1982-08-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. One thousand and twenty-five women and 247 men who make up the staff of MPs and Senators are to become the latest victims of the government's unjust society. The government amendment introduced last Friday to the wage restraint legislation, Bill C-124, treats staff members, who have no security or tenure, more harshly than it treats public servants or even members of this House. Therefore I move, seconded by all members of the official opposition:
That the government immediately amend the legislation before us in Bill C-124 so that its provisions take effect for the staffs of MPs and Senators on the expiry of their present salary arrangements as they will for all employees in the public service, and that the staffs of MPs and Senators not be singled out for punitive action by the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Granville Island Market is operated in trust for CMHC. Since July 1 the merchants are operating without leases because CMHC has multiplied the rents by 100 per cent and 200 per cent on one-year lease renewals with no options to renew. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That this House demand of the minister responsible for CMHC that he remove the climate of instability within the business community of Granville Island and that his corporation live within the 6 and 5 guideline his government is imposing on others.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Canadians are finally realizing that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is galloping us down the slippery slope to complete socialism. The energy minister for the British government, Mr. Nigel Lawson, is quoted as saying that this fall or winter when that government sells off its state-owned oil company to the private sector, "It will be the biggest new issue that the London Stock Exchange has ever seen." The British government will sell 51 per cent to the public. Hurrah for the mother of democracy!
At a time when other governments-Britain and the U.S. are notable examples-are selling off state enterprises, Socialist Liberal Canada is adding to the total of more money-losing Crown corporations. Whereas privatization means more competition, lower prices to the consumer, badly needed injections of cash for government, a smaller bureaucracy, and a larger stake for Canadians in their country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the government immediately embrace sunset laws and make the average Canadian a true partner by stock offerings in various of the 480 Crown agencies. Petro-Canada would be a significant first step in tipping the balance back to the private sector. If it's ours, make it ours.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

August 2, 1982


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my motion arises out of the fact the recession has hit Canada harder than most other industrialized nations. Underlying this, and the inability of the Canadian government to respond properly to this economic crisis, is the fact that we have a degree of foreign ownership in Canada which is higher than any other industrialized nation would permit. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That in order that the Canadian government has the means to protect and nurture our nation's economy, measures be taken to strengthen the Foreign Investment Review Act rather than weaken it, as has been proposed in the June budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) heavy-handed threat to provincial governments and businesses dealing with the federal government to toe the 6-5 benchmark, or else, is pure and simple blackmail and, in effect, constitutes back door, extralegal extensions of his austerity program. Many Canadian businesses have gone under; others have cut management and workers' salaries. But favourites of the government in a Liberal stronghold are not required to trim fat. Favourite son treatment and preferential loans are assured. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That if the government is serious about the 6 per cent society it hopes to create, it review and slash its own runaway spending and cease its huge payouts to Liberal Party golden-haired businesses.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, Canada's push toward metric has been unnecessary and costly for farmers, as well as exceedingly frustrating. Now it is resulting in expensive crop losses and possible environmental hazards because of major mistakes in chemical formulations given in the new metric books and pamphlets. For example, a loss of 200 acres of dead alfalfa was reported in the weekend news. Under imperial measures farmers could spot such errors which often are typographical, but the strange metric language makes this almost impossible. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That manufacturers and processors be permitted to include imperial as well as metric measurements and instructions on their product labels and books.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LACK OF TRAINED PERSONNEL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, for several years Canadians have pointed with pride to their high technology industry. To be told now that the industry could suffer permanent damage because of a shortage of highly-skilled people in our domestic supply is simply inexcusable. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration launch a massive national training program to match people with jobs, using innovative training and retraining methods so that this only growth industry in our country need not apply for offshore help.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the
August 2, 1982

residents of East Burnaby are very strongly opposed to the building of the proposed Stormont-Newcombe Freeway connector, which would cause serious disruption to a quiet residential neighbourhood, and in view of the fact that the Stormont-Newcombe connector can only be built through federal land on the George Derby Hospital property with the consent of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly):
That this House, while agreeing that surplus federal lands should be returned to the municipality of Burnaby, strongly urge the federal Minister of Public Works to oppose any plan for development of the George Derby lands which would permit the construction of the Stormont-Newcombe exchange through East Burnaby.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED STUDY OF ILLNESS RELATED TO UNEMPLOYMENT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, scientific studies have shown that, as unemployment rises, we can expect an increase in prison admissions and physical and mental health problems in Canada. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to provide the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs with the necessary reference to allow it to inquire and report to Paliament on appropriate measures for the identification, prevention and treatment of such persons undergoing physical and mental problems related to unemployment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION RESTRAINT ACT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, since in report stage debate Friday on Bill C-124 the government introduced an amendment rolling back wage increases already granted to employees of Members of Parliament and Senators, since this amendment would treat these low-paid workers differently from other groups of workers affected by the bill, and since it is called the "Baker" amendment by Liberal members of the House in honour of the hon. member for
Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and the "Johnston" amendment by the Conservatives in honour of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That the House give these hon. members the opportunity to denounce their unwanted offspring and allow them, with unanimous consent, to introduce a Johnston-Baker amendment to allow affected employees the right to retain the salaries already granted.


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, whereas the excise tax increases the cost of production of foods produced on farms, and the price becomes more and more inflationary as the said foods move from farms to consumers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House implores the government to recognize the damage this aspect of the national energy policy is doing to this country and rescind the said tax at once. This would be a splendid start if the government really wants to reduce inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF HOLIDAY LOST BY EMPLOYEES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the first Monday in August is a holiday celebrated by most employees in the country, and whereas the employees of the House of Commons would have received a holiday for the first Monday in August had the House not sat today, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That this House ask that the employees of the House of Commons be given a day off to be selected by mutual agreement to replace the day lost today.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
19896_______________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Oral Questions
August 2, 1982



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement late Friday afternoon, in almost a furtive way, that Maislin trucking was going to be bailed out by the government to the tune of a $34 million loan guarantee, I would ask the Prime Minister, as the leader of this land who is trying to get Canadians to go on a crusade of frugality, and who is trying to show restraint in government spending, does this type of government action not make a complete mockery of the government's present attempts at restraint when the government is, in effect, bailing out a near bankrupt company.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I suppose that that is a question of judgment and the hon. member has already expressed his views, as did another member of his party, on Friday, I believe. But in the view of this government, since this company had plans for recovery which were judged to be acceptable and plausible by the banks and the government, it was important to try to give them assistance. It is always a difficult judgment in cases like this. I noticed to my recollection, that the Tory party did not criticize when we guaranteed Chrysler, when it was near bankruptcy, and that appears to have been a fairly good gamble. They did not criticize when we supported Massey-Ferguson. I am just a bit puzzled why they criticize when we give assistance to Maislin.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Perhaps to help educate the Prime Minister, if one could, on why there is some concern about this extraordinary assistance to the Maislin Company, the two examples the Prime Minister named were two that are presently covered under the ILAP program of assistance to the manufacturing and processing industries. This is assistance in a brand new field, to a service industry.


QUERY RESPECTING ASSISTANCE TO SERVICE INDUSTRIES
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is again to the Prime Minister. To show leadership, it is now to be taken by any other business concern in this country, especially the service industries which are just keeping their heads above water, that it is perhaps better for them to go under water and apply for assistance than to make rigorous judgments and sacrifices that the Prime Minister is asking for, or should they come to Ottawa to see some of their political friends to get assistance? That is the reason for the concern here.
What incentives are there for the managers in other service industries across this country to try to sacrifice and show restraint, when this company, because of poor management,
taking over an American concern and going into debt many millions of dollars, is able to be bailed out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the House knows that in the budgets of June and November, there were forms of assistance to smaller enterprises in difficulty. That was the definition which applied- when small businesses were in difficulty they could apply for the bond for special assistance under the budget. As I replied in my first answer, we also look at larger enterprises, particularly when they are key to a whole region and when there are many jobs to be saved. We not only try to assist the small and medium-sized enterprises, we also look at the larger enterprises, as in the case of Chrysler, Massey-Ferguson and Maislin.


QUERY RESPECTING SOURCE OF REPRESENTATIONS TO GOVERNMENT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I am a little hesitant to ask my supplementary question, but I will ask it very directly of the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister really trying to fool anybody, that if it had not been for Charles Bronfman and other political leaders close to the Prime Minister in Montreal, Maislin would not have received help?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the question itself is unfair. 1 can assure the hon. member that-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What about the All-Star game in Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in so far as I know, Mr. Bronfman has made no representations, nor have his associates, to members of this government. They certainly have made no representations to me with regard to Maislin. I do not know why the hon. member is giving them credit for that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What about the All-Star game in Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I would like to hear the supplementary about the All-Star game. I am not sure about its relevancy, but let us hear the question if the hon. member does not want to deal only in innuendoes.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, if Madam Speaker will allow me, I will put the question. Were you and Mr. Bronfman together at the All-Star game in Montreal when this matter was discussed?


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I did not hear the question.
August 2, 1982


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If you will allow the question, I will try to
answer.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF ASSISTANCE TO MAISLIN
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On Friday last, in answer to a direct question from me with regard to Maislin Industries, the minister stated that no decision had been made at that point. The minister said, "When matters are at a final and definitive stage, I will be happy to make an announcement." Will the minister now tell the House what developments took place between noon and five o'clock on Friday to make him happy before the announcement was made?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, late in the afternoon, shortly before my announcement, there was an acceptance of the conditional offer referred to in my press release, and that led to my decision to make the announcement.


PURCHASING OF CANADIAN EQUIPMENT
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. In the past Maislin Industries have not been particularly good corporate citizens in that they tend to purchase as much of their equipment as possible outside Canada.


Mr. Clark:: Like Petro-Canada.


John Raymond Ellis: Does the agreement for the loan guarantee carry with it any strings requiring Maislin to buy Canadian, or is that ignored also, just as the fact that the majority of the guaranteed $34 million will end up in the United States is also ignored?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not accept the hon. member's premise. It is my understanding that the loans to be guaranteed by the government will be loans made by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. With respect to the matter of purchasing and sourcing, these are areas which we are still exploring with the company. But I can say there is one matter of Canadian sourcing and Canadian supply which my hon. friend has completely forgotten to mention, and that is the supply of
2,000	Canadian jobs. He does not think it is important. We do.


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


SUNCOR CORPORATION-DEFINITION OF HISTORICAL PROFIT MARGINS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister will probably recall that on Tuesday last, in a statement issued by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to Suncor, it was stated that the company has also committed itself to supporting federal wage guidelines of 6 per cent and 5 per cent and-this is the part with which I want to deal-will limit increases of prices not subject to the energy agreement with Alberta to levels that are consistent with the lower rates of interest and costs and restoration of historical profit margins.
On the weekend, Leonard Good, the director general in the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, said that he simply did not know the implications of this statement in terms of its legality or monitoring, or in deciding the definition of "historical profit margins." Since it is the Minister of Finance who will have to decide what historical profit margins are, and given that this is the first in a whole series of what I suspect will be attempts by companies to restore what they consider to be historical profit margins, what is the definition that the government intends to apply to the term "historical profit margins?"


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, 1 have not seen the quote that is attributed to Mr. Good in terms of the commitment given by Suncor. It has been spelled out in a press release and, as my hon. friend has indicated, the government will follow the evolution of prices. We have not introduced a system of price controls any more than we have instituted a system of wage controls of a general nature. We have asked for the voluntary co-operation of industry, of the private sector and of the unions.
In this particular instance, the company has volunteered to adhere to the wage guidelines which the government has imposed upon itself. It has also volunteered to keep its price increases to a minimum level, bearing in mind the factors to which the hon. member has referred. We are operating on the basis of a voluntary commitment system. We will examine how the company behaves as time goes on, under this voluntary commitment. I remind the hon. member that the government has not introduced a system of wage and price controls in the Canadian economy.


BENCHMARK TO BE USED IN ESTABLISHING HISTORICAL PROFIT MARGINS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I put to the minister that it says quite clearly the company has committed itself that it will limit increases in prices, those

August 2, 1982
Oral Questions
outside the energy agreement, to something it calls the "restoration of historical profit margins." In order to get the assistance from the government, the company obviously felt it had to make a commitment. What will the government use as its benchmark to establish historical profit margins? Would the minister consider the six-year average 1976 to 1981? Would that be a suitable benchmark for historical profit margins?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this is a matter that will be examined as the situation evolves. This is a voluntary commitment given by the company in exchange for a special contribution for the realization of a very important project that will generate several thousand jobs in Ontario and throughout Canada. We are going to work on this basis through the cooperation of the industry and, I hope, the unions. This is the way the program is going to be implemented.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that the senior officials in the minister's own department do not know how to deal with that particular phrase. The government is not prepared to accept voluntary restraint for its employees or, for that matter, employees of Members of Parliament. The company believes it has made a commitment. Given the six-year average from 1976 to 1981 for profits in refining and marketing, those areas that fall outside the energy agreement, the average was $51 million per year. In 1980 and 1981 the average was more than twice that amount. Is the government prepared to demand from Suncor that it go back to the five or six-year average of $51 million from the $100 million to $115 million that it received in 1980 and 1981?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the government will not rely on a single year to establish such a reference. Second, we certainly would not use the highest year, which was 1981, as a reference point. One would have to look at an extended period of time. This matter is going to be examined and discussed with the company.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It is prompted by the loan guarantee to the Maislin Trucking Company and the condition of the 6-5 regime. A week ago in this House we passed the Small Businesses Loans Act. The minister is aware that that gives a preferential rate of interest, and this government or any other government guarantees the loans to qualified small-business men. In light of the Maislin precedent, does the minister envisage that when the bank
allows a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act which the government guarantees, the 6-5 regime will apply there? Will it also apply to the small business development bond and to the 4 per cent subsidy? Does the minister envisage that as a result of the criteria?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, it is not apparent in what capacity the hon. member for Cambridge addresses this question to me as President of the Treasury Board. Neither of the issues to which he makes reference come within the jurisdiction of the Board. Perhaps he might care to address a supplementary to some other minister.


APPLICATION OF RESTRAINT PROGRAM TO BUSINESSES RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that he wants businessmen and others in the country who receive grants or government assistance to abide by the 6-5 guidelines. A week ago last Friday we passed in this House a bill respecting the Small Businesses Loans Act whereby there is a guarantee by this government to pay the banks in the event of default by small-business men who receive loans. Does the Prime Minister envisage that the 6-5 guidelines will apply to small businesses in circumstances under which loans made by banks are guaranteed by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the substance of the question, but I would be happy to consider the hon. member's question as a representation and look into it.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. By guaranteeing a loan to Maislin the government assumes a contingent liability. In relation to any Crown corporation or private company for which the government carries a contingent liability on its books, is it the policy of the government that the 6-5 guidelines apply to the beneficiary of that contingent liability? The question is as simple as that.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, if there are additional cases similar to Maislin, obviously it will be the intention of the government to seek similar assurance with respect to the 65 guidelines. The hon. member has asked a question about a law passed by Parliament establishing the conditions under which certain funds are available to small businesses. If hon. members are suggesting that in those cases we ought to add another condition that the 6-5 be applied, that is something to which I would give consideration. I would do so, however, somewhat hesitantly.
August 2, 1982


APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, then is it the policy of the government that any existing contingent liability prior to the budget is not affected by the 6-5 guidelines? Hon. members are not asking for anything. We are trying to find out whether the 6-5 guidelines are to be made applicable to a private or public group or corporation which benefits by virtue of any contingent liability assumed by the government once the government assumes the contingent liability. I believe the minister can answer that because he is being prompted by the Prime Minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the answer I gave earlier is the precise answer I want to give to the second question, because it covers the whole matter fully.


Charles Joseph Clark: You don't know. You don't have a policy.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. On Friday last the CBC questioned the minister concerning the projected move of the headquarters of the naval reserves from Halifax to Quebec City. The minister replied at that time that, if the move was decided upon, he would make an announcement at the appropriate time and place. There are many parliamentarians who believe that the appropriate place for ministers to make announcements on policy is in the House of Commons. Will the minister be making a statement on motions today on this subject?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madame Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I do not think that is the proper way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

Madam Speaker, the former minister of national defence knows perfectly well that achieving fair and equitable francophone participation in the Canadian Navy is an issue that has been discussed for a number of years in navy circles. The civilian officials of my department asked me about this when I became Minister of National Defence in 1980, and at that time 1 asked the department's military authorities to make a study of the matter and make appropriate recommendations on how to achieve a fairer and more equitable participation of francophones in the Navy. They approached the issue in various ways and made a number of suggestions, and I think it
Oral Questions
is now an administrative decision that is up to the Department of National Defence and the Commander of the Canadian Maritime Force. Once they have decided what is to be done, we shall make a joint announcement at the appropriate time.


REASONS FOR RELOCATION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that studies were undertaken and recommendations recently made offering him six different courses. In evidence given to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence the president of the Naval Officers Association recommended-and officers of the minister's own staff have recommended-that an additional two units be placed in the province of Quebec. This would require six regular personnel per unit, and new jobs would be created. Is the truth of the matter that the existing 60 jobs to be moved from Halifax to Quebec City are the real reason the minister is going through with this move, which will lead to nothing but inefficiency in the naval service?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, this question has been addressed by my department at the administrative level. My department has a solution. It has been proposed to me, I have accepted it, and they have decided to make the announcement of these-


Charles Joseph Clark: "They" have? You are the minister.


Mr. Lamontagne:: I am the minister, but I do not play politics with defence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. Several weeks ago the minister indicated that he had eased entry of Japanese auto imports into the country as a gesture of good will toward the Japanese in trade negotiations. I wonder if the minister could inform the House as to the development of these negotiations or any positive things which may have occurred since this gesture of good will.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I know how interested the hon. member and other hon. members are regarding a solution to the problem with respect to Japan and the car issue. Our officials left for Tokyo during the weekend, and it is hoped that within a week we will be able to resolve this issue.

August 2, 1982
Oral Questions


PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION RESTRAINT ACT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. On Friday last the minister gave notice that he intends actually to cut the pay of staffs of Members of Parliament and senators, 80 per cent of whom are women. These staffs are denied free collective bargaining rights and, in many instances, are certainly not overpaid. In view of the fact that this sleazy, shameful move, which constitutes nothing less than playing cheap politics on the backs of hard-working parliamentary staff members, puts this group of employees in a worse position than any other employees in the country, including Members of Parliament and senators, will the minister explain this shameful betrayal of our employees, and will be reconsider this shabby scapegoating amendment?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I think the accusation is somewhat exaggerated. If I may take a moment, let me explain why this amendment was judged to be necessary. Hon. members may recall that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, supported by the hon. member for Perth and the hon. member for Peterborough, accused the government of treating ministerial exempt staff with undue favour by providing a 10 per cent raise which was decided May 13. When I look at Hansard, I see that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said on July 5:
-why does he-
He was referring to me.
-not do the honourable thing and roll them all back so that the exempt staff will stand in exactly the same position as public servants?
In fact, exempt staff did stand in exactly the same position as public servants, but to a degree the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton apparently was successful in misleading the country and independent observers into thinking some favouritism had been granted.
It is absolutely fundamental to the credibility of this program that the government be perceived as dealing harshly with Members of Parliament, with itself, and with others. Thanks to the efforts of the opposition, that has become virtually impossible in the present circumstances, and hence it is with some regret-but, nevertheless, judged to be necessary-that we put all political appointees, in keeping with the request of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, on the same footing.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The minister has broken the solemn promise he made to this House on July 9 when he said there would be no reductions in wages and salaries for anyone other than Members of Parliament and senators. The minister stated, in reply to representations made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, that he would not make ministerial staffs, as he put it, "particular sacrificial lambs." How can the minister stand before us with any sense of equity or fairness and say he intends to make this particular
group of employees the victims of his game of political one-upmanship with the Conservative Party? Will the minister now stop trying to score cheap political points on the backs of the staffs of Members of Parliament and senators?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, we are not talking about political points. We are talking about a national assault on inflation, with the federal government taking the lead.
Because of accusations that have been made which, on their face and on the facts, are false, a number of observers such as the Ottawa Citizen last week, a respected newspaper in this country, wrote that:
Another example of its bankruptcy-
Speaking of the government-
-came when Liberal MPs defeated a Tory effort to have cabinet aides' salaries cut back to the 6 per cent guideline, along with public servants.
Clearly, even the editorial staff of the Ottawa Citizen was misled by the statements coming from the member for Nepean-Carleton. Not only that, they refer to 11 per cent, but the next day, I should point out, there was an apology in the newspaper pointing out that the figure was 10 per cent. So there is no effort here at all to take advantage or to score cheap political points.
What is important is that the government be perceived as taking the lead and that it not be accused falsely by members of the opposition. It is with regret that I introduced this amendment, but in the circumstances it is clearly necessary if the public has the impression that political appointees were enjoying some special benefit.


QUERY RESPECTING ADVICE GIVEN TO MINISTER
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, if there is an assault on anything it is on honesty. That is the first assault. The second is on the staff of Members of Parliament who work in this House.
The government has never taken my advice on anything in the ten years I have been here, and it has not taken it now. I want to ask the minister what highly paid, politically appointed member of his exempt staff advised such a stupid, harsh, vindictive move as the government just put forward in its amendment in this House?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I mark the unctuous tones in which the hon. member addresses this issue. As my parliamentary secretary indicated last week, the hon. member is the spiritual father of this whole affair. Let me quote the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton as reported at page 18984 of Hansard as follows:
-why does the President of the Treasury Board not do the honourable thing? Rather than defending the indefensible increases for political staff, the appointees of himself and his colleagues, why does he not do the honourable thing and
August 2, 1982

roll them all back so that the exempt staff will stand in exactly the same position as public servants?
He asked for an amendment to roll back the salaries of exempt staff. He proposed an amendment before committee to roll back salaries of exempt staff. The exempt staff of ministers stand on exactly the same footing as all political appointees-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is another falsehood.


Donald James Johnston: -of parliamentarians in this House and in the Senate, and in the office of the Leader of the Opposition and in the caucus bureaus. If we are to play the hair-shirt role, Madam Speaker, I suggest we all play it, and that the hon. member stop speaking out of both sides of his mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the exempt staff is not the same as the staff in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: They have higher salaries and the protection of an entree into the Public Service of Canada. In other words, they are different. More than that, they are just the pets of the government and it wanted to protect them when it was found with its hand in the cookie jar.
If the minister is going to accept my advice, will he accept this piece of advice, that is, resign, and let them put someone competent in his position?
Hon. Donald. J. Johnston (President of the Treasury
Board): Madam Speaker, I take it that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is asking me to follow his example when he resigned as House leader. I have no intention of resigning, the Prime Minister and God willing!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: One has not been introduced to the other.


Donald James Johnston: I feel that in the circumstances we have done the logical if not, perhaps, unfortunate thing in the circumstances. These circumstances have been created by the kind of argument just put forward by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. Now, all of a sudden, exempt staff are different in some way from parliamentary staff.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Donald James Johnston: Is a secretary working in a minister's office who is on an exempt staff budget different from a secretary working at the next desk on a parliamentary budget? I would ask the hon. member to explain that conundrum to the House.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


INCREASE IN POTATO INSPECTION FEE-REQUEST FOR ROLLBACK
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board. As the 1200 per cent increase in the charge for table stock potato inspection for export was implemented on July 19, and as the minister announced that any increases higher than 6 per cent which were not implemented before June 28 would be rolled back, would he advise the House if this 1200 per cent increase will be rolled back to 6 per cent?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, finally we have a sensible and reasonable question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: A directive was issued by Treasury Board to all ministers withdrawing the delegated authority to assign any kind of increase for goods and services to the government in excess of 6 per cent. I have not looked at the specific details. The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of this question. It would seem to me on its face that this is one of the increases that should be rolled back.


TRANSPORT
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission has inquired of CN Rail if the 6 per cent maximum guideline will apply to rail freight traffic. CN Rail responded by advising that, since it had not received any specific directives from the federal government, it would continue to price its rail services to reflect normal market factors while attempting to recover, as much as it can, the cost increases due to inflation.
Could the minister advise the House whether directives will be issued to CN Rail to limit their price increase to 6 per cent, and also will a directive be issued to CN Marine which is in charge of the ferries between P.E.I. and New Brunswick advising that a 6 per cent increase is the maximum?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, each situation is a special one. The role of the CTC is different with respect to air fares, and with respect to rail rates, for example. The present attitude is to look at each of those in particular and decide on the basis of special circumstances, if any.

August 2, 1982
Oral Questions SUPPLY AND SERVICES


CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF CF-18 AIRCRAFT ENGINES
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. A contract is being put out for bids for the maintenance of the CF-404 engine for the new F-18 aircraft. The word in the marketplace is that Air Canada and CP Air are to be allowed to bid for the maintenance of these engines. Is that true and, if so, why are they being allowed to bid on this contract?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for the question. The matter is under serious consideration. There has been a request both by Air Canada and CP Air that they be permitted to offer their facilities to provide repair and overhaul for the CF-404 engine. My department is very interested in seeking the best possible return for taxpayers' dollars. We are considering very seriously whether Air Canada and CP Air would be permitted to bid on the contract.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF FAIR COMPETITION
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, what kind of assurances can the minister give Orenda Engines and Rolls-Royce, the two companies that have been overhauling and keeping these engines up to date for the armed forces over the years? What kind of assurances can he give them that the competition will be fair, because of the facilities that Air Canada and CP Air have at the present time?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, when the offer was made by Air Canada and by CP Air to participate in the bidding, one of the major considerations, of course, was fairness. That is still one of the major considerations. My officials have been directed to analyse what the bidding criteria will be in order to ensure that there is absolute fairness in the bidding process for all participants and in the eventual selection of a successful bidder.


AWARDING OF DRILLING PERMITS OFF SABLE ISLAND
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a question that relates to the fairness of the bidding process and it is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the awarding of drilling permits off Sable Island to Petro-Canada and others, with no competitive bidding being allowed. The minister has said:
It was quite clear in our view that no one else could have come forward with a better bid.
Would the minister be prepared to publish the evidence which allowed him to deny other companies the right to bid on this matter?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to refer the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to the fact that we had the full support and agreement of the Government of Nova Scotia in this particular decision.
This decision means a $500 million investment in offshore drilling by Canadian oil and gas companies which include not only Petro-Canada but Husky Oil and Bow Valley. This deal means the companies concerned will spend that money in the space of the next three years, and that at the end of the second year the companies will relinquish 75 per cent of the lands they prefer not to keep to the government. In addition, the companies gave extremely strong commitments to Canadian content for goods and services. It was quite clear, in our judgment, that no other bid could come near to this.


Mr. Andre:: How do you know?


Marc Lalonde: As far as the reference is concerned about which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking, I would be pleased to send him a copy of the Canada Oil and Gas Act which includes the option for the minister to issue licences to competitors or bidders directly. I would also be pleased to send him a copy of the agreement which clearly indicates that this is an exceptionally good deal for the people of Nova Scotia and for the people of Canada, as has been stated by the Premier of Nova Scotia.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister has declined to publish his reasons for refusing competitive bidding. We are aware of the act. What we were not aware of was that the minister was going to abuse it so quickly.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, it is now the policy of the government that drilling permits will be issued without competitive bidding, or is this case involving Petro-Canada a special one?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have not refused to give the reasons. I said to the hon. member that he should read the act which was passed by this Parliament. It states quite specifically that there are two options open to the government.


Mr. Huntington:: He knows the act. Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: One is through bids and the other is through direct issuance. My intention is to follow generally the practice of open bidding except in rare circumstances.
As far as the reasons for this particular case are concerned, I again would invite the right hon. member to read the agreement reached by the government with the companies and I
August 2, 1982

think he will, as did the Premier of Nova Scotia, conclude that indeed this was a very, very good deal for Canada.


LOCATION OF MARINE SUPPLY BASE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, one of the conditions accepted by the consortium is to spend $1 million to study the feasibility of building a marine supply base somewhere in Nova Scotia. Will the minister tell us whether one of the locations being considered is in the constituency of the Minister of Finance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 hope so.
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, certainly one of the sites being used is Mulgrave where, as a matter of fact, Petro-Canada is going to have its supply base to start. The consortium, and Petro-Canada in particular, is going to carry out the study over the next year, and a decision will be announced in due time.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this deal smells, and it deserves to be investigated by a committee of the Parliament of this country. Would the minister allow, in the interest of all of the facts being known, an all-party committee of this House to investigate all aspects of the issuance of these permits without bids, including allowing the committee to examine, in confidence if necessary, all oral and all written undertakings between the government and representatives of the consortium? Will the minister let Parliament look into this deal?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, Mulgrave is the site that was chosen by Petro-Canada on its own.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: It happens to be the site closest to the drilling site. This decision has been made by Petro-Canada on its own.


Harvie Andre: If you believe that, I have some land in Florida for you.


Marc Lalonde: I might tell the hon. member that, if he finds that this deal smells, the Leader of the Opposition stinks.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Epp:: You have risen to new lows.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indians Affairs and
Oral Questions
Northern Development. Last Friday the minister hand delivered a fatal blow to Polar Bear Pass, one of the 140 ecological sites north of 60 that have been identified by the United Nations International Environmental Program. That fatal blow was the government's decision to allow oil and gas exploration in this sensitive ecological area. Since the minister has clearly not paid attention to the government's own environmental advisory council report on the threat to wildlife in the north from oil and gas exploration, will he take immediate steps to declare Polar Bear Pass a full ecological site and establish other such areas in the north?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I was in that area within the last two or three days. We have declared an ecological site there with the approval of many people. I believe the news report upon which the hon. member has founded his question is erroneous. We are not giving Panarctic permission to drill. We are not approving drilling in the Polar Bear Pass. In fact we have been negotiating with Panarctic over some years to relinquish all of the claims that have existed heretofore.


REQUEST THAT DRILLING LICENCES BE RESCINDED
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, is the minister saying that Panarctic has not been granted any licence to drill in the Polar Bear area? If that is correct, fine. If it is not correct, will the minister make sure that licences to drill for either oil or gas will be rescinded in view of the fact that Panarctic has a very bad track record in polluting the north and leaving all kinds of drilling garbage around the sites.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member listened to my answer to his first question, unless he wanted to make somewhat of a speech by way of a second question. I already indicated the relinquishing of any preexisting claims by Panarctic in the area is being negotiated, we think successfully.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following the latest bombings carried out by Israel over Beirut, which I can only qualify today as being totally

August 2, 1982
Oral Questions
unacceptable, could the minister tell us whether he has lodged a protest with the Israel authorities and whether he will be expressing his sympathy with the Lebanese and Palestinian people?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have, in fact, decided to protest again to Israel, and I have also announced I am recommending that the Canadian ambassador and his staff leave West Beirut, for their own safety and also to safeguard Canadian interests.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. There have been several estimates of the number of employees employed by Maislin Transport. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi has mentioned 770. We have heard 1,000 and
2,000.	But what we do know is that there are at least 4,500 employees of Maislin Transport. Does the 6-5 restraint regime apply to the American employees of Maislin Transport?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the commitment of Maislin applies to its Canadian employees.


THE CONSTITUTION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. Section 37 of the Canada Act requires the convening of a first ministers' conference within one year of the proclamation of the Constitution, making the effective date April 17. Has the Prime Minister contacted the provinces concerning acceptable dates for that first ministers' conference, and is he considering February, 1983, for that conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have not corresponded directly with the premiers on that particular date, but I have discussed with the native leaders optimal dates. February and March are dates they have suggested. I have instructed my officials to contact their opposite numbers in the provinces to see if there would be agreement on that. I have not yet had a report.


CONFERENCE AGENDA
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. As he
knows, Section 37 requires that at least one agenda item be on the table for that first ministers' conference, namely, the definition and inclusion of aboriginal rights in Canada's Constitution. Is he seeing that first ministers' conference as fulfilling that responsibility only, or is he considering other agenda items? If so, what might they be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it would be my intention to consider the addition of other items in a subsequent or precedent conference, both of them back-to-back, if the premiers are agreeable to discussing other items. As the hon. member pointed out, the Canada Act obliges us to have a meeting on that one subject. There is no obligation on the other subjects, but I am open to discussion on any other items which the premiers would want to see put on the agenda.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he say whether or not the Canadian ambassador is being recalled from Beirut because he has requested his own recall, or are we simply removing a source of acute embarrassment to Israel by this recall?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I had left the decision to the ambassador as to whether or not he felt he should leave at any time. He did not exercise that discretion. But as a result of the heavy bombardment over the weekend and the fact that our staff there has been subjected to pressure for so long, plus the difficulties we are now having communicating with them- with electricity and other services unavailable, it was very difficult to get through-I felt that the time had now come to ask them to close the embassy in West Beirut and to operate as effectively as they can for the near future from the suburb of Jounieh.


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 Friday, July 30, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
August 2, 1982


PRIVILEGE
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to give notice that it is my intention tomorrow to raise a question of privilege regarding the accuracy of the transcription of Hansard. 1 recognize the difficulty of Hansard-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. One cannot give notice of a question of privilege on a point of order. The proper way to give notice of a question of privilege is to send to the Speaker's office a brief statement on what is the subject matter of the question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the privilege to present a petition on behalf of 728 residents of the riding of Simcoe North, many of them contacted by the Orillia Fish and Game Conservation Club. They suggest that Canada needs tougher laws to control the criminal use of firearms, tougher courts and tougher punishment, not further controls on those who use firearms for sport purposes.
The petitioners feel that the passage of Bill C-451 would infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens who own and use guns for legitimate purposes. It is their request that the petition be reviewed, and they wish to have it presented to you at this time.


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Walter David Baker: for leave to introduce Bill C-660, to amend the Financial Administration Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable government to have the lawful ability to deposit money in credit unions and caisses populates. It is an amendment to the Financial Administration Act. It splits the simple matter of helping credit unions and caisses populaires from the controversial and far-reaching amendments proposed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) with respect to Bill C-96, and it would meet a need of those credit unions and caisses populaires.
Time Allocation


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull) asked for leave to introduce Bill C-661, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (registration of political parties).
Some hon. Members:: Explain!


Mr. Isabelle:: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to remove any trace of ambiguity as to the national character of political parties desiring to operate at the federal level, by restricting registration to those parties that are fielding the required number of candidates, distributed over a majority of the provinces. Under the present legislation, the required number is fifty, but there is no reference as to how the candidates should be distributed.


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


Donald James Johnston: That, in relation to Bill C-124, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Madam Speaker, I believe the time has come to move expeditiously to the conclusion of report stage and third reading of Bill C-124.
First, let me say that the proceedings to date have been fruitful, that the work of committee members on all sides of the House has been productive, has brought forward change and comment, and that we now have before us a number of additional motions which appear on the Order Paper, some of which were discussed briefly on Friday and a number of which, I hope, we will have the opportunity of debating during the closing hours of report stage. I would point out that in the

August 2, 1982
Time Allocation
course of the debate before the committee a number of significant amendments were made. In addition, of course, we have the further amendments on the Order Paper to which I made reference.
Let me, if I may, for just a moment touch upon those to remind the House where major progress has been made in improving the bill and in making it more effective in achieving its ends and also more equitable in its application. 1 refer the House to the change in Clause 3, subparagraph (4), which has the effect of extending the application of the bill to employees of Canadian Pacific Limited and its subsidiaries as well as to the employees of a number of other railway companies which are specifically enumerated, namely the Ontario Northland Railway, the Algoma Central Railway Company, Toronto Terminals Railway Company and Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway Company.
Members will recall that these amendments were brought about because of the history and importance attached to joint bargaining by both the unions, on the one hand, and by management on the other. This joint bargaining has a history of something like ninety years, and with this amendment which was introduced at committee stage that joint bargaining, that very important institution, will be preserved.
In addition, much has been said during the course of this debate with respect to the issue of collective bargaining and the importance of continuing a measure of collective bargaining during the period of this wage restraint program. At the committee stage I introduced an amendment which is now found in Clause 7 of the bill. That amendment goes some way to restoring and preserving collective bargaining in that it permits parties to a collective agreement which has been extended in accordance with the terms and conditions of the act to amend by agreement any terms or conditions of the collective agreement or arbitral award other than wage rates or other terms and conditions of the compensation plan.
This means with respect to those non-monetary items-and I think particularly of the issue of health and safety which is of concern I know to all members of this House, to members of management and to members of the unions themselves-that they will be permitted during the extension of any agreement under the provisions of the law to continue to collectively bargain and to agree on these very important areas.
There stands on the Order Paper further amendments dealing with the issue of collective bargaining. There is a proposed amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), and I hope in the time remaining to us we will have the opportunity of exchanging our views with respect to the proposed application of that amendment. That stands as Motion No. 9.
1 suggest-and I will elaborate on this a good deal further in the course of debate at report stage-that this amendment in fact falls far short of what the member for Rosedale himself seeks to achieve in terms of preserving and enhancing the collective bargaining process. At the same time 1 will have the
opportunity to elaborate at some length on Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, which provides that the governor in council may by order terminate the application of this act in respect of an employee or group of employees to which this act applies.
That, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is a very significant amendment in terms of the preservation of the collective bargaining system. I indicated in this House and in a release which I made at the time this amendment was tabled that this amendment will permit parties who would otherwise be bound by this agreement to enter into negotiations and to arrive at an agreement through the application of the traditional collective bargaining process, subject to the 6 per cent and 5 per cent total limit. This means that within that limit parties will be able to negotiate, to make trade-offs, to permit items such as, for example, maternity leave, which was raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) in the course of the debate at the committee stage, to be incorporated into collective agreements and then, when the parties have reached an agreement, they will be subject to order by the governor in council, an order which will in fact terminate the application of the law with respect to that particular contract, with respect to that employer and with respect to that group of employees.
I see this amendment as being very significant. I realize I have only a few minutes to speak on the motion and hence I do not intend to engage in a wide and complete analysis of how that particular provision can be applied as opposed to how the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Rosedale will be applied. However, I suggest that this permits maximum flexibility to take account of the wide variety of circumstances that can exist with respect to any particular employee or group of employees and permit agreement to be reached through the normal operation of the collective bargaining process, subject at all times to the over-all limitation of 6 per cent and 5 per cent which, of course, is fundamental to the thrust of this wage restraint program.
We have already discussed at some length motion No. 3. It was the subject of some exchange in the House during question period. As I indicated during my comments on Friday, I regret that this amendment is necessary but I believe that in the circumstances, due to the unfortunate impression that has been created across this country and has been adopted by some observers in the media to the effect that one particular group has been singled out for favoured treatment, it was the government's decision, to counter what I call that unfortunate impression, that all political appointees in fairness must be treated on the same footing.
I know that comments have been made. We heard them on Friday, we heard them during question period. We know the effect is to treat these employees in a way which is more difficult for them than any other group of employees to which the bill applies. We know that, but we ask them also as good public servants to join with us in this anti-inflation crusade and set an example which all Canadians are being asked to follow.
August 2, 1982

It originally had been the intention of the government to limit the application of the actual rollback of wage rates to Members of Parliament and to senators-in other words, to parliamentarians. That point was made, I believe, in a question during question period from a member of the NDP.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: And my motion.


Donald James Johnston: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands confirms that. When I responded at an earlier period in this debate, I did say that the intention of the law was to limit the rollback to parliamentarians. However, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves where the credibility of the program is so important, where the thrust of the program is so important and where the example set by the federal government is so important, no false perceptions can be allowed to remain.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz).


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, the government has brought in closure on Bill C-124, the restraint legislation. Frankly, we hope that the 6 per cent and 5 per cent restraint program works. The problem is that it is seriously flawed, as per the amendment brought in by the minister on Friday afternoon which so seriously hurts members' staffs who have no tenure, no security, no bargaining power in unions. So we see that this legislation is seriously flawed.
This is a government which has proven that it is interventionist, that it likes to control-or should I say loves to control-the lives of people. My question is, if this legislation is so important, then why cut off the debate now? What is the big hurry? Indeed, what is the matter with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet who cannot seem to be capable of realizing how badly our country is hurting?
My leader has said that the hard facts are easy to manage but no one ever gets used to the human costs of Canada's economic mess. The Prime Minister keeps insisting that Canadians must "curb their expectations", that they must "restrain their wage demands and tighten their belts", ad nauseam. In the same breath, the government authorized $5 million for the 115th birthday party which in fact was over $1 million more than the previous year.
I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from a letter which I received just today from a constituent in Wainfleet. The letter is dated July 23:
While it is encouraging that the government is finally acting based on the extreme condition of the economy it is not going to be effective enough to have apppreciable effect on the economy, or government spending.
I am a white-collar worker at Atlas Steels, a specialty steel producer. In my job as metallurgical service representative, I visit many of our customers on technical problems etc. and I feel I can speak with authority when I say that the government does not know what is going on in the real world.
He goes on to say:
Many companies including Atlas Steels are laying off (actual termination) white collar workers. At Atlas Steels there has been a 20 per cent staff cut via
Time Allocation
terminations and early retirement. Employees with 19 and 24 years service have been terminated. The government never mentions staff cuts. In fact, I read that Ottawa hired 8,024 workers during the first quarter of the year-
He concludes in the last paragraph:
-I would ask you to do your best to bring this government to the knowledge that people are hurting a lot more than they realize. Further, help them to understand that while their recent actions make good newspaper reading, they still are about 8 months out of phase with the industrial sector of the country.
On June 23, 1982, it was stated in The Globe and Mail that "This government must curtail its own voracious appetite for more and more money to support more and more expansion of its control over Canadian resources." One indeed wonders whether the average Canadian realizes that one dollar out of every four dollars spent by the federal government is now spent on interest and debt charges-it is more like "depth charges", for it indeed will surely sink us.
The former Auditor General, James Macdonell, predicts that the deficit will reach $22.5 billion for this year. That is $3 billion more than the government estimate. He also said that Canadians face a 50-cent dollar if the present government does not get spending under control. A government serious about turning around the economy must first learn to restrain and discipline itself. Spending rose in the fiscal year 1981-82 by 22.1 per cent. This Liberal government is trying to hide its own responsibilities by blaming all of our economic problems on American policy.
As Barbara Amiel stated in the Sun on July 11, 1982, "Reagan has cut taxes; Trudeau increased them. Reagan has cut government programs; Trudeau is increasing them. Reagan is trying to cut the deficit; Trudeau has doubled it. The United States is importing less oil; Canada's oil costs are going up."
A government whose fundamental national policy is to blame others is unlikely to come up with much creative thinking or much co-operation from the people it blames, whether they are our neighbors to the south, our provinces, our businesses or our unions. As well, the suggestion of helplessness eats away at the very spirit of the Canadian people.
This land was settled and developed into the great country that it is today by our forefathers who came here to overcome the odds, try new things and accomplish goals unobtainable in the old world, for we are not at the mercy of the world. Canadians want to accomplish better things with a government that will help and not hinder them. But the tragic lack of confidence in Canada today is solely due to lack of government leadership, not lack of resources or opportunities. Much of our unemployment, our negative growth and our high interest rates have been the high price of ideology in Ottawa, laid squarely on the shoulders of the government and not the high price Canadians have to pay for a fight against inflation, as the government would have us believe.
To quote Laventhol and Horwath, chartered accountants, from their advertisement in The Globe and Mail on June 17, 1982:
Only a major reversal will begin to answer the needs of the economy. The pride of the Minister of Finance, the stubbornness of the Minister of Energy and the
19908

August 2, 1982
Time Allocation
ideology of the government must be set aside in order to restore the basic confidence that is key to any economic recovery in this country.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes in the Canadian people and the great future of our country. However, we must first replace this arrogant, dictatorial and self-indulgent government that is glutted with 17 years of unrestrained spending and completely out of touch with the rest of Canadian society.
Today, Canada is at a crossroads both in government policy and lack in confidence of the Canadian people as a result of the political, social and economic system. When our people no longer feel that they can count on a secure future, then the whole system falls apart. Our party is working hard to preserve the Canada that we love and believe in. We acknowledge that there has to be restraint, but over-all restraint. We must act today to solve our problems. We have to replace this government with one that will adopt new directions and restore confidence and hope-most of all hope-to Canadians, and especially the 1.3 million unemployed Canadians, the poor, the elderly, the troubled home owners, the harassed small-business people and the dispirited investors.
If the Progressive Conservative government of 1979 had been left in office and its budget approved, Canada would today be indeed a more prosperous country. The Crosbie budget was designed to stimulate and give room to the private sector to expand and develop. The NDP do not like that. The budget was designed to encourage small business and to encourage Canadians to hold ownership through shares in Canadian companies and to deal sensibly with our energy problems. The Alsands tar sands project and Cold Lake would indeed be well under way. The east coast oil and natural gas resources exploration and development would have gone ahead without the unpleasant dispute with Newfoundland on offshore mineral development. The battle over unilateral changes to the Constitution would have been avoided. Co-operative federalism would still be in place.
It is the firm conviction of our party that these same directions and thrusts of the budget are still basically right for Canada. If our party had been in power and had introduced a budget on June 28 as a majority government, we would have implemented the following measures.
I see you are preparing to stand, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude by saying that the present government has yet to see the light. It is continuing to discriminate against job-creating investment. It is continuing to discriminate against tax-employee benefits. It is continuing to tax businesses at an increased rate. It is attacking pensioners, and it has increased government spending by 20 per cent for two consecutive years while asking Canadians to restrain themselves by 6 per cent. It is asking Canadians to finance a $20 billion deficit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I always find it amusing to listen to Conservatives speaking
about this legislation, given the fact that they intend to stand in their places and support it one by one when the final vote comes. I find it a little hypocritical that they find themselves or think they are in a position to criticize something which they have already indicated they think is a step in the right direction. I often wonder if they ever read their own material in trying to decide just what side of these issues they are on. However, with that out of the way, I want to deal with what is before us.
The legislation which is before us is wrong. It is wrong because it does nothing to correct the many serious problems which currently confront Canadians and the Canadian economy. To limit the debate under Standing Order 75C as moved by the minister earlier today will not in any way assist us to bring this bill around to a point where it could at least be less oppressive. I think that is all we could hope to accomplish in this House of Commons.
When the bill was first introduced, it was totally unacceptable. Now that it has been amended, the bill is even worse. It is hard to believe that we could have gone through three or four days of committee proceedings and then found that the bill which ultimately came back to the House of Commons was worse. The chairman of the committee is holding up his hands to indicate that it was seven days. I appreciate that. I can make that out very nicely. The problem is that no matter whether it was three, four or seven days, the days were wasted, because the legislation is now more repressive and more unacceptable than it was when it first came in.
The government, together with its friends in the Tory party, has never believed in collective bargaining. It has been first in line to restrict it every single time that restriction was called for by anyone. Its supporters, the Liberal and Conservative big business supporters, are the people who are standing up and applauding this government, saying, "Don't you worry. We will be behind you all the way. You do not have to worry about us. We will restrict wages for you. We will make sure that people do not get enough to live on, do not worry. But whatever you do, do not ask us to restrict profits and do not ask us to restrict prices. After all, we need these high profits and these high prices while we are holding down people's wages."


Ronald Alexander Stewart: What pays for hospitalization?


Ian Deans: Ian Sinclair, who now stands in the private sector and speaks on behalf of the government and its Tory friends, says, "Oh, yes, you do not have to worry about us at CP; we will make sure that we restrict the wages of our employees and we will encourage all the other people in the private sector with whom we come into contact to restrict the wages of their employees." However, he then goes on to say that companies which hold wage increases to 6 per cent cannot necessarily be expected to do the same with prices because survival, for him; depends on increased profits. He says that these profits and price margins must be restored or there will be a significant number of failures and more people will be out of work.
August 2, 1982

I ask Mr. Sinclair, the government and its supporters in the Tory party, what about the people who cannot make it with their wages restricted? What about the people who cannot afford to take on a mortgage because the government, with the support of the Tory party, has allowed the Bank of Canada to push the interest rates up and up to the point at which the average working family can no longer afford a mortgage?
What about the small businesses which are facing almost out-of-sight costs, tripled, almost directly attributable to high interest rates, which are going bankrupt because the government and its supporters in the Tory party refuse to take action to limit the interest rates which the Bank of Canada is foisting upon the people of this country?
What about the farmers in every part of the country who are facing possible bankruptcy, many of them having already gone bankrupt in record numbers in the last year? What about those farmers who went bankrupt because interest rates were far too high and they could not afford to carry the additional burden because they were not getting a sufficient amount of income? What about those farmers who are losing or who have already lost their farms because of the interest rate policy of the Liberal government, supported by the Tory party?
I say to Your Honour that to ask us now to limit this debate which will restrict the wages of people while doing absolutely nothing about the exorbitant prices which Mr. Sinclair now demands that they be allowed to charge, to limit this debate on a bill which will hold down people's incomes while bowing to Mr. Sinclair's demands that these companies must be able to charge whatever they want in order to restore their historical profit levels, is shameful. I say to Your Honour that these two parties, the Tory party, standing up together with its allies in the Liberal Party in support of their big business friends, in opposition to the people of the country, should be ashamed of themselves. These two parties, which are really one party, I suppose, under two names, should be ashamed of themselves. There they are, standing as one, standing together when it comes to people's wages. Ready, aye, ready, making sure that-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Who supported them on property rights?


Ian Deans: -there will be an overwhelming majority to defeat those of us who think that people's wages are far too important to be tampered with.
The government is not satisfied to restrict wage increases to 6 per cent and 5 per cent in those areas where collective bargaining is in force in the public sector. It also reaches into the private sector and says "We will restrict your wages, too". Oh, it is only in the case of CP Rail at the moment, but who will it be next? Who are the next ones in line? Who is it that the Conservative-Liberal alliance will be picking on next in this country?
The government says that the reason it chose the civil service employees is because they have job security. It is true that other people are facing lay-offs, but those people will never get back to work unless the people who are working can
Time Allocation
afford to buy the products that they make, and that, my friends, is a truism.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Without profit.


Ian Deans: It is a fact that those people will never get back to work unless there are those who are working who will be able to purchase, and they will never be able to afford to purchase if interest rates remain high and their incomes are further restricted. Yet the Conservatives and Liberals are standing together, shoulder to shoulder, on behalf of high prices and profits and against the wage earners of this country.
I say to hon. members that we cannot stand for that. We cannot sit by and watch this hypocrisy. We cannot sit by and watch this unholy alliance between the government and the pretenders in the Conservative Party who pretend to be in opposition at every turn. In fact, when the chips are down and the Conservatives have to choose between the corporate elite and the people of the country, they choose the corporate elite every time.
As a final move, what does the government do? The government says, "We will restrict this measure to those people in the civil service who have security of employment." Then, because the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) stands up and makes an allegation which may or may not be founded but which has some political ripples in it and causes the government a little embarrassment in western Canada, the government says, "Well, we will show him." Two or three editorials pointed out that the government is showing some favouritism in the way in which it deals with employees, and they were written at the behest of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. The government says, "We will really show him. We will take some more money from some other people and teach him a lesson. We will reduce his staff salaries. We will reduce the salaries of all members. That will really show him where to get off. He will not do that again, by gosh, because his employees will not have the money that they need."
I see you rising, Mr. Speaker. I will not take any more of your time. But this is wrong, dead wrong. When the Tories and Liberals stand together, they should be ashamed of themselves.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak once again on Bill C-124 because I support it wholeheartedly. People in my riding, and people I have met across Canada since the budget, overwhelmingly support the idea that 6 per cent and 5 per cent are manageable economic targets and manageable ways to bring our economy back to recovery.
Bill C-124 provides leadership by asking public servants and politicians to limit their salary increases to 6 per cent and 5 per cent over the next two years. More important, this bill stands as a symbol of the necessary collective effort that all of us must put into our recovery. Let us repeat over and over again that 6 per cent is a manageable target, 6 per cent is an increase

August 2, 1982
Time Allocation
that will bring health to our economy, 6 per cent is something that each person in our society can contribute to our mutual recovery.
Inflation is the economic disease that all of us can help defeat. We cannot reach out into our traditional markets around the world and into other economies to change their direction, but we can fix our own economy and bring it under control so that when the world recovery comes, we will be there to take advantage of it.
This bill limiting wage increases in the federal public service provides only the first step toward that recovery. It is the example to the rest of our society. We as an employer are saying to our employees that we will go through this step. However, we are asking the rest of our economy to come along with us.
We just heard a very passionate speech from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on prices and profits. He raises a question that many people ask. Are they going to go through limited wage increases only to see unconscionable increases on the price side? Quite fairly and quite rightly, ordinary people are asking this question.
I wish to refer to today's Globe and Mail "Report on Business". The lead article on that page is entitled "Industry prices tumble in weak economy". It states that the industry price selling index for June was 6.5 per cent. I quote from the article to explain why this is happening:
The selling price index provides a hopeful sign that inflation is slackening and that consumer prices are likely to be on a downward trend. During the last period when manufacturers were being forced to limit prices increases, in the spring of 1977, retail prices moved down markedly-
The small advance in manufactured goods prices also gives credence to the view that the government's restraint measures are unnecessary in the case of most private sector companies.
In the private sector we are seeing a slowdown in some prices. What we are also seeing as a result of the government's action following the budget is a slowdown in government administered prices. We are seeing some very tough leadership on the part of individual ministers and the cabinet collectively to control prices that we influence. We are seeing the price side slow down because of the influence of our economy and the leadership of the federal government.
Personally, I welcome the enthusiasm that 1 heard from the mayors of Canada's leading municipalities last week when they talked about influencing prices in their local situation. I welcome as well the initiative taken by the province of British Columbia to join in the 6-5 plan, because that will affect the wages and administered prices in that province. I hope that other provinces from Alberta to Newfoundland will join British Columbia in this effort. Whether it be rent controls or beer in the ballpark, we need 6 per cent and 5 per cent in prices as much as we do in wages. We would welcome the involvement of the provinces to help us with that.
Turning back to the bill and the question of the increases that we are extending to public servants, I am reminded of a conversation I had last Friday at the Ottawa airport with the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). On Friday we had a very heated debate here, and that debate carried over when the two of us met on the weekend. We were discussing whether
the 6 per cent rule could be fairly applied to people on the lower pay scales in the public service.
After a few minutes we were interrupted by a total stranger who introduced himself as an Ottawa area businessman. He told us that his experience was that he could not keep a typist on his payroll because that person would be so highly paid in the public service. Following that experience, I thought about my own riding. I realized that the men and women who work at the Gateway postal station are some of the highest paid industrial workers in my riding, and my riding is a very affluent area.
These two examples show why our leadership is badly needed in this area. We have good workers. We have given them honest rates of pay. They have bargained fairly for those rates of pay. Today the outside world is influenced very directly by the pay we give our employees. Our leadership is vital. Despite the comments we just heard a few moments ago, we must recognize that our employees receive very good salaries and have very good job security. We must realize that in those circumstances our employees can limit their increases over the next two years and provide the leadership that is so badly needed.
Today we must remember as well that that leadership will be hollow if we cannot encourage other employees and employers across this country to join in. We must convince Canadians that this is a collective and manageable effort. We are asking our employees to show the way, but we are asking the rest of the country to follow. Their support will be vital.
I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate today. I hope this bill will pass quickly through the House. I know the people in my riding, the people on the radio shows and those in the cities across this country with whom I have spoken in the last month support this initiative. They are ready to follow our leadership. They believe us when we say that together we can reach a 6 per cent world and that in a 6 per cent world we are in a position to recover our economic health. In a 6 per cent world we will be ready to join the recovery of the whole world when that recovery comes. We need a joint effort.
I thank our public servants and I thank those in our Crown corporations for helping us to provide that leadership for the rest of our economy.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I might say at the beginning that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) should be ashamed of himself. If he had one ounce of knowledge about business, he would know that inventories are being dumped at cost prices by thousands of businesses and that a cost price means no profit. The hon. member must know that profit is what is left over after all wages, material costs and taxes are paid and that without profit there is no business; there are no jobs and no taxes can be paid. The people know that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain moves from left to centre to right as the occasion
August 2, 1982

dictates. It is the cost of money at the bank that is causing prices in the country to drop, and that is a known economic fact.
I want to say at the outset of this debate that I oppose the way Standing Order 75 is being used, and the motion before us is a perfect example of my point. The House of Commons is a debating forum. Its purpose is to bring forward, from the government and the opposition, points of view on legislation before the House. If a matter before the House is complex and is the cause of concern and controversy in the country, the hon. members are required to convey those concerns in the House in debate. If a member is on the government side, he tends to look upon all remarks by opposition members as obstruction, as a means of stringing out the process and as a means of fouling the government's legislative timetable. On the other hand, opposition members many times must wrestle with legislative language that is obscure, which in many cases requires considerable research, which is poorly drafted, with loopholes through which one could drive a Mack truck and which is based on wrong-headed, immature and biased information and opinion, as we see in Bill C-124 and Bill C-53, to name two current bills.
Standing Order 75C was placed in our House business procedures to allow the government to bring to an end a debate which had run beyond a reasonable time. It was not intended that a complex bill be entered on the Order Paper and scheduled for debate and, within two hours, time allocation placed on that bill. That is using the rule book as a sledgehammer.
There is no reason in the world why the House of Commons cannot work to a proper legislative timetable. There should be a set timetable for the House to convene, a period of recess for Christmas and New Year's, a short break at Easter and a predetermined recess date. It then becomes the government's problem to fit its legislative program into that time-frame. There would have to be provision for emergencies which require parliamentary action. Anyone who examines the process presently in use has to agree that the quality of debate would be vastly improved if we had to work to a parliamentary time schedule.
Having said that, let me deal with the matter at hand. The government introduced Bill C-124, which has a wide and sweeping effect on the economy. Even before the bill has passed, we are being told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the PMO that if this bill does not work, then full wage and price controls will be legislated. The Prime Minister has even gone further, stating that if the provisions of Bill C-124 fail and wage and price controls fail, then the economy will collapse.
The truth of the matter is that one picture is painted by legislation-Bill C-124-and another by the Prime Minister. A third picture is presented to business and labour leaders when they meet behind cabinet doors with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and his officials. In other words, we have an economic situation that is bad news, very bad news and potential economic disaster. The longer we stay here and debate, the more likely it is that those "private
Time Allocation
details," spoken about only behind doors with selected groups, will become public knowledge.
As hon. members know, the budget forecasts a deficit of $19.6 billion, but the deficit is based on a turnaround in the economy in the third and fourth quarters. No one in the private sector with whom I have talked has forecast a bottoming out or a turnaround for at least 18 months. The question which begs to be asked is, what will the deficit be if there is no turnaround in the third and fourth quarters? I believe information is being given to those persons meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance which is not intended for the public.
It has been speculated that the deficit could climb to $25 billion or $28 billion. If that proves to be true, we could face economic collapse. I hope that speculation remains only speculation and that the provisions of Bill C-124 are adequate to bring some order to a deteriorating economy. However, I do not believe the people of Canada are being well served when the truth of the gravity of the situation we face is held from them.
When the Prime Minister states that the people of Canada demanded high interest rates and that is why the government had to pay 19.5 per cent interest on Canada Savings Bonds, I believe that is an abuse of the truth. Equally, when the government, through the Prime Minister, intervenes in the market process through regulations designed as fine tuning and then declares that the enterprise system is not working, that also is an abuse of the truth. When the government refuses to curb its own expenditures, through sleight-of-hand rhetoric states it is curbing employment and then hires an additional 8,000 people in the first quarter on this year, that is deception which borders on contempt. When the government blames wage demands on labour as the cause of inflation when in fact it is a reaction to inflation, that is bending the truth and inflaming an already precarious situation.
It is because the government is firmly committed to intervening continually in the marketplace and believes it can only spend its way out of inflation that we will continue to have difficulties. Had the government dealt directly with those problems in the last few months, then perhaps we would be recessing this House on a positive note and a plan would be in place to alleviate the economic difficulties we face. But that is not the case. Instead, we are presented with a poorly drafted bill, the scope of which keeps changing with each succeeding question period. For these reasons, I oppose the imposition of Standing Order 75C in this debate.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this afternoon to speak to Bill C-124, or rather to the motion of closure or Standing Order 75C, if you prefer, because I think it is high time Canadians were told the truth about such things as why we want to limit the duration of this debate and what is the major reason why the government and Liberal members are anxious to introduce time allocation. There are a number of reasons. Obviously, this

August 2, 1982
Time Allocation
bill is urgently needed and it should be passed and implemented as soon as possible. So if we were to allow every member of the House to speak to this bill for 40 minutes-and there are 282 members-we would still be here in a year's time, Mr. Speaker, and in that case, it is goodbye to the desired effects this bill is supposed to have. I would also like to say a few words about the last votes that were held in this House. If Canadians and if the people of my riding were to look at the last two or three divisions that were held in this House, they would be able to see for themselves the kind of strategy the opposition parties are following. If I am not mistaken, during the last division, 64 out of more than 130 members of the opposition were here in the House, Mr. Speaker. That is what the situation is like. So what is happening, in fact, is that the House is still sitting at the beginning of August, Mr. Speaker, because the opposition parties are keeping us here. Why? For a host of reasons, with the exception of the welfare of Canadians.
I have just spent 15 days in committee, considering Bill C-124. One party, the New Democratic Party, told us at the beginning: well, we do not know whether there are going to be any amendments. We are going to have a caucus meeting this week and then we will be able to tell you. They had a caucus meeting, they came back and said well, we still do not know whether we are going to have any amendments. We will know after the next caucus meeting. A week later, there was another caucus meeting, with the same results. However, there was a possibility, and we finally received the amendments in committee, although it was like pulling eye teeth. Another example, when the same party, the New Democratic Party, wanted to invite witnesses to appear before the committee, instead of just presenting a motion requesting that people appear before the committee, they presented about five of these motions, which we had to vote down, one by one. Just one more way to make us waste an hour of our time. It is so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, because while we on the government side are being kept here in the House, we cannot see our constituents who would like to meet with us to discuss their problems.
The opposition parties usually keep half of their members here, and it is high time Canadians realized that, while we have to be here to support our policies, those people are using delaying tactics and are strutting around their ridings, playing politics. Where was the member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Leader of the New Democratic Party during the first week Bill C-124 was considered in committee? I do not know, but he was not in Parliament, either at the committee meetings or in the House. That is what we have to put up with, Mr. Speaker. We are asked to come to Ottawa to represent 80,000 or 90,000 people and to sit in Parliament from the middle of October until the begining of August and probably until the middle of August, five days a week. Mr. Speaker, we are told to be there, because the opposition might call a vote. For instance, the bells crisis which cost us 15 days. And then we are criticized for
using solutions like Standing Order 75C. No, I feel we must act sensibly, and I think Canadians realize this. I am not particularly happy about the fact that, as the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, I am going to vote to have salary increases of public servants restricted to 6 and 5 per cent. No one likes to do that. I would much rather give them 20 per cent a year!
Nor am I particularly happy about the fact that I voted for a cut in my own salary of over $3,000, just for this year, plus a cut in our special member's allowance. Nobody likes to do that either. But it has to be done, Mr. Speaker. It has to be done on behalf of thousands of unemployed workers who are waiting for inflation to go down. It has to be done on behalf of the taxpayer, because, and many people are unaware of this in this House, Quebec taxpayers are literally being squeezed dry by the PQ, as the member for Laval (Mr. Roy) has said, and if no one eases their burden, they will go under. Meanwhile, the New Democratic Party is setting itself up as the defender of I forget what it was.
I was listening to them in committee. The CLC branch plant, Mr. Speaker! And the CLC is not even a political party! If only they were speaking for the workers, but none of these people has realized Canadian workers think that they are paying too many taxes, that government spending is perhaps a bit too high, that federal buildings are perhaps a bit too big and a bit too air-conditioned and too luxurious. None of these people has realized that Canadians feel that perhaps we have too many public servants, because in ten years' time, the Liberal government has doubled the number of public employees. Mr. Speaker, those people are defending Mr. McDermott in committee, and meanwhile, people in their ridings and ours are unemployed. Do they go back to see them? No! Do not ask them what is going on in their ridings, they do not even know! They do not want to know because they are not interested. The only thing that interests them is what Mr. McDermott can deliver. It was incredible, Mr. Speaker, but at the same committee, the briefing notes that were handed out to the New Democratic Party had been prepared by the union representatives sitting there. That is really incredible. And meanwhile, their party leader was travelling around. Where, I do not know, but he was travelling. I believe in being sincere and honest with Canadians. Our country is experiencing financial problems.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that what Japan and what West Germany have done, we can do here in Canada. But we need everyone's help. We have started by setting an example ourselves. The New Democratic Party should stop being a branch plant, it should present positive ideas that will contribute to the wellbeing of Canadians and not to the wellbeing of the privileged classes who have comfortable jobs with fat pay cheques for life. That is plain speaking. And if Mr. McDermott does not agree, I may remind you that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is the Hon. Edward Broadbent and not Mr. McDermott!
August 2, 1982


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to what the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) had to say. One of his comments concerned the urgent need that he felt to be out of here and that the opposition parties were holding up the recess of the House of Commons. He said that he wanted to get back to his constituency. I 'can understand that desire on his part. I know that a lot of members would like to be working in their own constituencies. But I want to tell the hon. member that the opposition parties are not holding up the recess of the House. The people holding up the recess of the House, as far as I, as the member for Kingston and the Islands, am concerned, are the government members who will not bring in Bill C-53, the amendments to the Criminal Code, which will allow us to change the crime of rape to a series of sexual assault charges. As long as that bill is not brought into the House I am not going home, and I want him to know that. That bill has to come before the House before we recess for the summer.
I am very interested in the fact that the government feels it necessary at this point to introduce a motion under Standing Order 75C on Bill C-124. This is a bill which the government said is key to its economic recovery plan and is one of the major pieces of legislation introduced in this session. What I find very unusual about the government's use of closure is that it always feels it is necessary to use it on the major pieces of legislation it brings into the House, the things that it considers to be most important and which should justify the greatest examination by members on all sides and members of the committee. Before that can take place the government brings in closure and cuts off debate. It moved closure on the Constitution bill before it was even under way. Before the country knew what was happening with regard to the major changes to the Constitution, the government introduced closure. And it has done so again.
What this signifies to me is that when it comes to major pieces of legislation that the government wants to introduce, it immediately feels insecure. The only thing it feels secure about is a motion under Standing Order 75C. It can hide behind closure instead of facing the legitimate questions that should be asked by its own party, by members of the opposition and by the Canadian public. That is the situation with this bill.
This bill requires a great deal of examination, Mr. Speaker. We have given it a fair amount of examination in committee but by no means have all the questions been answered. I very much regret the decision of the government to cut off debate before it has made its position clear with regard to its intentions on all aspects of the bill.
It seems that at every step of this bill the government has introduced new and ill-conceived amendments that have not been properly thought through. That was very evident in the House today when questions were put to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) about the 6 and 5 per cent society that he predicts, of which he says this bill is the cornerstone. What happened? He said, "Why are you asking me those questions? They concern somebody else. I should not
Time Allocation
have to answer them." Surely if he is co-ordinating a program for the government he ought to be able to answer legitimate questions about to whom these 6-5 measures will apply and how far they will go. They have not been answered. That is why extra debating time is necessary.
I mentioned that he brings in ill-conceived amendments. Nothing is more ill conceived, as I pointed out to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) the other day, than Motion No. 3 standing in his own name. This is the amendment which changes the time period in which the restraint measures will apply to staff of Members of Parliament and members of the Senate. To that effect, I moved a motion today which I sincerely hope the President of the Treasury Board will consider. I asked that the government amend immediately Bill C-124 so that its provisions take effect for the staff of MPs and senators on the expiry of their present salary arrangements, as they will for all other employees in the public service, and that staff of MPs and senators not be singled out for punitive action by this government.
I listened to the President of the Treasury Board speak to that item when he took part in this closure debate. I made a note of some of the words he used when he spoke. He said "We have to take that step." In other words, to take the punitive action it has against the staff of Members of Parliament and senators in order to counter the unfortunate impression the government has received about the country with regard to another group of employees known as exempt ministerial staff. If the President of the Treasury Board were honest in his presentation, he would have stood in his place and said that exempt staff for ministers, on average, are paid much, much higher salaries than are staff of Members of Parliament and senators, who are in categories ranging from $24,000 a year down. Some of them earn as little as $14,000. The majority of them are women, many of whom, if the minsiter would take the time to inquire around this building, are single parents supporting families and who really should not be put in a situation where they are singled out for punitive action.
1 am sure that if the minister had asked a number of Members of Parliament whether we would have been willing to take a further cut so staff in our offices did not have to take a cut, he would have got agreement. I am sure he would have found that there were members willing to make that sacrifice so that the people unable to bear that kind of burden would not have had to. I really regret, as I told the President of the Treasury Board the other day, the fact that he has done this.
However, I want to tell the minister that I said some things in anger the other day about which I feel badly. I know now that the idea for this measure did not come from him. I know now that it came from the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that it originated from a reaction of spite in the Prime Minister's office. Consequently, I regret some of the things I said to the minister the other day even though he is the

August 2, 1982
Time Allocation
author of this amendment. He has more decency than a lot of other people over there, and I know he would not have done this on his own. I know now, of course, where the blame lies.


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


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am often amazed at the holier than thou attitude of the former minister, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I note that she bandied statistics about, such as the fact that most of the staff in the House of Commons are females and she said most of them are single parents.


John Horton McDermid: You are misquoting.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Are you saying they are not?


David Berger: I wonder whether that is just pure argument on her part or whether she has actually made a survey.


John Horton McDermid: Eighty per cent are women.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Are you arguing about that?


David Berger: I would agree with that, perhaps. However, I wonder where the hon. member gets the statistics that most of them are heads of single parent families.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Kelly:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just attributed statements to me that will not be found in the blues.
I did not say "most were". I asked whether the minister had any idea how many of the women were single parents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is obviously not a point of order, it is debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, another example is the discussion about time allocation which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands misrepresented as being closure.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A rose by any other name.


David Berger: Most members in this House know that Standing Order 33 governs closure and that time allocation is governed by Standing Order 75C. Her government used time allocation on its infamous mortgage bill in the fall of 1979.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Too bad it isn't in effect now.


Norman Kelly: She did not protest then, did she?


David Berger: My colleague from Toronto points out that the government House leader at that time, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), as I recall, said "This is not closure; this is a more gentle way of cutting off debate." The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands in speaking to the
Canadian public, some of whom may not be as informed about parliamentary procedure as members of this House.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Don't belittle the Canadian public.


David Berger: Those who follow parliamentary procedure a bit will know that time allocation is used in the Mother of Parliaments practically on a daily basis, and is a normal procedure appended to most bills. It is not as if we are pulling off some kind of a hijacking, something to which the hon. member's party is accustomed.
Dealing with the particular motion before us at this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out some articles in favour of it. There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. I recall having seen a graph in The Financial Post about two months ago which compared the increase in wages in Canada over the past ten years to the increase in productivity. In that one graph was an excellent example of the ills afflicting our economy. Between 1971 and 1981 the increase in wages was something in the order of 157 per cent, whereas productivity had increased in that period by something like 5 per cent. A better illustration of our problems could not be provided.
Another factor glossed over frequently by the opposition parties is that 30 per cent of our gross national product is exported. This is a fabulous figure when compared with countries such as Japan and Germany which export only about 10 per cent of their gross national product. It demonstrates the extent to which Canada is dependent upon world markets for its prosperity and the extent to which we must be competitive in order to have continued growth and prosperity. For those who feel that perhaps a large part of our exports is in primary resources, I point out that it is more like 70 per cent which are in manufactured or semi-manufactured products. Therefore, it is clear that wage increases in Canada must be tied to productivity or we will be unable to compete with other countries.
Earlier this year I had the opportunity of talking to Sylvia Ostry, the former head of the Economic Council of Canada and now chief economist of OECD. She had been to West Germany, and she explained how its metalworkers' union settled in the neighbourhood of 4 per cent. It is the strongest union in that country and leads off bargaining for other sectors of the economy. Mrs. Ostry went into a bank and congratulated the bankers for this settlement. They sort of turned up their noses and said, "Yes, it is pretty good, but it could be better." She also explained that West German unions were realistic in their wage demands. They understood that Germany, in order to compete, had to have wage increases which matched increases in productivity. Also she explained that they were very well informed. Apparently most of the unions in West Germany have economists and other experts tied to their staffs or working for them, which enables them to embark upon negotiations in a very sensitive and intelligent matter. With the recent meetings of the government, the private sector and
August 2, 1982

unions, 1 hope this is the direction we will move toward in the next few years.
Prior to concluding, I should like to point out that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said that the government does not restrict profits or prices. The government is restricting prices in Crown corporations. The hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) referred to an article in The Globe and Mail. I recall having read in the latest annual report of the Governor of the Bank of Canada that profits of companies in Canada last year fell by something like 30 per cent or 40 per cent. Therefore, it seems evident that market forces will look after that aspect.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to have the opportunity to join in this segment of the discussion on Bill C-124. One thing which came to mind as I listened to some of the discussion so far on this bill was Murphy's law. Murphy's law suggests that if anything can go wrong, it will. The corollary of that, which comes from the discussion here and in committee, is Johnston's law; Johnston's law suggests that Murphy's law is optimistic.
There are many things wrong in terms of what we are doing here today in discussing the limitation of debate on Bill C-124. The bill embodies much of the principle of the government's 65 formula. I guess all Canadians can be very thankful that the government is now working with numbers which it can handle. Clearly the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) could not cope with tens and twenties because in a six-month period he made a $10 billion error in the deficit. Now we have him down to numbers which he can perhaps handle by using his digits and keeping everything straight. We are thankful for that initiative, but there are many flaws in the bill.
We have heard other hon. members mention that this was an ad hoc piece of legislation. There have been so many changes in such a short period of time that it has been very difficult for hon. members on all sides of the House to cope with the bill. Clearly the minister, by accepting some of the changes almost on a daily basis, has admitted that the bill is both imperfect and requires amendment and further change.
One area about which our party is concerned and would like to see changes in is the expression of the minister concerning contracts. In committee we suggested an amendment to look at how the 6-5 regime would apply to service contracts of the government. The professional contracts let by government are very major components in government spending. In fact, it is a $1 billion component. The amendment we suggested would have struck out some lines in the appropriate place, substituted therefor "or rate of pay", and would have included "any person engaged under personal service contracts".
In response to representations by our party in an attempt to include that very significant amendment which would indicate the true intentions of the government and its commitment to this principle, the minister said he would look at it and think about it. He has really come forward now with his most recent amendment, going after the staff of Members of Parliament and hitting people who are not the cause of the problem. These
Time Allocation
people are almost helpless bystanders in the situation. He has not presented today or at any other time any explanation of what he intends to do about a major sector over which he clearly has control and could do something about. We are very disappointed, but it is just one example of the kind of imperfect legislation which we have not yet had a full opportunity to examine.
There are many other things wrong with the whole scene. One matter which came to mind as I was sitting in committee listening to the discussions and some of the interventions, and again today in the House, was that the bill has holes through which one could drive a Maislin truck. The whole environment is clearly wrong. Again we will be limited in our ability to look at it. This is the kind of wrongness I should like to discuss.
We really have a political program which is trying to cope with the government's position in the Gallup poll, and with the obvious lack of support in the country for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as expressed by repeated polls, whether Gallup or others. It is taking one piece of the problem created by the government and is trying to use it in a political way with a lot of imagery and a lot of political reaction to try to co-opt people in labour and in business, indeed people across the country who are concerned about the unemployment level, the 1.3 million declared and the many undeclared unemployed people, to alert them to the growing problems of businesses in Canada through the loss of liquidity and the difficulties they will be facing if they do not come to the point very quickly where they can do economic planning on the basis of interest rates which are 12 per cent or less. We have this entire country concerned about these things, and what we have is a political reaction, an effort on the part of the government to try to gain support of all these segments in order to deal with the problem they have created themselves.
I think on that basis alone people should question whether or not there is a program that justifies their support for this initiative. There should be, and this indeed is part of the problem. But where is the rest of that program? What other measures are going to be taken? Are we going to see the commitment that has been made to control prices fulfilled? Are we going to get other things done which would help restore investor confidence? Are we going to get things done that would give people the sense that the government is truly committed, as this party is, to restraint.
I do not see it in anything that has been brought forward so far. We still have many instances where we have aircraft flights taking off to expensive parties; we have continued high levels of government advertising and on and on. We have the expansion of the government's budget into the seventies of billions of dollars. We have the interest rate payments of $13 billion in one year which is above the level of total government spending ten years ago. We have all these things which do not give anyone who takes a look at them any sense that there is a

August 2, 1982
Time Allocation
serious initiative on the part of the government to hold true to this principle of restraint. That is the bottom line if we are going to resolve these problems.
There was a report from the Economic Council of Canada that has been mentioned in this House several times. That report suggested that the government itself is responsible for an 18 per cent inflationary factor, whereas private enterprise, the rest of the economy, has been running along at about a 9 per cent inflation factor. With that kind of background I think it is clear that it is the entire government framework that is at fault.
I would like to make reference now to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), the House leader of the New Democratic Party. One of the ironies of sitting in opposition now and listening to members of a different opposition party discuss things is the way that they like to link the things that this party will support with the things that the government is doing, things that we have supported and have stood for for years and years and years and now are being criticized because of our consistency by people like the member for Hamilton Mountain.
There is nothing inconsistent at all in our opposing the limitation of the full discussion of this very important bill in spite of the fact that we do support the principle of restraint that is embodied in parts of this bill, imperfect as it is.
I think there are many other things that could be said and I am sure other speakers will say them, Mr. Speaker, so thank you very much for the time.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to speak this afternoon, but after hearing some of the comments made by my good friend for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), I felt moved to take part in this debate.
First of all, I should point out to the House that, contrary to what the member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) said a few moments ago, that we are now dealing with C-124, we are not; we are dealing with the application of a motion under Standing Order 75C to limit debate on that very bill. I have been somewhat surprised at your generosity, Mr. Speaker, in allowing members to continue the ongoing debate on Bill C-124 and, having made a couple of procedural points, I will take note of your generosity and also join in the fray on the substance of Bill C-124, the government's restraint program.
In answer to the member for Kingston and the Islands, I think it should be emphasized-and my friend the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) made the point a few minutes ago-that it is very convenient for any opposition party to vote against the application of rule 75C of our Standing Orders, but when those opposition parties themselves have the responsibility of government they change their tune.
Obviously the New Democratic Party has never had that luxury and I doubt that they ever will, certainly not in my lifetime; but the Conservative Party were in office just for that brief, fleeting period in 1979, and as was pointed out by my friend from Laurier the House leader of the Conservative government at the time, who is sitting in the chamber this afternoon, my good friend the hon. member for Nepean-
Carleton (Mr. Baker), rose in his place, I think it was on November 20, 1979, and moved a motion under 75C on the mortgage tax deductibility bill of the Conservative government. I was not here at the time but I remember reading the House of Commons Debates, and he said "This is not closure; this is a more gentle form of closing off debate."
I think those people who are watching us on television and those here in the galleries today should not accept the argument made by the member for Kingston and the Islands. We are not closing off debate, using the very brutal instrument of Standing Order 33; we are allocating a further amount of time. This is done in other parliaments with some regularity, and I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to order our business in a better fashion in this place in the future, we are going to have to come to grips with some kind of a normal time allocation process.
The substance of the matter really is something that I suppose one could talk more than ten minutes on, but certainly in the last 18 months there has not been any other issue that has so captured the imagination of the people of my constituency than the government's crusade to limit inflation to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent the second year. I think the members on the other side, if they go home and talk to their constituents over the summer period, will get perhaps a very rude message, which is that the public accept this program and are very happy to see that the government is taking the initiative and showing leadership on this particular issue.
The opposition has been yelling at us for the last 18 months, seeking a consensus to deal with Canada's economic problem. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) meets with labour leaders, municipal leaders and business leaders, he is seeking a consensus. But this is not consensus in terms of the opposition. They are advocating these meetings and, once we meet, they say we are using these people. It is co-option. You can see that rhetoric comes cheap in the House of Commons, and we have seen it this afternoon. The government is seeking a consensus in dealing with the very urgent problems facing the economy, but when we meet with these leaders we are accused of coopting them for purely partisan reasons.
Let us be honest. This country is in a grave economic crisis. The election campaign can be fought whenever the election comes, but I think the Canadian public are getting fed up with the spectre of the opposition every day fighting an ongoing election campaign. One can only suspect their motives, but people like Mr. Mulholland of the Bank of Nova Scotia, Mr. Sinclair of CP Investments, very eminent Canadians from the business community-these are people not identified with the Liberal Party; they are outstanding business leaders-realize that we have to put aside all this backbiting, all this nitpicking, all this political partisanship. Because this is destroying the country as much as the ongoing economic problems.
I would draw the attention of members opposite to the comments made yesterday by Bob Blair, as reported in the Toronto Star. Mr. Blair is a great friend of some on the other side, Mr. Peter Lougheed, for example. Mr. Blair is a very
August 2, 1982

sensible businessman whose company made quite a profit in the last few years in a very dynamic industry, during a time when adverse conditions faced that industry. Mr. Blair has been very-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -critical of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


David Michael Collenette: Everyone has been critical of the government. You accept that in a democracy. But Mr. Blair says that it is the continual barracking and nit-picking of the opposition and the tearing down of the confidence in this country that is destroying the economic climate here. It is the unwillingness of the opposition parties to work together to support this program.
The opposition Conservative Party has the luxury of saying, "We support it in principle but we do not like the way you are doing it." Anyone who is watching at home or anyone in the galleries would realize that that is the normal rhetoric of all oppositions. The opposition is saying, in other words, "We do not like to support your good idea."
It is my contention that nothing else has gained the support and imagination of the Canadian public in the last few years like this restraint program has. I would exhort members on all sides to support the program. In a sense, it is the last chance for Canada to come to grips with our economic problems. We will fight the election campaign whenever it comes, 18 months or a year from now. But let us, as Canadians, try to develop some consensus in dealing with our problems.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) is still bemusing the fact that he was once in office for a very short period of time and he waxed eloquent in The Citizen last week about what he would do if he were back in power. He is not back in power, and thank God for the country that he is in the opposition. All he has to offer are worn out cliches and platitudes, suggesting that the government do something about FIRA or with the National Energy Program. These are all old, hackneyed expressions and policies that were rejected two years ago by the Canadian public. Does the Leader of the Opposition not have the sense and the moral commitment to the betterment of this country-


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has just thanked God for the mess that the country is in. I think that that is a gross error and a misjudgment.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, obviously the points 1 have been making have not been missed by the opposition, for that erstwhile point of order was an attempt to rebut what I am saying.
I believe that the Leader of the Opposition should discuss with his advisers what is good not only for the Conservative Party but for the whole country. I submit that now is the time, to paraphrase a historical figure, for all good Canadians to rally around the government, as people like Mr. Mulholland,
Time Allocation
Mr. Blair and Mr. Sinclair are doing. We can fight the election campaign two years from now. This continual electioneering is not appreciated by the Canadian public and does not serve the opposition well. In fact, it is a blot on the role of the opposition in this country that they are so ill served by their leader and his advisers in trying to tear down the confidence of this country.
To sum up, this bill is a damned good piece of legislation. It is supported by most people in Canada and 1 hope the opposition wakes up to this fact over the summer.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the last Liberal speaker quoting another great Liberal leader, Mr. Lenin, saying that it is the prime responsibility of the opposition to come to the aid of the government. I do think the parallel exists somehow. It is the concept that this government has of democracy, that it is our responsibility to come to their defence rather than the responsibility of the government to come to Canadians with solutions to its own problems.
Earlier in this very short debate we heard it suggested by some Liberal backbenchers that the debate on Bill C-124, the public service wage restraint act, has prevented them from travelling to their ridings to meet their constituents and hear their views. That is not really the case. They are in a rush to pass this bill through the House of Commons because they want to go on vacation. That is the truth of the matter.
We no longer call this motion closure. This motion is now called time allocation, to use the vernacular of the House. What this really means is that time allocation sounds much more acceptable to the Liberal government than the term "closure". If the government were honest, instead of calling the motion time allocation or even closure, it would call it "the vacation rush measure", since they want to rush off to the beaches.
When one reviews the history of this bill, one sees that the minister responsible introduced it only on the last day of June. Once he introduced the bill and had it printed, he took nine days to bring it to the House for debate. He finally had the courage to introduce it on July 9. Less than one week later he introduced time allocation on that stage of the debate.
The following week the Liberal majority on the committee restricted the number of witnesses so that no further witnesses could appear before the committee. They would not let other union leaders or other business leaders come forward and explain their position on the bill.
I have a letter which was sent to the clerk of the committee. It is from the National Union of Provincial Government Employees and is signed by their president, John Fryer. In this letter he says:
On behalf of the 230,000-member National Union of Provincial Government Employees I am writing to express our disappointment at not being able to appear before the committee and present our views on Bill C-124.
What is interesting is that the government has always claimed that this bill was to apply not only to federal employees, but it wanted this bill to be copied by provincial

August 2, 1982
Time Allocation
premiers, followed by the business elite and accepted by union groups throughout the country.
The second group in the line of fire, after the bill has dealt with the federal government employees, would be the provincial government employees, which group the Liberal majority on the committee would not allow to come forward to express their opinions on this legislation. Another person who the Liberal majority on the committee would not let come forward was their own Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia). When my colleague for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) asked over and over again to have the Minister of Labour explain his position on this bill, 1 wondered why he could not come. Why did the Liberal majority on that committee prevent him from appearing? I now have some information from a letter which the Minister of Labour wrote to The Globe and Mail prior to the bill being introduced. In the letter he says:
The right to strike is one of the important cornerstones of a free and democratic society-
He went on to say:
There is clearly room for greater co-operation between unions and employers, and Parliament has entrusted to Labour Canada-
His own department.
the responsibility for assisting in the development and maintenance of constructive relationships.
That is a quote from what the minister wrote and it was published.
The bill destroys the entire collective bargaining process. It allows the government to break contracts that it has already signed. It outlaws strikes and prevents binding arbitration for many workers.
The Minister of Labour, who is now sitting in his seat, has refused to come forward to explain how he can write one thing in a letter one day and then his government introduces a measure which does exactly the opposite a couple of weeks later. He has refused to do so with the compliance of the Liberal majority on the committee.
* (1650)
I am, therefore, not surprised that we have time allocation on this bill. It has been the attempt of the government, from the first day the bill was introduced, to rush it through the committee and through the House and to prevent interested groups and its own ministers from appearing. Last Friday, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), who was first to speak on behalf of the government during report stage of the debate, called for time allocation. The night before he had proposed two major amendments to the bill. We found out about those amendments on Friday morning, and early Friday afternoon he gave notice that the government would like to call for time allocation. The government does not want to hear
from the public and does not want groups which would be affected by the bill to present their cases. That is why we are being rushed. That is why the Liberal members, who say they would like to get out to visit their constituents, really do not care what their constituents and interested groups want. If they did care, they would allow those groups to come before the committee responsible for the passage of this bill.
There is something even more upsetting than the trickery of the government, and that is the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party. Member after member speaking before the committee on behalf of the Conservative Party pointed out the errors in the bill. They pointed out the problems existing in the bill and its unfairness. They discussed how it will affect women workers and pensioners. They did all of this, but what will they do now? They will vote with the government on the bill. Last week, there was a humorous situation when the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark)-


An hon. Member:: Which leader?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The official leader of the official opposition- was quoted as saying, "I would reject controls and I would not allow my PMO to be issuing rumours that they were coming in while I was saying that they were not. I think that controls will not work." That comment came from the leader of a party which will vote for controls, from a leader of a party which has pointed out, just as we have in committee and in the House, that this bill is completely unfair.


John Horton McDermid: And what does your leader, Dennis McDermott say?


Rodney Edward Murphy: This hypocritical group to my right, this group of Liberal yea-sayers, pretends that they are fighting for their workers, their employees, women workers and the lowly paid people in the civil service. They do not vote the way they speak. In other words, they do not mean what they say.
Their argument, in summing up, is that this bill is for restraint and therefore they are for this bill, and that somehow, because we do not approve of this bill, we are against restraint. Let me point our that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has been citing cases of Liberal government misuse of funds day after day in the House. Day after day he has pointed out how the government has been spending money in flights which are completely unnecessary. He has pointed out other problems with the way in which this government misuses government money. We are for restraint, but we are also for a bill which will do something. This bill will do nothing. The whole effort by the Conservative Party and its ally, the Liberal government, is to raise a smokescreen to hide the fact that the bill will do nothing for our economy and is just a measure to zap labour.
August 2, 1982



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd)- Airports-Inquiry respecting government's intentions to make Mirabel profitable; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-Delta North (Mr. Friesen)-External Affairs-(a) Application for passports, (b) Request that application form be redesigned; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Railways-(a) Effect of wage controls on Canadian Pacific agreements, (b) Timing of imposition.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston:
That, in relation to Bill C-124, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I will not stand up and yell at anyone across the chamber today because I must tell Your Honour and hon. members of this House that I am very pleased with the bill and with the process which has expedited it. I will not look at it, then, from a partisan point of view.
When I go back to my riding or when I travel across Canada-


Walter David Baker: Which is rare.


Norman Kelly: -I hear much criticism of the government, which makes me feel uncomfortable but it is tolerable. The criticism which makes me feel uncomfortable and which is very pessimistic is the criticism which is directed at this institution. People not only say that the government is not working but, more important, they also insist that the House of Commons is not working. A belief is really developing in the country that our institutions are not giving us the service that they once did.
I am pleased to say that, on the basis of the bill, this House has demonstrated that in times of crisis or emergency it can act swiftly and with sensitivity. For example, last year in the House the most important bill was Bill C-48, which was
Time Allocation
designed to expedite oil and gas development on Canada lands. It took us almost a full year or more to get that bill through all stages in the House and committee. Quite frankly, I could not understand the time it took, because that was legislation we desperately needed. We must find oil and gas quickly and we must ensure that, in finding it, we give the majority of the jobs and contracts to Canadians. Those were two objectives with which everyone in Canada could agree. But for some reason, the House could not translate those ideas or yearnings into effective legislation. It took a full year or more before we could finally deliver the goods.
This year, everyone in Canada understands that, once and for all, with determination and insight, we must address the economic problems of the country. Everyone knows that the very first step in solving those problems is to impose restraint on Canadians in all aspects of their lives, whether it be in government, at all three levels, or in business, or in our lives as consumers. There must be restraint. This bill-


Mr. Gamble:: It does not deal with the real nature of the problem.


Norman Kelly: -gives expression to those desires. The bill understands that Canadians want action today. I am pleased that, by and large, the House has co-operated with the government in expediting Bill C-124. For all the noise that one hears, for all the thunder and lightning flashes which punctuate the political skies, by and large the opposition has been very reasonable and has helped us get this bill through the House and committee with a minimum of fuss.
I said earlier that we were acting not only swiftly but also with insight. I think that the last part of my statement can be proven if one looks at the bill as it stood when we brought it into the House on June 30 and the way it presently stands as amended. When the bill came before the House, wages, benefits and non-monetary items were completely frozen. There was to be no movement in those three areas. As a result of arguments made in the House and in committee by members of the two opposition parties, this government moved from no movement in those three areas to complete and total movement inside those three areas under a 6-5 cap.
[DOT] (noo)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Kelly: Members opposite find something jovial about my remarks. I point out to them that these are the very things for which they were asking. To hear them talking critically at this time, after the government has delivered, smacks of the cheap shots or sleaziness of which they so often accuse us in the House.
In summary, I will repeat my opening remarks. The way in which we have handled this bill in all stages proves not only to Canadian politicians but to Canadians across this land that this House has the capacity to react. It has the ability to

August 2, 1982
Time Allocation
respond to Canadian problems. I am pleased to be a part of that process.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there is a proper place for closure. However, report stage of this bill is not the proper place. At report stage there were two NDP speakers, four Progressive Conservatives and one Liberal. It is not the time for closure or time allocation when we have not yet even started to cover the subject, let alone repeat ourselves.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) made much ado about the people of Canada wanting restraint. He is right. However, he said they want nothing more than restraint, and I do not agree. There is something more the people want, and that is the resignation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal government. The vast majority of the people in this country want that even more than restraint. In any other country, the Prime Minister would have resigned long ago. He would have been impeached for the policies he has brought in. The national energy policy helped push the country down the tube. The November 12 budget pushed it even further. That is what started the depression in Canada. The Liberals must take responsibility for it. That is what closure should be on.
When you kill confidence, you kill the chance for investment. The Liberals, with the help of the NDP, have killed confidence in this country. That kills investment. The Liberals, with the help of the NDP, have killed investment in this country. Therefore, there are no jobs, and that is the reason.
The way the New Democratic Party has been criticizing the Conservative Party, you would think we were the government. The NDP policy and the Liberal policy are much closer together than the NDP and ours. We believe in free entreprise, fair profit, freedom of the individual and initiative. The Liberals go only part way. They do not go fast enough for the NDP. They are blood brothers with regard to their policies. When the NDP criticize the Progress Conservatives, they are trying to help their blood brothers, the Liberals.
We believe in restraint. It is necessary if we are going to fight inflation. However, this party believes in a restraint that is fair. We believe in more restraint for the rich than the poor. We believe in restraint on Ian-what's-his-name-Sinclair of the CPR and his $500,000 salary. We believe in restraint for high salaries and for our salaries, and that is why we are voting for it. However, we want restraint to be fair. We do not go along with waste and believe there should be some restraint in that area. We believe in restraint on prices.
The government is lowering and putting restraint on the wages of its own workers, but is it lowering the rents for those in Banff who face increases of 15 to 35 per cent? I ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) to roll back the rents of those in Banff to 5 and 6 per cent.
We ask for fairness in connection with CALEA where collective bargaining is being stopped. It goes on for the staff of ministers until April, 1983 but CALEA is going to be cut off earlier. If the government corrects that, we will see its
sincerity. There should be restraint on prices and we must do away with waste.
I want to deal with one other matter regarding this motion. The government says that Canadians want restraint only. People want restraint in all areas. They want fairness in restraint, but they are not getting it. When the government rolls back rents for those in Banff, I will say it is being fair. However, it is not being fair as long as it restrains wages to 6 per cent and 5 per cent and says that it is okay to increase rent by 15 per cent to 35 per cent. That is not fairness. It should be rolled back.
Industry is being asked to follow the government's example. The unemployed must live on a pittance compared to those of us who are working. We agree there should be restraint, but it should not be carried out on the backs of the aged and the retired people of this country. Let us not have restraint at the expense of the low-paid employees who barely get by. Let us have restraint on those in the upper brackets, such as cabinet ministers and Members of Parliament. Let us set the example. Then people will say we are doing something. That will build up confidence.
It is the free enterprise system that will bring this country back to prosperity, not socialism, whether it is fashioned by the NDP or the Liberals. That is what is killing this country. Free enterprise will give every individual confidence to invest in this country. When money is invested, jobs are created, products are manufactured and the country gets moving. What we want is productivity. We want more productivity per man per hour. If we bring that about, we will get this country out of the slump it is in. That is exactly what our leader was saying the other day. We will get the country out of its slump through free enterprise principles. Give us a chance. We challenge hon. members opposite to resign and let us show the country what can be done.
[Translation)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! It being 5.09 p.m., the two hours provided for consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75C have now expired. I must therefore interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of this motion.

The question is on the motion of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
August 2, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: 2,818.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-EDUCATION LEAVE COSTS
Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of External Affairs at page 13.6, Volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $46,188 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. (a) and (b) Treasury Board Policy; chapter 110 subchapter 5 of the Personnel Management Manual, conditions governing education, training and development, including subsidization.
2.	Nil.
3.	Nil.
4.	Of the employees granted education leave in the past three years, 25 per cent have subsequently left the public service.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I suggest that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

August 2, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, July 30, consideration of Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Murphy); and Motion No. 3 (Mr. Johnston); and Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in returning to the regular debate on Bill C-124, I should like to say that many hon. members of the House have made much of the fact of the so-called principle of this bill being a principle of restraint. The principle of this bill before us is not restraint. The principle of the bill is compulsion and the transfer of wealth and power, relatively speaking, from those who do not have it, to those who have. That is wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member who has the floor. Would hon. members who wish to have conversations, please carry them on behind the curtains or in the lobby? The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I can well appreciate why some hon. members of the House, particularly on the government side, do not want to hear anyone question the principle they say is behind this legislation. The principle is not restraint, it is compulsion, and that is all it is. We do not need to look very far to find the kind of thinking that gave rise to it. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), according to an article for Southam News written by John Ferguson on June 14, 1982, which appeared in The Vancouver Sun, made a rather inflammatory speech to the Conference Board of Canada. His speech reads in part:
Governments at all levels have gone too far, too fast, in yielding power to their unions. What we have in fact created is a series of union monopolies which have been granted power to close down large sections of our economy, to deny education to our children and hospital care to the sick, to cut off police and fire protection for the public and to bring transportation to a halt municipally, regionally and even nationally.
That is the kind of thing that gave rise to this bill. It is a feeling of revenge on the part of members opposite. They are the true heirs to Joey Smallwood.
I can remember when I first became involved in the political process. One of the debates going on at the time concerned
legislation that came down in the province of Newfoundland in 1958 or 1959 to outlaw a union from the shores of the province of Newfoundland entirely. That action was taken by a Liberal government headed by another premier and another representative of that party who could not stand to see free men and women stand up on their own two feet to challenge their kind of arbitrary dictates as to what was best for them. At that time there were loggers in the province of Newfoundland who were attempting to get a wage of $1.05 an hour, and trying to get rid of the kind of conditions that people in that industry in other parts of Canada had eliminated from their places of work decades before. At that time they hauled in their own blankets and put them down on bunks of straw or ferns in old rodent-infested bunkhouses. The Liberal premier of the province at that time decided that he could not stomach it ... that is, their reaction. He formed his own government-sponsored union and actually passed legislation which banished the union of the people's choice in that province, an action the likes of which had not been seen in this country for almost half a century. This legislation is in the same kind of spirit.
While dealing with this bill, I should like to direct a few remarks to hon. members of the official opposition. We are all well acquainted with The Globe and Mail. Most of us read it every morning. This particular newspaper is hardly a socialist one. It is not even a Liberal newspaper. If anything, it is Conservative. Every day the masthead of its editorial page reads:
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.
This was not written by Jean-Claude Parrot. It was not written by working people across this country, and particularly not by those in the public sector who see themselves singled out as victims in the public relations gimmickery of government. I talk about public relations gimmickery rather advisedly.
Earlier in the debate we reminded government members of the document entitled, "Anti-Inflation Policy, Options" which was presented to the federal cabinet some months ago. I should like to quote from that internal government document. In part it reads:
The main advantage of the program would be that it would enable the government to be seen doing something about inflation and to lay part of the blame on the private sector.
Also it reads:
We are not currently facing a wage-driven inflation such as we were in 1975;
Also it indicated that inflation had been "highly resistant to government policy, including wage and price controls."
The government has acknowledged the arguments presented in that paper. On innumerable occasions ministers of the government have expressed the same sentiments and outlined the same facts, yet we are now asked to believe that Bill
August 2, 1982

C-124, including all its amendments, will somehow do what the Anti-Inflation Board and its wage and price control mechanisms of the 1970s failed to do. At least the AIB attempted to appear to be even-handed. They do not even make that pretence this time around. Their total purpose, other than as a public relations exercise, is to attempt to bring the working people of this country to heel. This is wrong, and it is something which I and other members of my party will resist, no matter how much the Conservatives and their pals on the Liberal benches say it is time to tell workers to "git back". They make high-sounding suggestions and equity, but the kind of equity suggested by Conservatives in committee, upon which the government acted as it did with other suggestions was, "You are only discriminating against public employees; why do you not expand it to people in other industries?" They expanded upon discrimination. It was their idea of producing equity; it was funny reasoning. I have a hard time believing that they do not realize that this is no kind of equity at all. Once they get away from their haste to take a kick at the working people of this country and look at it objectively, I do not think they would believe otherwise.
Where will this kind of measure lead us? Just the other day someone brought to my attention an article that appeared in The Washington Post on July 26, 1982. It concerned an industrial dispute which was taking place in Dakota City, Nebraska. This may seem a long way away, but it well demonstrates the kind of course upon which this House appears to be embarked. There has been a strike in the meat packing industry in that city since June 7, 1982, involving some 2,400 members of the meatcutters' union. They are not on strike for higher pay; they are seeking a two year wage freeze. The company has refused to sign an agreement because it is insisting upon a four year wage freeze. During the last two months the company has brought in strikebreakers. There has been violence on the lines. A number of people have been injured and a number have been arrested. The city has become an armed camp.
This is the kind of insane violence to which such a measure leads, the kind which we saw from one end of the country to the other during the 1930s. We do not want to see it again. Surely to God they can be more enlightened in the way they deal with people.
Earlier today reference was made in the House to recent remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) in a letter to the editor of one of the Toronto newspapers. At least his remarks showed an intelligent approach to labour relations. At least he understood and admitted that working people had rights, rights which are just as inviolate and just as important to the functioning of a free and democratic society as many other rights which we often proclaim in this place and in other assemblies across the land. I only wish that we had had the opportunity of having the Minister of Labour appear before us in committee. I do not know whether he was hiding or the government was keeping him hidden, but 1 am sure the government did not wish us to hear the comments which he made in his recent letter to the editor. It would not want us to hear such comments in the context of the debate in committee because the government's legislation flies in the face of those
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
kinds of principles. It flies in the face of anything akin to a free labour movement.
A few moments ago I quoted from the masthead of The Globe and Mail. Again it reads:
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.
"Arbitrary", as defined in the second edition of the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, reads:
Derived from mere opinion, capricious; despotic; (law) discretionary.
This bill is discretionary. They have simply picked out this group to kick. They have not even attempted to appear to be even-handed. It is discriminatory, it is arbitrary. When Parliament acts in that way, how can it expect honest, hard-working people across the country who believe in freedom to respect either that law or the institution which passes it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I am not advocating that people should disregard the law. I would be the last to do so. But, I do not think that members of this party and I are alone in understanding that, when people feel they have been subjected to laws which are discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious, many of them will react accordingly. It is a despotic law and it will be dealt with in that way. In turn, that will lead to the kind of breakdown none of us desire to see. If we are ever to begin to work together in any kind of intelligent way to put society back on the path where government, labour and management can deal with each other in good faith and in an atmosphere of trust, then we must at least respect each other's rights as individuals and as segments of society. We must deal with each other on a non-discriminatory basis.
This law could be called a "git back" law. I do not know whether hon. members are familiar with that phrase. It is used often in the American south, "Git back, boy; git back." This amendment, this new amendment of the government, is a "git back" one. It is the government's attempt to be fair. It is going to tell members of free trade unions in the country, at least those in the public sector, and in the little bit of the private sector that they arbitrarily decided to throw in with them, that if they are good boys and girls and they sit down and negotiate within the arbitrary confines of this arbitrary law, then the government, out of the goodness of its heart and acting alone, will decide, this is compensation and this is not; this is a monetary clause and that is not; and if they are all very well behaved then they will be able to negotiate within the confines of that very peculiar definition of what is monetary and what is compensatory and what is not.
There is a word for that. In the old labour lexicon it is called a yellow-dog contract, and no self respecting worker would ever sign one. That is a yellow-dog clause and this whole damned thing is a yellow-dog bill. The Norris-LaGuardia Act, passed in 1932, made the yellow-dog contract illegal. That was

August 2, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
50 years ago. I am just going to give a short example of that kind of contract. This is a typical one. It was offered by the Hitchman Coal & Coke Company to all employees in 1908 . Those who refused to sign were fired. In the case of Hitchman Coal Company v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1917 declared this contract valid. In 1932 it was thrown out.
Let me quote as follows:
I am employed by and work for the Hitchman Coal and Coke Company with the express understanding that I am not a member of the United Mine Workers of America and will not become so while an employee of the Hitchman Coal and Coke Company, and that the Hitchman Coal and Coke Company is run nonunion and agrees with me that it will run non-union while I am in its employ.
If at any time while I am employed by the Hitchman Coal and Coke Company I want to become connected with the United Mine Workers of America, or any affiliated organization, I agree to withdraw from the employment of said company, and agree that while I am in the employ of that company I will not make any effort amongst its employees to bring about the unionizing of that mine against the company's wish. I have either read the above, or heard same read.
That was the yellow-dog contract that was ruled invalid by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1932, and this bill is in that same spirit. This amendment, particularly the new Clause 16, is in exactly that same spirit. As they say, 'Tse gonna be a good boy, Massa," and that is what this is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: There is a book in the province of Quebec called the "White Niggers of North America". That is not a racist term in this context. I think some members are aware of the phrase "being a good nigger" and it has nothing to do with being black or white or yellow or brown or any other colour. If you think that Canadian workers, who are used to being free people are going to say, "I'se gonna be a good boy" just because the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) over there, with his union bashing and desire to seek a servile attitude from among the employees of the Government of Canada, thinks Canadian workers are going to kowtow to that kind of attitude, then the government is very wrong.
There may be a number of Canadians, with the best of motives, who are going to get sucked in for a little while as they have been on other occasions, with regard to the War Measures Act and at other times, when this House unwisely attempted to invade the very freedom upon which this society is built. Sometimes it takes a little time for people to see very clearly exactly what is happening to some of their very basic and fundamental freedoms. But they will learn, and just as the Liberals and Conservatives voted together in that instance, the War Measures Act in 1970; just as the Liberals and Conservatives, going back further, voted together in the War Measures Act to discriminate against Japanese Canadians in the 1940s-and now they wish they had not, and everybody now says that that was a bad thing to do-and just as almost every member of this House, except for a few, maybe, who secretly keep their opinions to themselves, now says that the kind of arbitrary, dictatorial action that Joey Smallwood utilized against the International Woodworkers in the province of Newfoundland when he banished them from the shores of that
province in 1958-59-that that was wrong. In the same way, people will come to realize that this kind of legislation which is arbitrary and discriminatory is wrong as well and they will react in time against the government and against all politicians who are in a haste to find any old perceived answer to the very serious economic problems that beset our society. Those people will see through that and will punish those very shortsighted politicians accordingly; and they should.
There have been a number of comments from the other side. I have only got two or three minutes left so I will attempt to be very brief.


An hon. Member:: Good.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: They do not like people withdrawing their labour, they do not like free people speaking out either, and that is obvious from the tone of that remark. We do not "git back" and fit into their nice, cozy corner. I have never "got back," and I have never known the people I have worked with, people I am proud to have worked with, "git back" either. It is just not their way. We will express ourselves and we will be around, and whether it is in this place or whether it is on the street, we will be there and you will not shove us back.
There is no purpose in people having a union to protect them if that union cannot negotiate for them. The history of collective action on the part of working people is too strong and too deeply imbedded for it to be floated away and washed away by a quick flick of the wrist, as some of the people opposite would like to see happen. Unfortunately there are a few Conservative members who join with them enthusiastically in that aim. Others join them but are not quite so enthusiastic. We hope that in time they, along with the vast majority of people of this country, will some day see their way clear, in whatever forum they wish to express it, to tell this government that this action is no good, it is wrong, it has to go and they have to go too.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important bill and the government I know is in a hurry to get it through. I wonder, so that I could keep my remarks in the same tenor throughout the 20 minutes allotted to me, if I might now call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is not six o'clock.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I see the NDP are demonstrating their usual witless kind of lack of co-operation. It is rather interesting that the NDP are in trouble on this bill. I might tell the watching audience that this is a bill for restraint that they oppose; this is a bill that cuts MPs' pay, and they opposed it from the start.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
August 2, 1982


Allan Bruce McKinnon: There are lots of things wrong with this bill, mainly the amendments to it, but the NDP are now on record as opposing an MPs' pay cut.


Ian Deans: 1 will speak later.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Another bill they opposed here was to pay $5,000 to each of those poor unfortunates who accepted the government's advice and put the UFFI insulation in their homes. The NDP are picking some very peculiar bills to oppose, it seems to me, and I am not surprised that they do not want to call it six o'clock. They would much rather be speaking themselves trying to explain these positions, I expect. Also, the last one they opposed before that was the freedom of information bill. They have quite a track record recently in the House. It is very difficult to feel kindly toward them. However, if they wish me to talk in this vein for the next minute, I am glad to do so.
The NDP also talk about the Conservatives supporting the Liberals. Maybe the country needs to be reminded once more that the NDP, when the votes count on confidence motions, 19 times in a row supported the minority Liberal government back in the 1972-74 minority government position.
So that we do not keep the Sergeant at Arms waiting too long, may I now call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
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 adjourned at six o'clock the hon. member for Victoria had the floor.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have been forced to cut my speech into two parts, the NDP having refused to give me unanimous consent to call it six o'clock at three minutes to six.
You may recall that at that time I pointed out that the NDP have, so far in recent history, voted against the UFFI bill which would give $5,000 to those unfortunates who took the government's advice to instal that insulation in their homes. They have voted against the bill before us, Bill C-124, from the beginning. This is a bill that cuts MPs' pay. They have also voted against the freedom of information bill.
Those members also talked about their voting record against the government. As I pointed out, in the 1972-74 minority government situation, the NDP voted with the Liberal government at that time 19 times before they finally voted against the government. There was another minority government in 1979 which was headed by the Conservatives. At that time the
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
NDP never once gave us the fair chance they had given the Liberals some seven years before. Not once did they support the Conservative government when it was in a minority position. They now try to claim their neutrality and dissociate themselves from the Liberals but, as the Saskatchewan election proved, they cannot get away with it.
I would like to discuss how this bill was brought about in its present form. As we all know, it was brought in as a restraint bill. The Liberal position is a rather peculiar one these days. As always, I believe that the party is being run by a combination of Mr. Goldfarb and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Mr. Goldfarb recently found out that the general public thinks that the civil servants are being paid too much, or that the public would not object to their pay being cut. Therefore, the Liberals introduced Bill C-124.
The Liberals also introduced a number of other initiatives that I believe are derived from Mr. Goldfarb's polls. They are beginning to relax on metric. Any poll could have shown them that metric is vastly unpopular in the country. So the Liberals are beginning to change their position somewhat on metric. I expect that any day they will float some kind of a vote in the House on capital punishment. That would be the ultimate in changing positions to suit Mr. Goldfarb.
I must say that the amendments to this bill are making life extremely difficult in the House. I began being a supporter of Bill C-124 because of its restraint qualities. It cut the pay of MPs, and I found it rather easy to support. However, the amendments started to come in. I find it difficult to believe that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) alone is responsible for it. Although it may seem strange, and I hate to admit it about that group of oddballs-to be kind to them let us call them that-oddballs who are running the country, if there was one member with a glimmering of sense, it was the President of the Treasury Board. But then he produced this mean, small-minded and vindictive amendment, which he brought forward. I wonder if he was forced into it by the Prime Minister. It does not suit him, yet here it is.
How did this restraint measure begin? There is a great deal of argument back and forth with various people wishing someone else to take the credit for it, but this measure started on budget night when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) brought in his budget.
As for the Minister of Finance, some people say he is the worst Minister of Finance since the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) was minister of finance. Others disagree and say he is the worst Minister of Finance since the hon. John Turner was the minister of Finance. I tend to agree with both.
In any event, the Minister of Finance said, as it appears on page 4 of what seemed to be an interminable speech that night when talking about the rollback and restraint, "However, only ministers, MPs and senators will be subject to actual cuts in pay." That suited me and received my support.

August 2, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
The bill was then introduced. A measure was introduced based on the provision in the budget speech about the 6 per cent limit on future pay increases. I believe that the staff around this place accepted that with very good discipline. They saw that it was necessary and beneficial and that it would help the country to become accustomed to taking less out of the public trough. They generally accepted it with a very good grace.
I have a staff of four who are all women. As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) said, they were the ones who were treated the very worst here. Eighty per cent of the staff here-100 per cent of my staff- are women. I had an unwritten contract with my staff because they trusted me as a Member of Parliament the way I trusted the government as a Member of Parliament. I was given a global amount. In my office we decided who would get how much. They did not receive a great increase. They received this increase in April and for the last four months they have been drawing that pay because I said that that is what they could have. My staff have done their work. When they received the news that they would receive only a 6 per cent raise next year, they said, "If this is what is needed to get the country back to normal, I guess we are the goats, but we will get along with it."
The President of the Treasury Board then introduced this amendment No. 3. It is really a bombshell tucked away in the bill. The amendment would mean that those people would have to roll back 6 per cent of their pay so that they would only have had a 5 per cent increase from April. They have become accustomed to living on a certain stipend each month. They have made arrangements to pay off mortgages and to rent apartments. They have purchased new and second-hand cars. Most of them live up to their incomes. Now, bang, they are to be treated the way the Minister of Finance said that no one except ministers, MPs and senators would be subject to in terms of actual cuts in pay. This will create far more difficulties than the government imagines, but it is really noted for not realizing for a moment the consequence or consequences of its actions. It goes blindly into these half-thought-out programs and is then astonished when they do not turn out well because its helpers or advisers have said, "Do it our way and worry not."
One can never forget the look on the face of the Minister of Finance when he was questioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) a couple of days after his November budget. She pointed out to him that 20,000 construction workers had been laid off in the country because of the cutting off of the MURB program, the multiple unit residential building program. Builders had their allowances cut off unless a MURB had its foundation in. The result was that
20,000	people were put out of work. But the Minister of Finance had never dreamed that would happen. He had not thought through what would happen, any more than the President of the Treasury Board understood what would happen when he brought in this amendment, that he would
turn many of his friends in the House into people who are finding it extremely difficult to vote for this restraint. Yes, we are very much in favour of restraint. We are willing to accept it, even for ourselves. But it is very hard indeed to have it put on us if we must go back and tell our staff that they are to be added to that very select group which will be subject to a rollback, and that of all the 500,000 people who work for the federal government, 2,000 will have to carry the only rollback, which will be on their backs.
At page 2 of the bill, with reference to the rollback provisions, it states:
(2) This part applies to
(a) staffs of Ministers of the Crown and of members of the Senate and House
of Commons-
That affects some of our secretarial staffs. At this time it might be interesting to read just what kind of provisions we are supposed to be working under here. For the benefit of those who never do read the instructions that are sent out I would like to read from the book provided to members of the House of Commons, which is entitled "Allowances and Services". In Section 7 at page 2, under "Administration of Staff Allowance", it states:
Members of Parliament have the prerogative to recruit, hire and release employees. Rates of pay are also determined by the Member, providing such rates fall within the guidelines set out in Part B, paragraphs 2 and 3. Salary expenditures will be reflected in the member's principal budget.
Members' assistants fall under paragraphs 2 and 3 to which reference was given. The lowest level, level 1, starts at SI0,537 a year. It goes from there through to level 2, level 3 and then level 4. The salary at the very top of level 4 is $25,408. However, members are given a global budget, and, as it is stated, salaries are at our discretion. It is just as plain as can be. I expect that if this bill passes, this whole manual will be scrubbed out and we will be put on a new footing. One of the parts of the new footing is that our own staff would probably never believe us again.
With reference to classification and salary, it is quite interesting. This book of instruction for MPs states:
As it is the prerogative of the member to determine the rate of pay of an employee, it is also the responsibility of the member to initiate any change in the rate of pay of an employee. Only the signature of the Member may authorize the appointment, the amendment to the rate of pay, or the termination of employment in either the Ottawa parliamentary office or the constituency office.
It is really something like the limit put on the indexation of retired servicemen. I am doubtful as to whether the government has the authority to break these contracts. If it happened in the private sector, I suspect that a firm would be sued for the money which is still outstanding or due to the employee, because there was a verbal contract, at least with the staff. It can be backed up by papers sent out by the parliamentary administration which lists everyone and states what they are paid. Suddenly, this contract has no bearing or effect. It is not a contract. It seems wrong to me.
The fat really hit the fire when word came out just after the budget, which I believe was June 28, that the exempt staff of the ministers had received a pay raise of 11 per cent some 11
August 2, 1982

days before the budget. The members of the House of Commons were asked to put their usual intelligence on hold and believe that the government knew nothing about the matter, that the President of the Treasury Board knew nothing about it and that no one knew what was in the budget until budget night. What the government said about the November budget was that no one knew what was in it, including the Minister of Finance, until budget night.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Or a month after.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Yes, some people wonder whether he knows anything about what was in it to this day.
There was a press report that this was the second of a pair of pay raises. I have only seen it once. It is by no means conclusive. I would look forward to the President of the Treasury Board telling me truthfully at some time whether or not there was another pay raise involved before that. For those who do not know about exempt staff, "exempt staff' means employees who are exempt from having their pay questioned, and the government takes very good care not to tell us how much they get paid, no matter how much they get paid. So we have to take the government's word about whether there was or was not a previous pay raise. It seems to me that is partly the fault of the Liberal backbenchers more than those in the opposition whose job it is to oppose, but I understand that members of cabinet received quite a bit of criticism about raising the salaries of their own exempt staff just 11 days before a budget was introduced, which limited to 6 per cent the increase for the staff of everyone else and left theirs at 11 per cent. This seemed to be a sly trick to get in a pay raise quietly just before the ceiling was put on.
Not only did the opposition oppose it, but I also believe that some hon. members, the more forthright of the backbenchers in the Liberals, criticized the cabinet, not realizing how dangerous it is for any backbencher to criticize the cabinet. The reaction was swift and immediate and their staff will now have their salaries rolled back. In my opinion, this is absolutely outrageous, and is the reaction of a petulant, vindictive man, and a meaner example of the use of power is really hard to contemplate. That is why at the beginning of my remarks I said that I am amazed if it really came from the President of the Treasury Board, although he is a friend of the Prime Minister and has never before, as far as I know, participated in any actions similar to this. I know, of course, how I will vote on Amendment No. 3, which relates to this matter.
There is another amendment which equally worries me, and that is Amendment No. 13, which mentions the powers of the Treasury Board under the new bill. While I would not like to bore hon. member by all the jargon that is written therein, I will say that it starts off by stating:
13. 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)-
(b)	amend Schedule 1 by adding thereto any department or ministry of state of
the Government of Canada or other portion of the public service-
I have been around here for nearly a decade and I have never seen provisions like this put into a bill. This really would give the President of the Treasury Board authority to exempt
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
people from the pay regulations and, under these regulations, I suppose he could exempt the exempt staff once more. No one knows how much pay they receive or how much they will be receiving. But this is a power which is not customarily given to the Treasury Board, and I see no reason at all that it should be given to it now. It is a move which I really think should be altered.
If the minister could find it in his heart to cancel Amendment No. 3 and soften what is now Motion No. 17, I could support the bill with quite an easy conscience. However, I find it hard to accept Motion No. 3 which picks out a small group of very dedicated people. The only people in Ontario working today are the staff of Members of Parliament, among those in the government service. They are here. They work long hours. They are not unionized. They are not tenured. They can be fired at the drop of a hat or the whim of a Member of Parliament, yet they are treated in such a shabby fashion by this government which is simply trying to get even with opposition Members of Parliament in the House of Commons or members in their own party. It is a disgraceful performance. I would like to see it changed before this motion is put to a vote.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue with the speech I started earlier today when dealing with the question of closure. The speech by the member who preceded me did not make it quite clear how he is going to vote when the bill finally comes before the House of Commons. I suppose it is part of the Tory strategy to keep them guessing as long a you can or say whatever you must to have the people believe you are on all sides of every issue. That seems to be the normal practice for the Conservatives these days. I do not want to dwell on the Tories. They are doing themselves enough harm that I do not have to help.
I want to deal with the bill. As I said this afternoon, the bill is an unsatisfactory piece of legislation. Not only is it not supportable in any of its current form, but it is a piece of legislation that is intended to address a problem which, in my mind and in the minds of a large number of people, is not the fundamental problem confronting this country.
The government brings forward this legislation in an effort to try to provide some leadership. It claims it is attempting to provide for the balance of the country a sense that it knows what it is doing. It claims to have a path of action that it proposes to follow, that the economy will at the end of this road, wherever that may be, benefit significantly and substantially from the direction that this Liberal government is now charting. When you stop to think about it, you cannot help but wonder how holding civil servants' wages to a maximum 6 per cent increase this year or in the coming year and to a maximum 5 per cent increase in any subsequent year is going to provide that new direction.
Was it because civil servants' wages were too high that the bank rate was close to 20 per cent and remains now at 16 per

August 2, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
cent or thereabouts? Was it because civil servants' wages were too high that unemployment continued to escalate in the country to a level that is now annually adjusted at 1.3 million but is in fact close to a total of two million unemployed, those who are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits plus those who have long since run out of those benefits, no longer qualify and are no longer part of the statistics?
Was it because civil servants' wages were too high that the level of bankruptcies among small businesses rose to an unprecedented 5,700 in the first six months of this year, up 37 per cent from the same time last year? Was it because civil servants' wages were too high that 22,000 people in this country lost their homes in the month of April, up 32 per cent from last year, 6,000 of them in the province of Quebec?
Was it because civil servants' wages were too high that we saw only 145,000 to 155,000 housing starts in Canada this year, when the need is now over 220,000 housing starts each year? Are we to believe it was because of the high wages of civil servants that instead of having 100,000 rental units started in Canada to meet the demonstrated need, we have only 30,000 units started in Canada this year?
What I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the minister is this: was the level of incomes in the public service the primary reason why the economy at every single level is suffering so dramatically and drastically? Is this the answer to the significant and difficult problems now confronting every single sector? Is it because of civil servants' wages being too high that close to 50,000 auto workers are not working?
Is it because of civil service wages that Massey-Ferguson was in so much difficulty or that Chrysler was unable to make it in the world of business? Is it because of civil service wages in Canada that we find so many families faced with such difficult economic times? Young people leaving school cannot find jobs. I suppose the high wages paid to civil servants is the reason that so many people coming out of high schools and universities cannot find employment in the country.
I imagine that once the government thinks about it, it will be able to answer all these questions, whether it be the high level of unemployment, exorbitant interest rates, the exceedingly high level of bankruptcies, far greater than we have seen in 30-odd years, or the tremendous losses incurred by families trying to hold on to their homes in the face of such pressures, the dramatic drop in the number of housing starts or apartment rental starts.
I suppose the government is saying to us in the House of Commons that the reason for all this is that the public service wages are too high, that in order to get to the nub of it, the nitty-gritty, the government will deal with the real problem, cut wages, and that will solve the problem. The government believes that all of a sudden everyone will be working, inflation will drop, interest rates will drop to insignificant one-digit numbers, no bankruptcies will occur, people will keep their homes. Is this what the government is saying? Is this what the government is offering? Is this why the government has brought this measure forward?
Am I to believe that civil service wage levels are to blame for all of the economic woes in this country, that by taking this step and limiting them to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year we will see a dramatic turnaround in the economy, real prosperity, and the days of the 6 per cent world will be upon us? To me that would be something out of Alice in Wonderland.
If the minister truly believes the measure he has brought forward is supportable because it provides a cornerstone for the government's economic initiatives or somehow will resolve the very many complex problems in the economy, then I say the minister is dreaming in technicolour. There is just no justification for suggesting that this measure is in any way a measure which will begin to effect that turnaround.
There are people in the country who think cutting someone else's wages will solve the problem. The Tories recognize that. They do their polling, and the Liberals do theirs. We do not have to do polling because we are sufficiently attuned to what is going on. We do not need polls. I meet with unemployed people frequently, and they ask, "Ian, will this be of any value?" If this measure were to be of any value, people would think it worthy of support. If I were to ask an auto worker why he is not working, he would tell me he is not working because people are not buying the automobiles he manufactured. Would cutting the wages of public servants encourage people to buy automobiles? People do not think that is likely. When I ask how this measure will help get people back to work and how it will provide them with a market for what they were previously making-and continue to make, for that matter- they ask me, "Is the government doing anything about the real problem in the auto industry now?" They ask whether the government is taking steps to curb imports so that we can get our industry back on its feet. I would like to say "Yes", but I have to answer "No". The government does not care. It is not doing anything about that.
If the government is not doing anything about that, what is it doing about mortgage interest rates as they affect unemployed auto workers whose unemployment insurance benefits are about to run out and who do not now have enough income to pay the exorbitant interest rates charged since mortgage renewals last November at 20.75 per cent? I have to say that the government is not doing anything about that either. I am asked what it is the government is doing, and I have to say it is cutting the wages of civil servants. People ask how that will benefit them, and I tell them I do not think it will benefit them.
Inevitably the response is, "Why are the Tories supporting the government?" I must confess that the Tories are in a bit of a conundrum. I do not know why they are supporting this measure. I cannot figure them out. I thought they were brighter than that, but I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong.
If the government is going to limit wage increases in the public sector to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year, is
August 2, 1982

it likely the government will also limit wage increases in the private sector? The government has already done it. It has included CP in the bill. Not only has it included CP in the bill, but it has also enlisted the help of its friends, and the friends of the Conservatives, who are at the heads of the majority of major corporations. As I explain this to people and tell them what these major corporate executives are saying, I can see the look of dismay on their faces. There is disbelief at first, and then they realize I am telling the truth. These corporate executives are telling us not to worry about them because they will keep wage increases to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year. No matter what the cost of living and no matter whether the cost of living remains at 11 per cent or 12 per cent, wage increases will be restricted to 6 per cent. Does this mean people will fall behind? That is what the Tories and Liberals want. That is why they are supporting the bill.
People think that the government surely will take some steps to try to limit price and profit increases and that surely the government is not blind to the major problem which will confront them. They think that perhaps the government will bring in some kind of measure to limit profits and price increases, but I have to tell them the truth. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) would understand that it is absolutely essential to be consistent. Perhaps he would not understand that, but let us assume he would.
Ian Sinclair, the chairman of Canadian Pacific, represents the blue ribbon committee of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and he is out there pushing, tugging, shoving, cajoling and bullying his colleagues and friends in the corporate world to accept the Prime Minister's direction. Ian Sinclair has said that although wages will be limited to increases of 6 per cent and 5 per cent, we need not expect that prices or profits will be limited. After all, profits are "not high enough". Prices need to rise. More profits are needed. Workers will get by with less, but more profits are needed. Why? More on top of what? Today I asked the minister about Suncor. The minister has just arranged to bail out yet another major corporate entity with public funds. Tens of millions of tax dollars will be involved, and Suncor has agreed to live by the 6 per cent and 5 per cent wage guidelines. I thought to myself that that was very big of Suncor, in return for those tax dollars. I thought that was very kind and that Suncor showed a certain amount of understanding of the Prime Minister's and the Tory party's logic. But Suncor then said it wants to have the right to maintain its profits at historical levels. I began to worry about that, so I took a look to see. Historical levels would lead me to believe that Suncor would be entitled to something similar to what it got, let us say, in 1976, 1977, 1978 or perhaps even 1979. In 1976 Suncor's profits were $13.3 million; in 1977, $23.6 million, almost double; in 1978, they dropped to almost $20 million; in 1979 up they went to $84 million; in 1980, $115.5 million; and in 1981, $100 million profit. However, there was Suncor tapping on the Prime Minister's door and asking if it could just get its trunk into the trough one more time so it could get more tax dollars, in spite of the fact that it was prepared to hold the wages of its employees down. Where
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
in hell does Suncor think the money comes from? Who does Suncor think puts the money into the tax coffers? Suncor wants more. In the first quarter of this year the profits of Suncor were in excess of $11 million, which means that by the end of the year they will probably be at around $60 million. What historical profit level would Suncor want to achieve? Would Suncor settle for the 1976 level of $13.3 million? If it settled for the 1976 level of $13.3 million, it would not need tax dollars because it is generating enough now. Would Suncor settle even for the historical level of 1977, $23.6 million? Suncor would not need to come to the Government of Canada to raise additional funds. It is all right now.
When people ask me why I am not supporting the bill-I know my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker, and it is a shame-


Walter David Baker: Thank God for that.


Ian Deans: I am not supporting the bill because it does not deal with the fundamental problem. If the government had wanted to take steps to curb the high interest rates and whatever other steps are necessary to secure them, if the government had wanted to assist in the building of homes that would house the people of Canada, every dollar of which investment would be returned, if the government had been prepared to enter into arrangements to cut off or limit the import of vehicles in order that our own vehicle manufacturers could rebuild and in that way provide jobs for Canadians-in other words, Mr. Speaker, if the government had been prepared to bring forward an economic program aimed at putting people back to work, then I say that this measure would have been unnecessary.
The government does not begin to deal with the problems of Canada. The government does not give a damn about the problems of Canada, Mr. Speaker. The government does not have it within its scope of understanding to appreciate the problems of people now unemployed and how it should put things back together again. It is supported, of course, by the Tory party. I do not know why. It will go the same way as the Liberal Party will go. It will disappear eventually because it no longer meets society's needs.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief remarks on the bill before the House. I cannot help but reflect on some of the remarks I have heard tonight. We have just heard the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) try to speak like a prophet. He may be many things, but a prophet he is not, Mr. Speaker.
It always surprises me when I hear members of the New Democratic Party pontificate in manners holy and righteous and make the kind of rash judgments they are known for making in this House.
I do not speak on this bill with a great deal of happiness or enthusiasm but I believe that some of the measures in it are necessary in view of the state of the country at the present

August 2, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
time. I believe, as well, that the government must show leadership. I was a bit surprised and concerned, although I should not have been having heard him before, at the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) when he spoke on the amendment known as the Baker amendment. I know I should not use a member's name in the House, Mr. Speaker-


Walter David Baker: When you use them, use them truthfully.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I will try to do that, hon. sir.


Walter David Baker: Do your best.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: He made a great tirade against the 11 per cent increase in salary that the staffs of ministers received in early June before the budget was brought in.
It seemed to me that in the presentation of his budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) made it abundantly clear that the provisions of the budget applied to those increases in the public sector under the control of the Government of Canada that would come into effect after June 28. The salary augmentation for members' staffs came into effect at least two weeks before that date, and therefore, in my opinion, should not have been subjected to the budget provisions.
I know that there have been a lot of comments and a great deal of commentary about ministers' staffs and the salaries and perks that they enjoy. If one takes their salaries and perks in complete abstraction from the reality in which they live, they do look pretty impressive. When one looks at their work day, their work week, their hours per month, then the salaries and perks dim. I think that any fair-minded member of the House will agree that they work as long hours as we do. They work with much dedication to their ministers. Sometimes I wish some of them would work with a bit more dedication to members. Be that as it may, however, there can be no doubt that they work with complete dedication to their minister. They subject their lifestyle, their family life, their home life, everything, to the will and necessity of the minister they serve.
That is as it has to be in our system. I was therefore surprised to hear the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) try to equate the salary and lifestyle of a ministerial assistant with that of the ordinary public servant. There is a great deal of difference, Mr. Speaker.
I have had differences with the public service, particularly the Public Service Commission, which, in my opinion, has set itself up to be the god of public employment in the departments and agencies of the federal government. I do not blame it for that; I think we must take the blame for giving it that kind of absolute power and allowing it to continue. There can be no doubt that a ministerial assistant does not work a 35, 37*/2 or 40-hour week; it is more like a 70, 75, 80 or even 100-hour week.
If ministers work as hard as backbench members, then I know that their staffs are working consistently 70, 80 and 90
hours a week. I do not believe that the salaries they earn are too high.
I think the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was wrong when he tried to equate the two, and I think the hon. member for Victoria was wrong when he made his remarks in the House tonight. I also believe that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) was wrong to bring in this amendment to affect the salary levels of the staffs of Members of Parliament.
At the beginning of the fiscal year our staff allotment was increased by 11 per cent. Most of us, I hope, passed that on to members of our staff. In my case I did it after some negotiation with my staff. I asked my constituency secretary to take less than members of my Ottawa staff because she was earning relatively more in the economy in which she lived than members of my staff here in Ottawa were earning in the economy in which they live. In order to be fair, I negotiated an increase for each member of my staff, to which all members of my staff agreed. I believe that is the way things should be done. I disagree wholeheartedly with members of the New Democratic Party who want to unionize the staff of Members of Parliament on the Hill. I do not believe that will work. I do not believe it is necessary if Members of Parliament are, as they should be, model employers.
Without any advance notice to my staff or the staff of any other member, we found out last week that our staff was going to be asked to make the same gesture that we were asked to make on June 28. I made that sacrifice without grumbling and without complaint even though I have to maintain two homes, both of which have mortgages. I have five children, the eldest of whom will be starting university this fall. But that is not the fault of Parliament. It is not the responsibility of Parliament, nor is it the responsibility of the government. That is my responsibility and I accept it.
But when I make a verbal contract with my staff, which to me is as binding as if it were written, and for someone then to come along and tell me that the contract is null and void is wrong. Something has gone wrong. Therefore, I am making the plea tonight to the President of the Treasury Board and his colleagues in cabinet who are here, to withdraw that amendment and to leave the salaries of members of our staff alone because we made a contract with them. We did not consult with them to find out if they were willing to take a cut in pay or if we intended at the same time to give them a corresponding cut in responsibility or a cut in the number of hours worked.
I know that many members here have had someone in their offices as long as they have been here on the Hill. I know that members ask their staff to serve long hours. I ask my staff to serve eight or nine hours a day. I believe Mr. Lincoln set an example when he abolished slavery, and I do not intend to reinstate it in my office. When a normal work day is done, if
August 2, 1982

my staff have not gone home, I send them home. If we cannot cover our work in a normal work day-and I know I cannot do so with the various responsibilities and activities in which I have to participate-then I believe we should have more staff and we should not have to ask each staff member to do the job of two or three people. I know it is impossible for there to be two Members of Parliament from each riding. That idea was done away with some time ago and I do not want to see it reinstituted. I am not prepared to ask my staff, who work very hard, all of whom are the sole breadwinners in their families, to try to manage on 5 per cent or 6 per cent less when they have not been consulted nor have there been any negotiations with me about that.
Therefore, I want to put on the record tonight my plea to the government to withdraw that unfair, unannounced and injudicious amendment, which I suspect was made in response to representations made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker)-whether or not that is what he meant, I do not want to ascribe motives to him-because the amendment is unfair and it is unacceptable to me.
I believe the bill itself is necessary for the state of the nation today and I am prepared to vote for it and to take whatever political flak comes from it. But I am not prepared to vote for something which retroactively affects a contract made in good faith with our staff. The other provisions in the bill do not affect people on a retroactive basis. Therefore, those provisions can be justified. I can argue the cause and the need for those provisions.
We were told on budget night that as Members of Parliament and senators of this nation we had to make a sacrifice, that we had to show the way, that we had to set an example. I accept that, we do and I will. But I am not prepared to say the same to my staff. I am not prepared to say that they are in a different category from public servants who generally work no more than 37'/2 hours a week. They are in a different category from employees of Air Canada and a different category from the employees of the oil and gas industry of this nation. For that reason I again plead with the government to withdraw that amendment because I cannot support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Nurthumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) for a stand I think he has taken on a personal basis which flies in the face of what most Liberal members are going to do when voting on this amendment.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 appreciate the comment of the hon. member who is just beginning his speech but I take grave exception to his attributing motives to my colleagues. I do not think that is necessary nor is it called for. I would hope he will put his position on the record and not speculate on the position of other members.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is known what the position's of the members of the New Democratic Party on any amendment to this bill and on the bill in general. We have
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
spoken out both in debate and in committee as being adamantly opposed to the bill in general. We are certainly opposed to amendments that will curtail the increase which the staff got about four months ago. This amendment will affect our staff members severely.
I appreciate the comments of the hon. member in terms of the problems of his staff and what other staff members will experience by having a cutback in salaries at this time. I am not too sure that I am attributing any motives to the Liberal Party that have not already been enunciated across the land.
What this bill has done for me and for many members of the public service as well as members of any labour union is to indicate the extent to which the Liberal government-and we will see the proof of this when the votes are counted-and to what extent Liberal members will go in order to gain favour in this land. The cynical attitude of Canadians toward their federal government will be totally justified.
Bill C-124 simply confirms the kind of attitude and cynicism which exists toward the government. We have a government which has ruled the land during most of the last 117 years. Basically it controls its policies through Gallup and public polls.
The situation we have today is a government which is in disarray and is disorganized. It is unaware of where it is going. The feeling exists in the land that pubic servants are doing well in comparison with many other unions and businesses in the country. Canadians are looking for answers. The Liberal government is prepared to give a simplistic answer, that it is public servants who are too rich, whose compensation packages are too rich. The government will give the public something which it perceives will gain some political favour, that is, control over public sector wages. We have a government with a 6-5 formula-the mythical 6 per cent society-which the government is prepared to use and impose upon public servants in an attempt to gain favour in the business community and with the electorate who really do not understand the economic problems which have led to the present situation in Canada.
We have a government which is willing to say to Canadians that it should set a precedent by controlling the public service to a 6 per cent increase this year and to a 5 per cent one next year and that somehow this will solve most of the economic problems in Canada. We know that is not true. Public servants know that is not true. Trade unions know that is not true. Deep down, most Canadians know that it will not be the salvation of the Canadian economy.
In terms of the public service and its members, they are in somewhat of a state of shock. They know that there are some critical problems in the Canadian economy. They have heard over and over again that the public service somehow, in some mythical way, is to blame for them. They are quite willing in some ways to carry their share of the load of economic recovery. They have not reacted to the extent to which they will react when they discover what is being imposed upon them in

August 2, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
terms, not only of salary curtailment but, more important, what they have lost in terms of their ability to bargain collectively with their employer.
I come from a constituency which is very heavily trade union oriented, mostly in the forest industry. I am interested in seeing the reaction of the unemployed workers in my riding toward the government program in Bill C-124. This program gets at the public service. I think there is a sense within Canada-and certainly within the private trade union movement in my riding-that this bill will not stop at the public sector. It is a propaganda ploy of the government in order to curtail collective bargaining in many other sectors. To some extent it has already included the independent trade union movement within areas in which Crown corporations are involved through contracts. IWA and the Canadian paper-workers' union in my riding have nearly 10,000 members. They are looking very carefully at the bill and at the possibility that come this fall, when they have seen a total failure of the bill to bring any reduction in the cost of living or to make available any greater employment, they will be fighting the Liberal government on the same kinds of programs with which public servants have found themselves faced at the moment.
There are approximately 6,000 members of the IWA in Port Alberni. Approximately 600 of them are currently employed. We have pulp mills which will be shut down for 11 weeks over the summer months and into September. We have sawmills which are closed down. We have loggers out of work. Only 600 of the 6,000 are working in that valley. Many of these people have been unemployed for 11 months now. They are looking at the spectre of going on unemployment insurance within the next month or two, which will bring the total in the community to approximately 1,000 workers on unemployment insurance and then on to welfare.
I ask these people what this bill means to them. Do they think this bill will put any people back to work in the forest industry? Obviously the answer is no. The reduction in incomes of public servants across Canada will mean a reduction in expenditures by union members within their local communities. Local business people are already suffering. There are record bankruptcies in the small business sector of Canada. Those businesses will have even less money. As long as the government persists in a high interest rate policy, home owners will be unable to meet their mortgage payments. New home owners and young people seeking new homes will be unable even to think about purchasing them.
Woodworkers in Nanaimo, Campbell River, Duncan, Kamloops and Prince George will continue on unemployment insurance. Also they will continue to face the spectre of even worse fate, that is, the welfare rolls.
We wonder how such a bill ever got this far in a country which prides itself on freedom, the right of self-expression, the right to a job and free movement across the land. Most Canadians feel very fortunate about living in Canada, considering the difficulties in most other nations. In a land which prides itself on its democratic system and the choice to make a free decision at election time as to what government the citizens want to represent them, the government has recently
gone through a very difficult time in adopting a new Constitution. It took pride in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, within a matter of months it comes along and says to public servants that for a period of two years they no longer have the right to collective bargaining nor the right to deal with health and safety issues. It tells them that their current contracts will be frozen and that the wages which they will negotiate over the next two years will be limited to 6 per cent and 5 per cent, regardless of the cost of living, the price of housing or of fuel.
A government which will impose this kind of legislation on its public servants, who have been loyal to it and to the Canadian public, will carry the process even further. It will take away freedoms from all of us, whether they are rights in the trade union movement or the right of small business people to make decisions on how they will run their businesses. It seems to me that the government, through this bill, is quite prepared to go to any extent.
In talking to people in the public service in my riding-and I think the situation is probably similar across the land-I found in them a hesitancy to take strong and deliberate action against the bill. I think that is a reflection of the dedication and commitment of public servants, not only in the federal government sector but also in the provincial area. People working for governments really feel some commitment to their jobs, to their ministers and to their departments. This bill simply cuts all the respect they may have felt for the government. I suspect that it will lead to the kind of attitude which many public servants felt when the Conservatives campaigned in 1979. In order to gain political favour across Canada, the Conservative government talked about 60,000 fewer public servants. It did not really explain from where they would be cut, from what departments or programs. It talked a little about them being lost through attrition, but not about how it would affect programs which were built up by government over the years. Whether social programs or economic programs for the business community, we were simply going to curtail about 2 per cent of the public service in each department and we were going to reduce that heavy, overweight public service by 60,000 people, the same kind of effect that the Conservatives are now talking about in terms of slashing the federal budget. There were no specifics in it, simply that we are going to have to slash budgets and we are going to have to turf out some of the public service.
Again I think of my riding, of the number of people unemployed and how this bill is going to affect them. It is not going to put any of them to work; it is not going to give them any more confidence in this government; it is not going to give anybody any confidence in this government. I think that most people, when they assess this bill, will recognize it is simply a political ploy to give the impression at the end of this session that the government has finally recognized that we have an economic problem, and their knee-jerk reaction to this problem is again to attack the public service. If this does not work and we get into the session in October and we still have an inflation
August 2, 1982

rate of 11 per cent, an unemployment rate nearing 11 per cent or 12 per cent, budgets for provincial and municipal governments for welfare skyrocketing, and a lack of any industrial strategy in Canada, this government very likely will be prepared to bring in wage and price controls, or at least wage controls in the private sector.
We went through 1975, did we not? We went through 1974 when this government was attempting to get re-elected and it condemned the wage and price controls advocated by the Conservative leader, Mr. Stanfield, at that time, and soon after they were back in. We had an economic crisis in Canada, and the only solution to that of course was wage and price controls. Workers' salaries and workers' income have really never recovered from the 1975 era. Over the last four years, workers have experienced a net loss in disposable income because of high inflation and the high cost of living.
But that does not matter. We are going to get back into the situation where we continue to have an economic crisis in this country, and the Liberal government is prepared again to bring in at least wage controls and, just to coat the cookie a little bit, we are going probably to talk about some price controls.
The government has rejected any attempts that the New Democratic Party has made to get it to look at the cost of energy, how that is affecting the rate of inflation and how that is costing Canadians millions of dollars, or at least hundreds of dollars out of their own domestic household budgets. Why can the government not make some commitment to renegotiate contracts with the provinces in order to reduce the burden of energy costs on individual pensioners, home owners and people dependent on transportation for access to employment?
If blaming the public service for our ills does not work, we have the other scapegoat, and that is, the Canadian workers' productivity scheme. Somehow or other, if we cannot blame the public service, we have to say Canadian workers are not productive enough, they cannot compete on world markets. And yet that myth can be dispelled if we look at productivity in modern plants. The Canadian workers I know in my riding in the pulp and paper industry are more productive or as productive as any woodworkers in the world. These people are idle these days, 90 per cent of them are idle these days because of the economic crisis not only in Canada, but in the United States owing to some of the economic policies there which are related directly to the same high interest rate policy that the Liberal government in Canada is supporting, which is supported also by the Conservative Party, the official opposition in this House.
When I look at the opposition to unions coming from both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, often I think back to the kinds of working conditions that the coalminers in Nanaimo must have experienced in the 1850s and 1860s and up to the 1900s and past. That is where the Liberals and the Conservatives want to take us, back in the past, the same working conditions that existed in the 1850s. There were no bargaining units, no negotiating abilities at all. That is exactly
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
where they are. I do not know where they get the name progressive because it is obviously always a regressive party that sits on my right hand side here. That is exactly what they are. They just adore having 11 per cent and 12 per cent of people out of work in the mines, the forestry industry, the fishing industry and the manufacturing industry. That is just about the size of the economic policy that we find from both the Liberals and the Conservatives in this House of Commons.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are the ones who voted against property rights.


Edward Allan Miller: The hon. member from Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is on to his property rights problem again. It is about all he has been able to say in the House of Commons since the Constitution was passed-property rights.


Walter David Baker: That is your problem.


Edward Allan Miller: We all know that the property rights are protected by provincial governments, and we are very, very upset when anyone mentions intrusion on any provincial constitutional area.


Walter David Baker: Would you trust Bennett, lately?


Edward Allan Miller: Now the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) says I should not trust Bennett. Perhaps I do not trust Premier Bennett but I do not know why 1 should not leave it to the people in Saskatchewan and British Columbia to determine, on the basis of the policies of those governments, who they should vote for, and if those governments are not going to protect the rights of property owners then they should be turfed out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward Allan Miller: We have finally got under the skin of some of the Conservative members here because I think they also are pretty sensitive about this bill.


Walter David Baker: So is Mr. Blakeney.


Edward Allan Miller: They do not appreciate the response that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) has given to them in terms of the public service and staff cutbacks. They are nervous about that because they have a sense that the minister has really responded to the demands of the Conservative Party to slash controls on our staff, and I think they should be sensitive about that.


Walter David Baker: Now, now, take it easy.


Edward Allan Miller: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think that the amendment which reduces the staff allowances is as bad. It simply compounds the problems that we have in the New Democratic Party with regard to a bill which restricts collective bargaining throughout all the public service.


Walter David Baker: Now you are making some sense. Sit down while you are ahead.

August 2, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I proceed to the question may I remind hon. members that pursuant to an order made earlier by Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 2, 3 5, 6 and 7 were grouped for debate and were to be voted upon as follows: that is to say, first, Motion No. 3 will be voted upon separately, and thereafter we will deal with Motion No. 5, which will dispose of Motions Nos. 2, 6 and 7.1 will now put to the House Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston).
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the yeas have it. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Also pursuant to the rulings to which I referred I will now put the question on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division stands deferred.
Following the ruling made earlier by Madam Speaker, the House may wish to consider Motion No. 4.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-124, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 6 to 17 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) This part is binding on Her Majesty in".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to explain what the effect of this amendment might be. It would be to delete Section 4 which was proposed by the government in the present bill. It says:
(4) This Part applies to employees of Canadian Pacific Limited and its subsidiaries who are employed in the operation of a railway and to the employees of the following:
(a)	Ontario Northland Railway;
(b)	Algoma Central Railway Company;
(c)	Toronto Terminals Railway Company;
(d)	Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway Company.
That clause was not there when this bill first came to the House of Commons. We were told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) that this was a bill which would specifically apply to Crown corporations and government employees. We were told that it did not apply to the private sector. The inclusion of this amendment has now brought in the private sector.
This amendment was included after all groups who were entitled to present witnesses to the committee had done so. In other words, no further witnesses were heard after this amendment was placed before the committee.
Of course, this meant that the railway unions and others who were concerned about the effect of this amendment, not only on collective bargaining but also on railway transportation, especially in western Canada, were not given an opportunity to be heard.
Many of us, especially those of us who live in western Canada, believe that the long term effect of this amendment will be to bring the railway peace which has existed in this country for the last number of years to an end. We believe that by singling out the railway industry as the only private sector industry to come under the auspices of this bill, the government will have brought about the prejudice, hate and longterm instability that it said it did not want to create in this country.
The Liberal majority on that committee refused to allow those people who were concerned about this amendment to come before the committee. Members of all parties were not able to hear what those concerned groups of Canadians felt about this amendment.
There has been an indecent haste in the entire approach to this bill. I suggested earlier today that this indecent haste showed a lack of a concern for the importance of this bill, an extremely important bill. This bill allows the government to break contracts that it has already signed. It changes the


August 2, 1982

collective bargaining process in this country for the next number of years by basically outlawing it for the next two-year period. Another important aspect of this bill is its unfairness since it only affects some workers in Canada. I suggested this afternoon that the rush to pass this bill is based on the desire of a number of members to begin their vacations. I believe tonight's very low attendance is an indication of that. We have just witnessed closure under a time allocation motion which was passed by the government this afternoon.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Why do you not
talk about the bill instead of describing the motives of other people?


Rodney Edward Murphy: I presume the hon. member ranting and raving on the other side will be voting with us. I appreciate his support.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Why were you not here to listen to my speech? You would know what my position is. Wake up.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I heard what the hon. member said. Perhaps he wishes to deny it. 1 do not know what his problem is.
As I said, this is an important bill. The government has introduced closure so it can rush off to its vacation. As a result of its haste within the House and the committee, we were unable to hear from wheat farmers in western Canada or those who wish to use the railways for travel across Canada, or from communities in all parts of Canada which rely upon the regular transportation system which is provided by the railways. Nor have we heard from the railway unions. We have not heard from Canadian Pacific or the other railway companies included in this amendment.


An hon. Member:: We heard from Ian Sinclair.


Rodney Edward Murphy: While my colleague said we heard from Ian Sinclair, that is not quite true. Those of us who served on the committee did not hear from him. We did ask that Ian Sinclair, who is head of Canadian Pacific investments and is a leader in the private sector calling for wage controls, appear before the committee. He indicated to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance that this is the route that they should follow. As well, he told the press that he was in favour of voluntary controls. The next day, the government did not bring in voluntary controls for CP, it brought in mandatory controls. As a result, Ian Sinclair, who is telling Inco to restrict the wages of its workers to 6 per cent and 5 per cent, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting to restrict the wages of their workers to 6 per cent and 5 per cent, telling some of the wood and forestry companies to keep their workers' wages down to 6 per cent and 5 per cent, no longer has to worry about it himself. As far as the railways are concerned, the government has sent Mr. Sinclair a thank you note by automatically holding those workers' wages to 6 per cent and 5 per cent.
We have an ironic situation because the NDP members on the miscellaneous estimates committee which investigated this bill moved a motion to ask Ian Sinclair, who is leading the
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
private sector crusade on this issue, to come to the committee to give evidence, as others were invited to do. However, the Liberal majority on that committee voted it down. Mr. Sinclair has met at least twice with the Prime Minister behind closed doors. He advocated the bill that is before us. He went to the press, to the private sector and to employers, saying why this bill is such a great deal, such a great suggestion for the future of Canada. But we, as Members of Parliament, who were supposed to study the bill clause by clause, and to make amendments and improvements where possible, were not allowed to hear what that man had to say. It is interesting because, after all, witnesses had been heard by that committee, and after the government refused to hear any more witnesses, we then received this amendment. Of course, the workers and communities that are affected could not make their presentations.
There was someone else who could not make presentations. That was the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia). As we have pointed out in some previous debate, workers such as the Canadian Pacific workers do not come under the jurisdiction of the President of the Treasury Board; those workers come under the Canada Labour Code. That means that we are in a situation where it is not the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board to pass legislation or to make suggestions about workers under the Canada Labour Code. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.
Earlier today I read a letter written by the Minister of Labour to The Globe and Mail wherein he defended the right to strike and the collective bargaining process. As well, he mentioned that the Parliament of Canada had made Labour Canada responsible for the operation of companies like Canadian Pacific and others which come under the private sector. In other words, he said, "That is my area. I have certain views in this area and I am the minister responsible." We agree with the minister. He is responsible to the House and to Canadians.
The hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) asked that the minister come before the committee. The first time, the government members said, "Okay, he can come." But they said he had to come at 3.30 p.m. the following Monday. It appeared that the Minister of Labour could not come at that time on Monday. We could accept that. It is reasonable to assume that a minister, just like any other Member of Parliament, has some other duties that he or she must look after. When the committee met again, we said, "Okay, we still want him. When can we get him? Can we get him to appear before the committee?" Again, the Liberal majority on that committee said, "No, we do not want him to appear before the committee. No, we will not invite him to appear before the committee." That decision was made ten minutes prior to the introduction of this amendment by the government. Ten minutes after the Liberal majority on that

August 2, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
committee had said the Minister of Labour could not appear before the committee to give evidence, to explain his position and how he thought the bill would affect the workers who come under his responsibility, the President of the Treasury Board circulated an amendment in that committee saying that Canadian Pacific would be excluded in the legislation. How in God's name or anyone else's name could the committee be perceived to be hearing witnesses? How could the committee be perceived as studying the legislation clause by clause, which is the function of a committee as we well know? How could we be perceived to be looking after the interests of the public if the Liberal majority in that committee strangled debate, prevented witnesses from appearing, and then introduced very important amendments after the last witness has been heard? Of course, the answer is that we could not.
Not only did we have to act without the knowledge of the Minister of Labour, but also without the knowledge that may have been given to us by his mediation officers. We also had to vote yea or nay to government and opposition amendments without knowing what the deputy minister of labour thought. We had to act without knowing what the labour relations officers thought. We were in the situation where we had to act without the knowledge of the people who serve the country in the Department of Labour, the people we rely on to ensure that negotiations are proceeding, to ensure that labour laws are fair and, once passed by government, are actually followed up on or pursued.
I have not been in Parliament very long. I was elected in 1979. But after having served on five or six committees, I can say I have never yet been told that the minister or his senior officials could not appear before a committee, except for that time a week and a half ago. That was unheard of to me. Other hon. members who have been here longer may know of other times when this has happened, but I find it to be more than remarkable; I find it to be repugnant.
We took that matter very seriously. When the Liberal majority on the committee refused to hear the Minister of Labour, my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) walked out. He may have a chance to speak later on in this debate, even though time allocation has been brought in-


An hon. Member:: Imposed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Imposed is the more correct word. If he gets the chance to speak, he may be able to point out that he felt he could not do his duty as a Member of Parliament without hearing from those officials. He is the labour critic for our party. The bill definitely deals with people who come under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code, yet the Minister of Labour could not come forward. That was completely unreasonable.
In the last few days, we have said much concerning this bill and we will be saying more over the next day or two allotted for this debate. We really do not believe that the bill will work because of the type of occurrence with the government amendment bringing in Canadian Pacific. The government has preached in the House that it is in favour of co-operation. It
has said that if we are to get Canada out of the current economic slump, then all sectors, whether the provincial government employees, the public sector or private sector employees or the municipal employees, must all co-operate and work together, and that if we do not work together we will really not be able to solve the problems that we face. I believe that if we do not have co-operation from the private and public sectors and the employees and employers in both those areas, then it is probable that we will not be able to solve many of the problems that we face. As one of the members who spoke previously said, it is not simply a matter of wage controls. It is a matter involving a comprehensive program affecting energy pricing, interest rates and the direction in which this government plans to take the economy of this country. It involves all those factors. The whole history of this bill and this amendment is typical of that approach. It has not been to call for cooperation in public but to try and shove this bill through as fast and as dirty as possible.
One thing we found out in committee from some witnesses was that the government did not meet with the public service unions prior to introducing this bill. That is not perfectly true. The day after the President of the Treasury Board announced the bill, he did meet with the Public Service Alliance for 30 minutes, before rushing off to some other meeting. However, he did not meet with them prior to this bill being talked about in the June 28 budget. He did not meet with the Public Service Alliance. Nor did he and his colleagues in cabinet meet with the Canadian Labour Congress or with municipal officials, and they had not met with most provincial premiers since last February.
I believe I have 40 minutes as the first speaker on this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: My apologies to the hon. member. He is quite right.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I knew I was getting a high sign, but I did not think I deserved it yet.
As I was saying, they did not meet with all of these groups I just mentioned. If the government believed in secrecy, perhaps that would be a reasonable route to follow. However, they met with the Business Council on National Issues, the kind of group to which Ian Sinclair and Mr. deGrandpre of Bell Canada belong.
When that group met with the cabinet in May, they called for 7 per cent public sector salary controls. That group did not want wage controls in the private sector. It certainly did not want price controls. The government basically followed the suggestion of that group. However, just to prove it had its own leadership, it went for 6 and 5 per cent as opposed to the Business Council's suggestion of 7 per cent.
If in May the government had accepted that idea from the Business Council on National Issues and really wanted a cooperative approach, it would have been meeting with labour
August 2, 1982

leaders, provincial government leaders, municipal leaders, farm leaders and others. If it really wanted a national approach to solve the problems, it would have held those meetings then and not waited until after the budget was announced on June 28, and then have a half-hour meeting with the largest union in this country to be affected by this bill. It would not have met even later with the Canadian Labour Congress, the premiers and all sorts of other groups, after introducing this legislation.
The amendment which the government brought in, the amendment which threw Canadian Pacific into the hopper, was done by the exact same method. The bill did not bring in Canadian Pacific. It brought in Canadian National. To be quite honest, a number of groups, workers and citizens were concerned about one railway company being brought in but not the other. A union delegation came before the committee to point out the problems that existed with bringing in one company and not the other. However, the government did not consult with them. It did not suggest to them the route it would take was to bring Canadian Pacific into this bill. If you do not co-operate with others on this bill or on any other issue, how do you expect them to co-operate with you? For a number of years we in the New Democratic Party have said that the economy is in trouble, that there must be some kind of cooperative approach. We believe that. We also believed there must be some government restraint.
My colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) pointed out a number of areas where the government has not had very good control over the coffers it is entrusted to look after. Fie pointed out a number of flights taken by senior officials which obviously were not necessary. We have pointed out programs where the government is letting hundreds of millions of dollars flow to oil companies, which is completely unnecessary. We just have to look around this edifice to see money being wasted.
Those issues are being raised by our party, both in the Public Accounts Committee and in the House. Therefore, we do believe in a restraint program. I hope some members of the other opposition party will keep that in mind when they attack us for not supporting this bill. We cannot support the bill for the reasons I have indicated. It is not a real effort to come to grips with the problems we face.
We have suggested that Canadian Pacific and its employees be taken out of this program. We have a parallel amendment, which probably will not be reached because of the time allocation, which takes Canadian National out of the program. We believe that that can be justified. We believe that the entire railway system has to be in or out. We believe that peace in the railway system is important to the future of this country. One of the advantages in the joint bargaining system that existed in the railways for the last number of years is that we have had labour peace.


Walter David Baker: Do you say in or out?


Rodney Edward Murphy: We say both railway companies, the major companies and the minor companies that have been thrown
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
into this bill, must be kept out of this program. That is very clear. That is our position.


Walter David Baker: I thought you said in or out.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Definitely out. We argued that position in committee and in the House of Commons.
I talked about labour peace. I would like to talk about the fact that in many ways Canadian National has been treated as if it were a private corporation. It was not an attempt by this government to get into the railway business when it took over the company that formed Canadian National. We took over two private sector companies that has basically mismanaged their affairs. It was felt there was a need for the Government of Canada to move in this area.
We believe this has basically been treated as a private sector area and so we must keep those unions out of this program. We have made specific recommendations to that effect. We are also concerned about whether the action by the government is legal, but that will be dealt with in a different court. Parliament for the most part is not a court.
I am concerned about another aspect of bringing in Canadian Pacific at this time. Both Canadian Pacific and Canadian National have signed contracts with their workers. The effect of bringing those workers under the provisions of this bill will be to break those collective agreements.
Private sector and public sector companies have signed agreements with their workers, but all of a sudden Canadian National-and even more suddenly Canadian Pacific-have come come under the auspices of this bill. That means signed collective agreements are broken. As I said, the government has said it does not care if workers and their railway companies have signed a collective agreement for the next couple of years. The government does not care that it knew what was going on, through its arm's length relationship with Canadian National, and that it as the Government of Canada okayed Canadian National's agreement with its workers. Despite the fact that there is a collective agreement signed by both sides- a number of parties were involved-and despite the fact that the agreement was signed in good faith, the government has decided that means nothing. The government has listened to Ian Sinclair and a few of his "poorly paid" buddies, the barefoot boys from Bay Street. Ian Sinclair's income is $550,000 a year, and we are not sure about the extras he might get. I suspect he may even have a railway pass. Mr. de Grand-pre receives a salary from Bell Canada of $650,000 a year. He is another poverty striken lad. After listening to Mr. Sinclair and Mr. de Grandpre in the back rooms, the government has decided that the contract between the railways and their workers is no longer worth very much. Because of its majority in the House of Commons the government will force this bill through the House. The contract between the railways and their workers will be rolled back, and another contract cannot be negotiated unless, according to Motion No. 17:

August 2, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
The governor in council may, by order, terminate the application of this Act in respect of an employee or a group of employees to which this Act applies.
I am not a lawyer; I do not have to be a lawyer to know that that means that if the government feels at a certain time in the future that it wants to give Canadian Pacific and its employees the right to negotiate, it may or may not do so.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The divine right of Liberals.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I think that is quite correct. It is the divine right of Liberals and the divine right of a few members of the Liberal cabinet. This was done behind closed doors. This was done in consultation with Ian Sinclair, but not in consultation with his workers. This will be done because the Liberals have a majority in this House and because, for the most part, the Conservatives will vote with the Liberals on this bill.
I wish the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) would not leave because we would like to know his position on this bill.
The government is saying to these workers that they as railway workers are making sacrifices because that would help the Canadian economy. Other speakers for our party and I have indicated earlier that we do not think this will help the Canadian economy. We do not believe it will help unemployed fishermen, unemployed woodworkers or people in resource communities who are losing their jobs. We do not believe taking money away from those people who still have jobs will enable them to go out and buy more goods. We do not believe taking money away from people who otherwise would have money to buy goods will put other Canadians back to work. We do not believe that sacrifice will come to any good. So much for the government's argument that this sacrifice will help.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Workers are being sacrificed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, I agree that the workers affected by this bill are being sacrificed.
The government's new argument is that it will still allow collective bargaining. Hon. members opposite say, "Don't worry about this bill, folks." Last Thursday there was a press release put out in the name of the President of the Treasury Board. It fooled a few people in this House because it said: "Hey, guess what! You can negotiate again." The government has decided, despite what it has said for the last three weeks, that it will allow collective bargaining. The government says it should not matter to CN, CP or their workers that they are included in this bill because the government has said it will let them negotiate anyway. But then I read the government's amendment which I just read into the record, and it says that the governor in council may, by order, allow groups of workers not to come under the act. I cannot believe anyone in this House on either side believes this amendment will restore collective bargaining. It certainly will not.
We do not trust the way the Liberal government is running the country. Because of the way it has introduced this bill, we do not believe the government can really expect co-operation. The government has squandered taxpayers' money. We do not believe restraint is a priority of this government. We do not believe this government has the economic plan to solve the problems we face. We believe the government basically acts as the elective arm of the Gallup poll. We cannot trust this government with an amendment which says that the governor in council may, by order, terminate the application of this act, because it says nothing about how the government will make that decision. The amendment does not say that if the government thinks it is for the good of the country it will let people negotiate. The amendment does not say that a group, which is behind because its agreements over the last five or six years have not kept up with the cost of living, may negotiate. The amendment does not say that the government will decide on the basis of any empirical facts or even government goals or objectives that it will allow negotiations to continue. The amendment just says "the governor in council may", with absolutely no regulations, specifications or indications of what the government will do. We do not trust the government with this power, and one of the functions we will perform as we go through this debate in the House is to point out matters like the inclusion of Canadian Pacific and why we believe the bill has to be amended so that we do not have to leave everything up to this government amendment, which is the whole bill, because that basically is what is happening. We will be coming to this catch-all amendment at some time before the final vote and, I suspect, because of the nature of the closure motion, we will not have an opportunity to debate it in this House. The amendment really says that everything the government spent the last month on may be null and void, if the government so determines.
The debate has to take place, not on that final clause because we will never get to it, but on each and every clause as we go through them. We have proposed that the government amendment bringing in Canadian Pacific must be removed and I have stated the reasons for that.
I realize that it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but this is my last chance to speak on this matter. We are not out to kill the Canadian economy; we are out to make sure that if we have a bill-whether we like the bill or not-it is the best possible one that we can have for government, business and for all Canadians. Because of that, we do not want what I called earlier a namby-pamby bill, all loopholes and with no direction to help the unemployed, private businessmen, farmers or any other group of Canadians concerned about the economy of the country.
August 2, 1982



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, this is probably the last time in this session that I will have an opportunity to ask the minister about a subject that is of special interest, not only to the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau but also to my colleagues from the ridings of Laval, Duvernay, Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, Terrebonne, Labelle and to the entire population of the Lower Laurentians, the North Shore, Montreal and the Laurentians. I am speaking on behalf of some 3,000 employees now working at Mirabel who are faced with an uncertain future. I am speaking on behalf of the municipalities on the North Shore that are trying to develop and plan their development in terms of the airport that was built at Mirabel and which was supposed to be the gateway to North America. Mr. Speaker, on April 21, 1980, I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for a decision to lift restrictions on development at Mirabel. The minister answered that a study would be ready by June, 1980. On December 2, 1980, 1 questioned the minister again, and mentioned development at the airports of Malton, Calgary and Edmonton, and asked him what he was doing to make Mirabel a profitable enterprise. The answer was that an announcement was forthcoming. On February 18, 1981, I rose again in the House to ask the minister about Mirabel. After further delay another answer. On March 23, 1981, I asked the minister once again about making Mirabel a profitable entreprise. This time, his parliamentary secretary gave me a list of measures aimed at encouraging the use of Mirabel, an old list that was published when the airport opened.
On April 23, 1981, 1 questioned the minister once again, this time about the cost of fuel used at Mirabel, and I asked him what he intended to do about the situation. Once more, I got an evasive answer. On October 26, 1981, 1 was still asking the minister questions. On February 16, 1982, 33 mayors from the North Shore area and some 80 councillors were present in the House. My questions were about flight transfers and again, how Mirabel could be made profitable. The minister answered as usual, but this time he was a little more specific and said that a decision would be made within the next two or three months. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer was given on February 16, 1982. On May 14, in other words, two days before the end of the period specified by the minister, I asked whether the government would shortly be tabling a document or a study showing that a policy decision would be made with a view to making Mirabel profitable. The answer was that the
Adjournment Debate
government hoped to make good its promise made on February 16, 1982.
On May 20, 1982, I rose in the House again, Mr. Speaker, and as always, not for my own benefit but on behalf of people who are waiting for a decision and for the benefit of 3,000 employees faced with an uncertain future. The answer was that the government hoped to make the right decision and that it was a delicate matter. On July 16 of this year, there were rumours from usually well-informed sources that the minister, urged by some of his officials, had submitted to cabinet a document recommending the shutdown of one of the runways at Mirabel. I rose in the House and asked a question that probably sounded a bit ludicrous, namely, whether the minister wanted to shut down the take-off runway or the landing runway.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer to that question because the plan recommended by the Department of Transport is unacceptable to the people of the North Shore and to their Member of Parliament.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for taking advantage of Standing Order 40(3) to debate in this House topics that are of great interest and concern to his constituents.
Few Members of Parliament have followed the debate on the future of Mirabel as closely as the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) has. He is aware that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) spent some considerable time studying all aspects of the issue and meeting with interested parties.


Mr. Blaikie:: It doesn't show.


Jesse Philip Flis: He is also aware that the minister recently took his views to cabinet for its consideration. Although obviously I am not in a position to divulge what options the cabinet has before it, I can tell the hon. member that the question is receiving very careful scrutiny. The minister informs me that an announcement may be expected in the very near future.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-(A) APPLICATION FOR PASSPORTS. (B) REQUEST THAT APPLICATION FORM BE REDESIGNED
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I hope I get as sympathetic and as encouraging a reply to my question as did the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) from the parliamentary secretary. At the same time, I hope it is a little more enlightening than the answer he just received.
Some time ago, I rose in my place in the House to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) why it is necessary for Canadian citizens when applying for a passport to include information as to their birth place on their
19940

August 2, 1982
Adjournment Debate
passport application. I was not so concerned about information on the application form itself, but rather on the actual passport document. The reason is that we have many, many citizens in Canada whose birth place is behind the Iron Curtain.
I am sure many members realize that Iron Curtain countries, particularly countries such as Czechoslovakia, and I expect East Germany, the German Democratic Republic, Poland and other east bloc countries, do not recognize the validity of exit from those countries without an exit visa. People leaving countries, such as Czechoslovakia, are deemed to have committed a criminal offence simply by leaving the country. This means when former citizens want to return to visit their birth place, or relatives in Czechoslovakia, for example, they are deemed to be fugitives from justice and liable to arrest. In addition, if they received any kind of education in the country of their birthplace, that education is deemed to be part of the public expense for which former citizens are liable.
Since Canada extends dual citizenship to its citizens, regardless of birthplace, this means we accept the citizenship within Canada of that person as well as citizenship of another country. However, in the case of Iron Curtain countries, those countries refuse to yield that former citizenship to the new Canadian citizen and, therefore, the Canadian citizen has an unwilling dual citizenship even though he would like to renounce the former citizenship of an east bloc country. That puts him in a very precarious position.
I would think that the Department of External Affairs would be ingenious enough to be able to handle this. Surely the commitment we have to international standards for application forms and to international standards for passports does not reach into that particular sphere where we jeopardize the security of our own citizens when they visit foreign countries. I can imagine a Canadian citizen taking his Canadian passport, going to Checkpoint Charlie, seeing the officer at Checkpoint Charlie or at the boundary of Czechoslovakia, having that officer look at his Canadian passport and seeing his birthplace, whatever it might be, a city such as-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Dresden.


Benno Friesen: -Dresden, East Germany, or Prague, Czechoslovakia. Immediately that officer says, "Aha, a citizen of my country. I wonder if he has paid his indebtedness for his citizenship. I wonder if he is draftable into the armed forces. 1 wonder if he has paid for the criminal offence of leaving this country." It seems to me that Canadian citizens, once Canada has accepted them as citizens, ought to enjoy all rights and privileges which are ours as Canadian citizens. One of these rights is security.
Games area already being played at border crossing points. I talked to a gentleman just a week ago; as a matter of fact, an airline pilot. He told me that when he was in Europe he had a special passport. When he was going to visit Yugoslavia, all of a sudden, because the border crossing guard saw that he was
nervous about his special passport and what it might implicate him in, the border guard slipped a piece of paper into the passport and stamped it, so that the passport itself would not be disfigured with a Yugoslavian stamp.
We all know it is difficult to enter an Arab country if one's passport is stamped with an Israeli stamp. Going the other way there is no problem, so the Israelis gladly put a piece of paper into the passport and allow the guard at the border crossing simply to stamp the piece of paper, not jeopardizing that citizen's right or opportunity to enter an Arab country. These kinds of games are being played. We all understand that.
Why is it so difficult for the Department of External Affairs to make one small concession in passports, by simply deleting the blank on the passport which indicates where the person was born? Then we could enjoy all the rights and protections which ought to be ours as Canadian citizens when we visit foreign countries. Why should a citizen from Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Bulgaria or the Democratic Republic of Germany; why should a citizen of Canada, because he was born in one of the east bloc countries, have to stay home and deny himself the opportunity of visiting his relatives because he is afraid of what will happen to him if he goes there? Why should he be fearful as he crosses the border at Checkpoint Charlie to go into that country? It seems to me that the Department of External Affairs could make that one small concession and give Canadian citizens the full rights of citizenship when they get their passports.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, the place of birth is requested in the prescribed application form for a passport in order to assist in the identification of the applicant, by verifying the information provided with the documentation submitted to confirm identity, proof of citizenship and, therefore, entitlement to a Canadian passport.
Canadian passports are issued to fulfil the requirements of present day travel and to give evidence of the Canadian citizenship of the bearer. They do not reflect any other nationality. This practice is designed to avoid involving the passport in any political controversy while maintaining its viability as a travel document which will permit Canadians to travel in all parts of the world.
The policy of the Department of External Affairs has been to include place of birth in passports. It is included by tradition and international custom as it is a very important element of identification since, unlike the physical description, it is unchangeable and cannot be altered.
The fact that the passport meets international norms and provides full identifying information is of benefit to all Canadians for a number of reasons. Provision of the place of birth in the passport obviates for the majority of travelling Canadians further questioning by foreign officials examining them as to their identity. It has a bearing on the negotiation with other

August 2, 1982

countries of reciprocal visa waiving agreements, as the information is of primary importance when obtaining permission to enter a foreign country. The place of birth in the passport must agree with the place of birth given in the visa application.
Place of birth information is also a requirement of the Canadian government for persons seeking to obtain a visa to enter Canada. As we require this information of visitors to Canada, to omit it from the Canadian passport, where it may be equally an entry requirement of the other country, would derogate from the concept of reciprocity and would ultimately handicap Canadian travellers generally.


RAILWAYS-(A) EFFECT OF WAGE CONTROLS ON CANADIAN PACIFIC AGREEMENTS. (B) TIMING OF IMPOSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 1982, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) whether or not the government had carefully thought through all the implications of Bill C-124, the bill to limit wage increases in the public sector to 6 per cent and 5 per cent. 1 asked the President of the Treasury Board whether they had considered the effects their program would have on collective bargaining in the railway sector, by including the CNR in its wage control program. The CNR and the CPR bargain together with the railway unions and the concern expressed by the railway unions, among others, was that the historical accomplishment of joint bargaining between the railways and the railway unions would be jeopardized. The concern was expressed that the pieces would never be able to be put back together again.
There was a simple solution to this problem and that was to take the CNR out of the wage control program. This is what I advocated in committee when we were discussing Bill C-124 with the Canadian Railway Labour Association which were before us to make sure the government knew the full implications of what it was doing. The association was concerned about the attack on collective bargaining in general which Bill C-124 represents, about the way it breaks already signed contracts and about the way it limits collective bargaining on non-monetary as well as monetary matters.
What was the government's response? The response of the government was to make matters worse, to compound the injustice for thousands of Canadians by bringing the CPR in under the program and giving the government another beachhead in the private sector for the day when it brings in full wage controls.
The bill to control wages in the public sector is an incompetent, cowardly and unjust response to Canada's admittedly serious economic problems. It takes advantage of the willingness of the average Canadian to help out his country and to do his bit for the economy. The Liberals and the Tories are more willing to take advantage of this virtue in our people, than to show any virtue of their own by facing up to the real causes of inflation. To do this would require courage to stand up to the banks, stand up to the multinationals, stand up to the Americans and to stand up to the values and perceptions of the investment and business communities which are the lifeline
Adjournment Debate
and real centre of both the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
The Conservatives often like to say of the NDP that we are in bed with the Liberals. They do not have the capacity to develop an intelligent critique of our policies or, for that matter, to develop any policies of their own. All they know how to do, in their fear of the NDP, is to go around western Canada, in particular, slandering the good name of the NDP by falsely associating us with the Liberal Party.
The facts speak for themselves. The Conservatives have voted with the Liberal government in this Parliament twice as often as has the NDP, and those occasions have always been the same in nature. They have always been votes in which there was a choice to be made between the interests of average Canadians and the interests of the powerful and wealthy in this country. When it comes to that kind of a choice, there is no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberal-Conservative coalition is the most basic coalition in Canada. Bill C-124 is just the latest example of it.
The NDP, and the CCF before it, was formed to challenge this oppressive illusion that there is really a choice between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Let Bill C-124 stand as an illustration of our point.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year Canadian Pacific Limited, Canadian National Railways and several smaller railways signed a master agreement with a number of unions respresenting their non-operating employees. The master agreement, dated April 26, 1982, is for a two year period commencing January 1, 1982. The agreement provides for wage increases of 12 per cent on January 1, 1982, 9 per cent on January 1, 1983 and contains a COLA clause.
Following the introduction of Bill C-124 representations and information were received from the companies involved, the unions concerned and others. After giving full consideration, an amendment was introduced to Clause 3 of Bill C-124 which would extend coverage to the railways operated by Canadian Pacific Limited and the other smaller railways which are signatories to the master agreement.
Bill C-124 will permit the negotiated terms and conditions to stand until the first wage rate following June 29, 1982, comes into effect; namely January 1, 1983. The 9 per cent increase negotiated for January 1, 1983, will become 6 per cent under the program until December 31, 1983, and 5 per cent on January 1, 1984, to last until December 31, 1984.
The inclusion of CP employees under the bill will ensure the maintenance of the long standing pattern of negotiations with CP and CN. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have jointly negotiated their labour agreements since immediately following the removal of wage and price controls after the Second World War. With some groups, joint railway negotiations actually go back to the First World War.

August 2, 1982
Adjournment Debate
Recognizing this historical relationship, the proposals will ensure that employees of CN are treated in a way no less favourable than the employees of CP. Not to have included CP under the bill would have destroyed the relationship at the end of 1983, when CP would have been faced with renewed labour negotiations while CN would still have one year to go under the program.
Thus, the proposed legislation results in equitable application in the railway industry and eliminates an unfair imbalance
that may have developed between the competing Crown corporations and private sector corporations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock in the afternoon.
At 10.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

	

Tuesday, August 3, 1982