1970-04-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to hon. members on a number of occasions that I would be making a statement on the public housing program after some extension of our own reviews and after I received the opinions of each of the provinces. I am pleased to say that, having completed that review of these submissions, I am now in a position to describe some steps which I propose to take which, I am confident, will improve public housing in quantity and quality.
Hon. members will recall, perhaps, that when I presented the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation budget on February 2 I indicated that our commitments for the low-income housing program, including public housing, in 1969 were for some 27,500 units and that this figure was expected to rise to some 35,000 units in 1970. Taken together, commitments for these two years would amount to approximately 75 per cent of all production undertaken in this field in the last 20 years.
As hon. members are aware, a substantial portion of these starts, to which I have just referred, will come from the $200 million fund temporarily reserved for the building of low-income housing of a kind or in circumstances that are likely to yield information or experience which could lead to innovations in the field. About this program I will have more to say within the next few days.
My own studies in all parts of Canada have given me a deep concern, which I know is shared by many hon. members, not only about numbers of units built or projected but about the form, quality, location and management of public housing, and about equity in the matter of rents. It is with these considerations in mind that we have decided on a number of steps which will have a

significant effect, not only on the quality of new low-income housing but on the more effective utilization and management of existing units.
I would like to deal first, since it is a matter of immediate concern to a great number of people, with the matter of rents for public housing. We have proposed to the provinces a revised rent-to-income scale which we feel reflects more closely the realities of the cost of living and the housing market. These proposed revisions are intended to correct deficiencies in the present rent structure. They have, of course, to do with income as it is used in calculating rents; they have to do with security from sudden rent increases; and they have to do with family needs. Just to put these proposals into some kind of prospective, I would like to review briefly the existing situation.
At the present time tenants in public housing who are receiving welfare payments pay an amount of rent that is equal to the shelter payments which they receive from the welfare agency. AH other tenants pay a rent based on their income. The present rent range is from 16.7 per cent of the low to 30 per cent of the higher level of income. I might say that this 30 per cent rate was set at a time when families who had reached this level of income could perhaps have reasonably been expected to find accommodation for themselves on the open market. It was expected that at this stage of income they would move into other accommodation.
In the present market, however, many families, particularly those with a large number of children, have a great deal of difficulty in finding other accommodation when they reach the income level at which the 30 per cent rate comes into effect. They are, by necessity, obliged to stay on in public housing even though they are paying what amounts to an exorbitant and uneconomic rent. In two provinces, Ontario and Newfoundland, this situation has resulted in provincial action to freeze the rents of such tenants.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Since the level of assistance is based on the simple criterion of income, it imposes a substantially greater burden on a family with five or six children than on a family with one

April 21, 1970
Housing
or two children. Although their incomes are the same, the large family is less able to pay.
Another inequity arises when a wife goes out to work. Her earnings over $250 a year are regarded as family income and the excess is added to the husband's in arriving at a rent. On the other hand, no compensation is allowed for one-parent families who do not have this opportunity for additional earning power by virtue of being engaged in the whole process of a parent looking after children. For all tenants, under the present scheme additional earnings normally result in additional rent charges almost immediately.
These are some of the inequities which the government would like to deal with in proposing revisions in the matter of rents. For public housing we are proposing that:
1.	Family size should be taken into account in arriving at rents. Taking a family with two children as the base, we are proposing to make a reduction in the rent for each child over that number-for instance, a reduction of $2 per month for each child after the second.
2.	Working wives should be allowed to make substantially more than $250 a year before it is considered as income for the purpose of calculating rent. We are proposing a level of $900 a year.
3.	Similarly, incomes of one-parent families, for the purpose of calculating rents, would be reduced by up to $900.
4.	The portion of income required as rents from families in the higher income ranges would be reduced from 30 per cent to 25 per cent, to avoid imposing undue hardships on tenants, particularly large families, who cannot find alternative accommodation in the present market.
5.	The final revision which we are proposing in the matter of rents is the method of adjusting rents as income changes. At the present time, public housing tenants must notify the housing authority as soon as their income increases and the rent is then raised. We feel all tenants should be entitled to enjoy the security of a fixed rent over a reasonable period of time. For this reason we are prepared to have tenants report their incomes at intervals of two years, at which time any increase in rent would be put into effect as a result of any increase in income. On the other hand, a reduction from the income at which the two-year lease rent was negotiated can be reported at any time and the rent reduced an appropriate amount.
[Mr. Andras.j
Before I leave the subject of rents, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that any revisions will be undertaken after consultation with the provincial governments and with their co-operation. We recognize the need to build the widest possible latitude into these arrangements so that they will be flexible enough to meet particular local conditions. Some provinces may for various reasons wish to charge rents that are not precisely in accord with the federal scale. In this event it is proposed that the federal subsidy would be either half of the project losses, or half what the losses would have been if the federal scale had been adopted, whichever is less.
We have already held a round of talks with provincial authorities and the initial response indicates a substantial measure of agreement with the objectives we are endeavouring to achieve.
I now wish to deal with some other steps which we are taking which will have a particular effect on new and existing low-income housing.
1.	Social and recreation facilities, in both new and existing public housing projects, will be eligible for federal assistance. The precise nature of these facilities will be negotiated with the agencies concerned. By way of illustration, I am talking about such things as community meeting halls, day care nurseries, paramedical physical facilities in homes for the elderly, and the like.
2.	Duly constituted public housing tenant associations will be assisted with grants. As these groups develop, it is apparent that for the most part they are reasonable, articulate and informed. We feel that this kind of selfhelp activity deserves to be encouraged.
3.	A more progressive attitude to public housing tenants' rights will be encouraged with the publication of a revised and, I hope, more sensitive manual for housing authorities, which will include a model lease.
4.	In co-operation with the provinces we shall undertake formal training programs in public housing management. We are already providing continuing assistance through our research program under part V of the National Housing Act for the further study of public housing performance standards and user requirements.
While it is our firm resolve to increase the quantity of housing for low-income people as expeditiously as possible, no opportunity will be overlooked for improving the physical qualities of new developments to overcome objections to some past projects. Indeed, many
April 21. 1970

of the design proposals for developments undertaken in 1969 were altered to incorporate recommendations of the task force and suggestions presented to me during my own investigation of projects in all parts of the country. Certainly, for example, there has been strong criticism of the practice of providing public housing primarily in the form of high-rise apartment buildings.


Mr. Bell:: Order! Come on! What is going on?


Robert Knight Andras: I am in complete sympathy with this concern. The high-rise apartment is admirably suited to the requirements of many prospective public housing tenants, especially elderly citizens who want very much to remain where the action is in the downtown areas of our cities. But such accommodation in its present form is not always the most suitable for families with a number of small children. To the best of our ability we must strive to meet these diverse requirements.
We are stressing the need for careful consideration of the location of new public housing units in terms of proximity to transportation, schools, hospitals and other community facilities, and in terms of the dispersal, wherever possible, of public housing throughout the community so as to achieve better integration, avoiding the heavy concentrations that result in physical and psychological ghettos.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,
I challenge the minister; he is deliberately trying to cut into an opposition day by giving us a lot of boloney about housing. I think he should learn the rules of this House. If the government wants co-operation from us, this is not the way to get it. These statements are traditionally made on Wednesdays. This is a subterfuge used to cut into an opposition day. We demand our time. We ask that the minister cut short his speech about nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the hon. member is referring to the provisions of Standing Order 15. While the Standing Order requires comments made by members speaking on behalf of parties in opposition to be brief, it is silent as to the length of statements made by ministers. At the same time, it seems to me the spirit of the rule is that since the statements made by way of comment on the part of members of the opposition are to be brief and to the point there is at least a moral obligation on the part of the minister making a statement under the terms of Standing Order 15 to be relatively brief.
Housing
I am sure all hon. members appreciate the importance of the statement being made by the minister, but I believe they will all agree with the Chair that the minister should give some thought to shortening what remains of his statement.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Robert Knight Andras: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, I was not aware of the implications the hon. member has raised. As far as I am concerned I thought there had been contact made with the opposition party housing critics. Certainly I have been requested a number of times during the last several weeks to make this statement, but I apologize if there is an inconvenience to the House. I hope Your Honour will permit me to continue to tell the House about what I have understood to be a very necessary change that is to be made.
We are very conscious of the need for dispersal of public housing units throughout the community for the reasons that I have given.
The provincial governments generally are in agreement, although they have asked that we avoid precise limitations, by regulation, of the number of units to be clustered by community size. I think I am inclined to agree that it is really not practical to be an absolutist in matters like this.
Another factor that has been given consideration is the whole question of tenant organization and involvement in the management of public housing. We are quite prepared to encourage this sort of thing as a matter of social justice, and we think in turn it will encourage a much healthier outlook and climate all round and remove a major cause of some of the difficulties. Along that line, CMHC has funded a series of seminars on tenant participation through the Canadian Welfare Council which will identify the principles and problems involved.
In conclusion, I should like to assure hon. members that we are moving with all possible speed to meet the urgent requirements of Canadian families who lack the means to acquire proper accommodation. I appreciate the suggestions made by hon. members in all corners of the House in regard to this serious problem. At the same time I should like to say that we are now getting some housing on the ground and are proceeding with a continuous process of innovation and evaluation.
Indeed, in the broader sense the greatest weakness of the public housing program is

April 21, 1970
Housing
that it is necessary, and at best is an attempt to treat the symptoms rather than the causes of a deep social problem. In this whole process we are deeply involved with our partners at the provincial level. Ideas are being proposed, discussed and modified, and I shall be keeping hon. members informed of the progress of these negotiations as they develop.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in all fairness I should give some credit to the minister for providing me with this statement at least one hour prior to the time I was to reply to it. I hope his colleagues on the treasury benches will realize that if the minister can do this with a statement of this length they should be able follow suit and do the same thing, rather than make statements to the media outside the House.
For me to comment in great depth or offer severe criticism of the statement of the minister would certainly be like being against motherhood. Keeping that in mind, I believe that some changes have been made which have been long awaited by many people who are concerned about the problem of public housing.
I recall that the housing task force had quite a bit to say about this matter. It indicated that the federal government should initiate a thorough research program into the economic, social and psychological issues of public housing, and went on to recommend that until such a study is completed and assessed, no new large projects should be undertaken.
The psychological area of public housing has given many people concern as to the need for, and perhaps the value of, public housing.
I hope the minister is making some in-depth study of this question. I believe that what is needed in public housing is reform. There is no doubt that what the minister has done is some indication that this is happening.
The new rent scale will, of course, affect many people. In particular, the ability of a tenant to remain on a fixed rental for approximately two years will give him some hope that he will be able to move away from public housing and acquire his own home, though with rising interest rates and the lack of mortgage money I do not know how this is going to be possible.
I am particularly pleased to note that there has been some recognition of the value of tenants' associations. I believe this will bring them closer to where the action is. With 
groups such as this which want some participation in their ultimate destiny increasing in number throughout the country, it is important that the government recognize the effect they can have now and I believe will have in the future. I am also pleased to note that the government has indicated some awareness of the social and recreational needs. This is important in relation to public housing.
Finally, this action is something that we have all awaited. I hope the new policy will give many people who are faced with the very severe problem of housing an opportunity at least to be in a position to acquire housing at reasonable rental scales and perhaps lead in the future to the opportunity to own a home.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface my remarks by sincerely thanking the minister in charge of housing for his courtesy and co-operation in sending his statement to the housing critics of the different parties. The statement outlines a rearrangement of and addition to public housing guidelines which will result in some improvement, but it also portrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem by the minister, namely, the urgent need for a massive increase in public housing starts. The guidelines do not do anything for the 100,000 families across Canada who are on the long waiting lists for public housing. In Toronto alone there are 18,000 families, representing about 60,000 people, waiting for public housing.
The first and greatest need is more public housing. At the present time public housing represents less than 2 per cent of total housing starts in Canada, whereas in England and in European countries public housing represents between 30 per cent and 40 per cent. Even in our neighbour to the south it represents 5 per cent. Surely our immediate target for public housing should be between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of all housing in Canada.
Public housing has been considered a welfare concept. It should not be considered so. Housing should be a basic human right of all Canadians. They are entitled to clean, warm shelter at a reasonable cost. The minister cannot and should not say, as he did in his statement, that public housing is a regrettable necessity. He has missed the point of what housing should be.
My second major criticism is that the statement does not reflect the need for a
April 21, 1970	COMMONS
proper mix of public housing with private, co-operative and senior citizen housing regardless of income levels. This integrating principle is absolutely necessary if we are to rid ourselves of the social stigma concept of public housing. We cannot continue to build segregation of the poor accommodation and increase the social problems caused by ghetto-like housing developments.
My third criticism concerns the failure to include the right of tenants to purchase public housing units. This would have given a pride of ownership and a stake in the community.
If I may comment briefly on the guidelines set forth, the rent scale revisions are welcome. There is a need for constant review so that the situation outlined by the minister will not occur again. The reduction of the percentage of income for rent from 30 per cent to 25 per cent is a progressive step. The increase in additional income allowable to working wives from $250 to $900 is a little short of $20 a week. The experts claim that the amount should be more like $1,500 which would represent $30 a week income for a working wife.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The two-year lease will give security of tenure and security of fixed rents. The social amenities are a decided improvement. Social and recreational facilities must include day care and counselling centres. The participation of tenants' organizations in management is social justice in action, and I add as a caveat that this participation by tenants must be meaningful rather than mere tokenism.
The minister in charge of housing has been a student of studies. He has always replied in the House when questioned about problems that he and his officials are studying these matters and that they are under consideration. I would hope the minister and his officials would graduate to men of action and that the minister's next statement would include a massive increase in public housing, a proper mix of public housing and other types of housing, and the right of tenants to purchase these public housing units.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity, like some of my colleagues in the opposition, of studying the statement made by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras), prior to its delivery in the House, since I have
DEBATES	9099
Inquiries of the Ministry not received a copy of it. A brief inquiry revealed that no member of our party has received a copy of that statement.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I lent an attentive ear to the long statement of the minister, and I must say that I cannot support wholeheartedly all the proposals. The minister has rather shown the powerlessness and the incompetence of the government to run the country, as well as the setback it suffered in its fight against poverty, since the poor-the ever-present poor-will be compelled to live in so-called low-cost housing projects.
Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I had the opportunity to visit a house build by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Research Council. In this experiment, the most inexpensive material and labour were used. The inside of the house was finished with paper, just plain paper, not real wall-paper, in short with materials such as would not be used for animals. The purpose of the experiment was to bring down the cost of homes in order to house the poor and the disadvantaged.
We now tell these people who have no hope of owning anything in their country, because of the present inefficient administration, that low-cost houses will be built to accommodate them.
It is clear that we must do something. The minister's statement will perhaps help to improve the fate of these people. However, no measure of a permanent nature is announced. In a country so rich in resources, and many unemployed, it is unconceivable that it should be impossible to house the population properly.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Postmaster General but I suppose in view of its importance to the government of the country the Prime Minister will be in a position to deal with it. When the mail trucking contracts expire in Toronto, Vancouver and other cities, is it the intention of the government to put these contracts out to tender or to have the Post Office take on this responsi-
April 21, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry bility as in Montreal? Could the Prime Minister indicate what the policy of the government is in this regard?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General I might indicate there is no fixed pattern of choice between having mail deliveries made by a private contractor or by the Post Office service itself. If there is adequacy of private contractors sufficient to have a realistic form of competition and satisfactory services, this likely would be preferable.



FORMULA TO AVOID LABOUR RELATIONS DIFFICULTIES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: In those instances where it is still the policy of the government to call for tenders, has the minister or the government any formula to be applied in order to deal with problems which may arise such as those which arose in Montreal, particularly regarding job and union security, and also in view of the mounting unemployment in the larger cities? Has the minister a formula to avoid these difficulties or is it the intention to bull ahead and run the risks?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we are endeavouring to work out a formula which will satisfactorily take account of all the interests involved.



MONTREAL POSTAL DISPUTE-PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL ACTS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Is it the intention of the government to lay charges against those people who have slashed tires and caused other damage to government trucks?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as the law provides, charges will be laid for criminal actions where the culprits can be apprehended.



MONTREAL POSTAL DISPUTE-NUMBER OF LAPALME EMPLOYEES HIRED BY GOVERNMENT-RE-OPENING OF NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. [Mr. Stanfield.)
Could he tell the House how many of the former employees of G. Lapalme Inc. have been hired by the government to ensure mail delivery in Montreal?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Could he tell us whether he intends to resume negotiations with the employees of G. Lapalme Inc. in order to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the postal dispute in Montreal which is of serious concern to the citizens of that city?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the government has received no such proposals.


Martial Asselin: I believe the minister has not understood my question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the minister intend to reopen negotiations with Lapalme Inc. employees who have not been integrated into the Public Service and with the labour union in order to find a solution to these employees' problem?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I believe the government has clearly explained its attitude to the labour union and if these explanations are not satisfactory, the union is free to ask for clarification.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supprementary question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether he intends to maintain in office the present Postmaster General or whether he has decided to make some changes following the difficulties which occurred in the postal service?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Arising out of the meeting which he and his colleagues had yesterday with the Association of Mayors and Municipalities in which the mayors, including Mayor Sidney Buckwold of Saskatoon, pointed out that major urban projects had ground to a halt and that there is a serious unemployment situation in the cities, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in light of these representations, the government is pre-
April 21, 1970	COMMONS
pared to ease some of its restraints against inflation in those regions of Canada which are most adversely affected by unemployment at the present time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the government has stated several times that it has policies for the parts of Canada which are more adversely affected by the fight against inflation. These are policies of assistance to them. As I indicated in the House by statistics the other day, these policies are working as satifactorily as we can hope for at the time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that this
improvement has apparently not communicated itself to the mayors of the cities-


Mr. Hees:: Nor is it evident in statistics.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and in view of the fact that a long list of economists, including Senator Lamon-tagne and the Economic Council of Canada, have disagreed with the government's policy of combating inflation by increasing unemployment and creating an economic slowdown, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he or the Minister of Finance would be prepared to make a statement on motions justifying the economic proposition upon which the government is operating and indicating what economists of this country, if any, are in support of the government's policy?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to consider the request of the hon. member. We think that the policies we are following are gradually working in Canada.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: But
nobody else does.


Edgar John Benson: Nobody likes to see high unemployment in the country. I should point out, however, that the March rate of unemployment in 1970 has been equalled or exceeded in 8 of the last 13 years, and the record was set when the Conservative party was in power in March, 1961.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. As a recent national survey of leading economists of the country has shown that 83 per cent of those contacted agreed that combating inflation by
DEBATES	6101
Inquiries of the Ministry increasing unemployment is not the most effective method of attacking this problem, would the government give a sober second thought to its policy of restricting economic activity and give serious consideration to the effectiveness of offering tax incentives to reduce costs and keep price rises within prescribed government guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When the hon. member asks us to take a sober second thought I should like to tell him that our first thoughts are sober.


An hon. Member:: What is that snide
remark?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The economists to whom the hon. member referred are not in any agreement on the kind of policy they would like to see the government implement. There is total disagreement amongst them as to the remedies which should be followed in order to combat unemployment, but I think all of them understand that the choice is not between more or less unemployment but between inflation and unemployment and combating inflation and greater unemployment. We are doing the latter. We are fighting inflation in order to prevent greater unemployment.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the one thing on which almost all of the economists agree is that increasing unemployment is not the most effective method of combating inflation, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider another suggestion which has received no denial from anyone in the country at present-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is reiterating the question he asked a moment ago.


George Harris Hees: I will carry on with the new question. I simply ask the Prime Minister, since he has refused to give any consideration to reducing unemployment, how much longer must bullheaded stupidity direct government policy in this very important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: You are an expert in that field, George.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will not consult the statistics and, in view of the amount of unem-
April 21, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry ployment in the Atlantic provinces according to the last two DBS reports, will he not try to persuade the Prime Minister that in fact the slowdown policies have had a detrimental effect on these areas? Would he also not agree that the government of which he is a member is the first government in the last 13 years at least, and perhaps in Canadian history, to deliberately try to increase an already high rate of unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the observation of the Prime Minister that the government had given a sober thought before beginning its policy. In view of the strong criticism of Mr. Robert Bourassa, an economist in part, that this government's policy is all wrong and that he is going to do everything he can to change it, would the Prime Minister say whether or not Mr. Bourassa has voiced his objections to the Prime Minister directly and what suggestions he has made in order to arouse a sense of responsibility by this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He has not voiced his criticisms to me directly, and in this particular case I prefer to look to the authority of the Conservative financial critic.


John George Diefenbaker: You prefer him to
Bourassa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He testified before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs last November and supported the government's fight against inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Bourassa is not your man, then?


Mr. Speaker:: I would prefer to see the provincial election carried on in another forum.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You
renounce him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, instead of these lightweight answers that the Prime Minister has given-in fact, I could call them flyweight-would the Prime Minister now say whether he agrees or disagrees with the strong and bitter denunciation by Mr. Bourassa of the policies of the federal government which he says are entirely wrong and are creating unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for York South.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. gentleman rising on a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister does not require assistance. He was getting ready to answer the question but Your Honour would not allow it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for York South.


Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance a supplementary question on this subject. The other day the Prime Minister suggested he was anxious to reach the point at which the inflationary psychology will have passed. I should like to ask either of these two gentlemen to tell the House and the people of Canada exactly what criteria they are using, at what point they think they will have licked the inflationary psychology, at what level of unemployment they think that will happen, whether they are awaiting a reversal of the price trend, or at what point Parliament and the people of Canada can expect the government to reverse its policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the right hon. Prime Minister to reply to the question briefly. It seems to me that the hon. member is now asking for a general statement of policy. I doubt whether this kind of statement can be invited at this time. However, the Chair will allow the Prime Minister to reply to the hon. member's question.


John George Diefenbaker: And when he is at it I
wish he would reply to mine too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree with you, sir, that this would require a reiteration of the policy statement which might be quite lengthy, but if I can sum up in capsule form an answer to the hon. member it would be to the effect that inflation will cease in Canada and the government will cease having to combat it when Canadians generally realize that prices and incomes should not rise any faster than productivity. In other words, they cannot take more out of the economy than they put into it, and obviously that point has not yet been reached.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister a further supplementary question. Can he
April 21, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	6103
Inquiries of the Ministry
inform the House what agency is studying Mr. Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to and measuring productivity at any given time	ask the	Prime Minister whether the	definitionand the other factors to which the Prime	he just	gave	of an absence of inflation, theMinister referred so that he will be able to	goal toward	which he is heading,	has beenjudge the point at which these policies should	met in	this	country in any year	since thebe changed?	war?


Mr. Speaker:: This information might be included in the statement which will perhaps be made in reply to the hon. member's first question.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have not asked the Prime Minister to make a statement. I asked him what agencies he has to measure the points he has referred to. It seems to me it is a very simple question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question, of course, is limited in scope. What I suggest to the hon. member is that I have to revert to my first comment in connection with his original question, that he was inviting a general statement, and perhaps the kind of information he is seeking in the supplementary might be included in a statement made in reply to the first question.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Prime Minister another supplementary question about his views concerning inflation and unemployment.
Could he tell us whether the 100,000 jobs promised by Mr. Bourassa in Quebec would be liable to encourage inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Gander-Twillingate on a supplementary.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-REPLY TO REPRESENTATIONS BY FEDERATION OF MAYORS AND MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether, in view of the representations made by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, he could give the House the position taken as a result of the representations and state whether any encouragement was given to the federation as to easing of the money supply or easing of funds for capital projects across the nation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think that question is in order. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate on a supplementary.


An hon. Member:: Which war?


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated that he gave no encouragement to yesterday's representations by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities could the Minister of Finance indicate whether in fact any major policy change in regard to finance is to be announced? In view of the fact that the government's anti-inflationary measures to help people on fixed and low incomes are having the effect of rendering these people unemployed and consequently having the reverse effect of the aim and intention of the government, can he indicate whether there is to be any major policy change in view of the effect of the antiinflationary program?


Edgar John Benson: Without agreeing with the conclusion reached by the hon. member, I should like to indicate that when there is to be a change in the monetary and fiscal policy of the government it will be announced in the House or by the Governor of the bank in the usual manner.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-ACTION TO SPEED UP PROCESSING OF INSURANCE BENEFITS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister which is related to a question I asked in the House last Friday. Would the Prime Minister request the Minister of Labour, at the first opportunity when he returns to the House, to make a statement on motions as to his intentions with regard to cleaning up the mess in the Unemployment Insurance Commission? This is necessary so that all those who are unemployed can receive their benefits on time without having to wait five or six weeks or, in some cases, two months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
April 21. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



SINKING OF &quot;PATRICK MORRIS&quot;-STATIONING OF SEARCH AND RESCUE VESSEL IN SYDNEY HARBOUR

Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position today to report on the tragic marine disaster off the Cape Breton coast involving the Patrick Morris and the Enterprise and the terrible loss of life?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House share the very deep regret that we feel over the loss of these lives. I can advise the House and the hon. member that as of two o'clock this afternoon I have been informed that the vessel which rescued the crew members from the Patrick Morris had almost reached the point in Quebec which apparently was the only one to which it could go. The crew will then be flown to Sydney and at that point the interrogation will begin as to the cause of this unfortunate accident.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Having just returned from North Sydney and being familiar to some extent with the tragedy involving the Patrick Morris and the Enterprise which resulted in the loss of 12 lives, I ask if the minister is willing to reverse his most recent decision and recommend that a proper and qualified search and rescue vessel be stationed in Sydney harbour?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, an issue like this always raises questions of this sort. I have explained to the hon. member that I am concerned about this but I must say in all seriousness that on the preliminary reports I have it does not seem that it would have made any significant difference in this case.


Robert Muir: That is a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that I and a large number of organizations in the area concerned, as the minister knows, have been for a number of years pressing transport ministers Pickersgill, Hellyer and the present incumbent to have a search and rescue vessel stationed in Sydney harbour, would the minister not agree that this continued loss of life must stop and, further, that the $10 million loss in the sinking of the Patrick Morris would have provided

several search and rescue vessels and also might have prevented the loss of these lives which cannot be replaced?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not quarrel with the hon. member's contention; as I have said we are looking into this matter. It is exceedingly difficult to know where search and rescue vessels should be located in view of the vast amount of coastline that we have. However, I think there is some validity in the general proposition advanced by the hon. member.



SINKING OF &quot;PATRICK MORRIS&quot;-REPLACEMENT OF VESSEL

Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. As a consequence of the loss of the Patrick Morris, what contingency plans does his department have to replace this vessel and also to survey the whole situation of traffic crossing Cabot Strait, especially in the peak months of July and August, and the provision of additional vessels to carry this traffic?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, a search is under way at the moment on a worldwide basis to see if a replacement vessel can be obtained quickly. Some inquiries have also been made to determine how long it would take to build a replacement. I am told that a sister ship of the Patrick Morris may be available in a Scandinavian country. We are exploring all possibilities to get a replacement as quickly as possible.



SAFETY AND MANNING CONDITIONS ON WEST COAST TOWBOATS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question arising out of the matter of safety. The minister has referred to the terrible tragedy off the coast of Nova Scotia. What about the dangers of unsafe towboats in British Columbia to which his attention has been drawn? The workers claim that their safety is unprotected. I should like to ask the minister if he has something to say in this connection, having recently been in Vancouver, and whether the government is prepared to produce the report setting out how these American-owned vessels are refusing to follow Canadian marine safety precautions and are forcing men to work under circumstances which are unsafe and unjust?
April 21. 1970	COMMONS


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I visited Vancouver on the weekend and held lengthy meetings with the representatives of the Canadian Merchant Seamen's Guild and the towboat owners association. I made the proposal to them that the head of the Canadian steamship inspection service would be sent to Vancouver to head a joint committee, made up of both union representatives and towboat owners, to make representations as to appropriate safety standards. I undertook to make available to them the report to which the right hon. member refers. Subsequently the Minister of Labour has concurred, and this is being done beginning tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is only fair to thank the minister. I brought this matter to his attention last week and the promptness with which he acted should be a model for some of his colleagues.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of reports that the chemical weed killer 2-4-5T has been proven to cause gross birth malformations and even death to mice and rats in recent independent Canadian and United States experiments and in view of the fact that the United States has banned the use of this chemical, will the minister review the reported position taken recently by his department and ban the use of this herbicide in Canada?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it would be useful to comment upon the press report on the registration status of the herbicide 2-4-5T. I have had a report from an interdepartmental committee on pesticides which includes, among others, a representative of the Food and Drug Directorate. The report I received on February 5 is to the effect that, in light of available scientific evidence, no change in the status of 2-4-5T as a herbicide is anticipated. I am also informed that the status of this herbicide, along with other agricultural chemicals, continues to be reviewed in light of this new information.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the minister's statement and since in Viet Nam the use of this herbicide has been discontinued by the United
DEBATES	6105
Inquiries of the Ministry States army, which is not noted for its humanitarian activities, what investigation or research has the department currently under way in order to find acceptable alternative chemicals for the purposes for which 2-4-5T is presently used?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, 2-4-5T is used in very limited areas in Canada for some very specialized purposes, and the information we have is that there is no residue from the use of it in the food being produced in those areas. In other words, there is a nil residue. I have to rely on the evidence given to me by the people who are experts in studying these things on a continuing basis.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Oshawa-Whitby.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the returns provided to me by the government showing that fewer than 43 per cent of industrial financial grants have been awarded to Canadian owned or controlled firms, can the minister indicate whether the government is reviewing these programs with regard to making foreign ownership one criterion in the allocation of government financial incentives or grants?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member must bear in mind that these statistics must be studied in relation to non-resident ownership of Canadian industry. In the industrial areas where these grants are made it is estimated that non-resident ownership is at 63 per cent level at this moment.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in reference to a Superior Court decision that the Seaway Authority keep the 145-year old Lachine Canal open. It is claimed that the Seaway Authority has not received the canal from Parliament or from the Governor General in Council. Would the minister have his
April 21. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry department take over the operation of this canal from the Seaway Authority and then study the possibility of using it as a large pleasure craft marina for the greater Montreal area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen the judgment of the court with regard to the order in question and I prefer to refrain from answering until I have done so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the learned, and laconic Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is on a matter about which I warned him some time ago, namely, the serious decline in the nation's electronics industry resulting from government policies. In view of the fact that Canadian General Electric has announced the closing out of its tube section in Toronto and the laying off of over 160 employees, is the minister now prepared to do something to arrest this enforced unemployment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I gave a very lengthy answer to the hon. member a few weeks ago on that very subject. I will send the hon. member a copy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I doubt whether the loquacity of the minister will be of much help to the unemployed. As Minister of Industry will he now try to do something in order to find alternative employment for those people who are unemployed because of government policy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I answered that very aspect of the matter. I said at the time that, contrary to the views of the opposition, it was not possible to freeze Canadian industry, that industries will have to change, as circumstances were altering; that, in this case, employment had been developed in other areas but for other people. I covered that aspect very well, I thought.



POLLUTION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darfmouih-Halifax Easf):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he identified the source, which although not overly serious could be potentially so, of the oil pollution problem evident in Toronto harbour this morning. If so, what action has been taken and what steps are at present being taken to clean this up before it has an opportunity to spread?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that this particular spill has not been brought to my personal attention.


An hon. Member:: What?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can be quite certain, however, that the inspection teams we normally have on the Great Lakes and on the St. Lawrence Seaway are using the normal routines.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where are the Toronto members?


An hon. Member:: Where is Phil Givens?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It is a follow-up of the question I directed to him last Thursday relative to a telegram directed to him by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange which urgently requested that further action on Bill C-197, the bill dealing with farm products marketing agencies, be held in abeyance until the report of the agricultural task force is tabled and studied. Has the minister now received this telegram, and what was his reply to this reasonable and logical request?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have received the telegram. I am not sure of the precise reply but it will be to the effect or along lines that I answered the other day, that there will be an opportunity for a great deal of study of this bill when it goes to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which I hope will be very soon.
April 21, 1970	COMMONS



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Has the Department of National Defence requested or put into effect a change in the route or direction of Strategic Air Command B-52 flights over Saskatchewan and Alberta as a result of many protests, particularly those by flying clubs in Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no, but I understand that the United States authorities have agreed to suspend weekend activities in order to accommodate the flying clubs.


John Stratford Burton: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Has the Department of Transport given consideration to the representations made by flying clubs in Saskatchewan on this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the matter comes under the direct responsibility of the Minister of National Defence.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing arises from his earlier announcement, but it deals with other categories in the low income groups. Would the minister indicate whether Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be permitted to move into two fields of subsidization, first, the subsidization of mortgage interest and, second, the subsidization of payment of rent outside of public housing?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, we are still examining that matter. With regard to the second part, we have offered and reiterated the offer last June that provincial governments go out and acquire existing housing, either on a lease or purchase basis. The federal subsidy would then apply. That is in the public housing program but it makes available accommo-
DEBATES	6107
Inquiries of the Ministry dation under these circumstances without our having to wait for new buildings to be developed.



MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES TO INCREASE HOUSING STARTS

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Would the minister meet with his counterparts at the provincial level and with representatives of the Association of Mayors and Municipalities in order to formulate some speedy plan which could be invoked whereby housing starts could be increased and more money placed within this sector? Perhaps employment could be increased at the same time. Would the minister take that into consideration?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as always I will take everything the hon. member says into consideration.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I wonder if the minister would disclose, for the benefit of the House and veterans across Canada, what plans are being made to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of VE Day both in Canada and in Europe?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement before the appropriate committee on Thursday in which I explained the very impressive and colourful ceremonies which we are planning for May 8 here in Ottawa. I repeat that a delegation of about 20 Canadians will join with the citizens of Holland in the first week of May to commemorate the liberation of Holland, which liberation was greatly assisted by the Canadian forces 25 years ago.


James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question. Will the Members of Parliament in that delegation include the hon. member for Humber-St. George's St. Barbe?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, there will be two Members of Parliament, both from the other side. One is the opposition house leader and the other is a member of the loyal rump.
April 21. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO-EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES BY U.S. OPERATORS

Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. What steps, if any, are being taken by the Minister of Transport or his department to prevent American fly-in operators from exploiting the natural resources of northwestern Ontario, leaving behind nothing more than their empty beer cans? They are robbing our own Canadian air carrier entrepreneurs of much needed business.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could Insist that they at least buy Canadian beer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I want to assure the hon. member there have been many representations from his area. I have made some inquiries and have asked officials to make recommendations that hopefully will solve the problem or at least make it a little less difficult than at present.


B. Keith Penner: A supplementary question. Will the minister agree to suspend the 9-4 licences now in effect until a thorough investigation has been carried out to stop this exploitation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not think it is within my competence to do that. I repeat that I will do everything I can.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the minister realize that he was unmasked in absentia yesterday during second reading of the fisheries amendment bill? Many of us do not like what we see, namely the minister being established as the czar of water quality in Canada. On reflection, will the minister agree that if we are going to have such a czar it should be the Minister of Fisheries?



POLLUTION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I wish to update a question which I asked on January 28, 1970 as recorded at page 2937 of

Hansard. My question was addressed to the Minister of Supply and Services and I quote:
In view of the report by the general services administrator of the United States, does the Canadian government plan a conversion of government cars to natural gas fuel which trials have shown to be successful in eliminating pollution?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: There is no plan to make such a conversion in Canada, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldi-mand):: My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the fact that the ban on sales of fresh perch has been lifted, why is it still necessary that fresh perch fillets be frozen and held before they can be sold, depriving the fishermen of this lucrative market?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I do not know about the freezing aspect. We are continuing to check all shipments of fish from Lake Erie to make certain before they reach the market that there is no question of mercury contamination.


William David Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the problem with Lake Erie, is it possible for the department to speed up the testing program as it is delaying the sales of fish by these fishermen? Is there some way it could be speeded up from the two to two and a half week delay which is now being experienced by some fishermen?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now making a statement or representation which he must assume will be taken into account by the minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The time for questions has expired. In view of the fact the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, perhaps he might be allowed a question.



BANK OF CANADA


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
April 21. 1970	COMMONS
to the Minister of Finance. On March 24 the minister responded favourably when I asked him if he would discuss with the officials of the Bank of Canada the possibility of supplementary pensions for retired employees of the bank. Is the minister yet in a position to report on his discussions with those officials?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I did raise the matter with the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I have not received his comments to this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: trust it is being pursued.


Edgar John Benson: Of course, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order before Orders of the Day are called. If it meets with the approval of the House, I suggest that speeches today be limited to 15 minutes each with the exception of the initial spokesmen representing each of the four parties who would be permitted the time provided in the rules.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: That is quite agreeable on this side, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this House condemns the government for criticizing the Auditor General of Canada for carrying out his duties according to law; and reasserts its support of the principle of unfettered parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditures including the right of the Auditor General to comment on the failure of the government to make expenditure in strict compliance with parliamentary appropriations and to report on these and any other cases he feels should be brought to the attention of Parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, one purpose of these opposition days is to let Parliament protest flagrant failures or abuses of the government. As Your Honour can appreciate, it is difficult to know where to start.
DEBATES	6109
Criticism of Auditor General


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government has deliberately brought insecurity and fear into the homes of hundreds of thousands of Canadians with its determination to deliberately create unemployment. I was shocked to learn from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon that he intends to continue with this course until the country achieves complete and absolute price stability. I mention this only as an indication of how completely unrealistic that goal is.


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister just left the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the government will not stop this policy with regard to unemployment despite the views of Senator Lamontagne, Robert Bourassa and the unanimous opposition of this House as well as the unemployed outside the House. We devote this day to an area where we may have a better chance to stop the government, where we can try to stop the clear attempt to throttle the power of the Auditor General. Statements by ministers and answers to questions by the Prime Minister make it clear that the government intends to restrain the Auditor General if, indeed, the government is not out to get him. His crime is that, as Auditor General, he is doing his job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government will discover that it is all alone in wanting to pull the teeth of the Auditor General. Most Canadians believe the Auditor General is not only doing a good job, but a necessary job. I serve notice now that we will do everything in our power to protect and maintain the powers of the Auditor General as a watchdog-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -until there is a guarantee that he will not lose a single power to scrutinize Government spending and to blow the whistle when that money is badly spent.
The recent statements are not, of course, the first attempt of this government to har-rass the Auditor General and make it difficult for him to carry out his responsibilities. The government has frequently ignored his recommendations. It has reduced the salary classifications of some, at least, of his staff so that it has not been possible for him to hire people with the qualifications he considers necessary. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) says there are vacancies on the Auditor General's staff.
April 21. 1970

Criticism of Auditor General


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I never said that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). I do not want to be unfair to the President of the Privy Council.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Thank you.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There are bound to be vacancies when the salaries authorized do not permit the hiring of people with the necessary qualifications. This, of course, has impeded the ability of the Auditor General to carry out his responsibilities to the extent he would wish. So, his office has been abused and his powers are under attack by this hypersensitive government. Indeed, he has been attacked so vigorously that today most Canadians are sure that Maxwell Henderson must be right.
For the record, let us review the latest assault on the Auditor General. On March 25, speaking on the C.B.C. national news, the President of the Privy Council said, and I quote:
We do not regard it as his responsibility to criticize the underlying policy involved in certain decisions. That is Parliament's responsibility, and the government's, as approved by Parliament, after deciding on policy. We don't think it is the Auditor General's prerogative to comment on that.
Then, on April 11, the President of Treasury Board, speaking about the Auditor General on the C.B.C. television program "Encounter", said-and I quote him as reported.
He has expressed his view as to the appropriateness of some government policy. In this sense he is pitting his judgment as to sound business practice and sound government policy against the government's and, not unnaturally, you would not expect the government to agree with his judgment in every instance. I wonder, myself, whether the Auditor General should cast himself in this role, or whether we should look for, really, another kind of person to be Auditor General.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope somebody on the government side will tell us specifically what the Auditor General has done wrong. On Monday of last week, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted under questioning that the government intended to bring in new legislation concerning the Auditor General. I had reminded the Prime Minister that the Auditor General had been pressing the government to introduce legislation to strengthen his office and to define his duties in a more satisfactory way. I asked the Prime Minister why, instead of proceeding with this legislation, he and his

ministers preferred to pick at the Auditor General and undermine his prestige and authority. The Prime Minister answered, and I quote:
It is not a question of either/or, Mr. Speaker. We believe we shall be able to do both.
There is the Freudian slip. I asked why he did not proceed with the legislation rather than pick on the Auditor General and undermine his authority, and the Prime Minister answered he thought they would be able to do both. Judging from the Prime Minister's answer he intends to make it easier to harass, or escape from, the Auditor General; he intends to give his present attack on the Auditor General the force of law. This would represent a typical manoeuvre on the part of the present government. The Auditor General has been asking for a long time for a review of the legislation governing his office. He has drafted his own proposals for consideration. There is a grave danger that the government will use this request as cover for legislation which will strip him of the power necessary for his office. Then, I suppose, Information Canada will be set in motion to explain that this is what the Auditor General had wanted.
This is not the occasion on which to discuss the contents of legislation. But let the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board understand that if they try a trick like that, not even Information Canada will be able to help them. What members opposite are saying, in effect, is that since the government cannot stand the heat, Mr. Henderson should get out of the kitchen. I presume they want to lock him up in the cellar where no one can see him or hear him.
There are proper and above-board ways in which the government could deal with an Auditor General if it believes he is wrong. If it believes he is incompetent, it has the right to introduce in both Houses a motion for his dismissal. If it believes he is wrong in his criticisms of the government, it has a right, of course, to answer those criticisms in detail before the Public Accounts Committee. It is unforgivable that the government should begin an attack on the Auditor General under the table to undermine and harass an officer of this House whose functions are of the most basic importance to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Clearly, the government has under-estimated Mr. Henderson, just as they have under-estimated the strength of support his office commands in the country at large.
April 21, 1970

This appears to be another case where the strategy was planned by the President of the Privy Council. I expect that in the debate today we shall get another round of doubletalk from the government in defence of the indefensible. But one thing is clear as this debate begins-it is so clear that no amount of double-talk can obscure it: the real reason the government wants to muzzle Mr. Henderson is that it cannot take criticism. The government would rather waste $40 million than have somebody point out the waste so that they could stop it. They have the mentality of a man who, when accused of a crime, tries to fire the policeman.
Consider some of the double-talk which has already come from the government side. The President of the Treasury Board defended his attack on the Auditor General in terms of a switch in government emphasis to "effectiveness rather than efficiency". I find that hard to understand. It sounds very much like something from Alice in Wonderland. This questioning of the work of the Auditor General is based, according to the President of the Treasury Board, upon the emphasis the government is placing on effectiveness rather than upon efficiency. Perhaps somebody else could explain that. This statement by the minister is taken, as a direct quotation, from the "Encounter" transcript. Whatever it means, I do not think Parliament can ignore such a statement. It would be bad enough for a government to renounce a claim to efficiency; it is the only claim the government had. Now, it is gone, like the just society.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I suspect that in fact there is meaning of some sort hiding behind the minister's words, which are effective, perhaps, in persuading the people that the government is doing its job when it is not doing its job. After all, efficiency implies you are doing a job. It is the difference between image and action. The minister's statement, whatever else it means, clears away any doubt that might remain about the central role of Information Canada and image politics in the program of this government. The minister's statement is quite a principle! It is very flexible.
Another example of double talk is the distinction being made between matters of policy and what I suppose must be called matters of non-policy. As I understand it, that is the distinction that the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council would make, and I suppose there is no one better qualified on questions of non-policy. What

Criticism of Auditor General does this distinction mean? The Prime Minister suggested the other day he thought it was wrong that the Auditor General should criticize the payment made by order in council of some $180 million to automobile companies. He said it was wrong to have this kind of criticism from the Auditor General, presumably on the ground that this was a deliberate decision to let the $180 million go.
In other words, when waste is deliberate, the watchdog should be quiet. When waste is deliberate the Auditor General has no right to comment on it, because it then becomes a matter of waste by government policy. That is quite a principle! It will not be long now before the government will argue that the decision to refit the Bonaventure at high cost was a deliberate decision, and therefore should not be investigated. I suppose that if horses were put on the payroll as a matter of deliberate policy, this too would be beyond the comment of the Auditor General.
The government knows that if it is going to close the door on the Auditor General with regard to questions involving policy decisions, it is virtually closing the door completely. After all, this distinction between policy and non-policy from this point of view is not really a distinction at all; it is a dodge that is designed to strip the Auditor General of power without appearing to have removed his power.
As Professor Norman Ward pointed out in his special correspondence in the Ottawa Journal last night, other governments have tried a dodge like that before. This government is original in very few respects. Professor Ward is the author of the standard text on government spending in Canada, called "The Public Purse", and he makes it clear that there is ample precedent for an Auditor General to be concerned with auditing questions involving policy decisions. That has been the practice of the Auditor General whenever and wherever that office has been effective.
This concept goes to the very heart of the power of the Auditor General. Without that power he is just another accountant. With the power to report to the public, through this House, the cost of decisions by the goverment on policy matters, he is a public servant that the government cannot ignore and one of the very best friends that the taxpayer has in Ottawa.
Criticism is, of course, a function of the opposition and one which is more necessary today than ever before. But I do not hesitate
April 21. 1970

Criticism of Auditor General to admit that an effective opposition needs the help of an independent and fearless Auditor General, backed up by an adequate staff. Even with the staff the Auditor General has today we can see what he is reporting, and we can suspect without being too suspicious that we are only seeing, and that he is only finding, the tip of the iceberg.
I suppose someone will say something about all the help the government is giving the opposition in the matter of research staff. I hope that nobody is going to suggest that this is an effective substitute for an efficient and fully powered Auditor General. In any event, I hope nobody on that side of the House will keep repeating this sort of thing in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is spending more money during the course of a few months on answering letters that he has received in connection with the white paper than is available to all opposition parties for research in a full year.
Under this government there is a tendency to secrecy, the use of task forces and confidential studies by consultants which, generally speaking, are not made public. Usually, we do not get the background papers that lie behind government decisions. I say that this policy of secrecy and confidentiality certainly must not be extended. For example, the government has never made public the estimates upon which its decision to abandon the Prince Edward Island causeway was based. That was a high-handed and arrogant attitude shown toward a little province. Perhaps the government will get away with it, I do not know; but we are at any rate grateful that at least the Auditor General can tell the people the cost that has already been incurred as a result of the decision the government made, though the government does not seem to be very happy at having these figures disclosed.
Attacks by ministers on the Auditor General should be seen as part of a larger strategy, a strategy that is designed to control information. It might be thought strange that a government that has proposed and has established Information Canada should at the same point in time attack and try to restrict the operations of the Auditor General. This simply sheds light upon the role of Information Canada as seen by the ministers of this government, and sheds further light upon the government's refusal to agree to the establishment of some kind of ombudsman to watch over Information Canada. Indeed, what makes this attack on the Auditor General so alarming is that it does not stand alone: it is part 
of a pattern of deliberate actions by this government to build up its own power and to break down the power of its critics.
The attack on Parliament came first. Here, the government showed so much contempt for this institution that it used closure to impose a rule that was so badly drafted it would not work. That attitude is clear in the establishment of a propaganda agency. It follows an ill-conceived move by the President of the Privy Council to bring about a change in the chairmanship of the public accounts committee, presumably because that chairman was being too independent.
Following this the Auditor General came under attack. The government is not only adding to its own power; it has set a deliberate course to silence or at least to weaken the critics whose powers had previously been established precisely to check the abuse of the power of government. The Canadian public and the members of this House require hard information, particularly about financial matters rather than the kind of pap that may be provided by Information Canada. What is required is the hard kind of information that is provided by the Auditor General of this country, whether the government likes it or not.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This attempt to muzzle the
Auditor General does not make sense in any other context than as part of a plan to stop criticism and limit debate. Certainly, it cannot be defended in terms of efficiency. A government should welcome criticism if it wants to be efficient, or even if it wants to be effective, whatever the difference is in real terms and not image terms. In the first place, that is surely what democracy is all about? Any government which in one session sets up Information Canada in order to mold opinion, and at the same session tries to cut down the Auditor General is fashioning a democracy that is not participatory but perverse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sir, it is my experience that criticism from an officer like the Auditor General ought to be helpful to a government. When I became the premier of Nova Scotia there was no Auditor General. There was a sort of a balance sheet audit, and apparently the government is seeking to return to it. We established an Auditor General. From time to
April 21. 1970	COMMONS
time, certain reports of the Auditor General
are annoying, but there is no question about it, they make for better government. An Auditor General can point up mistakes when they are small enough to stop. He will often be far more searching in his examination and more frank in his comment than members of a cabinet would be. By virtue of his access to the public service he can often find mistakes more quickly than a parliamentary opposition can. He can help the government spot mistakes and stop mistakes before they get too far out of control.
Certainly, this attack on the Auditor General is not designed to improve the efficiency of government operations. Sometimes, of course, the criticisms of an Auditor General will combine with public opinion to force a government to change its course. This, of course, is one of the risks of a democracy. The point of government is not always to get its own way and to bulldoze its programs through. The point is to implement a program which meets public needs and will stand public criticism. In any event, the importance of an effective Auditor General increases and will continue to increase as the role of government increases. The role of government is increasing rapidly and it seems likely it will continue to grow both in size and complexity. The cost of government is going up, as is the amount of money it has to spend or to waste. That will be particularly so if the government succeeds in smuggling through massive tax increases under the guise of tax reform.
I suggest what should be done with the Auditor General is to increase his power, not reduce it. I would think this would be the obvious course to be supported by any true friend of democracy in Canada. With a government increasing in size and complexity, the Auditor General's powers ought to be increased. Certainly, it is wrong to harass and undermine this important official. It is important to this House at this time to assert its support for this watchdog, and assert the support of this House for the role of the Auditor General against an arrogant and over-riding government. Therefore, I do ask the House and call upon its members to support the motion I have the honour to present to it this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If this Parliament loses control of the purse strings, then Parliament might as well go home. It is not a matter of honesty of procedure, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said. If the government can hand out $180 million by order in council, it could be, since we do not know what is in the comprehensive agreements with the automobile companies, that the government has embarked upon the most gigantic give away since Manhattan was sold by the Indians for $24 and a bottle of whiskey.


Mr. Caiik:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I only have limited time. When I am finished, the hon. member can ask it.
It could be, on the other hand, that the companies in question do comply with an agreement and are entitled to this money. However, this agreement should be in legislative form. The money should be paid

COMMONS DEBATES	April 21. 1970
Criticism of Auditor General
according to stipulations laid down and approved by this Parliament, not on the decision of the government.
That is why I want to move this amendment:
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: "and this House further declares that the Auditor General has served the interests of Canada by drawing Parliament's attention to the improper concessions of over $180 million made to motor vehicle manufacturers by order in council."
It seems to me that the question which the House has to determine in this amendment is whether the Auditor General was justified in bringing this matter to the attention of Parliament and the Canadian people. The Prime Minister said he was not justified. Judging by the comments of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), he thinks he was not justified. I am asking this House to state that he was justified and that there was no justification whatsoever for a government forgiving over $180 million to the automobile manufacturers in question without any proper authorization or any statutory basis whatsoever. I believe that Parliament and the country have a right to know on what basis this $180 million was forgiven. I think we have a right to know if the government intends to continue making these payments to the Ford Motor Company and to other companies which cannot come within the ambit of the Tariff Order of 1965.
I want to say in closing that we believe government expenditures must be kept under close parliamentary scrutiny, and that if we are going to do that then we must support the Auditor General. I believe the Auditor General has done a good job.
our opinion, if parliamentary democracy is to
survive in this country, we must maintain parliamentary control over expenditures. I believe that the Auditor General is an important cog in the parliamentary process. I think he has done a good job in drawing attention to the fact that in the fiscal year which he reviewed in his last report there was some $40 million of waste. Instead of the government taking umbrage at those criticisms, the government should learn from them and correct the situation. Nobody expects a government to be infallible. It can be taken for granted that any government will have some people within its employ who will make mistakes, and the government should be glad to have these matters drawn to their attention. Instead of that, this government has become petulant, critical and abusive.
I think that if the Auditor General is going to do his job properly, he must have more staff. Some years ago I remember visiting Westminster at the time that the Labour party was in opposition. Mr. Harold Wilson was then the chairman of the public accounts committee. He had a very large staff and adequate facilities. Members were paid their expenses to remain during the recess, and they carried out a minute examination and a careful scrutiny of government expenditures. Every possible assistance was given to them by the government in office to make absolutely sure that they could report back to the house in all honesty that they had found everything to be in good order. We do not give our Public Accounts Committee the kind of staff or assistance that they need. But at least we ought to give it to the Auditor General. He ought to be able to do his job with a high degree of efficiency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe that drawing attention to the fact that some $40 million-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, particularly in view of the fact that he is just closing, but I am afraid I have to draw the attention of the House to the fact that his time has expired. Is the House agreed that he should continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall only trespass upon the good nature of the House for a few minutes more. I wanted to conclude by saying that in

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Financial Administration Act, section 65, clause 4 states that the Auditor General is entitled to "such offices and employees as are necessary to enable the Auditor General to perform his duties." Who is to determine what is necessary? Surely only the Auditor General can decide how much and what classification of staff he needs. Surely, he ought to be allowed to make that decision. The government would do well to see that the Auditor General is given a free hand so that he can carry on his investigations unfettered and untrammeled and can report to Parliament and the Canadian people that he has found the financial expenditures of this country to have been conducted according to the laws.
April 21. 1970

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the government that they should be warned that any attempt to bring legislation into this House to clip the wings ol the Auditor General, to reduce his field of jurisdiction or to limit his areas of investigation, will be resented by the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think I would be safe in saying that all members in the opposition, irrespective of party, would be prepared to fight such a move. I warn the government that if they have needed closure and rule 75C in the past, they are certainly goinp to need them in the future, should they try to put a muzzle on the Auditor General of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Ontario is rising to ask a question.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a question of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Criticism of Auditor General


Mr. MacEwan:: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Second, I point out that any such forgiveness ought to comply with the law and there ought not to be two criteria, one under which certain auto manufacturing companies are paid and an order in council under which other companies are paid.
As the Auditor General has properly pointed out, if the government wants to pay the Ford Motor Company and other companies who cannot comply with the tariff order as it now stands, they have the very simple alternative of altering the tariff order so that it will contain the criteria which the government is using to pay the Ford Motor Company and the other companies who have received this $180 million.


Mr. Danforth:: That would be above board.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask if the hon. member realizes that the term "remission" applies before or after payments were made? The act seems to be quite clear on this.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Make your own speech.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested in the point the hon. member made that the government did not have the authority to remit this tax for the automobile manufacturers. I draw his attention to, and I should like his comments in respect of section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, which reads:
-whenever he considers it in the public interest, may remit any tax, fee or penalty.
Then, going on to subsection (b), we find this:
(b)	before or after any payment thereof has been made or enforced by process or execution, and
(c)	in the case of a tax or fee, in any particular case or class of case and before the liability therefor arises.
This would indicate to me, Mr. Speaker, that the position taken by the hon. member that the money must be paid before it can be remitted, does not conform to any section of the act.


An hon. Member:: What is your question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should point out first that the section which the hon. member has quoted deals with remissions and, as the government itself has admitted, these moneys have never been paid and therefore cannot be remitted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Roberval.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to express my opinion on this motion of the Progressive Conservative party and to say that the Ralliement Creditiste supports it without any restrictions. The motion reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government for criticising the Auditor General of Canada for carrying out his duties according to law; and reasserts its supports of the principle of unfettered parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditures including the right of the Auditor General to comment on the failure of the government to make expenditure in strict compliance with parliamentary appropriations and to report on these and any other cases he feels should be brought to the attention of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I was so startled the other day when I heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what seemed like threats against the Auditor General.
I have sat in the House for eight years and I have always considered that the Auditor General is above all political considerations or all governments. He has always seemed to me like the compass guiding the federal vessel, regardless of who is the captain. I
April 21, 1970

Criticism of Auditor General would be the first one to oppose the slightest limitation of the powers of the Auditor General of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, however strong the government is-and I believe it is one of the good points of the present government, one which it wanted-we must be careful that it does not have the negative aspect of its qualities. I think the government has been repeating this mistake month after month and day after day.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We are under the impression that, as soon as something is prejudicial to the government, it does away with it. This deplorable method will certainly be its undoing.
We have noticed this attitude on many occasions when judgments were delivered, now by committees, now by associations or by social groups. Indeed, we have even noted that if a committee report submitted to the House is not in agreement with the views of the government, it will simply refuse it and put it off indefinitely. It will not take any account of it.
I do not want to keep on detailing all the government has done because of its very great power. However, it must not forget that power is only temporary. It is precisely the reason why the Fathers of Confederation were well advised to create the office of the Auditor General. Man being what it is, they foresaw that it would be Parliament's responsibility to prevent excesses by any government.
What are the exact duties of the Auditor General? We can find the answer in his report. We see that he must scrutinize practically all the work done during the fiscal year. At page 13 of the Auditor General's report, where it deals with expenditure and revenue, one can read the following:
The Statement of Expenditure and Revenue for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1969, prepared by the Receiver General for inclusion in the Public Accounts and certified by the Auditor General as required by section 64 of the Financial Administration Act, is reproduced in this Report. The Statement shows expenditure of $10,767 million, revenue of $10,191 million-*
Therefore, it is a matter of a deficit of $795 million.
The civil servants and the various governments may juggle with figures and they sometimes do it so well that deficits or surpluses arise. In my opinion, the Auditor General sets the record straight when statistics

have been distorted a bit. He gives the facts. Moreover, he reviews each item under expenditures and revenue to make sure that each expenditure has been authorized by Parliament. Should it happen, as it did during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, that unauthorized expenditures have been made, he will point them out. By the way, I am in favour of the amendment put forward by the New Democratic party which tends to prove to Parliament that outlays of $180 million have been authorized by a mere order in council.
As private members, we need something like that to produce figures that were camouflaged during the year. Then, the people in general and we can pass judgment on what the government has done.
Mr. Speaker, the government does not appreciate some of the conclusions arrived at by the Auditor General. But it is not the first time this has happened. I remember how in years past some governments were bitterly criticized by the Auditor General, and I am convinced that they accepted his criticism resolving not to sin again. But the present government, the Liberal government, does seem to be willing to do so. In fact, far from resolving to do better, they will not even accept criticism and go so far as to make threats. They warn the Auditor General that should he not submit a report to their liking, they will introduce an amendment to the act.
What is to be assumed in that case, Mr. Speaker, when one knows the person concerned? We are thus allowed to assume that he will simply make the Auditor General come to heel: I think we are striking here at the very foundation of the Canadian Parliament and that is the reason why I urge all members, not only the opposition members but the government members also, who can reason calmly, to check this violent torrent, this colossus ready to overthrow everything that stands in his way. _
Such is my interpretation of the statements of the Prime Minister and I do not hesitate to say that those statements frightened me. When it comes to secondary matters, this has little bearing, but when the very foundation of the Canadian Parliament is threatened, that becomes a little more disturbing. That is why, in my opinion, it is time to warn the population and hon. members, and to try to convince the Prime Minister not to resort to a procedure which would contribute to reduce the power, the independence and the freedom of
April 21, 1970	COMMONS
the institution which still prevents the Canadian government, after 100 years, to be tossed about at the mercy of politics.
I will be the first one to object to any amendment, for most of the criticisms and comments made by the Auditor General to this government are perhaps more severe still than some others that I have heard in the past, because this time, the government went a little deeper into illegality.
At page 25 of the report of the Auditor General, under the heading "Comments on Expenditure and Revenue Transactions", one can read the following:
Reference has already been made to the statutory responsibility of the Auditor General, under section 70 of the Financial Administration Act, to call attention to specific classes of transactions observed during his examinations and to any other case that he considers should be brought to the notice of the House of Commons.
Pursuant to this direction, the following matters relating to the expenditure and revenue transactions examined during the year are brought to the attention of the House in this Report. Several matters of a similar nature relative to Crown corporations are also included. A number involve nonproductive payments-
-to wit, a famous wharf which was never built and yet has cost $8 million-
I now resume the quotation:
A number involve non-productive payments, the details of which are given at the request of the Public Accounts Committee. Some of these had their origin in prior years although in most cases payments were made in 1968-69.
When it comes to revenue, what about the revenue respecting health insurance? When we passed the Medicare Act, it was understood, since the provinces could not arrange to benefit the first year, they would be allowed a refund. Today, the government does not care rap about it and claims that there was never such an understanding. They pocket the $200 million paid by Quebec and that is all, the money belongs to them.
Well, I believe that if the office of the Auditor General scrutinized the tacts as prescribed by the legislation, it would discover, not only under expenditure, but also under revenue, some rather unorthodox dealings.
I should like to conclude simply by saying that we instead of trying to discredit the work done by the Auditor General and to deprive him of his freedom of action, we should, as members of Parliament, increase his powers to allow him to conduct a closer examination of the public accounts, so that the Canadian people might be protected, at
DEBATES	6119
Criticism of Auditor General least for four years, against some governments that would lead them to bankruptcy.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the main motion to which we are addressing ourselves is very ingeniously constructed. The only problem is that it is based on a false premise. Let me read the second half of it:
That this House ... reasserts its support of the principle of unfettered parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditures including the right of the Auditor General to comment on the failure of the government to make expenditure in strict compliance with parliamentary appropriations and to report on these and any other cases he feels should be brought to the attention of Parliament.
This statement puts forward principles which are unexceptionable. Everyone in this House can agree with this affirmation. Indeed, it comes close to paraphrasing the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, a law of this Parliament. The first part of the motion alleges that the government has criticized the Auditor General of Canada "for carrying out his duties according to law". This simply is not the case.
The whole of the motion, as I have said, is based on a false premise. It is utterly fundamental that in the parliamentary system there be an officer of Parliament above politics, above policy differences and above partisan debates who ensures for Parliament and the public that the government and its civil servants are acting with legality and probity in the discharge of their duties. I hold this view. The government holds this view. It is for this very reason that I, and some of my colleagues, have admitted to some concern when the Auditor General has been cast in the role of policy critic, in the role of adversary in contests over public policy.
The Auditor General has submitted to the Public Accounts Committee a draft bill with respect to his office. The government had intended to express there its views as to the duties of the Auditor General, the independence which befits his office and other issues which the Auditor General himself has raised. We are now in the position of being obliged, unfortunately, in the context of a highly partisan debate to make known our general approach to the bill which has been submitted.
There are four general issues which emerge from recent reports of the Auditor General: the independence of the Auditor General
April 21. 1970

Criticism of Auditor General from the government and from the Acts of Parliament which govern the public service; the role and responsibilities of the Auditor General; the responsibility of the government to respond to the criticisms he advances in his reports and the status of the Auditor General and his office. I will speak to each of these in turn.
The Auditor General has made certain proposals which would assure his independence from the normal rules which govern the civil service, thus by inference further affirming his independence of the government. The government has been prepared to accept the Auditor General's propositions, and indeed to go even further than he has proposed.
The Auditor General has suggested that he be freed of any limitation by government on the number of employees he engages, and of any restraints on the salaries which he may pay them. By implication he would be free, too, himself to bargain with the employees' union. To these proposals, the government takes no exception.
We have been inclined to look to the Public Accounts Committee for its view on the Auditor General's proposals. We see three or four questions to which the committee might usefully address itself. First, we assume that the committee and the Auditor General alike would want to find a mechanism which would avoid the situation in which any office has unlimited access to public funds. Secondly, the committee might suggest some method, other than the Treasury Board, for determining the classification and pay of the staff in the Auditor General's office. And thirdly, we would draw to the attention of the committee, with respect to personnel appointments, that this House has already designated the Public Service Commission as the protector of the merit system: we would observe that to transfer the power of appointment from this body to the Auditor General would be to transfer responsibility from one office reporting to Parliament to another. The committee might wish to hear from both the Public Service Commission and the Auditor General on this question.
One approach which might be used to free the Auditor General from the restraints which apply on the civil service would be to provide that he should report to the House of Commons through the Speaker, as does the Commissioner of Official Languages. This would give the Auditor General even greater freedom from the rules which apply to the civil service than he has proposed, and would

substitute only those provisions which this House itself applies in respect of the Speaker's staff.
The government has been considering this
alternative, as well as the one put forward by the Auditor General himself, and would commend them to the Public Accounts Committee for consideration.
I will now deal with the duties of the Auditor General. The second issue which has arisen from the Auditor General's report is the duties which Parliament has assigned to him. I should like to make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that the government has at no time taken exception to the legislative outline of these duties. For our part, we support the wording of section 67 of the Financial Administration Act and the duties which flow from it in succeeding sections. Let me quote section 67:
The Auditor General shall examine in such manner as he may deem necessary the accounts relating to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to public property and shall ascertain whether in his opinion
(a)	the accounts have been faithfully and properly kept,
(b)	all public money has been fully accounted for, and the rules and procedures applied are sufficient to secure an effective check on the assessment, collection and proper allocation of the revenue,
(c)	money has been expended for the purposes for which it was appropriated by Parliament, and the expenditures have been made as authorized, and,
o (4:40 p.m.)
(d)	essential records are maintained and the rules and procedures applied are sufficient to safeguard and control public property.
What does this mean, in non-legal terms? It means that the government believes the Auditor General has the right and the responsibility to comment both on the soundness of the financial controls being exercised by the government, and on the probity and legality with which ministers and civil servants are discharging their duties. Let me repeat; the Auditor General has a duty to comment on the probity of the government of this land-by which I mean simply that he has a duty to protect the taxpayers' dollars. And his right and his ability to do this must be protected.
These words cast a very wide net: I know it, and approve it. After all, hon. members should remember that the President of the Treasury Board and the Auditor General have common concerns. The government looks to the Treasury Board to establish the
April 21, 1970	COMMONS
internal procedures and audits which will ensure probity and legality in the civil service, just as this House looks to the Auditor General to ensure that we have indeed succeeded in achieving this goal. The success of the Treasury Board depends in no small measure, then, upon the existence of the Auditor General and his legislative postaudit. It depends, too, upon the independence and impartiality of his office.
It is for this very reason that I have, when questioned about the Auditor General's role, expressed concern that it not be looked upon as an adversary role; that his office not be envisioned as a source of criticism of government policy or of statutes of Parliament. Probity and legality, yes; government policy and parliamentary decisions, no.
The reasons for this position are not hard to find, Mr. Speaker. Policy questions clearly are matters of judgment, matters about which political parties differ and ought to be expected to differ. They engage us in debate in this House; they engage us in political or party differences which ultimately must be resolved by the electorate. Questions of probity on the other hand are above politics: no one disputes that the highest ethical standards ought and must obtain in the government of this country.
Herein lies the distinction which I have observed should apply. If the Auditor General comments on, or is expected to comment on, policy questions, sooner or later he will, by inference, become engaged in partisan differences. He will appear sooner or later to be taking sides in matters which are the subject of political debate. If the Auditor General is cast in this role by the duties Parliament imposes upon him, his independence and his effectiveness will have been endangered.
We should remember, I think, that the Public Service of Canada enjoys, not only in Canada but elsewhere in the world, an enviable and deserved reputation for probity-and absence of corruption and dishonesty. This is a priceless asset. It is a reputation which depends in no small measure on the certificate of the Auditor General, a certificate which proclaims the probity and legality with which government-any government-is performing its duties. The credibility of this certificate, whatever it says, must not be called into question. But if the Auditor General is cast in an adversary role, if he appears by reason of the duties we impose upon him to be an officer of the opposition-which I think 22218-41
DEBATES	6121
Criticism of Auditor General it will be agreed is sometimes a partisan body-then, the credibility of the certificate will be open to question.
Let me hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that criticism of policy there must be. That goes without saying. But it must come from elected representatives. It is up to the opposition to interrogate, to query, to debate, to criticize the policies of the government. But they should not seek to enlist the Auditor General as their ally. If they do they will destroy his office. A staff to assist the opposition, yes; the government recently acted to enlarge this staff. But the conversion of the Auditor General's office into a partisan role, no.
The third issue which has arisen from the reports of the Auditor General is whether the government is responding adequately, completely enough, to the Auditor General's criticisms. The government believes that there is room for improvement here. We will be proposing that the government ought to be obliged to report to Parliament, to the Public Accounts Committee, on the totality of the Auditor General's report, on all the criticisms he has made of the government and the public service. To this end, it is suggested that the Public Accounts Committee ought to arrange its schedule so as to enable its members to examine, side by side, the Auditor General's Report and the government's explanations as to what actions seem to be appropriate to remedy, or prevent in the future, the situations to which the Auditor General has properly drawn Parliament's attention. This proposal, Mr. Speaker, goes further than the Auditor General has suggested in his report, but it is a requirement which we believe this House has a right to impose on the government.
Finally, may I say a word about the status of the Auditor General? We believe, as I have said, that the Auditor General ought to be fully independent and ought to be seen as such. The government accepts all his proposals to this end, except we think that his salary should be tied to that of a judge rather than to that of a deputy minister, as he has suggested. We have in mind a judge of the proposed federal court.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, I have made clear the government's position on the issue which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has put to the House. To us, the Auditor General is the watchdog of honesty and incorruptibility, of probity and legality in government. This is a profoundly important role in our parliamentary system. It must not be corrupt-
April 21, 1970

Criticism of Auditor General ed. Any suggestion, therefore, that the Auditor General ought to be instructed to enter into the arena of political debate by serving as policy critic, or any action which might infer this, is to be resisted. For to give way to this temptation would be to weaken the office of Auditor General, and to reduce his value as the nation's objective and impartial overseer of integrity and honesty in government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): May I ask the minister a question? In his television interview he expressed the opinion that the Auditor General was invading the field of policy. Yet in his speech today, he spoke only in very vague terms about the danger that the Auditor General might invade the policy field. In no case did he give us an instance of the auditor general actually invading this field. Would the minister care to deal with that before he completes his speech?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, neither in my
television speech nor in my remarks just now have I talked about the Auditor General invading the policy field. What I was saying, and what I was endeavouring to suggest the other day, was that there was a danger that Parliament, directly or through one of its committees, should instruct the Auditor General to undertake the role in which he would be cast, either by the public or by others, as critic of government policy, and consequently the government, in defending its particular policy, would by inference be criticising him.
I can cite, though I do not think it would be useful to hear, a number of instances where the Auditor General has been instructed by the committee to make observations regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of policies laid down by Parliament under the rubric, if I recollect the term correctly, of "unproductive expenditures". It is under this heading, acting on instructions from the public accounts committee, that reference is made to what he describes as or implies are not very useful expenditures in relation to the Northumberland causeway.
If he is called upon to do this kind of thing,
to furnish his opinion in respect of matters which, in the case of the Northumberland causeway, have been thoroughly debated in the House, he runs the risk of being drawn into such a debate in a partisan way. I suggest this would place him in the dangerous

position of losing the reputation for that objectivity which I think is essential to this high office.


Mr. Bigg:: Would the minister permit a
question?


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There are two
hon. members with questions. The hon. member for Pembina has inquired whether the minister would answer a question. I would point out that the minister is free to answer or not answer a question. I am having difficulty in determining what he wants to do. The hon. member for Pembina.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of
the public accounts committee. From time to time we, in the committee, need expert opinion. Sometimes it is impossible for us to come to a conclusion unless we have that expert opinion. Perhaps in the interests of economy alone we have thought that in matters of accounting for instance, no man could give us a better expert opinion.
I am wondering whether this duty has been abused or appears to have been abused and whether, speaking on behalf of the treasury board, the minister could give the House an assurance that we can get the same type and quality of opinion, as near as that is possible, from other sources. This is a problem we are constantly meeting in the committee.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would try to prescribe for the committee its sources of professional opinion. Certainly, I would not make the suggestion that the opinions expressed by the Auditor General in relation to accounting were anything other than expert or professional. There was an instance with regard to professional opinion where I know the committee felt that it would be useful to go rather more widely afield, and indeed it sought professional advice in respect of the act the committee had been looking at from the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The committee should be free to do this. In my view it should be free to seek expert or professional opinion from wherever in the view of the committee it best lies.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
April 21, 1970


Harold Edward Winch: With regard to the answer the minister gave a moment ago in reply to a previous question, if my understanding is correct the minister said that his major criticism is not directed to the Auditor General but to the all-party public accounts committee which, by unanimous decision, asked the Auditor General to obtain certain information or to express his views. Am I correct that basically the minister said his criticism was directed to the public accounts committee?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion here that there is criticism is contained in the first few phrases of the motion the House is discussing. If the hon. gentleman had been here, he would have heard me say that this motion-


Harold Edward Winch: I was here. I heard the minister's entire speech and his answers to the questions.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman would have heard me say, then, that this motion, which talks about criticism, is based on a false premise: there is none. What I have been trying to do today is to urge the House and the committee not to thrust on the Auditor General duties and responsibilities that are perhaps liable to put him in the position of appearing to be partisan, thus destroying the reputation for objectivity which this high office has held and must continue to hold.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to speak to this nonconfidence motion. I have been a member of the public accounts committee for about the same length of time as the present Auditor General has acted in this capacity. I have always had a great admiration for the efficient and businesslike manner in which he has presented his reports. We are all aware of the fact that government business involves spending more money than any other business in Canada spends. This gives us an indication of the vast responsibilities that are undertaken by the Auditor General and his staff.
At the outset, I should like to put on the record the statute that sets up the office of Auditor General so that the people across this nation may fully understand the position of the Auditor General. I know this point has been commented upon by several speakers before me, but only in part, and I think that the full picture should be given to the House.
Criticism of Auditor General Therefore, I should like to quote section 65 of the Financial Administration Act, 1967, which provides as follows:
(1)	The Governor in Council shall by commission under the Great Seal of Canada appoint an officer called the Auditor General of Canada to hold office during good behaviour until he attains the age of sixty-five years, but he is removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
(2)	The Auditor General shall out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund be paid a salary of thirty thousand dollars per annum.
(3)	The provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act, except those relating to tenure of office, apply to the Auditor General.
(4)	Such officers and employees as are necessary to enable the Auditor General to perform his duties shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act.
(5)	The Governor in Council may appoint a person temporarily to perform the duties of the Auditor General during a vacancy in the office of Auditor General.
Section 66 provides:
(1)	Notwithstanding any act, the Auditor General is entitled to free access at all convenient times to all files, documents and other records relating to the accounts of every department, and he is also entitled to require and receive from members of the public service such information, reports and explanations as he may deem necessary for the proper performance of his duties.
(2)	The Auditor General may station in any department any person employed in his office to enable him more effectively to carry out his duties, and the department shall provide the necessary office accommodation for any such officer so stationed.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
(3)	The Auditor General shall require every person employed in his office who is to examine the accounts of a department pursuant to this Act to comply with any security requirements applicable to, and to take any oath of secrecy required to be taken by persons employed in that department.
(4)	The Auditor General may suspend from the performance of his duty any person employed in his office.
67.	The Auditor General shall examine in such manner as he may deem necessary the accounts relating to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to public property and shall ascertain whether in his opinion
(a)	the accounts have been faithfully and properly kept,
(b)	all public money has been fully accounted for, and the rules and procedures applied are sufficient to secure an effective check on the assessment, collection and proper allocation of the revenue,
(c)	money has been expended for the purposes for which it was approved by Parliament, and the expenditures have been made as authorized, and
(d)	essential records are maintained and the rules and procedures applied are sufficient to safeguard and control public property.
April 21, 1970

Criticism of Auditor General
68.	The Auditor General shall
i (a) make such examination of the accounts and records of each registrar as he deems necessary, and such other examinations of a registrar's transactions as the Minister may require, and
(b) when and to the extent required by the Minister, participate in the destruction of any redeemed or cancelled securities or unissued reserves of securities, authorized to be destroyed under this Act,
and may, by arrangement with the registrar, maintain custody and control, jointly with the registrar, maintain custody and control, jointly with the registrar, of cancelled and unissued securities.
69.	The Auditor General shall examine and certify in accordance with the outcome of his examinations the several statements required by section 64 to be included in the Public Accounts, and any other statement that the Minister may present for audit certificate.
70.	(1) The Auditor General shall report annually to the House of Commons the results of his examinations and shall call attention to every case in which he has observed that
(a)	any officer or employee has wilfully or negligently omitted to collect or receive any money belonging to Canada,
(b)	any public money was not duly accounted for and paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund,
(c)	any appropriation was exceeded or was applied to a purpose or in a manner not authorized by Parliament,
(d)	an expenditure was not authorized or was not properly vouched or certified
(e)	there has been a deficiency or loss through the fraud, default or mistake of any- person, or
(f)	a special warrant authorized the payment of any money, and to any other case that the Auditor General considers should be brought to the notice of the House of Commons.
(2) The report of the Auditor General shall be laid before the House of Commons by the Minister on or before the 31st day of December, or, if' Parliament is not then in session, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session and if the Minister does not, within the time prescribed by this section, present the report to the House of Commons, the Auditor General shall transmit the report to the Speaker for tabling in the House of Commons.
71.	The Auditor General shall, whenever the Governor in Council, the Treasury Board or the Minister directs, inquire into and report on any matter relating to the financial affairs of Canada or to public property and on any person or organization that has received financial aid from the Government of Canada or in respect of which financial aid from the Government of Canada is sought.
72.	Any report of the Auditor General to the Governor in Council or the Treasury Board shall be made through the Minister.
73.	Whenever it appears to the Auditor General that any public money has been improperly retained by any person, he shall forthwith report the circumstances of such cases to the Minister.
74.	The Auditor General may examine any person on oath on any matter pertaining to any account subject to audit by him and for the purposes of|

any such examination the Auditor General may exercise all the powers of a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act.
75.	An officer of the public service nominated by the Treasury Board shall examine and certify to the House of Commons in accordance with the outcome of his examinations the receipts and disbursements of the office of the Auditor General.
Government ministers who make accusations against the Auditor General are familiar with the act, but rather than act like men and make charges in the House of Commons they have used methods that are not acceptable to this House and not in keeping with the high offices they are privileged to hold. Public opinion indicates there is much resentment of this unjustifiable criticism of a good, honest public servant.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first attempt to demoralize the public accounts committee and its administrators. It was only a few weeks ago that a subtle and despicable move was made to remove the chairman of the committee. That particular government strategy failed miserably because the committee unanimously gave the chairman a vote of confidence on their first opportunity following the intended leak to the press by the conspirators. The government has been embarrassed by their own careless and frivolous handling of the public purse, and to try and save face they resort to pulling a red herring across the trail. What they have done could only be termed childish and immature.
The Auditor General has a reputation above reproach. He is highly respected in his profession, not only in Canada but by the fraternity of the United Nations which embraces over 100 countries. He has had the enviable distinction of being chosen by them to be their external auditor. In view of the confidence the United Nations has placed in him, does it not seem a little ridiculous for this government to whimper about something of very little significance? This government has not paid enough attention to the information that has been revealed by the Auditor General and which, if heeded, could have saved the country millions of dollars. Rather, they go on their merry way spending like drunken sailors and at the same time telling all segments of our economy that they must tighten their belts.
I need only mention a few of their recent extravagant orgies to demonstrate their insincerity in respect of fightiing inflation. It was recently made known to this House that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) needs over $820,000 to maintain his office and staff, as
April 21. 1970	COMMONS
compared to $50,000 to do the same job when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister. Only two years ago, the Prime Minister of that day operated his office on $75,000.
Then, we have the new agency, Information Canada, which, from all indications, will be infringing on the responsibilities of Members of Parliament, confusing and frustrating them and costing the country millions of dollars. Another expenditure we could well get along without is the $50 million or more that will be spent by the Bilingual and Biculturalism Commission which can only be termed a superfluous expenditure. I presume the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee will not have the opportunity of scrutinizing many such items.
The people of the country were astounded when, through the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee, the facts in respect of the refit of the Bonaventure were made known. The colossal blundering by government representatives in their estimating, in their supervision and their judgment, was almost unbelievable. The people of Canada were led down the garden path to the extent of many millions of dollars by the extraordinary handling of government responsibilities.
I could go on and enumerate many more transactions brought to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee by the Auditor General, but since the details of the Bonaventure case are so well known, I think it illustrates the valuable and efficient work the Auditor General has been doing over the years.
The Public Accounts Committee has been aware for quite some time of the fact that the Auditor General has only been doing a spot check on expenditures. He has brought to the attention of the committee that his staff is insufficient to do a thorough job. The Public Accounts Committee, in its reports to the government, has made several appeals to have the Auditor General given the authority to take on the necessary staff to do a complete and thorough audit of all government transactions. To my knowledge, the government has turned a deaf ear to this request-in fact, his staff has been reduced. This made it obvious that they would take the first opportunity to clip the Auditor General's wings.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) recently availed himself of a good chance when he appeared on television. His first remark was that the Auditor General should stick to assessing the government's accounting procedure. In replying to that
DEBATES	6125
Criticism of Auditor General statement, I would say that the Auditor General has done an excellent job, to the embarrassment of the government. As to the Minister's second statement, he had his foot in his mouth when he wondered whether the Auditor General should cast himself in this role or whether we should look for really another kind of person to be Auditor General. This statement means only one of two things: he is threatening to get rid of the Auditor General, or he is blackmailing him.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau) when questioned in the House by the Leader of the Opposition as to whether or not this statement was government policy, made a flimsy reply in an attempt to cover up for the arrogance of the President of the Treasury Board when he said, as recorded at page 5771 of Hansard:
-I cannot say that this is government policy. I would assume that if that was said it might be interpreted to mean we want another type of function fulfilled by the person who is fulfilling the job now, not some other person.
No one but the Prime Minister could make such a futile explanation. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the whole exercise is another example of government blundering. I have no hesitation in saying that the people across the country, if given the opportunity, would endorse the work of the Auditor General and give him an overwhelming vote of confidence.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot do so primarily because of the way in which it is worded. It says that this House condemns the government for criticizing the Auditor General of Canada for carrying out his duties according to law. If I felt the government of Canada was really trying to prevent the Auditor General from performing his duties I would certainly support the motion. But I do not see any evidence at all that the government has made any such statement or has any such intention. Remarks that have been made by individual members of the cabinet are not necessarily the views of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -and I think the statement made today by the President of the Treasury Board certainly does not reflect any intention on the part of the government to do anything
April 21. 1970

Criticism of Auditor General to curtail the Auditor General, but rather strengthen and further the position he holds in the public interest.
The second part of the motion regarding the principle of the Auditor General having an unfettered right to view government expenditures, of course, is something which anyone would support. I think everyone in this House would support that section, but unfortunately it is based on a premise that is just not true. For that reason, I cannot support it. The second point concerns the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). It reads as follows:
and this House further declares that the Auditor General has served the interests of Canada by drawing Parliament's attention to the improper concessions of over $180 million made to motor vehicle manufacturers by order in council.
First of all, the Auditor General did not draw to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, Parliament or the people of Canada, any such improper concessions. I should like to quote from page 96 of the report of the Auditor General where he deals with this item in section 135. He indicates that the government has the right, where it considers the public interest is at stake, to remit or change any duties that may be payable or any penalties. He also gives his reason for mentioning this item in the Auditor General's report itself. He quotes the following statement from the Financial Administration Act:
A statement of each remission of one thousand dollars or more granted under this section shall be reported to the House of Commons in the Public Accounts.
So, the reference in the report is not an indication to my knowledge that he has ever contended there has been any improper concession, but rather that he has some kind of an obligation-a statutory one I presume- to draw attention in the Public Accounts to any remissions when these exceed $1,000. So, he has fulfilled his obligation. The interesting point made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party in his comments today is that he did not care about the employment this created.


David Lewis: That is not what he said.


Norman Augustine Cafik: That is my interpretation of what he said.


David Lewis: That is a misinterpretation.


Norman Augustine Cafik: If you would withhold your remarks until I have finished I would be delighted to answer.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I can wait with any question I wish to ask the hon. member until he has finished, but he has no right to misrepresent any member of this House. What the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said was that it was not relevant to this discussion whether there was more or less employment, not that he didn't care.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I meant what I said, and I certainly agree with what you said. But he did indicate that in this particular context he did not care.
I should like to point out that the public interest is the operative part, because if the Governor in Council believes the public interest is at stake in making this Order in Council he is free to do it. I believe it is important at this point to mention that the public interest was at stake because since 1964, in terms of employment alone in Canada, as a result of that agreement employment has increased by 32 per cent in the automobile industry. It has gone from 68,400 in 1964 to 90,300. Our gross national product has risen by $1 billion annually as a result of this agreement. In addition, our percentage of the consuming market in Canada has increased dramatically since the signing of that agreement. In 1964, for instance, we produced in Canada 4 per cent of the cars and consumed 7| per cent of the cars produced in North America. Today, that situation has changed dramatically. Today we produce 6 per cent of the cars manufactured in North America and consume 8J per cent. This is a considerable improvement.
So I therefore contend-and I do not believe anyone could contend otherwise-that the automobile agreement and the maintenance of it in force is certainly in the best interest of Canada. In terms of the argument of the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party that the Financial Administration Act did not give the Governor in Council this right, I contend he is grossly wrong. He has, in fact, misled many people in this House because the act states very clearly that the Governor General in Council can remit these duties whether they have been paid or not, in advance of the payment or following the payment. His contention was that no remission could be made unless the money was first received. This does not coincide with the facts as I read them in the Financial Administration Act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question.
April 21, 1970


Mr, Cafik:: Later; as you allowed me the privilege, I will allow you the same.
If I may continue, I should like to say that so far as I am concerned the motion is in fact a disservice to the Public Accounts Committee. Last week the members of the Public Accounts Committee decided they would like to take up this issue and make recommendations to the government in respect of the Auditor General and his role. I think we all seem to bear allegiance to the principle of strong committees. If this is our belief it would have been wise to leave this matter with the committee rather than bring it up here today. As of the 5th of next month we will be discussing the matter with the Auditor General, with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, with members of the Civil Service and with members of the government as well as others who have views to express.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Will we dare do this?


Norman Augustine Cafik: This is what we agreed to do. I do not think it behooves anyone to suggest that I would not do so before the Public Accounts Committee because I do not believe anyone who has been on that committee would suggest I would attempt to do other than what I believe is in the best interests of that committee and of this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The President of the Treasury Board does not agree with you.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I do not mind. He can agree with whoever he likes and so can I.
I am speaking on this point at this time and will do so until my time is up. I have a few suggestions I should like to make in this regard which I think would be useful, not only in strengthening the role of the Auditor General but also the role of the Public Accounts Committee which I believe leaves a little to be desired in some respects.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The first recommendations that I would make is one that stems from the Institute of Chartered Accountants which recommended certain changes to the Auditor General's proposal for an auditor general's act. I will quote from their document which suggested the following change to section 13(3):
Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) the Auditor General need not report on any matter which is, in all circumstances, of relative insignificance.
I think that at the moment the Auditor General appears to be obliged to report any
Criticism, of Auditor General incident, and I believe that many of the incidents that he brings to our attention-and I can give you examples-are of minor significance. That is for him to judge, but I believe it is very important that at least he be given the right in the act to eliminate such matters so that the committee does not waste its time on insignificant thing. This would eliminate some items and allow us to concentrate on those things that were of serious import.
The second recommendation I would make is that the Auditor General give all relevant information in respect of an item in his report. I would like to refer for a moment to a case that came up in the Public Accounts Committee meeting this morning which I think illustrates this point. I hope the Auditor General will agree with me. At page 169, paragraph 246, item 2 of the 1968 report the Auditor General makes the following comment:
A shortage of $1,140,000 with respect to cobalt stolen several years ago is revealed by the balance sheet of the Revolving Fund. Amounts totalling $49,000 had been recovered to March 31, 1968 and further recoveries are expected. However, it appears inevitable that there will be an ultimate loss of not less than $600,000.
As a result of questioning, I found out that out of the total estimated loss of $600,000, $526,000 was lost because of a decline in the market value of cobalt during that period and not to theft or to any other factor. In addition, $74,000 of the $600,000 was lost as a result of negotiations between the Crown and the company that was responsible for the shortage of the cobalt. Mention was made of receiving 85 per cent of the market value of those goods rather than going to court to get the whole amount. If we are in the Public Accounts Committee are going to do an effective job, it would be most helpful if the Auditor General-and I suggested this in the committee-would bring forward all such relevant factors.
I asked the Auditor General's assistant today if he knew whether $526,000 of that amount was lost as a result of a decline in the market value, and he said yes. But I cannot understand why he did not tell us that in this report. We would have avoided wasting a great deal of our time and a great deal of our questioning to get these facts had he brought them to our attention in the first instance. I hope he will do that in the future.
The next point I would like to make about the Auditor General's report is that he pay more attention to details in the report itself.
April 21, 1970
Criticism of Auditor General Let me give the House an example. Earlier somebody mentioned the Bonaventure and said that the Auditor General should be thanked for bringing to our attention the details regarding over-expenditure. I want to submit humbly that it was not the Auditor General who did so and to suggest that I played a pretty big part in so doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you read the Auditor General's report you will not find any indication of the sloppy workmanship which we thought we discovered. He referred to the over-all appropriation and said it was higher than it should have been. However, he did not bring forward the factors that I brought out in the committee as a result of the digging and darn hard work. I think that perhaps that is an indication of his need of a larger staff so that he can do some of that detailed, important and valuable work prior to coming to us with the report.
There is one other point that I would like to make regarding the Auditor General's report, namely that it would be extremely useful to the Public Accounts Committee if the Auditor General were to print, following his paragraph regarding any particular department, some kind of statement of the government's position. I believe it is far better for any objective committee such as we have, to have a look at both sides of the story before getting into any kind of investigation. It would expedite our work and we would do a far better job in the public interest, and so would the Auditor General. So, I suggest that following the Auditor General's statement there appear a statement by the department so that we will know both sides of the story. In my experience in the committee that would be extremely useful. I can illustrate many points that were brought out by the Auditor General regarding which, after we listened to departmental witnesses, we concluded the situation was either not so bad after all or in some cases it was even worse. In any case, however, I would like to see the total story printed.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Norman Augustine Cafik: May I have the consent of the House to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: In conclusion may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to oppose the non-confidence motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) because I cannot condemn the government for what it has not done.
In my view, it is imperative that an independent person such as the Auditor General have access to information on all public expenditures and is able to report upon his findings to the House of Commons and consequently to the people of Canada. My role in the Public Accounts Committee is ample proof of my concern for the efficient and proper use of public funds. My suggestions to the House today are based upon a genuine concern for improving the effectiveness of both the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion that has been moved today by the Leader of the Opposition. I speak with some concern for the motion presently before the House. I do so with a sense of responsibility as a member of the House of Commons for some 13 years, a considerable number of these years spent as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Once a year a slim, innocuous looking grey book makes its appearance in Ottawa, a book which has jokingly been referred to as "Henderson's financial follies". This book does not contain a script for a follies show at the National Arts Centre, although some of the short stories it confains would make a suitable script for light comedy if some of the facts were not so tragic to our Canadian taxpayers.
When the Auditor General's report is tabled in the Commons all hell breaks loose for within its covers are set forth the sins, errors and omissions of government departments, public agencies and Crown corporations for the past 12 months. Careers have been made and broken through information in this book s pages. Policies have been examined, changed or even abandoned under the battering of an accounting which every year sees opposition members gleefully searching for rocks to throw at the treasury benches while government supporters scramble for cover. Behind this parliamentary tornado is a neat, grey, cleanshaven public servant named Maxwell Henderson. To a deadly serious job, he brings the saving graces of quick humour and an easy charm more suited to politics
April 21, 1970	COMMONS
than to accounting. His reports are stiff, rigid and righteous, but in talking to him we find that he is friendly and co-operative. He brings to his position a sense of duty and a sense of humour, both of which are needed on Parliament Hill.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
When Mr. Watson Sellars retired in 1960, Mr. Henderson was appointed by the then Minister of Finance, Hon. Donald Fleming. In my opinion and in the opinion of most Canadians he has fulfilled his duties capably and well since that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Like a judge, the Auditor General is a servant of Parliament, not a servant of the cabinet. He can be fired only by a joint resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate, a step which has never even been threatened in Canada until the present time. In my opinion the Auditor General is the watchdog of the public purse and he is in need of the independence guaranteed him by the Financial Administration Act under which he operates. I say this because his main function is to see that every cent of public moneys is properly accounted for. This makes him one of the most feared and possibly one of the most disliked public servants in the nation. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, he is not popular with the present government, but to the best of my knowledge he has always carried out his duties without fear or favour.
When the Conservative administration which appointed Mr. Henderson decided to scrap the Avro Arrow in 1959, a replacement had to be found but noisy complaints were heard in the House of Commons about the $400 million write-off on the Arrow and any additional expenditures would only add fuel to the fire. The Department of National Defence hit on the solution of making a swap with the United States. In return for 66 F-10 Voodoo interceptors, Canada undertook to operate a number of Pinetree Line radar stations for the Americans so our defence requirements would be met without the need of a heavy cash outlay.
The whole deal seemed to be smooth and acceptable until the Auditor General caught up with it. In his 1960 report he rebuked the defence chiefs for not showing the Voodoos as an expense. Whether they were paid for in cash or work, he pointed out, they cost money. He went on to estimate the outlay at $170 million and this provided a ripe tomato 22218-42
DEBATES	6129
Criticism of Auditor General for opposition spokesmen, who were Liberal in that day, to toss across the Commons at the government which was Conservative and had just appointed Mr. Henderson.
Within a year he was involved in another head-on clash with the Conservative administration. The Revenue Department had held up wages to three men on the public payroll for non-payment of income tax. Mr. Henderson's investigators became intrigued and asked for the tax files of the three delinquents. The Hon. George Nowlan was then Minister of National Revenue and he refused the request. Mr. Henderson made note of this refusal in his next report to Parliament.
The minister was vigorously grilled at that time by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, as our leader in the House used to call them in those days. He was grilled in the House of Commons almost immediately, where he let slip that the three men involved were MP's, two Conservatives and one Liberal. The fight was carried before the Public Accounts Committee where the minister stood his ground on a provision of the Income Tax Act, which guarantees secrecy in income tax matters. However, Mr. Henderson pointed to the Financial Administration Act which entitles him to access to "all files, documents, or other reports, notwithstanding any other legislation." The Auditor General won his point and the files were produced.
It is my contention that in both these cases Mr. Henderson's concern was not to embarrass the government-although that happened-but rather it was to ensure the proper accounting of funds to the taxpayer. If the Commons votes to spend $10 million on fish, that is of no concern to the Auditor General, but if the money appropriated for fish is spent on chips, then the Auditor General is very much involved. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that at no time during these investigations was there any suggestion by the then Progressive Conservative government that the criticisms of the Auditor General were invalid or that any action should be taken against him.
What has caused this issue to be raised today, Mr. Speaker? All of us throughout the length and breadth of this nation were disturbed when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) recently told a television audience that the Auditor General is pitting his judgment against the government and that he should stick to assessing the government's accounting procedures. The minister went on to wonder whether Mr. Henderson
April 21, 1970

Criticism of Auditor General should pit his judgment against the government or whether the government should really look for another kind of person to be Auditor General. Why are we, as Canadians, concerned over statements which have been made on this matter by the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? Why are we concerned when our Prime Minister indicates he plans to introduce legislation into this House defining the authority and scope of the activities of the Auditor General?
We are concerned about the erosion and destruction of the power of Parliament. That is why this motion has been raised today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Some years ago Lord Chesterfield said:
Let us consider that arbitrary power has seldom or never been introduced into any country at once. It must be introduced by slow degrees and as it were, step by step, lest the people should see it approach.
We are now viewing the acquisition of arbitrary power which is the planned and plotted objective of the Trudeau government. This government wants power that is above restraint and beyond criticism. This government wants arbitrary power that is introduced by slow degrees, step by step, sometimes stealthily, sometimes openly with sly hypocrisy, sometimes with snare and sometimes by trap, sometimes with soothing syrup or a slogan. Whatever the moves, they are always directed and ever advancing toward one objective, namely, absolute arbitrary power.
It is the tragedy of political liberty that men, once they have attained it, assume the battle won not only for themselves but also for future generations. The historians paint these long gone battles, fought by men against their oppressive rulers, on a grand and dramatic scale. They hang them in a frame of large events. Here I refer to King John signing the Magna Carta and Cromwell dismissing a corrupt Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, all this happened in the long gone past. We as Canadians do not expect, and believe there is no need for, such a dramatic confrontation today. We sometimes forget these symbolic pictures of the past only represent the ultimate recovery of our political liberties. We do not ask, over what long period, in what undramatic ways, were these liberties first lost or gained. We forget we lost them, fought for them and recovered 
them in Nova Scotia, in Quebec, in Ontario and in the west. We forget that our cousins to the south fought for them, and only won them in a bloody revolution. We are not mindful in our history of the little things, Our editorials, which are the daily history of our times, contain nothing like this leader from the London Times of August, 1846:
The greatest tyranny has the smallest beginnings. From precedents overlooked, from remonstrations despised, from grievances treated with ridicule, from powerless men oppressed with impunity, and overbearing men tolerated with complacence, springs the tyrannical usage which generations of wise and good men may hereafter perceive and lament and resist in vain.
At present, common minds no more see a crushing tyranny in a trivial unfairness, or a ludicrous indignity, than the eye, uninformed by reason, can discern the oak in the acorn, or the utter desolution of winter in the first autumnal fall. Hence the necessity of denouncing with unwearied and even troublesome perseverance, a single act of oppression. Let it alone and it stands on record. The country has allowed it and when it is at last provoked to a late indignation, it finds itself gagged with the record of its own ill compulsion.
This government, Mr. Speaker, has progressed some distance along the way to arbitrary power. The criticism of the Auditor General of Canada is only a prelude to their plans and is but one of the most recent and most dramatic in a series of steps along the path. We have every reason to be concerned when a government is bold enough to attack a publicly paid critic of the government who is himself by reason of his criticisms so much in the public eye.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This type of criticism is inexcusable. This government was elected to office on a platform of two slogans, one being that the government would establish in Canada the just society and the other that Canadians would enjoy participatory democracy. Journalists have attributed the slogan, "The just society'' to Palto's democratic philosophy of government. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not need political philosophies in this country to tell us what to do. In ten words, let us have-government of the people, by the people, for the people.
We have seen the symptoms in this House, Mr. Speaker, which should concern all Canadians: the step-by-step whittling away of our procedural rights; the two efforts to change the rules to impose the guillotine upon debate and criticism; the attempt to change the non-partisan chairman of the Public Accounts Committee; the interference with
April 21, 1970

committees and the presentation of committee reports; the establishment of the ministerial roster system; the establishment of corporations and agencies which remove whole areas of public affairs from the investigation and scrutiny of members; the delegation of vast law-making powers to the cabinet; the appointment of officials at Her Majesty's pleasure and not during good behaviour; the unpublicized introduction of a bill to seize vast economic and financial power by the socialization of private investment, which was aborted in the other place; the bill now before the House to take over control of the entire farm products industry from farmer to consumer; the large increase of officials at the decision advisory level, and bills which provide for public hearings that are not public hearings. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but time does not permit. These are the steps this government has taken or is taking along the path to arbitrary power. They are known to members of this House and have been fought against by members of all opposition parties. Unfortunately, they are not known generally to the public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is there unanimous agreement for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. I shall be only about a minute more. The government now dares to act publicly against an official of this House who in the course of his duties has criticized the government. If we, as members of this House, do not now make a stand against this show of arbitrary power, this attempt to muzzle the Auditor General, then we are indeed nothings, as we have been labelled by the Prime Minister.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks in this debate by making a passing reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). The last time I spoke in the House the hon. member alluded to my habit of criticizing the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his absence from the House. During the course of my remarks this evening I shall be criticizing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for moving the motion.
22218-42J

Criticism of Auditor General It is a pity that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. member for Prince Albert are not here at this time. I do not quite understand what sort of duty was envisaged by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley when he suggested that in our debates we should not criticize an hon. member opposite when he is not in the House. I do not think it is our obligation to ask those who have participated in the debate to stay around for its duration. Those of us on this side of the House will stay here for the afternoon and evening, and that ought to be the clear obligation of hon. members opposite who have participated, particularly since one of them introduced this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Alexander Jerome: The opposition has chosen this subject for special attention on an allotted day because it has thus been enabled to introduce a motion of want of confidence in the government. The role or function of the Auditor General would not have been brought into special focus except for two circumstances that I presume gave rise to the motion before us. One of those was certain recent comments by two members of the cabinet who have been referred to, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). Those remarks have been referred to. The other circumstance is the legislation to come before this House, to be known as the Auditor General of Canada Act.
Dealing with each of these sources of complaint separately, I note that the remarks attributed to the President of the Privy Council have been noted several times already today. In the remarks complained of, which were uttered on television a short time ago, it was said that any disagreement with the Auditor General did not stem from his criticizing accounting procedures, the basic practices involved, the method of expenditure, and so on, but rather from his criticisms of underlying government policy. That statement stands on the record. The transcript of the television interview has been referred to and has now been noted as a source of complaint by the opposition.
I note as well that the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board, who has already spoken in this debate, were referred to by the Leader of the Opposition when he led off this afternoon's debate. I am always a little suspicious, Mr. Speaker, when a very short quota-

Criticism of Auditor General tion is lifted from a long transcript and referred to in this kind of debate. Having heard the short quotation referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, I took the liberty of looking at the original transcript of the television program that was referred to.
I note on page 10 of that transcript, almost two pages before the paragraph that has been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, that the subject was expanded somewhat. It might be interesting to read those remarks, as the Leader of the Opposition should have done out of a sense of fairness, and include the remarks already referred to and attributed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Leader of the Opposition at least might have had the decency to read all of that passage to the House so that we might be fully informed.
This interview was being conducted by Mr. Collister and Mr. Lynch, of great notoriety in this chamber. Mr. Lynch asked this question, as recorded at the bottom of page 10 of the transcript:
If you're so hot on efficiency and the things you've just been talking about, why is the Auditor General, Mr. Maxwell Henderson, so unimpressed with the way public business is conducted, and why is he so critical of the Treasury Board for cutting down on the staff that he has to make sure that efficiency and productivity are maintained? You and he seem to be butting heads against one another.
The	President	of	the	Treasury	Board
answered:
Well to use a phrase you applied a little earlier, one would expect him to have a vested interest in discovering things which are subject to criticism. That's his job.
Mr. Lynch then said:
Right. He says you're throttling him. You're not giving him enough staff and enough money.
The	President	of	the	Treasury	Board
answered:
The fact of the matter, is, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, he has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever filled out the establishment that he has had authorized. And I mentioned earlier that the civil service has now had, as a whole, cut back from its authorizations for numbers of people far in excess of what they ever had or seemed to be likely to get. The same kind of operation was applied to the Auditor General, and indeed the authorization for very large numbers which he had never reached, was reduced to something quite modestly in excess of his existing staff. So he still has room to increase his staff.
Reporting the full text of that interview, it seems to me, places in an entirely different perspective the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board; and to be fair, if those remarks are the source of the opposition's 
DEBATES	April 2L 1970
criticism, opposition members should have had the decency to read into the record the whole transcript. In other words, the remarks made by both hon. gentlemen simply refer to the fact that it is clearly understood that the function of the Auditor General, a function he has carried out so well, is to criticize the manner in which the government spends funds and say whether that spending is wasteful, spendthrift or even inefficient.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The policy underlying the decision to authorize the expenditure of those dollars is the prerogative of Parliament. It is not an area for the Auditor General to exercise his criticism. Having accepted as policy of this House that certain dollars are to be expended, it is the job of the Auditor General to examine very carefully and criticize fully and completely if those dollars are not properly spent or if the expenditure of the moneys or the accounting for them is not properly done.
Even in my short experience in this House I have found that the report of the Auditor General for 1968-69 is a very complete document, detailing some very large and wasteful expenditures on the part of the government. To suggest that the Auditor General is being restricted in his job of criticizing this government is ludicrous. The reports of the Auditor General are detailed to a degree I would not have imagined possible. I submit they are very clear. It is for this reason I and other members oppose the motion and support the remarks that have been made with respect to the function of the Auditor General. The Auditor General should criticize in the way that he has done in his report. However, it is not his job to criticize policy decisions of this Parliament. That is the prerogative of this Parliament, the news media and others who wish to criticize, but it is not the job of the Auditor General.
The source of complaint is the remarks I have referred to, or the forthcoming legislation setting up a special act of Parliament with regard to the Auditor General. Let us examine the position of the government and its attitude in respect of this legislation. I submit it is significant to note that this bill was not drafted by the government. It was not prepared by a government draftsman who was subject to any control, political pressure or authority of this government. It is extremely significant to note that the proposed Auditor General's act was prepared, at the request of Parliament, by the Auditor General.
April 21, 1970


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: At our request.


James Alexander Jerome: It was at the request of the Public Accounts Committee. It was made an appendix to the current report handed to the Public Accounts Committee by the Auditor General. It contains authority which is extraordinary in the process of legislation. It was drafted in the initial stages by the Auditor General.
One of the first steps, a very wise one, taken by the committee was to refer the proposed legislation to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants which made a very detailed analysis of it. It was returned to the Public Accounts Committee with some very thorough and comprehensive recommendations about the legislation-and the manner in which it deals with all the functions of the Auditor General. Surely no one can-suggest from the behaviour of the government with respect to this process that there are restrictions or unfair limitations on the scope and function of the Auditor General. He himself drafted the proposed legislation. It was not presented directly to this House by the government; it was presented to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which as we know is headed by an opposition member.
The remarks made on television by the two members criticized the Auditor General for pitting his judgment, on matters of government policy, against that of the government. That is not his job and we should make that clear. We fully support the statements of our members in that respect. I fail to see how anyone can be critical of the proposed legislation. If anyone on the opposite side has any criticism of the way in which the Auditor General's act was drafted, I would like to hear it. I do not understand how there could be criticism because the Auditor General prepared the legislation, which is supposed to be restrictive in its scope. The truth of the matter is in the motion which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government for criticizing the Auditor General of Canada for carrying out his duties according to law-
That is patently absurd.
-and reasserts its supports of the principle of unfettered parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditures-
There is no question about that.
-including the right of the Auditor General to comment on the failure of the government to make expenditure in strict compliance with parliamentary appropriation-
Criticism of Auditor General
There is no question about that. The following I think is the catchphrase:
-and to report on these and any other cases he feels should be brought to the attention of Parliament.
That is the area of this motion which I find unacceptable because it seems to delegate to the Auditor General the wide and sweeping right to criticize this Parliament in any way he wishes. It is not his function to criticize government policy, decisions, proposals, legislation and programs of every sort. That, Mr. Speaker, is an accurate and complete description of the role of the official opposition. In conclusion, I think we can very well understand why this motion has been put. The simple and plain reason why the opposition want the Auditor General to be able to carry out that function is because they now recognize their own dismal failure to do the job of the official opposition.


David Lewis: Since it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume the same at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is too much to hope that we would reach a point in some debate in this House at which a minister would be ready to admit, frankly and forthrightly, that he had said something which on sober, or drunken reflection-I do not care which-he had found to be wrong.
I would say in the presence of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), as I say it now in his absence, that his speech this afternoon was either a concoction deliberately designed to confuse everybody or else it was a rejection or retraction of the criticism he had made of the Auditor General in his broadcast.


An hon. Member:: Both.


David Lewis: I hope it was the latter. Or it may have been both, as was suggested. I hope it was a retraction of that criticism. I would have respected the hon. gentleman a great deal more if he had possessed whatever was required-I am not going to find a word for
6134	COMMONS
Criticism of Auditor General it-to say frankly to this House and to the country that he had made a mistake. Then, at least, we would be discussing the issue of the Auditor General without all the exchanges which are now involved.
Backbenchers who participated in this debate would have given those of us who are in the opposition, and people who are outside, a great deal more confidence in their integrity and objectivity if they had said they would vote against the motion-I would not expect them to vote in favour of a motion of non-confidence against their own government-but that in their view the President of the Treasury Board had been wrong in what he said on television. It might be that those words came out of his mouth without sufficient thought having been given to them. I say this because of the kind of speech he made and the way in which this issue arose. It is disturbing, and it will continue to be disturbing as long as the hon. gentleman does not say in a forthright manner, "What I said on April 11 was wrong." So long as the President of the Treasury Board does not say this, we continue to be disturbed.
The issue arose out of what he said during that broadcast. Never mind the statement by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) that it is necessary to put the minister's remarks in their context. Here is the context in itself. On April 11 he said that the Auditor General had "expressed his view as to the appropriateness of some government policies".
I ask hon. member to note the following words:
In this sense he is pitting his judgment as to sound business practice and sound government policy against the government's and, not unnaturally, you would not expect the government to agree with his judgment in every instance. I wonder, myself, whether the Auditor General should cast himself in this role, or whether we should look for, really, another kind of person to be Auditor General.
This is what gave rise to the fear in this House and in the country as to what the government intended to do with the position of Auditor General. If this is not what the President of the Treasury Board meant-and his speech today did not suggest this kind of thing-then he should have said so when he addressed the House. Many of us say things off the cuff in reply to questions on television and elsewhere which we might later regret. But in a matter of such importance as this, a minister, a member of the government-I see the hon. gentleman is now in the House, so I can use the word I did not use before-a minister should have the courage to say, "I

DEBATES	April 21, 1970
made a mistake in using the words I did; this is what I meant-" thereby removing the fear which is justifiable as long as those words remain on the record.
Two parts of the minister's statement are of particular importance. The first constitutes an objection to the Auditor General using his judgment as to what is sound business practice. Mr. Speaker, it is a basic duty of the Auditor General to analyse and, if necessary, to criticize the business practices of the government or any of its departments. For a minister to object to the Auditor General doing this is most disturbing. It is an illustration of the arrogance to which we have drawn attention so many times and it is part of the picture to which I shall refer later.
Then the President of the Treasury Board went on to say: "I wonder . .. whether we should look for, really, another kind of person to be Auditor General." If, in plain English, this does not mean that he-and presumably he speaks for the government-was contemplating kicking Mr. Henderson out of his job,
I	should like to know what those words do mean. This was a disturbing thing.
[DOT] (8:10 p.ra.)
Then today the President of the Treasury Board, both in his speech and I think in reply to some questions, said that this motion which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has moved is based on a wrong premise. At one point he said that it suggests there was criticism of the Auditor General. There is none, said the minister. Either he was telling the truth today or he was telling the truth on April 11. If he was telling the truth today, he should have said that what he said on April
II	was wrong. Then we would have had some kind of understanding of the basis on which this discussion is carried on. But so long as he leaves that statement on the record we have a right to be disturbed about the intentions of the government and of the President of the Treasury Board, despite the speech that he made this afternoon. If his speech was intended as a repudiation of what he said on April 11, I ask him to say so or to get somebody else to say so. If it is the case that he does repudiate it, then indeed he has the right to say that the motion is based on a wrong premise.
The fact is that much of the speech of the President of the Treasury Board today contained material with which all hon. members of the House agree. Many of the suggestions that he made for improving the relationship
April 21, 1970	COMMONS
between the Auditor General and the government would, I am sure, be accepted by the members of the Public Accounts Committee and most of the members of the House. I see nothing wrong in his suggestion that he or members of the government should be able to explain an action which is being criticized by the Auditor General. But the Auditor General has to retain his right to criticize. What did he say with regard to the concessions made to the automobile manufacturers? I should like to put on the record the sort of thing that he said.
What we on this side of the House are standing for, as I understood the Leader of the Opposition and my leader, what we are asking the government to accept is the right of the Auditor General to say these things. If there is an explanation to be given, then the minister should appear before the Public Accounts Committee to give it. He should satisfy the members of the Public Accounts Committee that what was done was the right thing; that the procedures that were followed were the right procedures; that the business practice that was employed was the right business practice.
If I may summarize what the Auditor General said, to save time, instead of reading his words, he said that the Tariff Order did not contain all of the criteria which the government applied in paying out over $180 million; that the fact was that one of the companies, the company that received $173 million, did not meet the criteria established in the Tariff Order, and that the government paid out money by Order in Council which, as I read the Auditor General, remitted or forgave payment and was not justified by the criteria in the only instrument which could justify it, namely, the Tariff Order. He said it is therefore essential that the Motor Vehicle Tariff Order, 1965, be amended to spell out all of the criteria to be followed in determining liability for payment of duty.
That, in summary, is what the Auditor General said and is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Treasury Board objected to. It is because they objected to the Auditor General saying what it is his duty to say that we in the opposition believe the government ought to be castigated and that the members who have the courage to do so ought to vote for the motion and tell the government they must stop that sort of thing.
This is part of a picture that we have seen ever since this government took office. I cite
DEBATES	6135
Criticism of Auditor General the treatment by members of the government, particularly by the Prime Minister, of questions during question period and the attempt time and time again to make both Parliament and Members of Parliament look silly. Perhaps in some cases it may not be very hard to do that, including my own case. But that is not the job of the government. Let them leave it to us; we will do that on our own.
The general attitude toward Parliament by the government is characterized by an arrogance that apparently has no limit. Even the Auditor General is fair play for the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board whenever they feel like it. As pointed out by the two leaders who spoke this afternoon, the Auditor General is an essential part of the democratic process in this country, indeed in any democratic society.
It is important for Parliament and for the people of Canada to recognize that there are two kinds of policy matters. There is the policy matter that is concerned with the actual program that the government is given legislative authority to introduce and to implement. Then there is the policy that sets out the way in which the government's program and expenditures are in fact implemented.
The policy respecting the way in which expenditures are in fact implemented is precisely within the sphere of the Auditor General to study, to analyse and if necessary to criticize in order to improve the policy by which expenditures are carried through. The procedures that are used and whether or not there is legislative sanction for the way in which this is done are both part of the function of the Auditor General, as clearly described in section 67 and following sections of the Financial Administration Act.
With only 15 minutes in which to speak and with mine almost up, it is difficult to cover everything. But it is the readiness with which the President of the Treasury Board, more directly than the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), says that the Auditor General is stepping over the mark, and therefore that the government has to look for somebody else, that has disturbed the members of the opposition and is a condemnation of a government which wants to curtail the freedom and opportunity for work that the Auditor General in fact must have, and does have, under the legislation.
Finally, may I say that if the President of the Privy Council speaks this evening he will perhaps fill the gap which has been left. Even
April 21, 1970

Criticism of Auditor General in his speech this afternoon the President of the Treasury Board said that the Auditor General must not enter into policy matters. He said he must not lend himself to becoming part of the "adversary situation in Parliament", with which everyone agrees. But by saying that he is suggesting that the Auditor General has in fact lent himself to being part of the adversary situation in Parliament, and that is a pretty serious charge.
If I were the Auditor General, I would by implication consider that that was a pretty serious charge. I am not saying that the minister said that in so many words. Perhaps I would have respected it more had he done so. But by saying that the Auditor General must not permit himself to become part of the adversary game in Parliament, the President of the Treasury Board is implying that the Auditor General has in fact done so.
As I say, if I were Mr. Henderson I would consider that a pretty serious charge. I would say, as I say now to the President of the Treasury Board, that he had no right to make that statement unless he was willing to document the truth of it. This he did not do. Even in his speech this afternoon there was not a single word about the policies with which the Auditor General is supposed to have interfered. There was not a single word about the way in which he is supposed to have helped whatever it is that the President of the Treasury Board meant by the "adversary situation" in this Parliament. That is mere innuendo.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Oh, come on!


David Lewis: Yes, it was innuendo. It was a charge against the Auditor General which, in effect, condemned him by implication without a single word of evidence to support that accusation and charge. One asks oneself why an intelligent person who knows what he is saying-the President of the Treasury Board is an intelligent man who knows the words he uses-makes charges by implication, knowing they are charges by implication, without documenting them, unless it is that he is deliberately setting out to undermine both the person and the office of the Auditor General. That is precisely what the President of the Treasury Board has done, and that is precisely why the motion moved today ought to be supported, as well as the amendment.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to follow the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I often prepare remarks and intend to

state them, but after listening to him I have the tendency to deal with his remarks and not concentrate on those I have prepared.


Mr. Woolliams:: You are on the defensive now.


William Warren Allmand: If you want to make a speech, get up and make one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member for York South and some other members over there like to talk about the rights of Parliament during speeches in this House, but when it comes to protecting those rights they are a little two-faced about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are getting touchy.


William Warren Allmand: I have heard the hon.
member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) make many great speeches in the House about the rights of Parliament, but I would say he is one of the worst offenders in the House in respect of the rights of Parliament. I have heard him interrupt many speakers in this House when they were trying to put forward their views.
The hon. member for York South in his speech talked about innuendoes and arrogance. Of all the speakers in this House to talk about arrogance, the last one that should do it is the hon. member for York South. I think I have heard more arrogant speeches by that hon. member than by all the hon. members of this House put together. If innuendoes were not directed at the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) today by the hon. member for York South, I do not know what innuendo is.


David Lewis: You certainly do not.


William Warren Allmand: All during his speech he was-


David Lewis: It was a very forthright
statement.


William Warren Allmand: During his speech today there was more innuendo than in all the speeches made by the President of the Treasury Board. This motion is divided into two parts. The second part reads that this House-
-reasserts its support of the principle of unfettered parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditures including the right of the Auditor General to comment on the failure of the government to make expenditure in strict compliance with
April 21, 1970	COMMONS
parliamentary appropriations and to report on these and any other cases he feels should he brought to the attention of Parliament.
I think we all agree 100 per cent with that part of the motion. As the President of the Treasury Board said this afternoon, that is taken almost word for word from the statute itself, and as the law of Parliament we fully support it. I fully support it and would not suggest it should ever be changed in any way. However, the first part of the motion states:
That this House condemns the government for criticizing the Auditor General of Canada for carrying out his duties according to law-
I cannot and will not support that part because surely it is not true. This afternoon the President of the Treasury Board stated he had never made any such criticism and neither had the government. I saw the television program in question on which the statement of the President of the Treasury Board was supposed to have been made. This was one of those television programs on which a minister sits before a panel of journalists and is grilled by them over a period of time. It was one of those programs during which they deal with many subjects.


David Lewis: The minister could defend himself better.


William Warren Allmand: Maybe he could. That is another of those arrogant remarks the hon. member for York South interjects in speeches. I know very well that the President of the Treasury Board is capable of defending himself, but I feel that if this is a worthwhile motion I should give my point of view.
As I said, I watched that program. The questions put to the minister related to many subjects. For the most part they dealt with the situation in respect of the Post Office. The interviewers bombarded the minister with questions, and he handled himself in a very cool way: I thought he handled himself very well. When we come to the particular statement when he was talking about the Auditor General, he said-I do not have the exact words but the hon. member for York South had the transcript and read them into the record-something to the effect that we should look for another kind of person, or another person for this role.
I must admit that I had doubt as to what he meant. I did not know what the President of the Treasury Board meant when he said that. The questioner who heard his remark must also have had some doubt in his mind because within very few minutes he put a
DEBATES	6137
Criticism of Auditor General question directly to the President of the Treasury Board, asking if this meant that the government was trying to get rid of the Auditor General or to restrict his role. The President of the Treasury Board replied directly and categorically that they were not. I would think that if members of the opposition really had the courage to be honest, they would admit that this reply clarified the issue. The hon. member for York South was talking about courage this evening. As far as I am concerned, that reply settled the issue for me and I think it settled it for the people who were questioning the minister that day.
The next morning I saw a large headline in the Montreal Gazette to the effect that the President of the Treasury Board wanted to tamper in some way or another with the role of Auditor General. Of course, this is the type of headline we very often see in our papers: it is the result of a journalist looking for innuendoes and for division, for scandal or any type of weakness in words in order to make some kind of complaint against ministers or Members of Parliament whether they be on the government or the opposition side.
I saw that program, and the original doubt I had in my mind about the statement was completely cleared up by the very categorical statement made by the minister later in the program. On the following Monday and Tuesday questions were put not only to the President of the Treasury Board but to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They were asked whether there was any intention on the part of the government to restrict the role of the Auditor General or to replace him. On every occasion they said no, and it was very clear that they said no.
This afternoon the President of the Treasury Board repeated this denial. Not only did he say the government did not want to tamper in any way with the role of the Auditor General, but he said it was the government's intention to make the role of the Auditor General more independent and to give him greater control over his office. He said it was the intention to take his salary out of the statute and tie it to that of a judge of the new federal court.
As a matter of fact, the recommendation this afternoon of the minister went much beyond the requests in the report of the Auditor General in which he asked for certain improvements in his office and in his role. I feel that this type of motion put before
April 21, 1970

Criticism of Auditor General us by the opposition is an attempt to create an issue. There are not enough real issues to deal with, so the opposition is trying to create one by putting forward a motion like this.
In his speech this afternoon the President of the Treasury Board said there were four general issues which emerged from the recent report of the Auditor General. The first relates to the independence of his office, the second to his role and responsibility, the third to the responsibility of the government to respond to the criticisms which he advances, and the fourth to the status of the Auditor General and his office. As I pointed out, the minister stated that all these recommendations had the support of the government and the government was willing to move on them and even go beyond those made by the Auditor General.
The minister also admitted that the government had perhaps not been as effective as it might have been in responding to some of the criticisms of the Auditor General. He stated the government was willing to take steps to improve this situation. He also stated he would recommend that the government be obliged to give a report each year in which it would answer to the House of Commons in respect of recommendations put forward by the Auditor General, and that this report would be considered by the Public Accounts Committee at the same time as the report of the Auditor General.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In conclusion I wish to make very clear tha I fully support the role of the Auditor General and the present Auditor General in his job. I think we must protect him in that position and I believe he has every right to put forward his criticism in respect of waste, misappropriation and, as the minister stated this afternoon, probity. I do not think, however, that he should be in any way implicated in any type of policy discussion or pushed into any type of partisan role. Perhaps when the government brings forward its bill this matter will be clarified. The minister stated that on the whole the government would be dealing with the requests of the Auditor General himself in respect of this bill. I felt I should speak in the debate because there has been some doubt about this question and I wished to make clear my position on the matter and state that I intend to vote against both the amendment and the motion.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleion-Char-lotte):: Mr. Speaker, my reason for speaking to

the motion is that I wish to leave no doubt in the mind of anyone within the sound of my voice this evening how I intend to vote. I intend to support the motion and I should like to give some of the reasons for my position. The previous speaker mentioned that he could not support the first part of the motion, which I believe is the part which should be supported. I belong to the school of people who believe that when members of a government make public utterances they are advancing the general policy of the government. So when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) make public utterances I believe it is appropriate that the public in general, in this case the people of Canada, should consider they speak for the government. On that basis the motion does condemn the government, but I submit the government deserves to be condemned for this particular reason.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh John Flemming: The motion condemns the government criticizing the Auditor General of Canada for carrying out his duties according to law. Some members who have spoken this afternoon take exception to this language. Personally I do not take exception to it for the reasons I have just given the House. When two members of the government make public utterances concerning a dedicated public official and a man who occupies a position of great public trust, or when they make critical speeches concerning him, this becomes the policy of the government and deserves the condemnation of every member of this House.
I submit that this motion is also a motion of confidence in the Auditor General. I have the honour to sit on the Public Accounts Committee. It is a privilege to sit on that committee. I find that the attitude of the Auditor General toward public questions and toward the various inquiries which he makes by reason of his official position is an extremely fair one. I have never seen any indication of anything which I thought savoured of anything more than a reference to the actual facts which he could substantiate.
I have had some experience with auditors general in another capacity and I submit that in my opinion the government, or any government generally speaking should appreciate having an official of the importance of the Auditor General giving it honest-to-goodness
April 21, 1970	COMMONS
opinions concerning policy as well as facts. I have never been interested in hiring people in my business who were just yes, yes people. I prefer to have someone who will disagree with me and say, "Mr. Flemming, you are wrong about so and so and should change your mind about such and such". To me that is the proper type of person to be giving advice to a government, an individual or people interested in the public welfare. Therefore, I submit that it is not in the best interests of the country for any member of the government to advance the idea that the Auditor General must not under any condition or circumstance say anything which could be construed as being a reflection on public policies. It is important that the Auditor General should feel free to do this, and it is better for the government because the government should benefit from his advice.
I have spoken about the office of the Auditor rtpnpral and mv conception of what the Auditor General should do in his public capacity. Now for a moment I wish to refer to the general reputation the present incumbent of this office has in the hearts and minds of the Canadian people. He has been referred to as the guardian of the public purse. That is a good description. He has been referred to as the protector of the taxpayer. I say, with great respect, God knows that is needed. He has been referred to as the watchdog of the treasury. According to what we hear, this government needs a watchdog. But why would anyone hire a watchdog and then try to prevent it from barking? That, apparently, is what this government wants to do. I submit that all these descriptions indicate a _ great degree of confidence and public trust in the Auditor General. This motion not only condemns the government but expresses confidence in the Auditor General. This is another reason to vote for it. This confidence is well-deserved.
Generally speaking, all members who have spoken today on this subject have indicated their complete confidence in the Auditor General, but recent events lead us to believe the government does not share this opinion. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the previous speaker have referred to legislation that will be brought down in this House and we as members will be asked to consider and vote on it in the public interest. As the Prime Minister said the other day, this legislation will define the duties of the Auditor General. I submit the inference to be taken by the House is that the legislation will restrain the

Criticism of Auditor General Auditor General from fulfilling his functions to a certain degree, because when you define duties and go to the trouble of putting them down on paper it means you are not satisfied that the person holding the office is not overstepping the bounds of his authority.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Let us look at the Auditor General's authority. From where does he derive it? The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) gave the answer to that question this afternoon. My friend, the hon. member for Grey Simcoe (Mr. Noble) read from the document this afternoon. The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) who spoke just before the supper break complained that the Auditor General had no business bringing these matters before Parliament and that he was exceeding his authority.
All the hon. member needs to do is examine page 1 of the Auditor General's report for 1968. Reference has been made to tnis passage today, but I will read it again. It says that the Auditor General shall call attention to every case in which he has observed certain situations, and then it goes on to say: and to any other case that the Auditor General considers should be brought to the notice of the House of Commons.
That is his statutory authority. I submit it is pretty broad authority, and I think properly so. The government should welcome it because it has the effect of giving advance notice to all, in connection with the spending of public funds, that an accounting will be demanded, that the record shall be kept very carefully, and that discrepancies of any nature will be included in the report of the Auditor General and brought before Parliament which, after all, consists of the representatvies of the people. That is as it should be.
Mr. Speaker, I support the motion, first because it condemns the government, which should be condemned, and second because it is an expression of confidence in the Auditor General. Those are two very good reasons for supporting the motion. There are other reasons.
I think that when notice is served on us that legislation will be changed, we have to be careful. Only a few days ago I had the privilege of speaking in this House on the hate literature bill. I said that legislation such as this had not been thought of for almost half a century, and I asked why we had it before us. I ask now, why do we have to
April 21, 1970

Criticism of Auditor General redefine the duties and responsibilities of the Auditor General, if it is not for the purpose of clipping his wings? In my opinion that is the reason for the government bringing in the legislation. They are most unwise in doing so. It will probably carry by virtue of the government's majority, but so far as I am concerned it is most unwise.
As I said, we have had some experience with auditors general. I have found them to be highly dedicated men: I have never found one who was otherwise. Certainly the present incumbent is no exception-quite the opposite. I think we must of necessity consider what has been stated by the President of the Treasury Board in connection with the Auditor General. Mr. Henderson has uncovered case after case of government waste, extravagance, and bureaucratic bungling which have cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.
It is obvious that his persistent criticism of the government's slipshod methods, mishandling of public funds, its irregular administrative practice are irritating and outraging the present cabinet. So when the President of the Treasury Board was questioned as to whether the Auditor General should cast himself in the role in which he pits his judgment against that of the government, he said, "Perhaps we should look for, really, another kind of person to be Auditor General".
I agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) when he asked that the President of the Treasury Board clarify that statement. He should tell this House what he is looking for in an Auditor General. If he thinks we should have another kind of person, he should tell us what he is looking for. I submit that the Auditor General's function is to point out these irregularities to Parliament. I have no doubt that he is aware of what he is doing and I do not consider that he has made any attempt to pass judgment on government policies.
The House will remember that not very long ago various items of this nature were before the Public Accounts Committee. I think that the government chooses the wrong time-income tax time-to criticize the Auditor General. Canadians who will be paying their taxes within the next two weeks are bound to support the Auditor General who has shown where the government wasted $39J million last year. The taxpayer looking at a T-4 slip and wondering how he will pay his bills with the little bit of money left after the government gets through extracting money from the pay cheque-this applies pretty 
much to all of us-is bound to support the Auditor General. He will find it difficult to agree that the Auditor General should have his wings clipped. Mr. Henderson pointed out that the government had built an $8,800,000 port in the lower St. Lawrence region despite studies which showed there was no ship traffic there at all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Apparently there is a disposition to allow the hon. member to continue. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugh John Flemming: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members for this consideration. I will try not to infringe upon it any more than I require to finish this part of my remarks.
The President of the Treasury Board said, I believe, that the Auditor General should be preoccupied with accounting procedure. I submit that accounting procedure would not have said anything about the nearly $9 million that was wasted on that particular project. The Canadian taxpayer looking for a rebate to help pay some of his family's bills will be interested to hear about the $180 million being forgiven one of the large automobile companies, contrary to law.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Oh, oh!


Hugh John Flemming: 
Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is a very serious one and I regret the necessity for it. Even after all these years there seems to be some misconception in the highest quarters as to what the Auditor General's job is and what our duties are with regard to it. He has been castigated in absentia, which is a cowardly act, and if we do not defend him with this motion I do not know where he will be defended. The foolish part of it is that his action and service are of such an outstanding nature as to need no defence, and I am almost ashamed to find myself in the position of advocate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: As so often happens, Mr. Speaker, it becomes a matter of one side of the chamber calling down the other for its mistake, but of course I stand to be corrected. If the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) did not mean what he said, he did not dispel my doubts when he spoke this afternoon. If the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) did not mean what he said, he has yet to make any statement which would dispel my doubts.
As a public servant, the Auditor General has no opportunity to defend himself and I would be delinquent indeed if as a member of the Public Accounts Committee I did not do my best to defend him. His crime, according to the President of the Treasury Board, is that he has usurped the prerogative and power of the cabinet and has taken upon himself legislative authority. But, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board was trying to do by the back door what he did not have the courage to do by the front door.
Referring to a series of recommendations concerning the office of the Auditor General made by the Public Accounts Committee in 1966-67, the Auditor General in 1969 reported as follows:
The committee is of the opinion that all of the characteristics, duties and functions of the office of the Auditor General should be set out in a separate act of Parliament governing this office instead of being a part of the Financial Administration Act.
The committee is requesting the Auditor General to consult his legal advisers and to co-operate with them in drafting such an act for submission to the committee and to the government.
If there is a crime-I use that word advisedly, Mr. Speaker-then it is ours. If the Auditor General has been remiss in his duties, as far as I can see it is only in carrying out the wishes of a committee which is the link between Parliament and his very important and efficient office. I think that argument disposes of any suggestion that he has exceeded his duties. Indeed, had he not carried out our wishes I would be quite prepared to move, in the Public Accounts Committee, that he be asked to explain why, after being given two years to work upon it, he had not come forward with a suitable act.
I might go further and say that perhaps our committee had been delinquent in not taking more immediate action on this matter, had it not been for the fact that it is powerless to act until given the opportunity to meet under the authority of this House. We have often complained that we do not sit long enough or often enough to go into detail on very important matters.
Another misdemeanour of which the Auditor General was accused is the language used in his report. I do not know what kind of language he was supposed to use to explain, in dollars and cents, the negligent spending of our money. He is obliged to outline non-productive expenditures, but these have been interpreted as having some deep, dark meaning.
In 1961 the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by one of the most beloved members of the House, the previous Speaker and now a member of the other place, put forward the suggestion that each and every year the Auditor General should "list in the minutest detail all non-productive items which come to his attention."
If the Auditor General has erred, in my opinion and in the opinion of many within the sound of my voice he has only erred in performing his duties too well. He has in fact listed in his report, to the best of his knowledge and to the best of the ability of his staff, all the non-productive items coming to his attention. We could split hairs by arguing whether the adjectives used were correct, whether the spending of this money was negligent, criminally negligent or extravagant. I do not think the adjectives mean anything at the recommendation stage. If our feelings are that tender it might be suggested that the report be kept secret until the Public Accounts Committee, the body to which this report belongs, has approved it and that until then it should remain a privileged document.
April 21, 1970

Criticism of Auditor General
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The Auditor General's duty, as I see it, is plain. He must act entirely in an advisory capacity to our committee. No matter what his opinions might be, so long as they are honest we, representing a cross section of the Canadian people, will look at them as carefully as we can and in as detailed a manner as possible in the time at our disposal. Only after we have made our recommendations is the government obliged to take any further steps. It can take steps without our advice, as it has on many occasions, and it can ignore our advice, as it has on a great many occasions.
Since our recommendations have been ignored over and over again during the past years, it is not surprising that our chief adviser-I am talking about the adviser to the Public Accounts Committee-should become a little impatient. The Auditor General would be a poor adviser indeed if he did not point out these leaks in the treasury.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And the extravagances.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: They appear to be extravagances, certainly; they run into tens of millions, and in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars. We are not just dreaming in this regard. I am impressed by the very restrained language which our Auditor General uses. He does not use inflammatory language; he uses language showing that he is alarmed as a good accountant, as perhaps the best accountant in Canada who has the confidence of the Canadian people and of the United Nations. He runs his office so efficiently that accounting departments of the great universities in Canada today recognize training in the Auditor General's department as being equivalent to apprenticeship in any firm of auditors of which the universities have cognizance.
It is not strange that the Auditor General, whose job is to discover horses on the payroll, the sale of railways between senior members of the armed forces and other matters that ought to come to the public's attention, should use adjectives which are not complimentary. It would be passing strange if he always used weak and subdued language in a great, dynamic young democracy like Canada. The people would not compliment the Auditor General nor our committee if this type of sloppiness and criminal negligence-those adjectives are of my choosing-were allowed to run unchecked.
I am shocked that any member of the government, let alone a cabinet member, should pour his venom on a man who is not in a

position to defend himself. Something even more sinister may be behind this. The Auditor General was relatively secure so long as he did not tread on the really big, sacred cows. Unless I am mistaken, his criticism of the automotive pact really brought onto his head the fire from high places.


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


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to express my view on the motion before the House and, particularly, on the work being done by our Auditor General, Mr. Henderson. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. During the previous year and this year I took a great deal of interest in the Auditor General's report and in the material which he brought to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee for investigation.
It seems to me that the recent attack launched against the Auditor General by two prominent ministers is extremely regrettable. It does something, I believe, to this institution and to the position of the Auditor General which all the words in the world cannot undo. It is regrettable particularly that those in the seats of power should see fit to criticize someone who, in my humble opinion, is doing the very job this House has told him to do. He is doing it ably and I believe he is doing it honestly. Of course, other members have said this.
The Auditor General is the watchdog over government spending and I believe it is absolutely essential that this House should in no way restrict his freedom to investigate, analyse and report his findings on every aspect of government spending. Any move by the present government to restrict a full and thorough review of spending by federal government departments will be a negation of democracy.
We boast about the rights of the citizens of Canada to full information on all and every government expenditure. I am certain that Canadians would not tolerate any move by the federal government or any government which would prevent this type of financial information being made public. The criticism in public of the Auditor General by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in my opinion is a disgraceful and unwarranted attack on an individual who is carrying out the duties assigned to him by this House.
April 21, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	6143
Criticism of Auditor General
Those two ministers in my opinion are doing a disservice to the House, to the Canadian public and to their party when using their cabinet rank they try to silence a public official whose integrity and honesty is beyond question and who is carrying out the duties which, as I said earlier, Parliament laid down for him.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I understand other members have covered the responsibilities and functions of the Auditor General of Canada, which were laid down by this House. In part VII of the Financial Administration Act, Revised Statutes, chapter 116, it very clearly indicates that everything the Auditor General has done to date has been within the confines of the regulations laid down by this House of Commons. I am not going to go over them all again, but the act lists them and at the very bottom it adds that the Auditor General is entitled to look into any other things that he considers should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons. This is all the Auditor General and his assistants need to look into government expenditures and find out where foolish and faulty expenditures have been made. These are included in his report and it is then up to the committee to find out why these expenditures were made and what has been done year after year by the departments to correct stupid governmental spending. I think the Auditor General's Department is being handled in the way it should.
Any hon. member of this House who tries to put a muzzle on an individual who is pointing out fields of foolish public expenditure does not deserve to sit in this House, because this is the very essence of democracy. We are here as elected members from every part of Canada. We are spending the taxpayers' money. Not only do we spend the taxpayers' money as elected Members of Parliament but we are here to make sure we get good value for every dollar spent. What do we find? We find two responsible cabinet members on television and over the air telling the people of Canada that this is not the type of searchlight we want on the expenditures of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Randolph Harding: I say this is wrong. We should be proud that we have men like Mr. Henderson and his assistants to check and delve into a small percentage of government expenditures. They do not have the staff to do the
thorough job they should be doing. Every time a discrepancy is found by the Auditor General, the taxpayers of Canada save money. If we as Members of Parliament were doing the job we should be doing, we would make absolutely certain there was not a repetition of the stupid spending of public money which year after year we find in some departments of government. I am not saying that the departmental heads are dishonest. I am not saying that at all. However, many of these departments are so wide-flung that the man in charge loses control over the expenditures.
It is the job of the Auditor General to delve and find out where the errors are being made and to bring this to the attention of the House. It is up to us to do the rest. What would happen if we took the advice of the government and had the Auditor General doing strictly the job of accounting, making certain that the money is not being misappropriated in any way? If that were the case, hardly anyone in this House would have the slightest knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes.
It is the job of the Auditor General and his staff to dig in and find out where department heads and far-flung department areas are getting into financial trouble, and report back to us. Some of the cabinet members still have the audacity to stand and say that this man must be removed because he is embarrassing the government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: When did I say that?


Some hon. Members:: Who said it?


Randolph Harding: This government is embarrassed. Every government has been embarrassed by the Auditor General's report.


Mr. Mahoney:: The Auditor General will be embarrassed by your speech.


Randolph Harding: If the Auditor General
embarrasses the government by pointing out foolish expenditures within a department, this is the way we learn. Departmental heads should accept the criticism which has been included in his report. It is his job to tell the Canadian people what is going on. It is amazing that in 1970 any cabinet member would stand in this chamber and tell the people of Canada that we are not to have a searchlight shining on public expenditures. If this government proceeds with the plan it has been advocating to muzzle the Auditor General and
April 21. 1970

Criticism of Auditor General his staff, they will pay for it in the next election because the Canadian people will not stand for this type of treatment by any government.


Some hon. Members:: Resign!


Randolph Harding: Last year I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The committee checked the expenditures in connection with the Bonaventure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Randolph Harding: This was embarrassing for the government. I was a member of the committee which visited the Bonaventure in Halifax. The committee found that silly expenditures had been made. The public of Canada was entitled to know about these. Members of all parties in this House were on that committee. They were unanimous that this type of investigation was necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: Not only do we have to check into these expenditures, Mr. Speaker, but we must stop them. The committee reached unanimous agreement. Every member of the committee, Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Creditiste agreed that the check we made would do good as far as having a searchlight on expenditures was concerned. There was nothing wrong with that. That is not telling the government what to do; it is telling the government that in certain departments or in certain aspects of departmental control there is laxity. If something has gone wrong, it must be checked. That is exactly what the Auditor General and his assistants do. They give us the lead and we are supposed to ferret out the rest of the information. The members are trying to do that honestly and openly.
As I said earlier, I regret the moves by responsible cabinet members. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had indicated that this man has stepped outside the terms of reference given to him by the House. Anyone who reads them and says that the Auditor General has done something which he should not have done under the terms of reference is wrong. The terms of reference are wide enough to give him leeway to check into these expenditures. We expect him to check into them.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Recently, representatives of the CBC were before the committee. It was embarrassing to
IMr. Harding.l
the heads of the CBC when certain expenditures in connection with Expo were brought to light. But I tell you this, Mr. Speaker: it was one of the best exposures made, and as a result the heads of the CBC have made up their minds that expenditures of this type will not be incurred again. What we need are not fewer people like the Auditor General, but more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: An economist, Mr. E. P. Neu-feld, a professor of the University of Toronto, appeared before a Senate committee which was dealing with the financial affairs of the federal government. He advocated that instead of restricting our activities in this field, we should expand-that we should appoint other people knowledgeable in the sphere of economic development to check the type of programs upon which the government is embarking.
Last year the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) told the House that since 1963 we had spent $1 billion on programs throughout the length and breadth of Canada, more than half of which had been wasted because the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. This is why I say we should endorse 100 per cent the work done by the Auditor General, and that we should not hesitate to accept the criticism which he levels at us in his reports.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity of responding at this time to the fabrications and falsehoods of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) who has just resumed his seat. I think the best place to start would be with the words quoted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) this afternoon-the words I used with regard to this particular question. I said I did not regard it as a responsibility of the Auditor General to criticize the policy underlying decisions taken by the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nobody should.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is an interesting statement by the leader of the New Democratic Party. It indicates the totalitarian mentality of those gentlemen over there. The fact of the matter is this: at no time did I say the Auditor General should resign, as the
April 21, 1970	COMMONS
hon. member said I did. The Leader of the Opposition was somewhat more careful in referring to what I said. I emphasized that it was not the responsibility of the Auditor General to criticize the policy underlying particular decisions.
This assertion was questioned by the Leader of the Opposition and by the leader of [DOT] the New Democratic Party. I think we should look at these allegations and draw our own conclusions from the argument. It seems to me, as my colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) said this afternoon, that efforts like those made by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party to draw the Auditor General into arguments concerning policy are conduct of a kind which is the quickest possible way to destroy his role.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You did it on March 25 on television.
DEBATES	6145
Criticism of Auditor General


Mr. Mcllrailh:: That is a specious point of order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I see I have touched the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) to the quick. He is sensitive about the position he took this afternoon. He does not like it being demonstrated that the argument he put forward would, if accepted, lead to an important servant of the House being placed in an untenable position. It is not an argument which flatters him, nor does it flatter the opposition generally.


An hon. Member:: Come off it!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 
Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wish the hon. member would be more careful with the truth. He was rather more careful this afternoon than he has been speaking from his seat. At no time did I suggest that the Auditor General should resign, as the hon. member for Kootenay West stated. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) indirectly criticized the position taken by his own leader when he stated, agreeing with me, that basic policy was a matter for debate in this House between elected members; it was not the responsibility of the Auditor General.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) answer a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member may ask me a question at the end of my remarks, just as he let other hon. members wait until he had finished.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: May we
have order? The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has the floor.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the President of the Privy Council is closing the debate does not mean he can make inaccurate statements. I am asking him to quote from the Auditor General's report a single instance in which the Auditor General has interfered with policy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
"pedigree".


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the NDP leave themselves open to a suggestion that they do not want the Auditor General to be a faithful servant of the House but that they want him to be a faithful servant of the opposition.


Mr. Monieilh:: Nuts.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Despite all the pious talk we have heard this afternoon, hon. members opposite will have to go a long way to dispel the idea that through their actions they are trying to place the Auditor General in the position to which I have drawn attention.
Let us turn to the details of the motion. There is the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. In my view, this can be dismissed at once. My hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Cafik) punctured the hon. gentleman's case by pointing out that his twisting of the wording of the Financial Administration Act voided his own argument. I do not think the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands needs to be seriously considered by the House.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): The Auditor General thought it was important.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suggest that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is not important.
April 21, 1970

Criticism of Auditor General


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is not something for you to decide.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member made a speech earlier today. If he is repenting of it now, if he has finally had a thought or two, we shall welcome the novelty and be glad to hear from him. The opposition motion and amendment ask the House to condemn the government for criticizing the Auditor General for carrying out his duties according to law. No speaker today from either the official opposition or the NDP has shown in any way that anyone on this side has criticized the Auditor General for carrying out his duties according to law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No member in any opposition party has established that the criticism was for failure to carry out his duties under the terms of the Financial Administration Act. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, pointed out clearly that it is the responsibility of the Auditor General, under the terms of that act, to examine carefully the books of account, the system of maintaining accounts, the system for checking and the manner in which public funds are expended. But nowhere at any time in this debate was there any substance for the allegation that is the key to this motion, namely, that the government had criticized the Auditor General for carrying out his duties according to law.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Let me now deal with the second part of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I think it reveals a rather interesting mentality on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, a rather interesting approach on his part to his and the opposition's role in this House. In his motion he talks about the House reasserting its support of the principle of unfettered parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditures. Whoever said that this support needed reasserting at this time? It was particularly ludicrous for the Leader of the Opposition to raise this point in view of the fact that during the course of supply debates, during the course of the provisions which under the rules of the House provide, to use his own terms, for the parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditures, opportunity for this sort of unfettered scrutiny arises.
The Leader of the Opposition raised the question whether this parliamentary scrutiny

exists. The fact of the matter is that it does exist most effectively. The opportunity for scrutiny exists in debates such as this, if they are made effective use of; in the extensive provisions that are available to hon. members in relation to the examination of spending estimates; in the course of the discussions on main estimates and supplementary estimates; and, in due course, in the look backward which takes place when the public accounts are published and the Auditor General brings down his report.


Mr. Basford:: But they do not do their job over there.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is true. The hon. member for Kootenay West was candid enough to admit that if the opposition really did its job it would look into policy considerations underlying government decisions. The fact of the matter is that this is really an admission of weakness on the part of this opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is an admission that there has been some diminution of effective parliamentary scrutiny over government expenditure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is rising on a question of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is this. I and the members of my party are members of the opposition. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is attacking us personally as Members of Parliament and as members of the opposition. I should like to ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, this question. I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) the other day whether he received advice from the legal officers that the government was acting in accordance with the law, but the Minister of Justice would not answer my question. Neither would the President of the Privy Council answer. The hon. gentleman is now attacking us personally, yet the government will not give us the facts, in law or otherwise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You will recognize, Mr. Speaker, that is no point of privi-
April 21, 1970	COMMONS
lege. If the hon. member, of course, wants to participate in the debate I will give him a few minutes to do so. If he has anything constructive to say at this point, I would be glad to hear from him.


An hon. Member:: You are not the Speaker. Do not make rules for the Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: May I
have order, please.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A member of the Progressive Conservative Party said sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this pretends to be a democratic party. This is its approach to Parliament.


Mr. Ricard:: Do you remember when you shot down the Prime Minister?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hon. members opposite seem to be a little nervous. Perhaps I could be allowed to be heard, though if they have something to say perhaps they will be given a few minutes to say it.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, there is no question here of requiring a reassertion of parliamentary scrutiny of public expenditures. This scrutiny has never been in doubt. For that reason, I suggest that that part of the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is ridiculous. May I repeat what I said before, that there has never been on the part of any member of the government criticism of the Auditor General for, to use the words of the motion, carrying out his duties according to law. We respect the role that the Auditor General has been given according to law. We deny-and the hon. member for York South agrees with this denial-that the Auditor General's role is a political one. The political role should be exercised by Members of Parliament, not by the Auditor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I might add, Mr. Speaker, that if any member of the opposition denies that that is the exact statement of the case, then this reveals a very strange mentality, firstly about the role of Parliament and the elected representatives and secondly about the office of the Auditor General. Therefore, on this basis I ask for the support of the House in rejecting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, an amendment which
DEBATES	6147
Criticism of Auditor General was effectively rejected in the first few seconds of its life by the question asked by the hon. member for Ontario. And I ask for the support of the House in rejecting the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the House to express its confidence in this government.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) what is simply the condemnation by the government of all those who dare oppose its policy. Those people who have been in power since 1968 seem to think that their opponents should be removed from the map.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: They are wrong.


Martial Asselin: That is also the attitude of the government towards the Auditor General. In fact, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the President of the Privy Council have taken the liberty of publicly criticizing the Auditor General.
The President of the Treasury Board said on television that the Auditor General should be replaced because he had taken it upon himself to discuss government policy.
Mr. Speaker, the law clearly defines the duties and responsibilities of the Auditor General who must examine and carefully revise public expenses. Moreover, I must remind the President of the Privy Council and the President of the Treasury Board that the Auditor General is not responsible to the government but to the Parliament of Canada. Indeed, far from being the servant of the government, it rests with him to point out to Parliament extravagant expenditures made by the government from time to timeo (9:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Often!


Martial Asselin: The Auditor General is there to defend and protect the people, he is the ombudsman of the Canadian Parliament. If the Auditor General did not exist or could not have access to the books of the government, the opposition would not obtain the information-


An hon. Member:: It is true!


Martial Asselin: -which enable it sometimes to criticize the extravagance of the present government. Any administration which refuses to
April 21, 1970'

Criticism of Auditor General
be criticized by the opposition or by an official authority created by Parliament, to wit the Auditor General, is doomed, because it repudiates the basic principles of true democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, we know that for some months the government has been after the Auditor General's head. First the government was suspicious when he noticed the extravagant and scandalous expenditures for the building of the Bonaventure. The government's ire was stirred and today it wants to table a bill for the purpose of redefining the auditor general's role. It is a way of forcing him to tender his resignation, which would please the government greatly, because then he could be replaced by an obliging and docile character who would follow the dictates of the President of the Treasury Board and the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before-the House.
The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Martial Asselin: But we in the opposition do not agree with this view of the government.
Moreover, it would appear that there is no unanimity within the cabinet. The President of the Treasury Board said on television that the Auditor General had to be replaced. However the President of the Privy Council declared that a bill must be introduced to redefine the responsibilities of the Auditor General.
The other day, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) seemed to be taking side with the Auditor General when he said that there was no difference between the views of the Auditor General and those of the government.
Mr. Speaker, as long as the government does not acknowledge the relevance of the Auditor General's duties, the role of this important official in the administration of the country will simply be reduced to nothing because this government, since it came to power, has seemed to want to govern without taking into account the views of hon. members or those of the nation. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we shall fight valiantly so that the Auditor General might keep his responsibilities, that Parliament might, with him, discuss and study thoroughly the expenditures which the government would like to hide from the people.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion. All those in favour of the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that we proceed with the division without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 22, 1970