Standards) Code will not be subject to other acts of Parliament. It should be the superior act. We should start with the health and safety of the worker, and work back from there.
There are a number of areas where there should be upgrading, for instance, concerning the right to refuse to work, unsafe conditions, and health and safety committees. Much work has already taken place with consultation between the Department of Labour and the CLC as well as groups like the United Steelworkers of America.

July 13, 1982
Adjournment Debate
I know that within some federal government departments there is some resistance to this concept of one centralized agency. 1 hope that will be overcome soon. Elopefully, the government will be able to table a bill before this session recesses, so that over the course of the summer interested groups would be able to consider and review it. Then, as we move into the new fall session of parliament, we could move right ahead, adopt it and implement the improved standards for workers under federal jurisdiction. In this way, the federal government would have a standard, a model second to none in the country, which would guarantee the health and safety of all workers under federal jurisdiction.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) for saying that since the introduction of the original statutory provisions for health and safety in the Canada Labour Code in 1965, the federal government has provided outstanding leadership in the field of health and occupational safety. We have done that as the result of the hard work, conscientious effort and the proven consciences of hon. members like the one we have just heard, the hon. member for Algoma. Thanks to the pressure that he has put upon us, we have maintained our leadership and our hard work in this very important area. The government intends to respond to his concerns. We intend to ensure that all aspects of federal occupational health and safety rules and regulations provide consistent and effective protection for all workers in this country.
The hon. member has referred to our record which has come about because of his hard efforts and those of some of our outstanding ministers. Ele has referred to the need for consultation. I can assure him that consultation will continue, that we will ensure that labour, management, and the private and public sectors will all have an opportunity to consult. He has also suggested the need for expanded leadership on our part in this area, and he has given us several examples of how we could follow this suggestion. I thank him for his advice and I assure him that action will be forthcoming. I hope he will continue to provide us with the insights that are so important for these advances.


SOCIAL SECURITY-REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN BENEFITS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 1982, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether or not the upcoming budget would involve an increase in guaranteed income supplements and Canada pension disability pensions. This question reflected the concern of the NDP caucus for those on fixed incomes who depend on the public pension system and who are seeing their standard of living seriously eroded by inflation. At that time I might have added veterans pensions, as they are also a matter of concern to us.
At that time, the Prime Minister did not answer my question, but chose instead to evade the question by referring to an earlier question by a colleague of mine in the same question period. I now understand why. We have seen the budget of
June 28 and we now know that it involved a decrease in pensions for those who receive only the old age security portion, the universal portion, and no real increase for those receiving the guaranteed income supplement.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has been saying this will mean only a $55 sacrifice in 1983 for those receiving OAS but not GIS. Our research shows that this is a false and self-serving miscalculation. The real cost to pensioners who receive only the old age security will be closer to $300 each over the next two-year period. This will be particularly difficult for the many pensioners who, although they do not receive the income-tested GIS benefits, live at or just below the poverty line, yet they are required to make the same sacrifice as pensioners who are quite affluent.
The National Council on Welfare has estimated that over
100,000	poor and near-poor elderly Canadians will have their incomes reduced as a result of the indexation limitation of the OAS which was proposed in the budget of June 28. Furthermore, there is an additional cumulative loss which starts the year that full indexing is reinstated, if indeed it is reinstated. This loss is due to the fact that re-indexing, when it takes place, will be established on a reduced basis, thus creating a permanent shortfall in benefits into the indefinite future.
In doing what they have done to old age security pensions, the Liberals have made a significant social policy decision which should not go unnoticed. They have attacked a universal program. They have set a precedent which must not go unchallenged, a precedent which demonstrates that when the Liberals have to choose between the social programs and the interests of their big-money friends, it is the big money that wins and the pensioners who lose.
We in the New Democratic Party are not surprised. We have always maintained that the loyalty to big money is the fundamental loyalty of the Liberal Party, in spite of whatever naive delusions that certain Liberal backbenchers might maintain about that party. In spite of those fantasies, when it comes to a choice between big money and pensioners, the pensioners lose. We are not surprised, but we do regret the consequences for the elderly in Canada. They deserve better than to be used as scapegoats in a fight against inflation they have not caused for the benefit of those who have caused it.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a very serious topic and then treated it badly. Let me make it very clear right now that this government does not intend to abandon any of its commitments to retired Canadians-on the contrary. As public opinion grows in reaction to the June 28 budget, it is quite clear that pensioners agree with the government's actions. We have not asked Canadians to cut back at the expense of the elderly, as my hon. friend tried to claim.
My friend referred to our big-money friends, the supposed pals of the Liberal Party. No such pals exist. Those are the
July 13, 1982

people who know how to take advantage of inflation. They want to promote inflation, to continue those kinds of sick economic policies that undermine the very health of our economy because they personally make a profit from it.
We in this party say that the pensioners, the low-income earners and the veterans are the victims of inflation. That is why we must stop inflation. We have said that 12 per cent weakens our economy, that 6 per cent makes it grow and prosper. That message must be communicated.
The hon. member quite rightly brings to us, and I applaud him for it, a very sharp reminder of our duties toward vulnerable people. Let me give an equally sharp reminder to him. If he constantly panders to people's fears, constantly assures them that the government will fail, and constantly says that 12 per cent plus will be the normal, that is what will happen. People like him have an obligation to bring a message to us, but they have an equal obligation to take a message home. They must also say to people that if they demand 12 per cent, if they demand more and more out of the shrinking pie then they will rob the pie until there is no more.
We are not going to abandon our commitments to older people. We have the $35 monthly increase in the guaranteed
Adjournment Debate
income supplement; just as we have ensured that the people getting the GIS are protected and continue to get full indexing. We have met the demands of the veterans in regard to pensions, just as we have met the demands of the lower-income families in regard to the increase in child tax credits. We are now continuing our commitment to low-income Canadians.
1 would let the hon. member know that cheap rhetoric about the big gap there is, does not wash. He weakens his own argument. He must bring his argument to us and match it with a reminder to Canadians to learn how to cut down just a wee bit, in order to fight this terrible disease, inflation. It is a disease which hurts the weakest, who are the most vulnerable. If the hon. member has a message for me, he must also have one for his fellow Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.24 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, July 14, 1982