1972-05-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in both official languages-Mr. Lessard (LaSalle).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions. March 16, 1972-Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle):
That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Thursday, March 16, 1972, be concurred in.
Mr. Lessard (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move that the motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member requests unanimous consent to withdraw his motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.
The motion is withdrawn.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether Mr. William W. Buchanan, chairman of the federal anti-dumping tribunal, has resigned his position?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I received the gentleman's letter of resignation several days ago.


George Harris Hees: Has he tendered his resignation because of a conflict of interest in carrying out his duties?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no mention of that in his letter, Mr. Speaker. It was just a simple letter of resignation. I would be happy to table it in the House if it is so desired.


George Harris Hees: Would the Prime Minister check into this matter and advise the House on Monday whether Mr. Buchanan has resigned because of conflict of interest in carrying out his duties? Would the Prime Minister also advise the House, either now or on Monday, whether, in view of the revelation of what took place in respect of the anti-dumping case in 1970 involving the Canadian Pittsburgh Glass Company, the government has decided to review any other anti-dumping cases which have arisen in the intervening period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can certainly look into the latter matter of whether any other case is being reviewed. My present knowledge is that no other case is being reviewed. That is the only one. On the former aspect, I do not see how I can satisfy the hon. member. The gentleman resigned and I accepted his resignation. The reasons for which he resigned are for him to state and they are stated in that letter.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Will he advise whether he has instructed the director of prosecutions or any official of his department to place the file concerning the chairman of the anti-dumping tribunal before the federal court? If so, does he intend to make any statement with regard to the whole matter or will this be left to the Prime Minister in a subsequent statement?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of lustice):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question is, of course, the subject of investigation and examination. The only action which has been commenced to this point is action instituted at my direction before the federal court to challenge the decision of the anti-dumping tribunal in the one specific case.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants for a final supplementary on this subject and then recognize the hon. member for York South.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the President of the Privy

May 26, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Council. I asked a question earlier this week in his absence concerning the conflict of interest study of the public service of Canada being carried out at a high level. Has that study now been completed and will it be made available to the public?


Hon. Allan I. MacEachen (President oi the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, studies of the question of conflict of interest have been going on in my office, part of which have been completed. There are other phases to the study of conflict of interest and there is the question of whether the report should be made available in piecemeal fashion or in totality. However, I will be happy to consider the matter in view of my hon. friend's representations.



INDUSTRY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce one or two questions regarding Microsystems International which I have raised on previous occasions. In view of the fact that Microsystems has been offered about $31 million or there has been a commitment of that sum under the defence industry program, of which amount $8.1 million has already been paid, I should like to ask the minister whether he knows or his department has been informed about the building by Microsystems International of an assembly plant in Malaysia and whether any of the work that should have been or might have been done here will be done in Malaysia in the new plant of this organization.


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer to that additional question this morning but I may answer the previous questions which were posed. The hon. member referred to lay-offs at that time by Microsystems. My information is that there have been no lay-offs at Microsystems since December, 1971, nor are there liable to be as sales are increasing at this time.
He questioned me also on the monitoring of research and development funds provided by my department. This is indeed being done very closely, and careful consideration is given to all expenditures of government funds to ensure optimum returns to Canada. I might add that last year 78 per cent of sales of Microsystems were to Northern Electric, but this percentage is decreasing as overseas sales in particular expand. My friend may have seen the recent agreement between Microsystems and some Japanese companies. Losses are also decreasing and cannot be attributed to their sales to Northern Electric. These losses are start-up costs.


David Lewis: I am grateful to the minister for his answer to my question the other day. I should like to ask him whether he would undertake to look into this proposition of building a plant in Malaysia in view of the fact that my information is, if it is accurate, that the production of the
{Mr. McCleave.]
conductor is not labour intensive whereas the assembly is labour intensive. Could the minister look into the question of whether it is the intention of the company to have the assembly done in the Malaysia plant, which would obviously mean a loss of Canadian jobs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will look into it indeed, but as a matter of principle I think we must not accept the idea that Canadian companies should not establish elsewhere in the world to produce what they already produce in Canada because often this is the only way to penetrate foreign markets, sometimes with Canadian content.


David Lewis: I appreciate that and I am not suggesting we should stop it. In view of the fact that the research and development are being carried on with public funds given this company under DIP, is the minister suggesting there is not some responsibility to make sure that the jobs are retained in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously a point of argument between the minister and the hon. member.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question.
Could he advise us whether the federal and the Quebec governments have come to an agreement as to the payment of contributions by Quebec government seasonal employees to the Unemployment Insurance Fund?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to this question, but I shall be pleased to refer it to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration under whose jurisdiction this matter comes.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in connection with the case of Pershing Gervais, alias Paul Lee Mason. I note that his ministerial permit has now been revoked since I brought this matter up several days ago in the House. I want to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the terms of the admission of this man into Canada. I have in my hand the record of minister's permits showing that Paul Lee Mason and his family were admitted to Canada pursuant to section 5(d) of the Immigration Act. In view of the fact that this section provides that people who have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude can only be admitted to Canada pursuant
May 26, 1972

to an Order in Council, will the Prime Minister file the Order in Council under the terms of which this man was admitted to Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all informed about this matter except to the extent that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration told me yesterday that he would handle it in the House if questions were asked of him. I am sorry the hon. member did not think of asking a question yesterday when the responsible minister was here.


Gerald William Baldwin: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I gave the Prime Minister, or the minister, until the weekend to make a statement and he did not see fit to do so. However, I would ask this supplementary question. In view of the fact that officials of the Department of Justice in Washington are alleged to have stated to representatives of Canadian newspapers today that for the last two years Canada and other countries have been used as a haven for people of this character in at least 50 instances, through the medium of United States corporations with subsidiaries in Canada, will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, because of these serious allegations, to make a further investigation and a full statement to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for having given me to the weekend to make a statement. I will give him a few more days to ask the minister the question when he is in the House.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Labour, but I am not too sure which minister is the acting minister. Since this is the eleventh day of the wildcat strike in the port of Montreal and considerable losses are being incurred, would the minister tell us whether the government has made contact with the parties and whether anything is being done to settle this strike?


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the matter is being considered by an acting minister. While this is being done the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Sunbury.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. However, in his absence on government business I shall direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. Is the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry
aware that several hundred civilian employees of the Department of National Defence across the nation, many of whom are veterans and many of whom are married men with families, are being laid off at the present time and being replaced by students under the Opportunities for Youth program? Further, if the answer is in the affirmative, what does the government plan to do about this deplorable situation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence may I say I am not aware of this but I will certainly cause inquiries to be made.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, would the President of the Treasury Board, in making his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, aware of this situation, also consult other members of the government with a view to ensuring that these several hundred long-term, in many cases, non-permanent employees do not suffer as a result of the opportunities for youth program?



SHIPPING


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which arises in part from a report that what is described as the largest tanker ever to have visited the waters of the state of Washington has come to Esquimalt for propeller inspection after delivering oil to Cherry Point, Washington. Can he advise the House what steps are under way to establish shore-based navigational control systems in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent areas on the Pacific coast?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would give me time I would be glad to give him a written reply. The answer is quite lengthy. In the interim I might say that something is being established comparable to the installation at Chedabucto Bay on the east coast which is regarded by many as the most modern in the world. However, I would like to get a full written report for the hon. member on the navigational aids in this whole area.



INDUSTRY


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the program of the United States Chamber of Commerce known as "Tour America" intends to use DISCs to sell cars to visiting tourists at special low prices, particularly if they take them home with them, and as

May 26, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Canadians are the most likely buyers under this program, what does the government intend to do to prevent adverse effects on our automotive industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the opinion of my department is that the imposition of tariff on the cars when they are returned to Canada would eliminate any gain to be made by buying in the United States. That is the general proposition. The company itself has made a number of observations on this subject to my department but, being very careful these days in these matters, I have asked that these observations be cleared before I use them in the House.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Do I understand that the automotive manufacturers in the United States have stated that they will not use this program with respect to Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. I refrained from saying anything on that subject for obvious reasons, but I have said that the opinion of my department is that the imposition of the tariff, which is 15 per cent, would eliminate any advantage to be gained by Canadians using this device while travelling in the United States.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: As the 15 per cent would then be on used car value, would there not still be some incentive to Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is debate. Is the hon. member for Broadview rising on a supplementary?


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider endeavouring to obtain parity of prices between American and Canadian cars in order to avoid this problem?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my friends in the NDP, as usual, have so many objectives; they would like to see lower prices in Canada than in the United States, more employment, more parts produced in Canada, for exports, freer trade and better safeguards. I suggest that they should establish priorities.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. A short time ago in the House the minister indicated to me that he would be making a statement when he appeared before the transport committee with regard to transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces. I noted in his statement yesterday that he did make some reference to ferry situations in the Atlantic area. Will he be making a more general and all-embracing statement regarding Atlantic provinces transportation policy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: would hope so, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday of next week I am meeting with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation

Council at their annual meeting. Subsequent to that it may be that I will have something to say, either in answer to questions or in statement form. Yesterday I tabled a copy of the earlier speech I made on the subject, but after next Tuesday I may have something further to report.


Robert Carman Coates: It was my understanding that the council was to make an annual statement. Will that statement be made regarding transportation policy at this meeting next week?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope it will not be considered a breach of the privileges of the House when I say that I propose to indicate to this group what the contents are and get their observations so that when I table it in the House a day or two later I will be able to indicate their reaction.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PRO JECT-INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT RESPECTING GRANDE RIVER

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is related to the recent recommendation to the James Bay development corporation that the first stage of the James Bay hydroelectric project be proceeded with. Has the minister yet received an application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the development of the Grande River?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, the situation remains as it was on the last occasion on which I answered this question. We have received, I believe, one application but it appears to have had no direct relationship to the James Bay development as it was merely part of a road plan for the area. Beyond that, there are no further details.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER REPORT ON ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment with reference to the James Bay project. In view of the continuing allegations by the James Bay committee of dire consequences if this project is proceeded with, has the minister had any recent further report on the ecological effects?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say. There was a report at the end of the year covering the first phase of our investigation into the environmental consequences of the James Bay development. The second phase is getting under way this summer.
May 26, 1972



POLLUTION


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment regarding a speech he made in Montreal earlier this month to the federation of associations in Canada relating to the environment, in which he said in part with respect to industrial-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, may I remind the hon. member that the question has to be asked directly. We shall get into difficulties if hon. members ask questions about statements made outside the House. Questions may be asked about the proceedings of the House or statements made in the House, but it is a long-established rule that reference can be made to speeches made outside the House only to the extent of inquiring from the Prime Minister whether they represent government policy. Otherwise, I suggest they should not be referred to at all.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question directly. What plans does the minister-he knows what the answer is-or the government have to monitor industry and make sure that industrial wastes are kept inside the factory fence? Can he tell the House what plans he has for putting that edict into effect?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have been developing national standards in conjunction with individual industries, one industry at a time. The new standards have been published. For example, those dealing with the pulp and paper industry and the chlor-alkali industry, have been published. Similar standards are being developed for the chemical industry, the oil refining industry, and so on. One of the principal objectives of these standards is to keep the pollutants inside the factory fence as far as possible.


Frank Howard: Am I to take it from what the minister has said that he is going to bring about changes in the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations, to which he referred, which now permit pulp and paper mills to continue to dump their effluent into the water courses of the land, contrary to what he said in Montreal a few weeks ago?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, our standards apply immediately to new construction, new mills and new developments. As to existing mills, the hon. member knows that he has one in his own constituency which is a very bad offender, but I do not believe he is advocating the immediate shutting down of the mill in his area.


Frank Howard: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The minister has deliberately distorted what I asked him, and in the process-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that another member should not be accused of deliberately distorting what has been said. He can say it has been
Inquiries of the Ministry
distorted, but he has no right to say the distortion was deliberate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned, the minister deliberately did just that. He distorted the purpose of my question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: -that part-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may believe that and he may think that; however, there are things that members can think but cannot say. That is the basis to effect the propriety of debate. I would think there are many things that hon. members would like to say. Some things can be said and some things can only be thought, and sometimes the one does not coincide with the other. I remind the hon. member that he has been in the House a long time and he knows he cannot accuse another hon. member in that way. He can argue with the minister as long as he wants to, but he certainly should not accuse another member, whether he be a cabinet minister, a member of his own group, a frontbencher or a backbencher, of deliberately distorting another member's words.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue my question of privilege, the minister, out of his ignorance of the subject, distorted the purpose of my question. I asked him whether he intends to bring about changes in the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations so that industrial wastes will be kept within the factory fence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really fail to see how the hon. member, on a question of privilege, can redraft the question he asked previously or seek further information. That is not a question of privilege; it is dispute and debate between the minister and the hon. member. I think we should move on to the next subject.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question about the strike at the port of Montreal. The Minister of Labour being absent, I shall ask it of the Minister of Transport or to the Minister of Justice.
Does the government intend to enforce the injunctions issued and have people been arrested up to now?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the ordinary administration of justice and the enforcement of rules are in the hands of the provincial Attorneys General rather than in the hands of the federal Attorney General.

May 26, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE, MONTREAL-INTERVENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR TO ACHIEVE SETTLEMENT

William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether any minister is now able to answer my earlier question whether the Department of Labour has been in touch with the parties and has been able to do anything to bring the two parties together?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can answer the question partly by saying, in the affirmative, that the Minister of Labour has been aware of this matter and has been in touch with some of the people concerned.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the current policy of the Ford Motor Company of only installing audible warning devices on cars with defective wheel mounts instead of actually correcting these dangerous defects, has the Minister of Transport considered establishing regulations whereby repairs made to recalled vehicles will be subject to rigid testing and inspection by the Department of Transport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, once again, this question would require a very long answer to reply fully to the hon. member. I can say that we have established what he has described as rigid inspection. May I take the question as notice to find out exactly what form those inspections take.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Will the minister undertake to publish a periodic list of all makes and models recalled, specifying the nature of the defect and the steps taken by the manufacturer to remedy it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to mislead the hon. member, but I believe such a list is already in existence and is in fact published. I will get it for him.



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Did the government, either through the Department of External Affairs or the minister's department, officially contact the Danish government immediately after the ban on the Atlantic salmon fishery was imposed, outlining what we had done and requesting the withdrawal of that country from the fishery? If so, will the minister table the documentation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have had numerous discussions with the Danes over the past 12 months. I personally went to Copenhagen and spent several days there trying to convince the Danish government that they ought to change their high seas fishing policy. There is some correspondence on the matter which I would be glad to make available to the hon. member.



INQUIRY AS TO CONTINGENCY PLAN TO INDUCE DANES TO CEASE FISHING FOR SALMON ON HIGH SEA.S- POSSIBLE WITHDRAWAL OF CANADA FROM ICNAF

John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the minister's admission outside the House yesterday that he does not expect Danish co-operation, can he indicate whether Canada has a contingency plan to achieve the withdrawal of the Danes? Second, is Canada willing to follow the lead of the United States and lay our involvement in ICNAF on the line unless we get more co-operation on the basis of conservation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the position we are taking in Washington relative to the Danes is that they should stop fishing off West Greenland immediately. We hope they will stop. I was asked what the chances are of their stopping, and I would not say they were very high. Certainly we are continuing to maintian pressure, and I should not like to leave the impression that we are absolutely certain they will be adamant and will withstand our very logical and persuasive argument.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the second part of the question. Can he say whether Canada is willing to follow the lead of the United States, as indicated in a statement of yesterday, and say that unless we get more co-operation in the area of conservation we will lay our involvement in ICNAF on the line and get out of the organization?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the indication in the press is that the United States has stated that if it does not get its way it will withdraw from ICNAF. I think this would be extremely unfortunate. I think we are making considerable progress through ICNAF. Canada is relying on the success of the North Atlantic Commission to bring about quotas and a rational system of fishing close to our coasts.



POSSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL EXTENSION OF CANADIAN JURISDICTION TO COVER CONTINENTAL SHELF

['Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to do the latter. The current status of the case in question, as I undertook to find out for the hon. member for York South, is that the case has not actually been finally disposed of. The effect of the Supreme Court ruling was to permit the applicant to go back and reapply to the Canadian Transport Commission. Simultaneously with their court action they filed an appeal before the CTC. Both of these matters are still open and for that reason the case is still, in a sense, sub judice.']
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary or related question to the previous ones concerning fisheries. In view of the statement yesterday by the United States Under Secretary of Commerce, Mr. James Lynn, to the effect that the American government has under advisement the possible withdrawal of that country from ICNAF, the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries, is the Minister of Fisheries or the government giving consideration at the moment to extending unilaterally our fisheries jursidiction over the Canadian continental shelf under legislation that would be comparable to that introduced by Iceland?

May 26, 1972


John (Jack) Davis: No, not at all, Mr. Speaker.



Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. What position will the government of Canada take at next week's meeting of the NATO foreign ministers in Brussels about the continued membership in the alliance of Greece?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge that Canada's position at the next meeting will differ from the position taken in the past.

Inquiries of the Ministry
the carriage of Canadian coal by railway into the United States and thence by a United States railway back into the lower mainland of British Columbia en route to Roberts Bank. As well as giving some consideration to the potential unemployment involved in that decision, will the minister look into the ecological factors as the railway concerned, the Burlington Northern, runs through one of Canada's finest scenic resorts, White Rock, a part of the Surrey-White Rock area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to do the latter. The current status of the case in question, as I undertook to find out for the hon. member for York South, is that the case has not actually been finally disposed of. The effect of the Supreme Court ruling was to permit the applicant to go back and reapply to the Canadian Transport Commission. Simultaneously with their court action they filed an appeal before the CTC. Both of these matters are still open and for that reason the case is still, in a sense, sub judice.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of reports that British Columbia eggs are being dumped into the province of Ontario at prices as low as 22 cents or 23 cents for grade A large, and in view of the desperate financial losses being suffered by Ontario egg producers, will the Department of Agriculture launch an immediate investigation into this urgent problem?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for raising this question. Of course, the department is considering all possible implications, but it is not always easy to determine exactly whether or not there is actually any dumping. However, we have to deplore battles between producers of various provinces and I believe it is one of the main reasons for insisting on some final agreement between provinces and on using the provisions of Bill C-176 which provides for a settlement of these problems.



POLLUTION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I think he is the appropriate minister under the circumstances. In view of the fact the government is admittedly having some difficulty in bringing into effect the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, can the minister inform the House what intermediate measures are being taken by the government to ensure that our Arctic waters are not polluted in the interim? Second, can the minister tell us how soon this act will be proclaimed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have doubts as to the first part of the question. The hon. member is asking for a statement which should be made on motions. The minister might be allowed to reply briefly to the first part of the question. I do not see anything wrong with the second part.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be making a statement in the next few days on this subject.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to direct to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the decision of the Supreme Court a short while ago which is believed to give a green light to



IMMIGRATION


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. With regard to the case of Pershing Gervais, alias Paul Lee Mason, was it the minister who signed the ministerial order allowing this man into Canada, at the request of the United States authorities, to find refuge here? If so, when did the United

May 26, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
States authorities, either directly or indirectly, make known to him or his department the fact that this man had been convicted of offences involving moral turpitude?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was the minister responsible at the time of the admission of this man into Canada. I did approve of that admission with full knowledge of the facts, but not with any pressure from any government of which I am aware.



FINANCE


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my most of the time friend, the hon. member for York South, asked me yesterday what the reason was for the failure to report individual remissions over $1,000 under the machinery program as required by Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act, deplored by the Auditor General at page 107 of his report. The "reason" is simply that the practice followed in 1971 was the same as the practice in previous years. There are approximately 17,000 remissions per annum under the machinery program of my department, and it would be impractical to list them all in the public accounts. What we do is list the numbers of the Orders in Council covering these remissions. The information requested is available at the statutory instruments office in the Varette building on Albert Street.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Thomas S. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received complaints that higher markups are charged on Canadian Scotch whiskey by Canadian liquor boards, which are contrary to GATT? If so, has the minister any good word as to lower prices for Scotch whiskey that will bring happiness and be of interest to all hon. members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure there is urgency to this question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: -but there appears to be general interest in the House. Hon. members appear to be very anxious to hear the minister's response.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this, but I will look into it at lunch over a glass of wine and advise accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INDUSTRY


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Recently a Canadian tobacco mission travelled to the People's Republic of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Robert Turner: -the People's Republic of China.


George Harris Hees: You had it right the first time.


Charles Robert Turner: Is the minister in a position to tell the tobacco farmers of southwestern Ontario whether or not this mission has been successful?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. A sale of approximately $1 million worth of Canadian tobacco will be made to China, due to the efforts of the tobacco industry and of my department.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the Leader of the Opposition was introduced in North Batt-leford last night by one of the Prime Minister's colleagues, Senator Sparrow, as the next Prime Minister of Canada, was it on Senator Sparrow's advice that the Prime Minister decided last week not to call a general election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sparrow is for the birds.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. There could hardly be a supplementary to that question that would be in order.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In reply to a question put to him yesterday by the hon. member for Waterloo, the minister stated that an offer by his department to tire companies other than Michelin embodied the same tariff remission concessions that were offered to the Michelin company. I was
May 26, 1972

informed yesterday in categorical terms by the president of one of these other firms that no such offer had ever been made by the government. In view of this, will the minister take a minute to explain what he intended by his answer yesterday?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if I was that precise I apologize! I thought I used the words "the same general philosophy". In the case of Michelin the philosophy is that the company imports into Canada certain types of tires that they do not produce here and produces more for the domestic and the export markets of other types of tires. The same philosophy would have been provided as part of the "tire plan" I talked about yesterday.


John Edward Broadbent: Is the minister saying to the House that precisely the same financial incentives were proposed along this line to the other tire companies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said. The "same philosophy" would have been incorporated in the tire plan which the department discussed with the other interested Canadian tire companies.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that, in addition to the millions of dollars in concessions that have been made in the form of DREE grants and tax remission programs that have already been made public, I have learned that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member in his question and two supplementaries is really indicating what he has learned, information that he has received. This is not the purpose of the question period. The hon. member should ask his question without conveying information as he has been doing.


John Edward Broadbent: I accept your correction, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact it is now known that, in addition to the previous concessions and remissions to Michelin, the company has also been granted the privilege of writing off over a two-year period their total capital costs involving capital equipment and plant equipment, which was not publicly known before, and in view of other complicated tax concessions which have not yet been fully clarified, would the minister consider making a statement early next week on the total financial package that has been offered to the company and the return that the Canadian economy is supposed to obtain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do my best, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance, who is absent, is responsible for this particular matter and I will pass these questions on to him. But may I say that any other tire company which might have used the plan that was suggested would also have benefited from regional development funds, acceleration of depreciation rates and that sort of thing, which are legal practices in Canada.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The last series of questions and answers has brought us to two minutes beyond the question period. I am sure the hon. member will be given
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys an opportunity early next week to ask his supplementary. We might start the question period on Monday with the hon. gentleman's supplementary. Orders of the day. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, Mr. Speaker; I thought you were going to recognize me. I wished to put a supplementary to an earlier question by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Mr. Speaker:: I did indicate at that time that the question was out of order and there could not be a supplementary to a question that was out of order. I have just indicated to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings that the question period has already expired. I am sure the hon. member's question is of interest and it can also be asked on Monday. I believe that the spokesman for the official opposition is anxious to get started on the speech he wants to deliver to the House, so we will call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gerald William Baldwin: This House, noting the continuing erosion of Parliament's control over government spending of public moneys due to government evasion of constitutional and legal safeguards as noted in the 1970-71 report of the Auditor General, and due to imperfect procedural structure, reaffirms the fundamental principle of the Canadian constitution that parliament must control expenditures of public moneys.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a terrible indictment of this government that in this year A.D. 1972 the parliamentary opposition feels compelled to move, in terms of this kind, a motion such as the one Your Honour has just read. It is not the first time this has happened. Two years ago, on April 21, 1970, my leader moved a motion in not quite the same terms but along the same general lines. This motion included the following statement:
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-
And so on. As I say, that was two years ago. Since that time a lot of water has gone under the bridge. There have been two more annual reports issued by the Auditor General and Tabled in this House. I think it is a shocking thing that at this time we should be compelled to move such a motion.
Two years ago, on April 21, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), in replying on behalf of the government-as I assume he will again today-made this statement as reported at page 6119 of Hansard. After referring to the motion, he said:

May 26, 1972
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys
This statement puts forward principles which are unexceptionable.
Obviously it would appear that the government and the hon. gentleman accepted those principles. I thought at the time, going back to a Biblical quotation from, I think, Luke, that there is more joy in heaven over one Liberal sinner who has repented-and I see another leaving the House at this time-than seventy and two just Conservatives who needed no repentance.
When we read the Auditor General's report that has so recently been placed in our hands, it is obvious that there was no real belief on the part of the President of the Treasury Board in what he said at that time. As a matter of fact, when we read his speech of April 21, 1970, as well as a similar speech that he made on another occasion, I think I was deluded in accepting in good faith his statement that this principle was one which was unexceptionable. I say that because, as reported at page 6121, the President of the Treasury Board went on to say this:
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.
Raising its ugly head at that time was the intention of the government, which has now been confirmed, that it should have the opportunity to rebut in advance of presentation to this House the statements made by the Auditor General, an official of parliament who reports to this House. The government, obviously angered, worried and concerned, as it should properly be, about these very reasonable criticisms that had been made over and over again, was planning to try to reduce the effect of those criticisms by making a rebuttal in advance, instead of following the proper practice of having its representative appear before the public accounts committee.
On another occasion, namely on March 7, 1972, we found it necessary to bring forward another motion in my name, not in the same terms as this, of course, but dealing with the same general issue. At that time the President of the Treasury Board told us exactly what the government thought of the attempts made by this party and the House to look into this matter. As reported at page 606 of Hansard for that date the President of the Treasury Board made this statement:
After the next election we undoubtedly will have another look at this problem of the allocation of our most valuable commodity, time, and will have noted the experiences of the present parliament.
That is a clear and present threat by the President of the Treasury Board that if after the next election this country is unfortunate enough to have another Liberal government, which would include the hon. gentleman and, I assume, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as members, then there will be an attempt to restrict opportunities for parliament to examine the very important issues that should be examined. I say that is a clear threat by the hon. gentleman, and I hope that the members of his own party, as well as the public, will take note of it. This, Mr. Speaker, is their reply to debates of this sort that we have launched in a statesmanlike way to try to secure some reasonable and rational discussion of this very serious problem.

I could go back to the British North America Act and to the Financial Administration Act to outline these principles which have been established over the generations. It is the right of the representatives of the people, and not the right of the Treasury Board or the government, to scrutinize and examine the expenditures of government to ensure that the government proceeds according to the accepted principles and practices of parliamentary dominance in so far as the expenditure of public money is concerned. This government has forgotten, if it ever knew, that these principles exist.
What was the reaction of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday? I raised this matter and other hon. members pursued it in the House during the question period as well as outside. What did the Prime Minister suggest as a remedy? The right hon. gentleman was going to arrange for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to refer the report to the Public Accounts Committee. In heaven's name, what is the situation now of the Public Accounts Committee? Because of slovenliness, incompetence, indecision, inability or a lack of desire on the part of the government to get the Auditor General's report of previous years into the hands of the Public Accounts committee in the proper time, the Public Accounts Committee is now months behind in its study of the 1970 report. That report has only been very scantily digested. There has not been adequate opportunity to do very much about that report. The Public Accounts Committee is still charged with and engaged in looking into this report.
I know the government will say the Auditor General had some responsibility because his report did not come into the hands of the government in time. I deny that allegation and refute it in advance, because I can see by the look in the eyes of the President of the Privy Council that this is what he is going to say. If the Auditor General did not get his report into the hands of the government in the proper time on occasions, he has made it abundantly clear by statements in the Public Accounts Committee and elsewhere that it was because this government, whether deliberately or by inadvertence, has failed to provide him with the staff and equipment he needs to do his job. That is where the fault lies, right at the door of the government, and it cannot hide behind any such statement. In any event, it will probably be weeks or months, knowing the way this government is operating, before the Public Accounts Committee is able to complete its deliberations and make its reports in respect of the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1971.
What consummate duplicity on the part of gentlemen opposite to suggest that the answer to our legitimate complaints and the answer to the anxiety, frustration and anger of the people of Canada about this continuing example of unparallelled government extravagance, waste and stupidity in the expenditure of our money is this reference of the Auditor General's Report for 1971 to the Public Accounts Committee. This Chamber is the place in which people should be looking at the case made by the Auditor General, not in respect of the items, but in respect of his statement that there is a continuing erosion by the government of the right of this Parliament to
May 26, 1972

control funds which are expended by the government of Canada.
Let me buttress that statement by reference to the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1971. The Auditor General writes in paragraph 50, at page 22:
Reference was made in paragraph 47 of our 1970 report to the inclusion in the 1969-70 Estimates of amounts which were not required to meet expenditure coming in course of payment during that year.
I pause there to emphasize the fact that the Auditor General is saying, in his current report, that this is not the first time he has brought to the attention of this House and the people of Canada a very serious allegation in respect of the government. In the 1970 report, there was paragraph 47, which I will not bother to read as it is along the same lines.
The Auditor General goes on to say in paragraph 50 of his 1971 report:
Nevertheless they were recorded as expenditure of the year under the authority of special wording in the several vote texts in the Appropriation Acts. These amounts, totalling $172,685,000, formed part of certain balances totalling $296,663,000 at March 31, 1970 which were available without further reference to Parliament to meet obligations coming in course of payment subsequent to that date. We pointed out that one of the most important controls exercised by Parliament over public expenditure was provided by section 20 of the Financial Administration Act which directs that:
"All estimates of expenditures submitted to Parliament shall be for the services coming in course of payment during the fiscal year."
In plain defiance of that Act of Parliament, the financial bible under which this government or any government of Canada should be operating, this government has arrogated the right to spend millions of dollars without obtaining the consent of this Parliament. The same situation prevailed in respect of the previous year.
The Auditor General has placed side by side at page 24, in the continuation of his description in paragraph 50, the sums of money which were available to this government to spend without proper appropriation or approval by this Parliament; one year it was $291 millions and in another year $296 million.
The Auditor General ends up with this statement:
We reiterate our view that one of the most important controls exercised by Parliament over public expenditure is its requirement that all estimates of expenditure submitted to it shall be for the services coming in course of payment during the fiscal year. This control is seriously weakened when funds are credited to special accounts to be available for spending in future years.
Then, the Auditor General goes on in the next paragraph to deal with the government contingencies program. We have had a lot of debate in the committee about this enormous special fund which, from year to year, aggregates well over $100 million. In the supplementary estimates, and I refer to supplementary estimates (B) for the year 1971-72, under the heading of "Treasury Board", there is an item, Vote 5b, government contingencies. The government, through the medium of this particular supplementary estimate, completely altered the purposes for which the vote of $75 million had been made available as part of the contingencies fund. I know it can be said that this Parliament did approve this item. This Parliament was bulldozed into approving it.
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys
What happens and how is this approval obtained? We all know that when there are supplementary estimates they are submitted to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee which does not have a great deal of time to consider them. There are usually several hundreds of millions of dollars, involving many departments, and there is pressure on the committee to approve these estimates in order that they may qualify for passage under our Standing Orders. Here is an important deletion involving $75 million, and the committee has an extremely limited amount of time to debate it. There was no opportunity for the House to debate it. These are just illustrations. If I had time I could go through the Auditor General's report from back to front and give even more abundant examples than I have.
There is one more aspect of the government's failure to comply with the proper practices and rules of parliamentary control; that is, the method of legislating through the estimates for large sums of money to be paid out according to the whim of the government. I will give one or two examples. In Supplementary Estimates (A) for 1971-72, at page 44, there is a very large appropriation of some $160 million. This is the device used by the government for the granting of loans to provinces, provincial agencies and municipalities under the Municipal Development and Loan Act for the purpose of assisting in the creation of employment in accordance with terms and conditions set out in agreements entered into between the Minister of Finance and the provinces.
What that means is that the Minister of Finance enters into agreements with the provinces, which are never approved by this House, and which do not constitute any realistic attempt to cope with unemployment, which everybody agrees should be done. I feel very strongly that there should be some greater measure of consultation with Parliament when an amount of $160 million is expended merely by placing an item in the estimates rather than giving Parliament the opportunity it would have had to debate that item had it been contained in a bill. Hon. members know that there is a debate on second reading of a bill, after which it is referred to a committee. There is an opportunity to call witnesses, make proposals and move amendments. The bill then returns to the House for the report and third reading stages. Every stage is calculated to permit a diligent and effective opposition to deal with proposals of this kind and suggest alternative or additional means of coping with a problem.
Again, this procedure is not followed. The government all too often does this through the medium of an item in the estimates, in this case $160 million, and we have a further erosion of that Parliamentary control which is essential if Parliament is to retain any significance at all in the democratic process. I know that emergencies arise, at which time governments must act swiftly and it is not always possible to come to Parliament to secure the requisite consent. However, there is a very heavy burden on any government when it takes some $17 billion or $18 billion of the taxpayer's money out of their pockets every fiscal year without going to Parliament. I say these are the means an alert, intelligent and vigilant government would use to bring in legislation in ample time to permit the type of debate we should have. I deplore that practice which

May 26, 1972
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys
prevents this being done. I have referred to the means by which the government is gradually getting away from the type of control we ought to maintain.
There are other illustrations of this type of legislation by estimate which are indicative of an exceedingly bad practice. This is done by all governments. I believe it is about time we called attention to the fact that the members of this House and the country will no longer countenance such a practice. In addition to the Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee has looked into this practice. As long ago as the year 1966-67, in the 13th report of the Public Accounts Committee, the committee looked at the general question of parliamentary control, filed a caveat and called the attention of the House and inferentially of the country to the fact that there was a weakening of parliamentary control. This was in another context, but it was done after very careful consideration. I took the time to read the minutes of proceedings and evidence which preceded the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. This recommendation was neglected. Nothing was done about it. This recommendation is one of 38 others which at the present time are lying untended. No action has been taken on them. The government either has neglected or rejected them, or is simply incapable of action on them.
The blue ribbon committee of this House charged with the responsibility of examining the public accounts through the medium of the Auditor General's report is a committee which, up until recent years, at any rate, has had a very enviable reputation for non-partisan objective examination in carrying out its duties. Here we have 38 recommendations going back to the fourth report in 1963. For nine years the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee have been piling up, and we now find at this time that 38 of them have been neglected or rejected. This is the stage at which the Prime Minister was willing to leave the 1971 Auditor General's report. I had the honour of serving as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for several years. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I believe it was a very responsible committee. I must say, however, that in recent years there has been some falling off of the spirit of non-partisanship which did exist and which always should be present in the committee.
The other day, while re-reading the story of Becket and King Henry II, I wondered whether the Prime Minister, having just finished reading a copy of the Auditor General's report of two years ago, said to those around him, "Is there no one who will rid me of this man?" I think those words are similar to the words of King Henry when he wanted to get rid of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), the then President of the Privy Council, and the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) who was then I believe the government House leader, were quite eager to volunteer to make comments about the Auditor General which were not in keeping with their high responsibilities as ministers of the Crown. They were prepared to appear before the Public Accounts Committee and make remarks before that committee which would have had the effect of seriously crippling the function of the Auditor General of making a very impartial study.

There is no question in my mind, as a result of my appearances at the committee and reading the transcript of the proceedings, that there has been a greater disposition on the part of government members on that committee to attempt to hide some of the misdeeds of this government. I hope this is only temporary and will change. However, there are very few lines of defence left to the harassed taxpayer. By reason of certain changes in the rules, with respect to which some of my colleagues will later be dealing, the opportunities in this House are becoming increasingly restricted for dealing in the way in which we should be dealing with the right of this parliament to continue to exercise control over the public purse. The Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee, with which he works in the closest liaison, are probably the front line of defence the taxpayer has. I would hope- and I say this quite sincerely-that what I seem to have detected as a form of more aggressive partisan conduct on the part of government members of the committee will be changed and that they will return to the objective and impartial study which is essential if the committee is to do its job.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has indicated that he hopes that the attitude of members of the government on the Public Accounts Committee would be changed to a non-partisan one. I wonder if the hon. member would like to single out any members of that committee he feels are guilty of such an approach. I feel that this is an insult to members, not only on this side of the House but to the entire committee, which certainly in my four years of experience on it-and I have seen the hon. member only once at that committee's meetings-has behaved in a singularly non-partisan way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am sorry the hon. member is so sensitive, but since he is attending the committee continuously he might be better qualified that I am to name the hon. members on his own side who are not non-partisan. However, I believe in the value and efficacy of this committee; there is no doubt about it. Obviously, we are getting so close to an election now that it is very unlikely this committee will be able to complete its deliberations, even on the 1970 report. I hope that after the next election when this parliament reconvenes, regardless of which party forms the government, the new public accounts committee will put behind it the bickering and partisanship which have crept into it which I say, in spite of what the hon. member has to say, does exist and can be easily detected.
One more point raised by the Auditor General is the question of his staff. This has been a continuing irritant. It has been referred to for over ten years. There has been an obvious need to secure a more effective method by which the Auditor General will be able to select his staff. I will not get into the details of it. I hope that either this government or the government that succeeds it will put together a new bill. I think we have to take the Auditor General out of the Financial Administration Act. When that new bill is put together, many of the proposals which have been
May 26, 1972

advocated by the Auditor General and his staff and which in many cases have been approved by the committee, should be contained in it. I should like to make reference only to page 4 of the report for this year where I find the following statement, but because my time is running short I will read only the last sentence of the paragraph. The Auditor General is referring there to the action of the Treasury Board in downgrading 28 senior members of his staff:
In my opinion, this action by the Treasury Board Secretariat is unfair and discriminates against the Auditor General. It should be corrected forthwith. If it is allowed to stand it will mean that his office is prevented from employing auditors in the highest classification in the public service of Canada. It will also mean that in order to reach the highest classification in their profession, his most experienced auditors must leave the office of the Auditor General.
I sincerely hope that when the new legislation is introduced this will be one of the problems which, along with others, will be solved.
I see that my time is close to being up. I want to close on this note. I know that when people occupy treasury benches, particularly those who have served previously in the establishment, in the civil service, they have a disposition to assume that they are the sole arbitrators of the way money is spent. I concede to them the essential right to initiate programs of expenditures

that is their duty and responsibility as the executive. But they move from that position to gradually assuming that they are lords of all they survey, that parliament exists only to be a rubber stamp for their wishes and views. They assume that members of parliament have no right to challenge their decisions regarding the expenditures of the public funds. The sole right of making decisions does not rest on the Prime Minister, on the President of the Treasury Board, on me, on the leader of my party or on any single member of this parliament; it rests with all the people of Canada. But the elected representatives sitting in the House are the people who, more nearly and more truly, are able to judge what the people of Canada wish in their infinite strength and wisdom, and I suggest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He can continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Perhaps there might be unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his last sentence.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will not take advantage of the generosity of the House, other than to say that I hope it would be the right of the House from now on, in the light of the representations which have been made to the government and in the light of the public reaction to the Auditor General's report as well as to his previous reports, to ensure that there will be returned to parliament the control of the expenditures of public funds in this country.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this discussion of the motion which the official opposition has put before the House, I would first like to sketch the background against which it seems to me the Auditor General's report and the spendings of the vast and varied departments and agencies of government, should be reviewed.
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys
It is quite clear that the public sector spending at all levels of government constitutes the biggest big business in the country. In this place we are the trustees of the spending of the public's $15 billion or $16 billion of tax money a year. The government is into a variety of enterprises and services. The public is involved, through its agency the Post Office, in the delivery of millions of letters every day, the ownership and operation of thousands of motor vehicles in the service of various departments. The public is concerned and involved in the rubber business, the mining business, the housing, highway and even the movie business.
One item which we approved at this level some years ago had to do with the cost of construction of the National Arts Centre. By my calculation every Canadian man, woman and child was involved in the expenditure of approximately $2.20 to put the National Arts Centre here in our capital. In this way my own riding of Surrey-White Rock contributed through taxation something in the order of a quarter of a million dollars for the building of the National Arts Centre.
As one of our party's representatives on the Public Accounts Committee I feel at every session of that committee that I am plugged in, so to speak, to everybody's pocketbook and on the other hand to everybody's wellbeing. The same principles apply at the level of the Public Accounts Committee as they do at the level of the directors of a business or an association, the trustees of a church, or the officers of a trade union. We are all concerned with what we take in and what we put out. In our case, at this level of financial control or investigation, we should note that a great part of the billions we oversee are fixed charges. Defence and interest payments seem to be firmly in that category. Together, they make up about one fourth of our entire federal spending. In my view our spending in both these areas could be materially reduced by no more revolutionary a means than that employed by any sensible economically minded married couple. However, in line with all this, Mr. Speaker, and checking into the intricate and sometimes duplicative efforts and facilities of the federal government and it agencies, we have the Auditor General and his staff delving into and exposing the hundreds of items of governmental goofs and wastes.
The Public Accounts Committee recently compiled an historical record, extending from 1930 to 1970, of all the recommendations of the various public accounts committees over that 40 year period. It is a book of some size, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure it will make very interesting, if painful, reading. It is a history of waste exposed, and in too many instances left to continue. As a former newspaperman I can very well appreciate such juicy items as the ones featured in the press yesterday under the heading "Henderson's Horrors"-items about the mothballed hydrofoil that cost Canadians $8 per family, about the Prime Minister's flights, about the puppets that didn't puppet. But while we cry out at this waste of public money-money that could have been put to good use such as increasing the well-being of our older or younger people, or such as reducing the taxation of our middle

May 26, 1972
Alleged. Loss of Control of Public Moneys aged people-while we cry out at this cataloguing of bungling and waste, that is not enough.
There are two other areas in regard to the revelations in the Auditor General's report which must be objected to in the highest degree. The first is the revelation which the report makes of the government's tendency, (a) to put special wording into the vote texts of appropriation acts, and (b) to record certain items as expenditures duly approved by parliament which were in fact funds retained for spending in subsequent years and which should have gone back to parliament for re-approval. Millions of dollars have been secured by the government in this way in the 1970-71 period. This strikes at parliament's right to represent the public in the outlay of the public's money. This must be stopped. We recommend that where any change occurs in the normal course of presentation of estimates, in the wording or standards which previously prevailed, a note or other indication calling attention to the variation be included in that particular item. That would be a guide to parliament rather than, as has sometimes been the case, a blind to parliament.
Again, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the millions of dollars that the government gets by contingency votes for supplementing the appropriations of the various departments, back in 1966 the Public Accounts Committee urged that any additional amounts required by each department must be made the subject of a supplementary estimate, prepared by the department concerned for submission to parliament. If that procedure were carried out, it would put an end to the evasion of parliamentary control of public funds by the building up of reserves through contingency votes.
A second serious thing about the report of the Auditor General is the effect of the disclosures of the inefficiency, sloth and wastefulness which are present in some departments of government. The effect of this will be to the discredit and disdain of our parliamentary system. I wonder what the farmer, the logger, the fisherman, the plant or office worker, or the old age pensioner must think of parliament after this catalogue of waste. I wonder what the country must think of parliament, never mind what it thinks about the government, after reading the Auditor General's detailed, yet limited because of staff problems, report. It seems to me that the disclosures by the Auditor General strike at the root of the public's faith in their elected representatives. I believe that this House, the Public Accounts Committee, and particularly the government should put an end to the kind of thing which is exposed by the Auditor General. If we do not do so we will in effect be guilty of undermining the parliamentary system.
In the view of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, all hon. members of this House should be united in their concern over the waste that the Auditor General exposes, and in many cases exposes every year without result. We should see to it that more power is given to the Auditor General, and that his staff is not handicapped, but indeed enlarged and upgraded, to find out and eliminate the inefficiency and waste which are tabulated in his report. We in the New Democratic Party are not content to exclaim over the scores of detailed items of non-produc-

tive expenditures as tabulated by the Auditor General. We are all for attacking them, and we do so in and out of committee, but that is not enough. I think we need to do two more things if the war on waste at the Ottawa level is to be won.
We need to follow up and follow through on the Auditor General's recommendations against leaks in public funds. His report states that of the 41 recommendations which had not been implemented or otherwise dealt with at March 31, 1970, 31 still remain. Seven additional recommendations are capable of specific implementation, but have not yet been implemented even though they were made by the Public Accounts Committee. The House should concern itself more than has been the case in pressing the government to expedite the implementation of the anti-waste recommendations of the Auditor General and of the Public Accounts Committee. We need to follow through to see that the leaks are blocked. But that too, important as it is, is not enough.
In my opinion we should press for a deep, broad and far-going survey, or inquiry or investigation of the system of the government's ways of doing business. It is not sufficient for us to examine the fruits of the system, not enough to take up individual results of a basic and continuing fault. We must get to the root as well as to the fruit of federal incompetence. I believe that the Auditor General himself made a rather similar proposal. In the Public Accounts Committee we read from year to year his reports of individual instances of bungling, but from year to year the same stream of dereliction continues to flow. I urge, in addition to the motion before us, that parliament either through the Public Accounts Committee, or perhaps through a select committee, should probe into the depths of the iceberg, the tip alone of which shows itself in the Auditor General's report. We should probe into this faulty system. Let us examine and correct the system, and not just complain about what it produces.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, we of the NDP support the motion moved by the Official Opposition. We press for more power and freedom of action for the Auditor General, and we intend to make detailed representations on that point at the committee level. We seek practical safeguards to stop the government's tendency to evade parliament's scrutiny and understanding of its accounts. We ask for a determination by all hon. members to follow through and see to it that the anti-waste recommendations are implemented. Finally, we call for an in depth inquiry into the system that produces the on-going waste and bungling in the expenditure of public funds.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the motion the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) moved today is most important because it deals with the report the Auditor General of Canada presents every year. Every time this report comes out, we note that he points out innumerable costly errors for which civil servants are responsible
Every year the Auditor General presents a report which, to my mind, is revolting. If the Canadian public were to read it, I believe a revolt would break out in
May 26, 1972

Canada. In fact, this report points out the costly errors made by people who think they are competent and honest.
I feel the errors are deliberate in most cases. A person can make an error once, but when the error is repeated, one can wonder about the honesty of some civil servants.
Following the submission of those reports, we unfortunately note that there is a certain rivalry between the Auditor General and the government. Indeed, it became obvious a few months ago when the government blamed the Auditor General for failing to submit his report in time.
The Auditor General stated why it was late, as he had already done on many occasions at the end of several financial years.
At the beginning of the report which has just been given to us, the Auditor General mentions once again the difficulties he experiences when auditing public accounts. I will quote in that connection the last two paragraphs of section 8 on page 4 of the report which in my opinion are liable to throw some light on the situation. They are as follows:
In my opinion, this action by the Treasury Board Secretariat is unfair and discriminates against the Auditor General. It should be corrected forthwith. If it is allowed to stand it will mean that his Office is prevented from employing auditors in the highest classification in the Public Service of Canada. It will also mean that in order to reach the highest classification in their profession, his most experienced auditors must leave the Office of the Auditor General.
This is the position as it stands. The Auditor General is denied the right to hire the staff he needs and to determine their salaries at his discretion. This makes it very difficult for him to find the qualified staff he requires and even prevents him from retaining the one he presently has. If these employees want a pay increase or an improvement in their working conditions or of their situation, to which every federal civil servant is entitled as would be any other employee of the private sector or of an other level of government, they have no choice but to leave the Auditor General's Office and seek another job in private concerns or in government departments.
I proceed with my quotation from paragraph 8 of the report:
This action points up more clearly than anything else that if the Auditor General of Canada is to be truly independent he must be free to recruit the staff he needs and to determine their salary levels within the framework of the Public Service of Canada.
This is the situation, Mr. Speaker. Working conditions in the Auditor General's office are really difficult. Apparently it needs at least 28 or 30 officials to attain the necessary strength to perform worthwhile duties expected to be done within reasonable time.
Mr. Speaker, yet the Auditor General's office manages fairly well to audit all the departments' books. Maybe it does not work under the best of conditions but it succeeds just the same in making audits and in pointing out operating and management faults within these departments. Each year the Auditor General's report is studied by a committee especially set up for this purpose and whose chairman is chosen among the official opposition members so as to make it as unprejudiced as possible, it seems. In turn the Public Accounts Committee brings in each
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys year several reports and makes recommendations to the government. But the government is reluctant to accept and implement these recommendations.
The report of the Auditor General for this year mentions at least 38 recommendations of the Committee on Public Accounts that still lie idle and have not been implemented. And one wonders whether the government or some of its departments have at least examined them.
Mr. Speaker, in view of this situation, we have no other alternative than to ask once more the Committee on Public Accounts to scrutinize the report of the Auditor General of Canada, to make once more to the government recommendations that it will deem fair and necessary. Let us hope that the next government whatever it may be will take steps to implement these recommendations and to grant the Auditor General of Canada and his staff all the freedom required to perform their duties adequately, for we hold the view that the office of the Auditor General of Canada is in a certain way the keeper of the nation's business. He has a duty to reveal publicly mistakes that have been made, to make suggestions and to trust that the government will correct the situation.
If you consider all the amounts that have been spent unnecessarily by the various government departments, you realize that millions of dollars have been spent uselessly. Here is one more reason to be concerned over this situation which has been recurring year after year without the government doing anything about it.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will give more special consideration to the recommendations made in this report, as well as to those of the public accounts committee.
Unless steps are taken, the Canadian public will increasingly lose confidence in this nation's administration, and this could have serious consequences.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I again urge the government to accept the Auditor General's main recommendation that he be given all possible freedom in the hiring of his staff, and at the same time, that he be allowed to keep the qualified staff which is now serving him , in the interests of highest efficiency.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate may I say that we welcome the motion for two reasons. First, we welcome its operative part, that part saying that this House reaffirms the fundamental principle of the Canadian constitution that parliament must control expenditures of public moneys. That is one part of the motion to which the government does and can fully subscribe.


Gerald William Baldwin: It has a funny way of showing it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Unfortunately, the motion is unsatisfactory in that it appears to have been based on a series of false premises. If it were in order to amend this motion, we would point out or propose some amendments which would correct the motion, instead of noting those items in the motion which, I suggest, are inaccurate, to say the least. I would, instead, suggest to the House that it note

Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys the steps progressively taken by the House, largely inspired by the present government, for improving the flow of information to members and for improving substantially both the capacity and the ability of members of the House to give effective and adequate scrutiny to the accounts of the government.


George Harris Hees: The minister is a great comedian.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: All this has been done in the name of reaffirming the principle stated in the motion, to which we all subscribe. Some of the steps which have been taken I will list now and I will speak on them at greater length later.
First, there is the new procedural system of supply. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) speaking, apparently in entire ignorance of the improvements that have been made in the instruments for scrutinizing government accounts and plans. As a result, one must assume either that he was being eminently cynical or that he has been absent from the House for long periods.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The second possibility can be discarded.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The first step, I suggest, to be considered is the new system of supply and the arrangements under which there is not only more extended House consideration of government programs and expenditures, but a much more effective and hugely increased ability on the part of members to scrutinize government proposals and proposed expenditures through the committee system.
Second, may I point to the revised form of the estimates. The estimates, as now put before the House, are in a form that is substantially different from that of a number of years ago. In this connection, the government has already expressed its appreciation of the very useful work and advice provided by the Public Accounts Committee in changing the form of the estimates and in making them much more informative and much more coherent, with the result that the ability of members to understand the real substance of programs and proposals is greater than it was in the past.


Gerald William Baldwin: There is much more money in them.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member says there is much more money in them. That is true. He seems reluctant to recognize that Canada is growing, that things are growing bigger and faster.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member is a true Conservative, two steps forward, three steps backward


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's reluctance. Not only is he a member of the Progressive Conservative party, but appears to be somewhat more Conservative than progressive.
Another example of a measure for improving the ability of members of the House to understand and scrutinize and, consequently, criticize if they can the accounts of the government is that measure for providing substantial research resources to the various parties in the House. A substantial allocation of money is provided to each party, to enable the parties to inquire more fully and more profoundly and, consequently, more effectively into
(Mr. Drury .J
May 26, 1972
proposals put before the House by the government on behalf of the country.
I wish also to refer to a specific piece of legislation which is designed to improve the availability and flow of information to hon. members. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) referred to it a little while ago. I am referring to the recently enacted Statutory Instruments Act under which the government no longer, as it did in the past, is to make information available on a gratuitous basis. Now, the government is willing, and indeed insists, to being subjected to the statutory obligation to make information of the widest character available. In addition-


Gerald William Baldwin: After one year, you have not even appointed the scrutiny committee.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, those are some of the steps which have been taken by the government, which reaffirm by statute and by action, and not by lip service, our belief in the principle which this motion calls on the House to reaffirm. If it were not that the opening words of the motion are inadequate and misleading, we should fully support the substantive part of the motion and, if it were in order, I would be glad to propose an amendment. However, I am advised that this would be out of order.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker? I will deal at greater length and in greater detail later with some of the steps which I have just outlined.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister has just spoiled my dinner.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment for lunch, I was mentioning some of the actions proposed to Parliament and some of the actions directly taken by the government to improve substantially the capacity of Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, to scrutinize in an effective way the programs and activities of the government. I indicated that I would make a rather more detailed reference to this in the current period. The first reference I would like to make is to the new system of supply which, as I indicated earlier, seems to have been imperfectly understood by the hon. member for Peace River in his speech proposing this motion. May I refer the House to a very excellent pamphlet entitled "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent, 1972-73". The first part of this pamphlet is entitled "Parliament is Supreme" and I suggest this conveys an understanding and a belief of the government.
In indicating the kind of new supply arrangements that have been adopted by the House, the pamphlet has this to say:
From Confederation in 1867 through to 1968, the Canadian House of Commons considered these estimates in what was called the Committee of Supply. This Committee was composed of all
May 26, 1972

members of the House and carried out its work in the Commons Chamber. Because only Members of Parliament are allowed to speak in the chamber, no outside witnesses or public servants could be heard or questioned. By the late 1960's, the Committee of Supply was sitting for 40 to 60 days each year, providing about 200 hours of study to the Government's expenditure plan.
The pamphlet then goes on to indicate the new system of reference of estimates to committees of the House for detailed scrutiny:
The Committees may, during their examination of the Estimates, call for the appearance of Ministers and departmental officials. They may also call for departmental papers and records to assist them in their examination. If a Committee wishes, it may hear witnesses from outside the Government who possess specialized knowledge and who can assist the Committee to evaluate specific programs.
The happy result of these new steps is this:
By the time the Estimates are reported to the House, the several Standing Committees have spent a total of about 500 hours in studying the Government's expenditure plan. This is more than twice as much time as was spent by the old Committee of Supply.
While the capacity of the House to examine Estimates has been increased, the ancient tradition has been maintained which guarantees members the right to express their grievances in the House of Commons before approving Government spending estimates. A total of 25 days each year is set aside for the Opposition parties to discuss matters of their choosing.
Then, finally:
It is fundamental to the Parliamentary system that the Government's programs be subjected to this detailed and public scrutiny, for it is in this manner that the public is informed each year about differing views on national objectives, and about issues surrounding the means the Government has chosen for achieving these objectives.
I have quoted at some length from this document because I think it describes in plain and simple language the increased capacity of the House to scrutinize the spending plans and programs of the government, and I suggest is a direct refutation of the notion in the motion that, owing to procedural inadequacies, the House has been stifled and its members are being denied the ancient opportunities they allegedly had for questioning, scrutinizing and criticizing the government's programs and spending plans.
On another aspect of this matter, namely the provision of effective information to the House, I made mention of the fact that in 1970 a new form of estimates was introduced to the House of Commons for the first time. This new form of estimates had been the subject of preparation within the government for some period of months, followed by discussion over a great many meetings with the public accounts committee, as a consequence of which some changes in the original government proposals were made, including those proposed by the committee and willingly accepted. This resulted in a new form of the estimates designed to provide more and better information to hon. members concerning the government's proposals for expenditures in the forthcoming year.
On the occasion of the introduction of these proposals, I said, as reported at page 3468 of Hansard for February 11, 1970:
The tabling of these estimates marks a major step forward in an endeavour by the government to improve the process of resource allocation and to better inform Parliament and the people of Canada of the objectives, operations and costs of the departments
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys and agencies of government. The form of these estimates is radically different from that which has been followed for more than half a century. For the first time the expenditure proposals respecting departments and agencies are clearly formulated in terms of programs. The objectives and sub-objectives of each program are stated and the nature of the program further amplified through a description of the activities carried on in pursuit of program objectives.
I then said:
-I believe that the estimates in the form I am now tabling provide a clearer and more informative presentation than we have had heretofore of the proposed allocations of fiscal resources to the budgetary requirements of Canada.
This, then, Mr. Speaker, was another step in improving the ability of parliament to become aware in a meaningful way of the spending proposals of the government and to scrutinize them. I assume from his opening remarks that the hon. member for Peace River has not yet had time to study the new form in which the estimates are now presented. I received the impression from what he said that he was unaware of the change having been made in 1970.
A further measure introduced by the government for improving the capacity of the House effectively to scrutinize government spending programs, plans and policies was the introduction in 1968 of new, hitherto unavailable, research resources for each of the political parties in the House. In that year there was made available to all parties in the House, with the exception, at the outset, of the government party, funds with which to hire persons of the parties' own choosing, reporting only to them, in the field of research into government operations and activities. For the Conservative party, a sum amounting to $125,000 per year was provided; for the New Democratic Party $35,000 per year and an identical sum for the Social Credit party. Some of the remarks I have heard today indicate that these resources are, of course, being used.
It was not until a year later that a comparable sum was provided to members of the House on the government side. This was another measure through which the government endeavoured to improve the capacity of opposition members, indeed of members of the House generally, effectively to examine, scrutinize, and where necessary criticize, the operations, plans, proposals and programs of the government of the day in order to make sure that there is an adequate accounting, through parliament and its members, to the people of Canada.
This morning all members who spoke made reference to an observation in the Auditor General's report, which is the one under discussion here today, about the shortage in the Auditor General's staff and the causes therefor. This has been quite extensively discussed in the House on a previous occasion, and also in the Public Accounts Committee. Unfortunately, the report bears the date of February 29, which ante-dated the examination by the Public Accounts Committee of the current staff position of the Auditor General's office.
After some four meetings during which the Auditor General and myself made statements, the committee reported its conclusions to the House regarding staff shortages as follows:

May 26, 1972
Alleged, Loss of Control of Public Moneys
The Committee has found that Parliament has provided the funds for the number of staff required by the Auditor General. The problem seems to lie in the difficulty of obtaining and retaining qualified staff to fill the approved positions.
The reasons for these difficulties are complex and will require further consideration by the Committee.
It has been suggested by both the President of the Treasury Board and the Auditor General that the solution lies in an Auditor General's Act.
This was the conclusion the committee came to and, as we all know, this was a committee under the chairmanship of a member of that party represented by the official opposition. It came to this conclusion after some considerable time spent on the matter. It would be rather simplistic to assume there were easy and fast solutions which were being withheld on the grounds of ill-will or some other undesirable motive. The committee agreed that the problem was a complex one and that there was no ready solution within the framework of existing legislation. It proposed that an endeavour should be made to find a way around this, under the terms of a new Auditor General's Act, which would serve the principal purpose of ensuring the independence of the office of the Auditor General and provide, hopefully, a solution to this particular problem. Had this particular inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee taken place at an earlier date, before the report which appears to be dated February 29, probably the wording which has been quoted in the press and here by some hon. members today would have taken a rather different form.
This does not alter the fact that there is a problem, or that the office of the Auditor General must be adequately staffed if it is to carry out the important functions with which Parliament has charged that office. We must have funds to obtain staff which is both adequate in numbers and in professional competence. We, on the part of the government, are prepared to do all we can to support that principle. One of the things in this regard is the production of a new act to be known as the Auditor General's act.
Hon. members are fairly familiar with the history of this matter. Some years ago, the government endorsed the suggestion that there should be an Auditor General's act, and that this office should be removed from the ambit of the Financial Administration Act. The willingness and readiness of the government to go the full length desired by Parliament in this respect has been reiterated in this House on a number of occasions by representatives of the government, including myself. Let me make reference to testimony I gave before the Public Accounts Committee on March 16, 1972.1 quote:
Finally the Government has even been prepared to consider exempting the Auditor General entirely from all Treasury Board authority in the matter of budget and staff levels. In April 1970 I said this to the House:
"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 further than he proposed."
The Government stands by this position, and the alternative which I proposed in 1970 to achieve this end.

I should like to reaffirm that the government will support and encourage the drafting of a new Auditor General's act designed to provide the independence to that office which is essential if the Auditor General is to carry out the functions given to him by Parliament. I am glad to say I have been informed that the Public Accounts Committee, which has been charged by the House with producing legislative proposals in relation to such a bill, has already appointed a sub-committee to initiate the work, and I understand this sub-committee is now at work. I suppose we must recognize here again the fact that, as the Public Accounts Committee earlier found, this is a complex question and one should not anticipate that either the House committee or the sub-committee will be able to solve all the problems in a matter of days or even weeks. However, one looks forward to the occasion when the committee will be able to produce a draft of a bill for presentation to and scrutiny by the House. I trust it will be rather more sympathetically received than the earlier one which was rejected by the official opposition without even an examination of the provisions of the bill itself, or indeed any consideration of the fact that the bill was merely a reflection of the proposals made by the committee, to which the official opposition provides the chairman.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is that the one the government was driven to withdraw?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is the one which was rejected without consideration by the official opposition.


Mr. Fairweather:: And by every editorial writer in Canada.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Indeed, I want to make it quite clear that regardless of what was said and done, the opposition did ensure that no adequate examination of the bill ever took place. I hope next time the official opposition, which I am quite sure will be the same old gang, will be rather more objective and treat the bill, to be produced by the Public Accounts Committee, with more objectivity and sympathy than it did the earlier one. I suggest this indicates that this government, far from having devised procedures which stifle the efforts of Parliament to scrutinize and effectively understand and criticize the government's proposed expenditures, has not only proclaimed its belief in the supremacy of Parliament, but through the acts and actions I have outlined has substantiated this belief and given effect to its belief in concrete actions which thoroughly confound the proposition made in the opening part of the motion under consideration. We are unable to amend this motion and, even though we agree with the concluding words about re-affirming the supremacy of Parliament, because of the misstatements at the outset we are compelled to vote against it.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, again the Auditor General has drawn attention to the erosion of parliamentary control over the spending powers of Parliament. This type of erosion manifests itself in many ways. It is manifested in the instances cited by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and I
May 26, 1972

am sure we will hear more as the day progresses. We have heard of one form of erosion of parliamentary control over spending. This was dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in his speech of Monday, May 15, in which he drew attention to the increases in the income tax rate structure and allowances. It is to the control Parliament has over spending, particularly as this relates to the new rules affecting committees, that I wish to address my remarks this afternoon.
We have heard a good deal about reform of the rules of the House. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) referred to the changes. This process of reform, which culminated in the changes of 1968, followed a study of the rules of the House by a Special Committee on Procedure. As a result of that study, the committees of the House were to assume a new and important function. That function arose largely from the fact that committees, as a consequence of the rule changes, would examine all legislation, with the exception of tax bills, and would examine all of the spending estimates of the House instead of this being done in the committee of the whole house which carried out this function before the rule changes.
There are 18 committees of the House. Most of these committees have the responsibility of examining spending estimates. The third report of the Special Committee on Procedure of 1968 expressed the hope that the reports of standing committees would assume a critical significance related more closely to the national interest as a whole than to simple political differences. The procedure Committee hoped as well that debate in the standing committees would be well informed and pertinent, and that their members would become influential in the areas of their specialized expertise. Unfortunately, that expectation has not been realized because the same rule changes which ended the power of the committee of the whole to examine spending estimates, also strangled the standing committees by rules which, to my mind, make examination of estimates totally ineffective and at best a frustrating exercise.
The main weakness of the new rules, so far as the responsibility of committees to handle spending estimates is concerned, is cited in paragraph 14 of Standing Order 58 which reads:
In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be referred to standing committees on or before March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year. Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 in the then current fiscal year.
Well, what that means, in effect, is that regardless of how many meetings the committees may have in the course of the examination of their estimates, and regardless of how many witnesses the committees may call in examining the estimates of the department before them, it is all a useless exercise because all of the estimates will be deemed to have been reported back to the House and passed by May 31 each year.
In reflecting on the workings of the committees of this Parliament, one might have the impression that the new rules are working well. For instance, it is interesting to note that in the first session of the present Parliament, 520 hours and 22 minutes were spent on examination of esti-
Alleged. Loss of Control of Public Moneys mates. In the second session of this Parliament about the same time was spent on estimates. In the third session a total of 229 hours and 54 minutes were spent on the examination of the main estimates, plus another 43 hours and 46 minutes on supplementary estimates. In the fourth session, to date as of May 19, 195 hours and 47 minutes, plus 15 hours and 43 minutes were spent on estimates and supplementary estimates. This may seem like an impressive record until one examines the day-by-day workings of the committees.
First of all, a very dangerous practice has crept into the committee system, which I believe is illegal, whereby committees under the same rule changes which were brought in in 1968 are now permitted to sit and hear evidence without a quorum. This means that not more than half a dozen members, if indeed that many, were present during the majority of the time in which the committees studied and examined the estimates. Most of the committees have adopted a procedure, in order to get around this contradictory provision in the rules, which stipulates that at least five members be in attendance with at least one member from each of the main opposition parties. This, however, does not always work. Quite frankly, I find difficulty in understanding how a committee, which is supposed to be a microcosm of this House and which is supposed to reflect the rules and procedures of this House, can legally sit, conduct its hearing, hear witnesses and have all the paraphernalia for the recording and transcribing of evidence without having a quorum, because the committee would really not be legally in session. Most of the committees of the House require at least 11 members for a quorum. As if that were not bad enough, the new rule change to my mind makes the whole committee system a farce because it totally denies and eliminates any suggestion that the committee develop a spirit of collegiality and expertise in its particular field.
I refer to Standing Order 65(4)(b) which reads:
Changes in the membership of any standing, joint or special committee may be effected by a notification thereof, signed by the member acting as the Chief Government Whip, being filed with the Clerk of the House who shall cause the same to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of that sitting, or of the next sitting thereafter, as the case may be.
But here is one rule that is abused. It should never have been placed there in the first instance, because now the government whips can, by use of their majority, replace members on committees from time to time without any notification. They can move in roving squads to bolster their majority on committees as the need may arise. These squads, which roam around from committee to committee, generally know little or nothing of what has been going on in the committee. Their sole function is to carry out the wish of the government majority, to ensure that the government majority functions in the committee, and to thwart the legitimate efforts of the committee members to study, to reach a conclusion and a resolution as a consequence of these studies. Is it any wonder, then, that the attendance in the standing committees of the House is so dismally low? Is it any wonder that the committees of the House meet with only four or five members present? I attended two committee meetings yesterday, and at no
2604

May 26, 1972
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys time during the course of these meetings when estimates were being examined was there a quorum present.
Then, we have the scheduling of the committee meetings, which again defeats the very purpose of the system because a number of government departments are being examined in committees at the same time. This denies members of the House the right, and indeed the responsibility they have, to examine the estimates of the government. A random sampling of the Votes and Proceedings of the day indicates that next Tuesday six committees are scheduled to meet: the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Broadcasting, the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, the Committee on National Resources and Public Works and the Committee on Regional Development. How can any member of the House conscientiously discharge his duties, be present and examine the estimates of the departments or present his grievances or indeed examine legislation when perhaps all of these committees are meeting at the same time?
It is not difficult to understand why the government invokes the use of Standing Order 65(4)(b), because without it they could not man the committees themselves. Too many committees meet at any given time, and there are not enough members at any given time to man them. There you see an example of the very concept of the new committee system-that is the concept of expertise in our related fields plus the concept of collegiality-being thwarted and defeated by these rules. Regardless of the rules, and regardless of what the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) may have to say, nothing that we as opposition members may say or do in committees will influence one single, solitary cent of government expenditures-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: -because immediately there is any suggestion of a legitimate cause for concern as a result of which a member may exercise his right to reduce the vote to a legal $1, you see the whips moving in, followed by the goon squad. Nothing we do in committees, and nothing we say there, has any effect on the spending estimates of the government. Is it any wonder then that the Auditor General did not dig deeply enough, because I suppose the terms of reference of the statute of that office did not require him to do so, but merely touched the surface? I think it is our responsibility to examine these rules as they affect the standing estimates of the House, and as they affect our ancient right and indeed our ancient responsibility, to examine these estimates and to vote supply.
Then, there is the matter of the manning of the committees. If the government was sincere and honest in its attempt to place a new emphasis on committees, to give committees a new role, then that sincerity would have manifested itself in some sort of compromise arrangement whereby members of opposition parties would be given an opportunity to chair these committees. What happens? Instead, the chairmanship of the standing committees of the House, with the notable exception of the Public Accounts Committee, is used as a consolation prize for those hon. members who have been here for a long 
time, who cannot qualify as parliamentary secretaries or who cannot qualify for any government largesse.


Gerald William Baldwin: It does not take much to get into the cabinet today.


James Aloysius McGrath: As a result, many of the standing committees of the House are presided over by incompetent chairmen, such as the Regional Development Committee which is presided over by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) who is not here today.


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain.


James Aloysius McGrath: I will have more to say about that at another time on another day. These hon. gentlemen who have the responsibility of representing Your Honour, of making sure that the rules of the House of Commons are applied in committees which are supposed to be miniatures of the House, merely act as quarterbacks for the government.


Gerald William Baldwin: Stooges.


James Aloysius McGrath: They merely act as those who run interference for the government. They assume the role of the defenders of the government when, in fact, their role should be that of the defenders of the minorities on those committees, just as Your Honour does in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: We can point this out in debate after debate. The President of the Treasury Board referred in his speech to the opposition days that we now have under the new rules. Opposition days in no way replace the legitimate function of the House to examine and control government spending. All you have to do is to look around this chamber this afternoon to get a dramatic illustration of that fact.


Mr. Clermont:: What about your side?


James Aloysius McGrath: I make no exceptions. It is no wonder that the members of this House are becoming cynical and lethargic with respect to their duties in the House because in fact, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, we are practically nobodies. He said we are nobodies when the House closes, so we are practically nobodies when the House is in session because, although we are here, we have no power over government spending. Members of the opposition have lost their traditional responsibility to control government spending, and indeed the members of the government party who have traditionally had the responsibility of manning committees and being, like the official opposition, watchdogs of the public purse, have become cynical.
So, we have the rigid application of this rule whereby committees meet without a legal quorum and evidence is heard without a legal quorum. We hear reams and reams of evidence, we examine numerous witnesses, we crossexamine ministers and deputy ministers, all to no avail because the end result is always the same; the estimates are reported back to the House in the same form in which they went to the committees in the first place. If that is not
May 26, 1972

a useless, futile and frustrating exercise, I do not know what is.
Having said that, I am prepared to make a suggestion to the government. The President of the Treasury Board or his colleague can very well say that we concurred in these new rules. That is right; we did concur. All of the opposition parties concurred in the new rules, and I think in so doing we were led up the garden path. Now, we have had a chance to try out these new rules. Surely, it must be apparent to every member of the House, and it should be as apparent to the President of the Treasury Board as it is to the Auditor General, that these rules are not working. If the rules are not working, then we should be prepared to change them.
One way I would suggest that the rules can be changed to restore some semblance of responsibility to this parliament with respect to examination of estimates is to allow the Official Opposition party in the House, in consultation with the House leaders of other opposition parties, the right to call any three departments, and waive the provisions of that particular Standing Order which requires that all estimates will be deemed to have been passed by June 1 or May 31 as the case may be. Give that right to the opposition parties to call any three government departments, without any time limitations, and then you will see that public servants, ministers, deputy ministers and senior civil servants would become much more responsive to members of parliament. Every member of the House knows that since the implementation of these new rules, notwithstanding all of the new status symbols we may have achieved in the meantime, and notwithstanding the substantial raises in pay that we have achieved in the meantime, he is not treated with the same respect by members of the civil service and by members of the government. The senior civil servants and the members of the cabinet know that this House has no power to hold up estimates, is not able to change one, single cent of the government's spending program.
Is it any wonder, then, that the Auditor General should emphasize the seriousness of this matter? It is quite right and proper that the members-


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


James Aloysius McGrath: I just want to finish my sentence.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House agree to allow the hon. member to finish?


James Aloysius McGrath: I merely want to finish my sentence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I must ask if the
hon. member has unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: I merely want to commend to all hon. members the proposal put to the House today by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), not in any partisan way. This resolution will not come to a vote. Hon.
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys members will not be required to stand up and be counted. I ask all hon. members of the House to examine that proposal because I think it represents our last chance. If we do not restore to this parliament some control over government spending, then the people of this country have every right to question the existence of this institution.


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Gaspe on a point of order.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who has just sat down said in his remarks that the chairman of the Regional Development Committee, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) was incompetent. As a member of that committee, I must say to this House that this accusation is false, and that the chairman of that committee discharges his duties very well and is very competent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair is prepared to recognize the validity of the hon. member's remark, but-


Thomas Miller Bell: Tell us about the unemployment in Gaspe. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must point out to the hon. member that the point which he is raising is purely a matter of opinion, and that he too will be able to take part in this debate, when he will have an opportunity to put his views forward.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, the motion we have before us, put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), to me is like going elephant hunting with a flyswatter. I think clearly there are things that people might well complain about in respect of the observations of the Auditor General of Canada, but the motion before us does not touch in any way upon any of those issues. In my view this motion only brings to the attention of Parliament something that the Auditor General has commented upon, and which does not constitute any act of illegality on the part of the executive. I say this for a very good reason. The matter of Parliamentary control has been discussed at considerable length in the Public Accounts committee, and I would like to deal with the question in very specific terms.
The motion before us indicates that the government has evaded its constitutional responsibility and certain legal safeguards by allowing money to be carried over from one fiscal year to the next. It is suggested that there is something wrong in doing this, and that this parliamentary institution is opposed to this practice. As a basis for that statement, the Financial Administration Act is quoted. The Financial Administration Act is also quoted in the Auditor General's report, in particular section 20, but in case some people happen to take that report too literally I want to draw attention to the fact that it is not

May 26, 1972
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys section 20 but section 25 of the act which prohibits these moneys from being carried over from one year to the next.
My understanding of the law is that parliament is supreme, and that a specific act of parliament takes precedence over a general act of parliament. Upon that basis, I would like to review some of the specific observations that have been made. For example, vote L55 for the CBC is described as "Loans on terms and conditions approved by the Governor in council to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the current and subsequent fiscal years for capital expenditures." A sum of $25 million is provided. This vote, approved by Parliament, rightly or wrongly, is an expenditure which could in fact by law be carried over to some subsequent year. If parliament has made a mistake, it is parliament's responsibility to say so, and correct it if it so chooses. However I do not find it-and I say this with all respect-within the purview of the Auditor General of Canada to say, as in effect he is saying, that parliament has made a mistake in approving that kind of estimate. If it did make a mistake this type of reflection on parliament should come from parliamentarians themselves.
The same thing applies to other estimates to which reference has been made, and so far as I know to all the estimates referred to in connection with the carrying over of expenditures. For instance vote L25 for the Canadian International Development Agency in the sum of $150 million clearly spells out that this money is for use in the current and subsequent fiscal years. Again, it is clear that parliament agreed to that particular approach. We can hardly blame the executive for acting upon the approval that was given to it by parliament itself.
The same is true, and in a more glaring way, with respect to vote 75 in the estimates of the Department of Transport. This is also cited in the Auditor General's report when he refers to money granted to the National Harbours Board. The vote here of $1,200,000 clearly indicates that this is the amount to be credited to the National Harbours Board special account, and is to constitute an absolute grant without interest. One can hardly blame the National Harbours Board for treating it as a grant when it clearly was a grant, and I presume if it was a grant that it was one without strings attached. One can hardly blame the executive for treating it as parliament said it should be treated.
One could go on and on. Vote No. 5 was discussed at length in the Public Accounts Committee because it is a provision whereby the Treasury Board sets aside moneys to look after retroactive pay increases that may be granted as a result of the unionization of public employees. This money is granted on an annual basis and carries with it, according to the vote, the right to carry that fund over for payment as a charge in the year in which it is granted. That is quite clear as far as the wording of the estimates are concerned.
On a number of occasions in the Public Accounts Committee I have stated that it may well be that Parliament does not know what it is doing, but one can hardly blame the executive for the stupidity of people in this House who

now complain that we are doing what they authorized us to do. I do not know that it is the function of the Auditor General or anyone else to take members of this House by the hand and walk them through the estimates saying, "Gentlemen, you ought to know what you are doing before you vote." Clearly members ought to study these matters beforehand. It seems to me that the opposition might be able to tap some of the resource facilities given by this government in order to look into these matters in depth and express their objections, if they have any, at the time the estimates are discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: It is clear that there is no act of illegality whatsoever. It is suggested that there is some violation of our constitution and that in some way we are circumventing the legal safeguards, but no one has bothered to point out what those legal safeguards are. If I were a member of the opposition involved drafting this particular motion-


An hon. Member:: You will be.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -I think I would pull out something a little more substantial. If you need any help, just let me know.


Mr. Paproski:: Just look after the Pickering Airport.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I should like to make a few general observations-


An hon. Member:: The people in Pickering like you.


Mr. Penner:: If you had more members like him in the opposition, you would be better off.


An hon. Member:: He will be over here in the opposition next time.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I had an opportunity to be in the opposition when I was invited by some members of that party, but using my usual good sense I declined.
I should like to underline the position that I have taken in the four years that I have been a Member of Parliament. I have always been a very strong advocate of the importance of the office of Auditor General of Canada. I concur with all members of this House who express this sentiment, whatever their party affiliation. I think it is unfortunate that so many of our provincial governments do not follow the lead of the federal government in having an Auditor General look after the public purse and draw important matters to their attention. I suggest that the Conservative party which introduced this motion might exercise some influence with provincial governments controlled by their party to see that this is done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I should like to comment on another matter raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) today. I am sorry that he is not in the House but as happens on other occasions when we discuss the Auditor General, we find that he is very interested but noticeably absent. That is certainly the case in the Public Accounts Committee where he professes to know so much about it by remote control.
May 26, 1972

I sincerely believe that the Public Accounts Committee, comprised of members of all parties, has behaved as a non-partisan body. Members of the opposition and members of the government consistently have agreed to matters that might not be to their political advantage. I think the members of that committee were highly insulted today when it was suggested that in some cases they put partisan interest against the interest of the public whom we are elected to serve. That just is not true and I would not tolerate such an allegation against any of my colleagues, from whatever party they may come.
I think the motion before us has an unfortunate tendency to project the Auditor General into the political arena. I think this kind of debate also has a tendency to project within the Public Accounts Committee a partisan approach which up to now it has always avoided and which I hope it will continue to avoid. Pressures such as these undermine the public interest and the important and valuable work of the Public Accounts Committee. The committee has not yet studied the report that we have before us today in this motion. I believe it is only right that the committee be allowed to exercise its responsibilities in a clear and open way without interference and prejudgment in this House before it has fulfilled its responsibilities.
The hon. member for Peace River also indicated today that the government has failed to provide adequate staff and facilities to the Auditor General. That bogeyman has appeared before and has been dealt with rather effectively by the Public Accounts Committee, but I need only quote from the 1970 report of the Auditor General where at page 5 there appears the following statement:
Although the Treasury Board has provided sufficient funds to employ the necessary staff with effect from April 1,1971-
It is also an indisputable fact that the Auditor General has not presented estimates to the Treasury Board which have been turned down or revised downward. This being the case, I think it is quite irresponsible to make these charges when we have access to information which proves them unfounded. This type of argument is raised for strictly partisan reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: The hon. member for Peace River also mentioned that there was at one time some discussion about the Treasury Board wishing to respond to each of the comments made by the Auditor General in his report. This was discussed at length in committee and many members felt it would be useful if the responsibility to do that were imposed upon the Treasury Board and the government of Canada. If this were done, then the committee would have access to both sides of the story before judging the importance of any item contained in the report. Surely any court of law or any kind of committee that is expected to pass judgment upon observations of such importance is entitled to all the relevant facts from all sources. This approach would expedite the work of the committee and make it more effective.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before us also talks about imperfect procedural structures contributing to the possible undermining of parliamentary control. I suppose anybody could support that part of it because nothing is
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys perfect, in Parliament or anywhere else. All procedures are imperfect, but there is clearly a tremendous improvement over the procedures of the past. When I was first elected, the Public Accounts Committee spent a good deal of time going through the form of the estimates and revising them to make them more meaningful for those who would study them. This has resulted in more, not less, parliamentary control.
The motion says that Parliament must control the spending of public moneys. Clearly, parliament controls these expenditures.


J. Michael Forrestall: No, not in all cases.


Norman Augustine Cafik: No moneys are spent without the explicit approval of Parliament.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hogwash!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Apparently one cannot satisfy hon. members opposite. The fact is that parliamentary approval is given for the spending of moneys, and no one can challenge that contention successfully. If I were asked to vote on the motion I would not support it. It says nothing about any obligation under our constitution and nothing about any legal safeguards concerning the spending of public moneys. The holding over of funds from one year to the next, whether that is advisable or not, is undertaken with the authority and approval of Parliament.
In conclusion, I reaffirm my belief in the importance of the Auditor General, in the importance of the Public Accounts Committee and in the importance of the right of Parliament to control government spending. This motion, however, represents a partisan step which is counter productive to our democratic system and does not touch the real issue.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, may I take a moment at the beginning of my speech to comment on some of the statements made by the previous speaker. First, it is obvious that he came here only during the present Parliament and has not been a member of the House for any length of time, otherwise he would appreciate just how great in the past was the responsibility of Members of Parliament for the spending of government money and how small in comparison that responsibility is today.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member said that at one time members had a great deal of control over government spending. It is true that I have been here for only four years and I make no apologies for that. May I ask this question: When the Conservative government was in power, can the hon. member cite me one example to show that members of this House changed one estimate put forward by the government of Canada? Can he offer one example to show that this happened in any previous period?


J. Michael Forrestall: There are many instances of that. That was the wrong question to ask.

May 26, 1972
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys Mr. Coates: Mr. Speaker, I am not standing here with a resume or list of such instances. After all, I did not know the hon. member would ask that question. I merely say that if he goes back and examines the record, he will discover that in the past members of parliament had a great deal more influence over government spending and government plans for spending than is the case at present. Before the rules were changed they had a great deal more influence.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not answered my question. I should like him to give an example of when this was done.


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


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I will not attempt to educate the hon. member on the facts of life.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) has the floor.


Norman Augustine Cafik: You are not giving me the facts of life; you are only showing your particular prejudices.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr, Speaker, I harbour particular prejudices, as does the hon. member.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Speak for yourself.


Robert Carman Coates: Everybody in this House harbours a particular prejudice. However, I suggest the hon. member ought to refer to the past before making his comments, especially since he does not know what he is talking about.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. gentleman-


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I will not waste my time: only a short time is at my disposal.
Mr* Cafik: Why does the hon. member not answer my previous question and say something positive?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment on some of the things the hon. member said which were incorrect. I did not want to get into a big argument. I am on my feet now and I will stay on my feet and make my speech.


Norman Augustine Cafik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has said that my statements were incorrect I should like him to substantiate that statement.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. That is not a point of order; it is merely argument or debate. I take this opportunity to tell hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor should be permitted to make his speech. He is not obliged to accept questions. Hon. members know the rules of the House. It is not by exchanges between hon. members that we shall make progress. Also, I invite hon. members to address their

remarks to the Chair. In that way I think we will make more progress.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I hope that all the time taken up with points of order and various other comments and questions will not be deducted from the time available to me.
May I put some facts on record that may be of edification to the hon. member. They have to do with government expenditures. We shall see whether they were authorized by Parliament or not. Let me cite one example for the hon. member. He may examine it and derive benefit from it. The net total of accepted incentive grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act to the end of 1971-72 fiscal year was estimated to be $233,301,493 according to the summary tabled by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) on April 13, 1972. By that date, however, only $60 million or $70 million had actually been paid out. This means that DREE had entered into agreements with companies which would lead to expenditures of about $165 million beyond those approved by Parliament to that date.
According to the latest RDIA summary, the estimated value of accepted offers had risen to $250,110,024 by the end of April. According to information tabled by the DREE deputy minister, RDIA expenditures contained in the 1972-73 estimates would amount to about $125 million. Commitments to firms have thus already been made which exceed by about $50 million even the amounts contained in the estimates up to the end of March, 1973. The foregoing, Mr. Speaker, is an example of the government spending money that it had no authority to spend.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) dealt with two aspects of the Auditor General's report. I wish to deal with a third aspect, the spending of taxpayers' money, as outlined in the Auditor General's report, that has caused great damage. That money was spent without authority and in an incompetent manner; the government violated the trust given to it by the people of Canada.
Shocking revelations were made by the Auditor General, especially in the Department of National Defence, which lead to the inescapable conclusion that that department among the 27 departments of government leads the list by a country mile as the most glaringly incompetent, wasteful and inexcusably inefficiently run department in Canada. The excess of its collective incompetence almost requires a special auditor general to supervise its operations. Even worse than its operations are its decisions in the DDH program, the CF-5 procurement program and the mothballing of the hydrofoil Bras d'Or.
The gross incompetence of the department's decisionmaking and the magnitude of its blunders in these three spheres requires that action be taken by the government of Canada to determine exactly who is responsible for the incompetence. Is it the minister, the deputy minister and his officials; is it the chiefs of staff of this country or is it a combination of all three? Surely someone ought to be answerable to the people of Canada for the extravagant waste of money which has occurred year after year in that department. I do not know how much longer the people of Canada can be asked to put up with such incompetence.
May 26, 1972

Year after year the Auditor General presents his report, and year after year we see the catalogue of errors committed by the Department of National Defence. We have reached the point where a committee of this House has censured the officials of the department, yet the government has done nothing.
One would have thought that after the financial fiasco associated with the Bonaventure we could have expected an end to the type of incompetence and extravagance associated with Department of National Defence programs. But no; again in this year's Auditor General's report we have another catalogue of mistakes, failures and desperate estimates of costs of programs. There is an absolute and incomplete indifference on the part of the government and the Department of National Defence to do anything about the gross incompetence associated with the department.
I would like to give some specific instances of this incompetence. One is the destroyer deployment helicopter program. In 1966 we were told that this program was estimated to cost $145 million. In 1967 the cost had risen to $165 million, in 1967-68 to $192 million, in 1970 to $225 million, in 1971 to $252 million, in 1971-72 to $282 million and today we are told the estimate could run as high as $330 million. It has risen from $145 million to $330 million-and what do we get from the government? We do not get anything in the way of a reasonable explanation for the tremendous escalation in costs which the taxpayer is paying. This government goes blandly on its way with no apparent concern about the escalation in cost. This escalation in cost does not involve the helicopters that will be associated with destroyers. At the very minimum there will be eight helicopters, probably more. They each cost in the vicinity of $2 million; therefore you can add another $16 million to the estimate of $330 million.
The time has come for the question of Department of National Defence and the way it is run to be taken out of the hands of the Auditor General and placed in the hands of a special committee. I think the best group of individuals to do the job would be a committee of the other place. They have been able to examine many areas and various institutions in this country, how they operate, and what they do and whether they do it properly. They could make a determination of who is responsible for the incompetence associated with the revelations that have been provided year after year by the Auditor General.
It is obvious that this government pays no attention to the Auditor General. Year after year he tells the government the same story and they allow the same things to happen. No matter what the government is told by what organization, they allow the department to go on its merry way and make decisions that have no degree of sense, such as the hydrofoil program.
The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. For-restall) pointed out to the government on numerous occasions, even before the Auditor General's report was made public, that these things were happening in the department. Surely some corrective action could have been taken by the government during that period, but nothing has been done. The record shows that the hon. member
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys for Dartmouth-Halifax East has made the government aware of the scandalous errors in judgment within the Department of National Defence and the Department of Supply and Services regarding the destroyer deployment helicopter program.
Let us turn to the hydrofoil program. The Auditor General said in his report:
Expenditure to May 31, 1971, totalled $51.1 million including $444,000 for the replacement of a foil which cracked during trials in mid-1969, in respect of which the Department of Supply and Services later concluded that it had no claim against the contractor. In October 1971 the Treasury Board approved an increase of $1 million to place and maintain the hydrofoil in a state of preservation from which it may be reactivated within the next five years, bringing the approved cost of the program to $53.2 million.
If this program was not going to be followed through by the government, it should have been killed a long time before $53.2 million was spent on it. When it reached the point where Canada had produced the fastest ship in the world, tested it, proven it to manoeuvre and do what modern warfare requires of a ship, the government should have carried through and concluded the program.
If the Bras D'Or were in operation today we would have much less trouble on the east coast with Russian trawlers moving into our territorial waters and interfering with our fishery. Surely the Bras D'Or could have been useful, outside of national defence purposes, on both the east and west coasts of Canada. What we have now is $53 million in mothballs. By the time the five years are up, the Department of National Defence will probably determine that it will be cheaper to scrap this hydrofoil and build a new one.
That is the sort of decision we have been constantly getting from the Department of National Defence. The time has come for that department to be examined in depth by independent people in order to determine who is responsible for the gross in competence so that the Canadian taxpayer has knowledge of who is continuously wasting his money. We have exactly the same type of story with the CF-5 program. There is no difference at all.
I now wish to turn to comments made by the Auditor General with regard to the guaranteed income supplement and a totally unrelated matter, concessions made to motor vehicle manufacturers, particularly the concession made to one manufacturer which I believe was in the neighbourhood of $6.3 million because that manufacturer did not come within the meaning of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement. As far as the guaranteed income supplement is concerned, the Auditor General said:
The five per cent check made by the Department of National Health and Welfare in 1971 of 1970 income suggests that the annual overpayment may now have reached a total in excess of $9 million. On December 7, 1971, the Public Accounts Committee was advised that the check to be made in 1972 of 1971 income was being increased to ten per cent.
That means that twice as many public servants will be investigating, in effect, the old age pensioners of this country. For some time the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) has been making effort after effort to find out why the Department of National Health and Welfare has been garnisheeing old age pension cheques in order to recover overpayments made to them. The hon. member
2610

May 26, 1972
Alleged Loss of Control o f Public Moneys has been frustated because the minister will not answer his questions in the House.
What frustrates me and other members of the House is that we have discovered that most of the mistakes made on the cheques are not the result of misinformation or fraudulent information on the part of the recipients but miscalculations of staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare who have overestimated the payment a pensioner should receive. On discovering that an individual has been overpaid in this way, the department proceeds to garnishee his pension cheques for some time in order to recover the overpayment, which as I say has resulted from a mistake made by a departmental official.
Most of the cases that have come to my attention indicate that the mistakes were initially made by departmental officials, not by the recipients of the cheques. If the pensioner is in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement, then he is living on an income well below the poverty line. The department then tell such an individual that they are going to reduce even that minimum income because somebody in the office made a mistake and paid him too much. Whatever this individual receives in his cheque was needed by him because it was all he had to live on, yet the government reduces his payment to below that provided by the legislation, because one of its staff made a mistake that must be corrected.
When the government discovers that an automobile manufacturer in this country cannot qualify under the Canada-United States auto agreement, the government has no problem at all in forgiving the company $6.3 million that it owes the government. But the story is quite different if you are not a big automobile manufacturer but a poor individual. I contend that if such a mistake occurs through no fault of the recipient, the error should be forgiven in exactly the same way that the automobile manufacturer to whom I have referred was forgiven $6.3 million. What is good enough for an automobile manufacturer should be good enough for individual Canadians, especially those who are asked to subsist on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
I should now like to deal with another matter. It is a wonderful thing that this country does have an Auditor General. The hon. member for St. John's East pointed out during his speech ways in which Members of Parliament have been unable to get information that they require and to which they have the right. About 18 months ago I put a question on the order paper asking how much language training was costing the people of Canada. I put the question in a number of specific ways. One of the questions I asked was whether or not included in the cost of language training was the cost to the government of the period during which people taking language training were away from their jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. I have already allowed him an additional two or three minutes because of interruptions, but his time has expired by a minute or so.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the motion introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. 
Baldwin), concerning public accounts is the type of motion we like to get our teeth into and dismiss for many obvious reasons. That should not be a problem with this one because it is so vague. However, those who had the floor before me, and especially the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), dealt with various aspects of this motion with great eloquence and, for my part, I should like to refer to specific aspects of the said motion.
First of all, I should like to point out how little interest the Canadian people, and even the opposition members, seem to have in that motion, and the same lack of interest has been noticeable on several occasions. In fact, as late as last Thursday, during consideration of the report of the Committee on Public Accounts, two opposition members only were at the committee meeting.
So, I think today is no exception, Mr. Speaker, when we consider the scant interest shown by opposition parties towards this motion. However, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not mention that although the public gallery is very thinly crowded, it is nonetheless very distinguished and knowledgeable on the subject.
Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day, I heard my colleague from the Social Credit party opposite, state how the people of Quebec-I think he was referring to them since he speaks exclusively of Quebecers-had every right to be disgusted at the complete disregard shown by the federal government for the Canadian taxpayers' money.
The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) would probably wish to be more specific and state to what extent the Canadian people and the Quebecers would be disgusted if they could see how many members of his party attend the meetings of the public accounts committee. I am sure that most of these meetings are conducted in the absence of those members.
I think that if there were a cause for disgust by the Canadian people it would be at those parties that are totally unconcerned with matters of public accounts.
Mr. Speaker, in his preliminary remarks, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has made some derogatory comments on some committee members who allegedly show partisan tendencies or prejudices.
The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) has asked for a correction or an apology and I repeat the hon. member's request that amends should be made. But I am sure we can rely on the loyalty and sincerity of all committee members and that any charge by the hon. member for Peace River should not be taken seriously since in the last 18 months he has attended only one committee meeting.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Maurice Dupras: In any case, he mentioned the difficulties that the Auditor General seemed to have in the staffing of his office and this has been for years the subject of debates that have gone on and on endlessly on this method of staffing. As late as last March, then, we were hopeful that once and for all we could deal with this question and settle the problem. On a motion from the Conservative party, we would have tried to hear the Audi-
May 26, 1972

tor General and the President of the Treasury Board to settle the question, to determine whether there was any possibility of improving the situation and to see who was responsible for staffing, how to retain the staff, and why the staff was leaving that office.
In answer to the question put to him on March 14 last, the Auditor General said that he wanted to specify to the members of the committee that he himself was preparing the credits for the staff to be recruited for the coming twelve months, and that he was entrusting the recruiting to the Civil Service Commission.
So the President of the Treasury Board has nothing to do with the recruiting of personnel, nor has the government any responsibility in that regard. But the fact remains that the Auditor General repeated again that recruiting was difficult because of conditions that were never made clear.
Mr. Speaker, it was noted at that time that civil servants had left the service of the Auditor General for undetermined reasons, and that failure to keep them had not only jeopardized the efficiency of his office but has also delayed preparation of his report.
We have tried to determine if those who had resigned were grade 4 or 5 employees, that is those who have heavier responsibilities than others and we have found out that 28 employees who had effectively resigned-some 30 persons had been mentioned-had less than two or three years of service and that among those who had several years of service, apparently only one had reached 20 years.
We have tried to determine whether there would not be some other procedure to improve the hiring of personnel but according to the information obtained, it seems that the employees are not so eager to work within a restricted field, namely the Auditor General's office and this for several reasons. One of the most obvious reasons is that there are fewer opportunities for promotion within a small office, while public servants are working in a much more extensive organization with 5,000 or 6,000 employees.
The acquired rights of these officials are for them very precious elements, and they are certainly very reluctant to remain, let us say, confined in a much more restricted service than the Public Service offers them. And naturally, promotion opportunities, in such a limited organization, are fewer and slower. People must show much more patience in order to get promotion or progress in their work.
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to deal a little with certain paragraphs that we find in the Auditor General's report, which has only been tabled early this week, and that the members of the House or those of the Committee on Public Accounts have not had yet time to examine.
But there are a couple of paragraphs that I would like to deal with, Mr. Speaker, and I think particularly of paragraph 142 which deals with frauds committed by people who are drawing old age security benefits. And I am sure that the term used is not the proper one.
During the examination of the 1969-70 report, we brought to the attention of the Auditor General the term "fraud" used to designate these amounts which had been
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys paid to the people receiving unsolicited benefits. These amounts, obtained in an unpremeditated way and without the intention of defrauding the government, must be reimbursed. Paragraph 142 indicates that, out of a total of $1,039,000 accumulated over the past few years, $532,000 have been reimbursed to the federal government.
Sometimes, for one reason or another, a change may occur in the social condition of a person receiving benefits and render him ineligible to benefits. Then, when these overpayments are discovered, some time naturally elapses before the full amount owed is duly reimbursed.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we strongly object to the use of the term "fraud" when no fraud has been proved and notwithstanding a few possible cases of fraud I really feel that we should rather admire the honesty of the majority of Canadians who receive these payments.
Mr. Speaker, before closing I should also like to call the attention of hon. members to another paragraph, No. 124, dealing specifically with the setting aside of CF5 aircraft, the cost thereof to the Canadian government and the amounts that could have been saved by converting these aircraft, this equipment from bomber and observation aircraft to trainers.
There is a mention of an amount of $5 million which could have been saved. When aircraft of the CF5 type are designed for a very specific role, it is impossible for the Canadian government, the Department of National Defense to convert them economically into trainers because, since they were not designed for this role, the cost of conversion could considerably exceed the cost to the government of purchasing trainer aircraft instead.
This is therefore another paragraph which will certainly receive careful study and examination by members of the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. Speaker, that will conclude my remarks.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, each year the Auditor General presents a report of considerable length containing numerous examples of improper use of public funds, inefficiencies and waste; and each year we in the opposition and those in the news media with much glee and gusto draw the attention of the public to the faults, foibles and worse perpetrated by public servants as revealed by the Auditor General's report. The government of the day is quite correctly held responsible for the waste the Auditor General reveals and almost invariably suffers politically as a result for a short time.
This annual exercise has by now almost become a spring ritual. It is useful despite this fact, because it encourages governments to be much more vigilant in their supervision of the expenditure of public funds than they otherwise might be in order to avoid as much opprobrium and ridicule as possible. However, with the exception of this case the annual spring ritual to me would seem to be largely beside the point.
The role of the Auditor General, as an officer of Parliament, is to provide parliamentarians with the expert assistance necessary to properly supervise government
2612

May 26, 1972
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys expenditures. Public servants are human; they will commit their share of errors, follies and stupidities. Occasionally, and it is a tribute to the Public Sevice of Canada that the occasions are very rare, there will even be outright dishonesty. Governments, too, are composed of human beings who will seek ways and means to juggle accounts so as to make their performance seem just a bit better than it actually is. Thus, I believe that the most important function of the annual report of the Auditor General is not so much that of pointing out past errors as that of indicating how similar errors may be avoided in the future.
It is in that light that I say the most damning indictment of the government contained in this year's report is that the government has refused to act on a total of 38 recommendations, 31 by the Auditor General and seven by the Public Accounts Committee which were designed to increase government efficiency and to enhance the effectiveness of parliamentary supervision of the expenditure of public funds. Here the government was provided with expert, well considered and dispassionate advice on how to make better use of the tax dollar, and the government has chosen to ignore it.
Mistakes in public expenditure are always to be regretted and every attempt must be made to eliminate them. But because we are human beings, subject to error, we can forgive them. What I cannot forgive is a government's deliberate neglect of opportunities to reduce waste and error. This government, through the recommendations of the Auditor General's reports and the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, was provided with a golden opportunity to reduce waste and error in the use of the tax dollar and it chose to ignore that opportunity. That is unforgiveable.
My other major concern which arises out of this year's report of the Auditor General is the solid information it provides which indicates that parliamentary as opposed to governmental supervision of public expenditure remains woefully inadequate. Funds in massive amounts have even been spent in ways not authorized by Parliament.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Douglas Charles Rowland: It is true; it is in the report.


An hon. Member:: Give us the examples.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I do not have the report with me, but they are listed.


An hon. Member:: I will pass it over to you.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Pass over the report and I will cite the examples. Parliament traditionally serves three functions, the formation of policy, the raising of revenue for the purpose of implementing public policy and the supervision of the expenditure of the tax dollar. For various reasons, too well known to be gone into here, we can no longer expect the legislature to carry nearly as much weight as the executive or cabinet in the first two areas of policy formation and the raising of revenue. But surely it is legitimate to expect that the legislature do yoeman service in the supervision of government expenditures,

and surely it is mandatory that every facility be provided for the efficient fulfilment by the legislature of its role in this regard.
Many suggestions for the accomplishment of this goal are contained in the neglected recommendations of the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee to which I have already referred. I would like to make three more suggestions. The first suggestion arises out of the fact that many government programs are now of such a nature that they involve commitments for expenditure in future years which must be honoured but which Parliament has no opportunity to examine in detail in advance or at the time of commitment. To be more specific, cash grants offered to private companies under the Regional Development Incentives Act are spread over a number of years. Certain amounts are paid out over a four or five-year period. Consequently, departmental expenditures on incentives in a given year, which are voted by Parliament, consist of two kinds: first, payments to companies on behalf of arrangements made in this same year; second, payments to companies under contractual arrangements made a year or two or three years before-contractual arrangements which Parliament is hardly in a position to repudiate.
The present system does not permit Parliament to exercise any control over this situation. Only a multi-year budgetary system could handle it. Alternatively, in recognition of the fact that we will not be getting the multi-year budgetary system, Parliament has the right to know what commitments are incurred by departments for future years. For example, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been refusing to reveal its commitments to companies for future fiscal years. It should be forced by Parliament to disclose that information, not only for the sake of the parliamentary process but for the sake of the Treasury Board in its attempts to justify the expenditure of public funds.
In fact, looking at the accelerated pace of DREE grants, especially in the last 12 months, expenditures in future years will escalate rapidly. It is estimated that at the present pace, in five years time the commitments may reach $1 billion annually. Does Parliament want that kind of expenditure, and indeed does government want it? Surely an opportunity must be given Parliament, through the devices I have suggested or through some closely allied approach, to answer these questions about DREE and indeed about other departments which are involved in programs requiring the commitment of funds for years in advance.
My second suggestion is that to complete the circle of Parliamentary supervision of expenditures, the Comptroller General should cease to be a public servant in the orthodox sense and become, rather, an officer of Parliament as is the Auditor General. The current, well defined division of duties between the Auditor General and the comptroller must be applauded. However, there would seem to be a curious lack of logic in not making the Comptroller General an independent officer of Parliament as is the Auditor General.
The comptroller's task is, after all, in the words of Norman Ward, "in essence to ensure that all money is spent as Parliament said it should be, in no larger
May 26, 1972

amounts and for no other purposes than Parliament approved." Computers, as the Glassco commission pointed out, have virtually eliminated the comptroller's actual accounting duties. The fact that the comptroller is not an officer of Parliament means that there is a break in the circle of parliamentary control of finance, a break which did not occur prior to 1931 when the Auditor General carried out a pre-audit of government expenditures as well as a post-audit as he does today.
The Auditor General may of course, and he does, include references to breaches of parliamentary instructions in his annual report. Such references have value but they are always after the fact; the discovery is always made when it is too late to do anything about it. An independent comptroller could challenge on the spot and force a ruling. The method of adjudicating potential disputes between the cabinet or the executive and the comptroller could be so established as to do no violence to the principle that the government alone is responsible for the use of funds. For example, the Minister of Justice could be made the arbitrator in disputes between the comptroller and the Treasury Board. The minister's decision would be final, thus ensuring no interruption of the operations of government, but subject to scrutiny and reversal by Parliament. Any such disputes, together with the decision of the Minister of Justice, could immediately be placed before Parliament and/or one of its committees, perhaps the public Accounts Committee, for consideration and report.
I am somewhat loth to begin an explanation of my third suggestion for improved parliamentary control over finances; it requires considerably more detailed presentation, in order to be fully understood, than the time available to me permits. But I will make a stab at it. I think Parliament needs to recreate a standing committee on estimates, not with a view to replacing the present practice of departmental estimates being referred to appropriate standing committees but with the idea of supplementing that practice. It would not be expected that such a committee would examine the estimates of all departments in a single year but, rather, go into detail with respect to a few departments each year with the hope perhaps of covering each department during the life of a Parliament.
On the surface, that may seem to be a useless duplication of effort already being made by existing standing committees, but a close examination will demonstrate that such is not the case. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) devoted considerable attention to the shortcomings of our committee system with respect to the examination of estimates and I do not intend to repeat his arguments. The point I wish to make is that the customary practice in committees dealing with estimates is to question only those items which are increased or decreased drastically in any one year. Professor Hockin suggested as follows:
-this high-spotting of the estimates fosters a delusive sense of task fulfilment. It is based upon the Burkean fallacy that what is changed is worth scrutiny, what remains the same is not.
That is certainly not a principle which can be followed when examining government expenditures in order to
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys determine the wisdom of those expenditures, because it is notorious that governments continue programs long after they become redundant. I am arguing that for Parliament to properly supervise finances, expertise among Members of Parliament of the business-budget analysis sort must be created. Because of other demands on their time, existing standing committees are unlikely to develop that kind of expertise.
I envisage an estimates committee as having the time and the single-minded purpose to devote time to developing some fairly concise concepts of the proper principles which should be employed to govern expenditures. Such a committee should devise a method of detailed and, more importantly, systematic examination of all estimates submitted to it. One of the main purposes of such an examination would be to reveal any breach of the principles governing expenditures which the committee has devised.
Such a committee should also formulate general and specific recommendations for the form in which main estimates are presented, in order to ensure that they can be easily understood by a layman, which most Members of Parliament are when it comes to looking at balance sheets, and to ensure that they facilitate parliamentary control over governmental expenditures. I could go on listing tasks which an estimates committee might usefully perform, but my over-all purpose is clear. It is to create expertise in the kinds of principles necessary to properly control government expenditures, exper tise which at present does not exist or if it does exist, does so in only isolated circumstances.
Obviously, some overlap would be involved with the tasks of the Public Accounts Committee. Liaison between the two committees would thus be desirable and it could be accomplished, I suggest, by adopting the British practice of making the chairman of each of the two committees ex officio a member of the other and by having the comptroller and Auditor General available to each committee. Those are my three suggestions: a means of controlling commitments for future expenditure made possible by legislation but not requiring simultaneous parliamentary approval, making the Comptroller General an officer of Parliament, and creating a standing committee on estimates.
I hope hon. members will give the ideas some consideration because even though they might not in themselves provide all the answers it is obvious, on the basis of this year's Auditor General's report, that parliamentary supervision of government expenditures is totally inadequate; and if Parliament is to be a meaningful institution devices must be discovered quickly to improve that supervision.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, the mover insinuates that Parliament's control over government spending of public funds has decreased in the last few years, and this, for various reasons. I believe the contrary is true and I should like to quote certain facts in support of my assertion.
Since 1968, all government expenditures have been referred to one or another of the 16 standing committees of the House. This allows the committee members-and

May 26, 1972
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys on this point I disagree with the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-to perform efficient work. This also enables them not only to question the ministers responsible for the various departments, but also their officials as well, and if they so desire, witnesses from the private sector, a practice which would be impossible if we still followed the former procedure of studying government expenditures in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, referring to a study made by the Committees Branch, I see that during the second session of the 28th Parliament, 152 meetings were spent on the study of the various departmental estimates.
For the 4th session of the 28th Parliament, to May 25, 1972, 124 meetings were devoted to the study of various departmental estimates.
Over and above the committees which study estimates, we also have to consider the mechanism for checking expenses, which is the public accounts committee. This committee again considered the matter of checking public accounts last fall, on November 9 and 16, 1971, as is evidence in Issues Nos. 51 and 52 of the committee proceedings. On that occasion, the committee had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Balls, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Supply and Services, who informed us that as far as tabling public accounts for the year 1970-71 was concerned, the government had made a commitment, back in 1968, through the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson), to table the Public Accounts of Canada on October 31 at the latest. This year, the three volumes were tabled, the last of which on November 4, 1971.
The Public Accounts Committee set up a sub-committee made up of a member from each party and representatives for the Auditor General, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Supply and Services, to make a study in depth of the possibility of accelerating the tabling in the House of the public accounts of Canada.
Since 1968, as a result of the recommendation of the government, the Canadian Parliament has allotted funds to the opposition parties to retain the services of support personnel. The funds are allotted annually as follows: to the Progressive Conservative party, $125,000; to the New Democratic party, $35,000, and to the Social Credit Party of Canada, $35,000.
The Standing Orders of the House afford the opposition parties other opportunities to study the various departmental estimates. I "refer here to Standing Order 58(3), and I quote:
(3) Opposition motions on allotted days may be moved only by members in opposition to the government and may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and also may be used for the purpose of considering reports from standing committees relating to the consideration of estimates therein.
I will also quote subsection (5) of Standing Order 58:
(5) For the period ending not later than December 10, five sitting days shall be allotted to the business of supply. Seven additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than March 26. Thirteen additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, 25 days are allotted to the opposition.

I think the formula which consists in referring the study of government expenses to standing committees and, once those expenses have been made, to give them to the public accounts committee to consider, is a very satisfactory and very effective formula.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said in his remarks on this motion that the government was unduly delaying consideration of the Auditor General's report.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report for the financial year ended March 31, 1970, was tabled in this House on June 4, 1971, and the House adjourned for the summer recess on June 30, 1971. The House reconvened on September 7, 1971, and on September 29 of that same year, it referred the Auditor General's report to the public accounts committee.
The committee started consideration of the report on October 14, 1971, held 17 meetings, and is now preparing its report.
Mr. Speaker, I will leave hon. members to decide whether the government unduly delayed consideration of the Auditor General's report.


Mr. Bechard:: The opposition is not serious-as usual.


Gaston Clermont: The hon. member for Peace River as well as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) who spoke before me referred to the 38 recommendations of the public accounts committee which, according to them, have been rejected or ignored.
A tabulation of these 38 recommendations indicates that the government has indeed responded to them, although not necessarily by acting in the fashion proposed. A substantial number of the issues have been subject to hearings before the Public Accounts Committee. I may say that in most cases these have satisfied the committee, because the subsequent reports of the committee have not raised the issues again.
I now refer to tabulations of issues and action taken. Many of these have been subject to lengthy debate. In this regard the committee has played an effective role and the procedure is not as ineffective as indicated. Mr. Speaker, the following is a summary of action taken on recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee: First, recommendations on which there has been specific comment by the minister involved, 14; second, recommendations on which there has been subsequent specific testimony by departments to the Public Accounts Committee without any new or changed recommendation by the committee, eight; third, recommendations on which departments have not been called upon to testify to the Public Accounts Committee but on which they have taken action which has not received publicity, three; fourth, recommendations which call for continued observation by the Auditor General of departmental practices rather than government action, one; fifth, recommendations subject to action re formulation of separate Auditor General Act, one; sixth, action could not be determined in time avail-
May 26, 1972

able since tabling of Auditor General's report, four; seventh, recommendations made too recently for action to be taken, seven. This makes a total of 38.
I will now list recommendations on which there has been specific comment by the minister involved. In regard to assistance to provinces by armed forces, the Auditor General's 1971 report states advice was given to the House by the Minister of National Defence in September, 1971, and by the Prime Minister in October 1971 of action taken by the government. Regarding indirect compensation to chartered banks, the Auditor General's report states that the Minister of Finance wrote the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee outlining the views of the department but the committee has not given consideration to these views.
In respect of awards under the Pension Act, the minister wrote the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, January 17, 1972. On war veterans allowances the minister wrote the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on January 17, 1972.
Then there are the following items: amendments to Customs Act and Excise Tax Act; possible loss of revenue when goods lose tax-exempt status; drawback paid on goods destroyed after release from Customs; tax exemptions for particular groups. In these respects the minister wrote the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on April 20, 1972.
With respect to the audit of office of the Auditor General, the Minister of Finance wrote the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on January 26, 1967. The President of the Treasury Board confirmed this to the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on December 9, 1971. Regarding the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Minister of Finance wrote the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on January 26, 1967. On the cost of abandoned design plans the minister answered to the transport committee on May 25, 1972, which was yesterday.
As to parliamentary control of expenditures, the Auditor General's 1971 report states the President of the Treasury Board in December, 1971, informed the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee that the board was unable to see how its practices, sanctioned by parliament, weakened parliamentary control over expenditures. On the question of excessive advance payments under contracts, the President of the Treasury Board wrote the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on December 9, 1971. Concerning delay in collecting sales tax, the Auditor General's 1971 report states that the minister advised the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on November 25, 1970, that amendment to legislation forms part of department's legislative program.
I will now refer to recommendations on which there has been subsequent specific testimony by departments to the Public Accounts Committee without any new or changed recommendation by the committee: second-class mail- testimony March 11 and March 16, 1971; governor general's special warrants-testimony May 18, 1971; errors in Public Service Superannuation Act-testimony April 27, 1971; interest charges on loans to NCC-testimony May 6, 1971; loans and advances representing grants to Crown corporations-testimony May 6, 1971.
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys
Then we have reconstitution of financial structure of National Harbours Board-Auditor General's report states that the Public Accounts Committee discussed the matter on May 13, 1971, with the National Harbours Board and Canadian maritime transportation administration, but no further recommendation has been made by the committee; co-ordination of research and development to industry-testimony November 4, 1971; provision of navigational aids without charge to users-department reported to Public Accounts Committee May 25, 1971, that it was negotiating overflight charges with the International Air Transportation Association.
I will continue, Mr. Speaker, because it was said by at least two hon. members that nothing was done with respect to the 38 recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. I deal now with recommendations on which departments have not been called to testify to the Public Accounts Committee but on which they have taken action which has not received publicity: surplus assets disposal- heading here is not in keeping with committee's recommendation which deals with the costing of material inventories; the Treasury Board has given approval in principle to the establishment of a working capital advance for the purpose of costing and controlling Department of National Defence material inventories; proposed removal allowance-the Treasury Board is conducting a study into the feasibility of applying this recommendation to the whole of the public service and not just to the armed forces; increasing accommodation rental costs-the Auditor General's report for 1971 states that the Department of Public Works circularized departments in 1971 advising them that it would use 1972-73 as a pilot year to refine techniques with the intention, subject to Treasury Board approval, to commence charging for accommodation on April 1, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, this proves that one way or another the government has followed up on the 38 recommendations that the Auditor General's report contained and which some hon. members have talked about today.
In conclusion, I would like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Peace River to the effect that when he was chairman of the public accounts committee, che members of this committee acted in a non partisan manner. Since I was not a member of that committee while the hon. member was chairman, I am not in a position to make any remarks on its non partisan activity, but, if I consider his activity in this House, I cannot agree with him on the meaning of the term non partisan.
* (1620)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining this afternoon I shall not attempt to deal with the litany recited over the last 10 or 15 minutes by my colleague on the other side: it was very selective, but the fact is that the Auditor General made it perfectly clear that of the 41 items set out in his report, 31 have not been dealt with-and the recitation by the hon. member will not erase them. In recent years this government has paid little attention to the report of the Auditor General.

May 26, 1972
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys
I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and in part with the remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland). The motion before us reads:
This House, noting the continuing erosion of Parliament's control over government spending of public moneys due to government evasion of constitutional and legal safeguards as noted in the 1970-71 report of the Auditor General, and due to imperfect procedural structure, reaffirms the fundamental principle of the Canadian constitution that Parliament must control expenditures of public moneys.
The remarks made this afternoon by hon. members opposite in an attempt to refute that motion have not been effective. I suggest that hon. members have no option but to support the motion. The Auditor General quite clearly pointed out many inefficiencies. I could recite the case of keeping open CFB Summerside in respect of which the Auditor General has clearly stated that money is being used for purposes not completely approved by Parliament.
The question of control by this House over the pursestrings of Canada is not an old issue, as was mentioned by my colleagues the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). I have been here for only seven or eight years but have followed the procedures of this House with respect to control of government spending. It has been demonstrated, as these hon. members pointed out, that until this government started toying with our rules and procedures there was ample control over the expenditure of moneys by government; there was the power and procedure to deal with estimates. But that power has been taken away to the extent that now we have no way of influencing government spending. Even those of us who have been here only a short time are aware of this.
Questions such as the one put to the government by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North, with respect to the St. Lawrence Seaway, impel me to rise this afternoon and express my concern. When the St. Lawrence Seaway was built in 1959-60 a very firm and clear undertaking was given to the ports of Atlantic Canada that it would pay its own way and would not be detrimental to the operations of the ports of Halifax, Saint John, and some of the lower St. Lawrence River ports.
We have not only the observation of the Auditor General in his most recent report for the year 1971 but we have other evidence to indicate that the government has failed utterly and miserably in this respect. It would appear that the St. Lawrence Seaway will be able to pay its way. The absence of control by this House over methods of correcting the situation is reflected in that failure. We have no control over government and there is no way that we can withhold money, for example, from the Minister of Transport. At the end of May the estimates will be passed whether we have seen them or not. Today it was suggested that two or three of them should come to the House. Whilst this is a good suggestion, it only goes part way.


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


J. Michael Forrestall: No. Sit down, unless you have something useful to ask.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I should like to inquire if it is the position of his party that St. Lawrence Seaway tolls should be increased.


J. Michael Forrestall: As one of the members from Halifax said in the city of Dartmouth, I have noted on numerous occasions in recent years that the government said the seaway would not act as a detriment to our ports. I suggest that it has, and to that degree I am opposed to the existing subsidy by Nova Scotians to the St. Lawrence Seaway.


An hon. Member:: The great white elephant!


J. Michael Forrestall: What do we get when we need money? We are told that we are subsidized, but I say that Nova Scotia has been subsidizing Upper Canada for a number of years. I say that given a little control in this House over the way the government spends money, we might have resolved the St. Lawrence Seaway problem a long time ago without any detriment to the ports of Saint John and Halifax.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Canadians in British Columbia, Newfoundland, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba-indeed everywhere-are picking up a debt of some $656 million. The tolls on the seaway do not even approach coverage of the interest. Who is paying for this? It is written off, according to the reply to a question of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North regarding the situation at the end of this year. The official reply concluded with the statement:
In 1970, the United States government revised the financial structure of the American counterpart to Canada's seaway authority, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, so as to require the corporation to only cover annual operation and maintenance costs and repay the original capital costs of construction-accrued and future interest obligations were waived. This approach, along with other proposals, such as those contained in the Carr report, present themselves as possibilities for altering the present system of repayment of the outstanding obligations of the seaway authority.
Without some appropriate control over the method in which the government spends the taxpayers' money, I suggest that the motion of the hon. member for Peace River is correct and necessary. As things stand, people in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British Columbia and elsewhere are being asked to pick up that debt. The government is saying that our friends to the south have an excellent solution which they will take as their own and which they have used as an official response to questions on this subject.
Seven years ago in this House I suggested that the seaway toll should be written off over a 75 or 100-year period. That would cover the cost of handling the money which represents a great debt in terms of interest only, not in terms of capital that has gone out. I suggest that is not fair to the people of the Atlantic area since over the years the effect on the ports of Saint John, New Brunswick, Halifax, St. John's, Newfoundland, and Corner Brook will be detrimental.

May 26, 1972

Further, I support the motion before the House because the Auditor General has once again found it necessary to remind us of the way this government had dealt with his staff, auditors and senior administrators. As has been said this afternoon, members of this House are obligated to that officer. We are obligated to do everything within our power for him in order that he may continue fulfilling that function which has been effectively removed from us.
I know the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) would like to take away the responsibilities the Auditor General has to this chamber. The minister has curtailed the responsibilities of the opposition. He has not been able to do that to the Auditor General and I hope he will not be able to in the future. If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the only minister in the chamber, is to speak later I hope he will comment on the paragraph in the Auditor General's report relating directly, I suggest, to the motion before us. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there are 35 references in Mr. Henderson's report dealing with the Department of National Defence and these references relate directly to the motion.
During the last three or four years the department has had no alternative but to plan its own demise as a result of a frozen defence budget. I suggest that a minister owes it to the armed forces and members of this House to say how the government intends to unfreeze the defence budget so that those errors, omissions and infractions about which the Auditor General spoke can be overcome within the Department of National Defence. Many of that department's troubles have resulted from inadequate funds.
The government should make clear the procedures it intends to use to restore to this chamber its previous rights. Hon. members ought to be able to discuss government spending fully and their views ought to be given teeth. Only then will we get back on track, and only then can members advise, scrutinize and give consideration to the spending of taxpayers' dollars before they are wasted. I submit the motion is supportable. Anyone who has been in this chamber for more than two or three years cannot take any position other than that suggested in the motion.
The power and authority of this House over spending has been eroded. Those are not our words, they are words which have been analysed and spelled out clearly by the Auditor General. I think we all owe to that officer the support which this motion implicitly gives him, no matter whether it comes to a vote or not. I suggest that government supporters, if they have retained any influence in caucus, ought to persuade their ministers to support the Auditor General. They, too, are under that obligation, an obligation which is implicit in the words of the motion moved by the hon. member for Peace River. If we fail to support that officer, programs like the St. Lawrence Seaway may be thrust upon us without adequate examination or opportunity for meaningful scrutiny by this chamber.
At present, although we can ask questions and make our views known we are not given power. We on this side ought to be able to hold up the expenditures of one or more departments. At least it should be two or three and
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys
preferably that power ought to extend to all departments of government. After ail, that is why we are here. We are not here to do the government's work; we are here to check on the work of government.
In recent years this chamber has become nothing but a housekeeping institution. The committees are housekeeping institutions. If a committee wishes to impress its point of view on the government, there is no way of doing it. The same can be said of this chamber. For these reasons, if the matter came to a vote I would wholeheartedly support the motion.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I rise before this large audience, not to make a very important speech from the philosophical or constitutional point of view nor to deal with the rights and duties of Parliament and of the Auditor General.
From the philosophical point of view, I have only one remark to make: it is human to err and the government of Canada has certainly made mistakes, as have the governments of all other countries, which does not mean that all governments are bad but only that some are worse than others.
Therefore, I do not rise to deal with very elevated subjects. I simply want to make a very modest contribution to political science students in the country who, reading the report of this afternoon's proceedings, especially the remarks made by hon. members of the opposition, might think that everything the Auditor General has revealed is catastrophic in nature and conclude that Canada has the worst government ever since the remote times of Roman history.
-Then I shall simply deal with cases regarding my department and this, again, as a contribution to political science in Canada. I shall quickly go over the Auditor General's criticisms against my department. I had this study made only today. It is pretty sketchy but I want to give it to the House anyway. At page 87-

In paragraph 87 there is the heading, "Failure to collect revenue due to the Crown because of inadequate control over contracts." Mr. Speaker, under this heading the Auditor General observes that many of the DIP contracts-Defence Industry Productivity- contained repayment provisions and that the department had not followed up to collect moneys due. His current comment deplores the lack of action on the part of the department in following up. The reasons for delay in following up were explained to the Public Accounts Committee last November. Action was initiated last September and progress was reported to the chairman of that committee by the minister, by myself, last May.
Here is a situation which has repeated itself on a number of occasions. The accusation has been made. The minister has confessed and atoned, but the accusation is repeated. No absolution is given, notwithstanding contrition. The sinner is reminded of his sin year after year even if he has confessed, made amends and paid in lost pride. That is the first case deplored by the Auditor General.

May 26, 1972
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys
I said I was making a contribution to students of political science in Canada. The second case, paragraph 88, concerns grants to the Standards Council of Canada. The Auditor General here considers that the unspent portion of the grant to the Standards Council should have lapsed at the end of the fiscal year. He very sweetly says that this is an "opinion". It just so happens that we in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce obtained legal advice and got a different opinion. This being a grant, the opinion given to us was that the money belonged to the Standards Council of Canada. It not being an agent of Her Majesty it is not subject to the lapsing provisions of section 30 of the Financial Administration Act. The Auditor General has some lawyers on his side, we have some on our side, and that is all there is to it.
Paragraph 89, "Taxation of recaptured capital cost allowance with respect to vessels sold": this is a complicated matter. One aspect has to do with the administration of shipbuilding provisions in the Income Tax Act and in my own departmental subsidy program. It so happened that one agency of the Crown purchased a ship. It asked for the subsidy and we gave it under the provision of the law, notwithstanding the fact that it was a corporation of the Crown. The purpose of the law is to create employment in Canada. That corporation is free to go wherever it pleases to buy a ship. If we want to prevent a corporation of the Crown from buying a ship elsewhere than in Canada, we have to provide the normal subsidy to the agency of the Crown as we would to a private individual. That covers the third item.
The fourth item has to do with concessions made to motor vehicle manufacturers. The Auditor General observed that one major manufacturer did not meet the conditions of a conditional remission order. The manufacturer became liable for duty and sales tax amounting to $6 million. This amount is not included in the accounts receivable of the Department of National Revenue and that department states that it expects the debt to be forgiven. The failure was of a technical nature related to the Canadian value added in vehicles manufactured in Canada. The manufacturer concerned more than compensated for this deficiency by the export of automotive parts and hence met the over-all objectives of the automotive program. An order in council regularizing the situation has been promulgated.
In this case one has a choice between using the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. It is not always easy to decide. Had we made a strict interpretation of the law and the regulations, we probably would have been accused by the opposition of presiding over the failure of that company, depriving people of their employment. We decided to be intelligent about this, use our heads and we now stand to be chastised by the Auditor General for having done so. I suggest that the opposition would have done as we did. When you read the Auditor General's report it sounds nasty, awful, crooked and immoral, but I am telling hon. members the truth and leave it to them to judge.


Thomas Miller Bell: You have a guilty conscience.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, not at all. I feel I am making a little contribution to political science and public opinion in

Canada. I have not done so for at least a few days; this afternoon before five o'clock is not a bad time or a bad place to do so. If I am showing excessive modesty, it must be because of the limited number of members sitting opposite.
Paragraph 152 is another case, a rather complicated one. I answered this question this morning. The Auditor General observes here that in the case of the machinery program there has been a departure from normal practice in that the names of companies receiving remissions have not been shown in the public accounts.
The practice followed in 1971 is the same as that followed in previous years. The order in council numbers are shown in the public accounts report. There are approximately 17,000 remissions per annum. To publish them in the public accounts would be impractical. Company names and amounts can be obtained from the order in council concerned, which are in the public domain. We believe the practice to be consistent with the requirements of the Financial Administration Act.
This is a straight formality. Presumably the Auditor General would have liked us to publish the 17,000 names in the public accounts. We think this would unnecessarily crowd the public accounts. We publish in the accounts the number of PC orders, and these are available. I presume that someone reading these accusations might think that there is something devilish, "nasty, brutish and short" about what we have done here. Such is not the case.
I wish to draw another example to Your Honour's attention. I know that Your Honour is also a student of political science. Paragraph 166 has to do with the cost of unused space in Montreal, Quebec and Toronto, Ontario. The Auditor General observes that the closure of design centres in Montreal and Toronto cost the Crown $150,700 and $9,100 respectively in non-productive costs. This is under the design program of my department.
The design centres were open in Montreal and Toronto for a number of years. At first they were relatively well attended. However, public interest decreased and when we cost-benefited the whole thing it was found that every person visiting the design centre cost the government $5. It was decided that this was not very practical and the design program of my department was reoriented. It is now aimed at developing design in the manufacturing sector as opposed to educating the public sector as to its importance.
When the decision was made it was well known that the closure of the design centres would cost $150,000. The decision was made bearing this in mind. There was nothing "nasty, brutish and short" about that particular decision.
Paragraph 260 concerns advances, loans and investments, domestic, miscellaneous, loans to manufacturers re defence plant modernization. The situation here is that defence manufacturers are eligible for loans to purchase machinery for plant modernization. When a manufacturer defaults on repayment, the machinery is repossessed and the loan is extinguished. The Auditor General observes that equipment was repossessed and yet is still shown as a receivable in the public accounts.
May 26, 1972

The reply is again simple. In all but one case the department has been able to sell the repossessed machinery for the amount owing: in all cases except one we have been able to repossess and sell. It is quite normal, then, to treat a repossessed machine as something which is saleable. We consider it to be an asset. It would be misleading to the public to write the equipment concerned down to zero when there is every expectation of recovery. There is no provision in the government's accounting system to show an asset at market value. The least misleading approach is to show it as a receivable. Equipment not sold after one year is written off.
That is my contribution. I have just dealt with most of the items in the Auditor General's report that pertain to my department. I agree that it has been a skimpy explanation. I am just trying to demonstrate that when reading these accounts one should not hit the roof each time he sees an item. I am not generalizing; I am being very objective. I am just saying that these condemnations or observations should be placed in the proper context. I have tried to demonstrate that this afternoon so that students of political science now and in the future will not think that this government has no respect for efficiency and responsibility.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, this debate is drawing to a close, and I think it has been a very good one. I want to pay tribute to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who has just resumed his seat. I think he did what the Auditor
Alleged Loss of Control of Public Moneys
General has been trying to do for years; he got to his feet and explained the items that affected him. He told us of his problems and his difficulties and in some cases he asked forgiveness. As one member of the opposition, I felt he was most constructive and I congratulate him. He dealt with about six items. And six from 41 leaves 35; therefore I hope he will prevail upon his colleagues to do what he has done. If so, then the Auditor General has done his job and we in Parliament have done our job.
I think the government has approached this matter in the wrong way and has done so from the beginning. The present Auditor General has criticized former governments, not out of a sense of partisanship but because it is his duty under the law to bring these criticisms forward.
In closing, I think we have had a good afternoon and that the minister deserves credit for what he did. I only hope that his colleagues in the cabinet; some of whom are affected more seriously than others, will do what the minister did. I also hope that more than political scientists will follow this debate and pay attention to the confessions the minister has just made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Proceedings on the motion before the House have expired, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 58(11)-
[Eng lish]
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 29, 1972