1972-03-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of a report published yesterday which seriously challenged the ability of last year's or this year's government youth programs to deal effectively with the basic problems of youth unemployment, in view of the discrimination with which the evaluation charged those programs, and in view of the high figure of unemployment among those under the age of 24, reaching 11 per cent last year, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan), the following motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
1.	This House request the Secretary of State to table the Cohen Report on Summer '71 forthwith.
2.	Refer the evaluation of Summer '71 to a Standing Committee.
3.	The Secretary of State maintain his undertaking to call a broadly-based federal-provincial community conference on youth programming.
4.	Direct the Secretary of State to call a meeting of provincial ministers and members of the business community so that a meaningful program of long range youth employment initiatives might be put into force at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agree.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B). 1971-72

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1972, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing):
That the Supplementary Estimates (B), 1971-72, tabled this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table the first annual report of Information Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: In what language? Sanskrit?



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, pursuant to Standing Order 43, a motion on a matter of urgency. One of the difficulties last year with the Opportunities for Youth program was the lack of consideration given to young citizens in rural and remote areas of Canada who are denied equality of opportunity because of their isolation from normal communication.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, there is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. I apologize to him for doing so, but he knows that the rule is well established that remarks made in connection with motions under Standing Order 43 ought to be limited to a brief indication of the urgency of the matter rather than argument. It seems to me that in the explanation the hon. member is now giving he is presenting argument rather than an indication of the urgency of the matter. We all know how sensitive an area Standing Order 43 can be, and I hope there will be co-operation on the part of all hon. members to try to keep in mind the suggestions I have made to hon. members from time to time, based on my interpretation of Standing Order 43.
584

March 7, 1972
Opportunities for Youth


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, since there is evidence of a repetition of this weakness this year and a resulting effect on the initiative and morale of young Canadians, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the deadline date for submitting projects be extended and that co-ordinators be directed to extend every effort to ensure the opportunity to participate of all Canadians regardless of where they live.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the motion proposed by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.



MOVEMENT AND HANDLING PROBLEMS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a question of urgent and pressing necessity. Substantial export grain commitments have to be met and terminals in Vancouver are now 17 million bushels short of grades of grain required. The railways have not met their commitments in grain movement. Actually, the railways are placing grain movement at the bottom of their priority list. Canadian National has refused to divert grain over the PGE railway when their own lines have been blocked. Also, car unloadings are low and men at the terminals have been paid off in recent days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a clear abuse of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: No doubt the hon. member will say that the facts to which he has referred are important if he is to make his case for a motion under Standing Order 43. On that basis I am sure any member could get up and make a five-minute speech in justification of a motion under Standing Order 43. I remind hon. members that this is a very special Standing Order and that some day hon. members might be faced with a situation in which the government will want to use Standing Order 43. I am anxious to see what will be the reaction of hon. members at that time. I would think hon. members would want to keep in mind the very, very special nature of Standing Order 43 and try to limit their presentation to the urgency aspect of the motion without arguing in support of the motion.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I went beyond the limits prescribed by the rule. It was because of the urgency and the difficulties involved that I did so. I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move:

That the matter of slowdowns and bottlenecks in grain movement and handling be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for study and report thereon.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Regina East under Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr.   Claude-G. Lajoie@Trois-Rivieres: for leave to introduce Bill C-167, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres can briefly explain the object of the bill which he wishes to introduce.


Mr. Lajoie:: Mr. Speaker, this bill is brought in firstly, at the request of my constituents in three cities; secondly, in order to avoid confusion between the names of the provincial and federal constituencies; and thirdly, at the provincial level, the constituency does not include the city of Cap-de-la-Madeleine which has 32,500 inhabitants.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House allow the hon. member to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Canadian Labour Congress has presented its annual memorandum to the right hon. gentleman and in view of the fact he has had it for several days and has studied it, I wonder whether he could indicate briefly his
March 7, 1972

response to their recommendations as they pertain to employment and the economy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I could not do that briefly. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour yesterday spoke together for about 15 minutes on this point, and I am sure that if the hon. member would ask somebody for notes he might get these answers.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I had assumed that the Prime Minister received the brief. I should like to ask him specifically whether he accepts the principle of full employment budgeting, which was one of the recommendations of the Canadian Labour Congress, and, more specifically, whether the government is prepared now to introduce any new programs which would have the effect of stimulating the economy in a direction to achieve that particular principle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the first question is rather a technical one that I really could not deal with very shortly in an answer to a question. The Minister of Finance certainly could at some time explain why we do not apply this concept. It might be of interest to the member to know that our budget has the equivalent effect of a full employment budget in a sense-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but I realize from the guffaws that the matter is very little understood by the opposition parties.


An hon. Member:: By the unemployed too.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman has indicated that his government has moved on the assumption of full employment budgeting, can he indicate briefly what prediction he has for the achievement of that goal in view of the indication that the unemployment picture will remain very serious during 1972? Can he indicate whether that will be achieved over a five-year period or a two-year period? What general parameters can he indicate to the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member should understand that the so-called device known as full employment budgeting does not guarantee that there will be full employment. It offers to governments and administrations a series of choices of levels at which expenditures and taxes can be equated. There are very many options possible, and it is impossible to answer that question at this time.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was it under instruction of the government that the Minister of Finance about two weeks ago at Jasper advised the provincial finance ministers that the government's view was that the fight against inflation must be balanced with control of unemployment, that this point has now been reached and that the provinces were therefore to curtail any expansionary budget expenditures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister may wish to reply to the question but this should be done briefly. It seems to me we are now getting into the field of
Inquiries of the Ministry
debate, but I will allow the Prime Minister to reply to the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really reply in the terms in which the question was asked which simplify the position of the Minister of Finance to a considerable degree. But I do wish to say that of course the government is concerned, at the same time as it is concerned about full employment, with the possible inflationary effects in the future of the wrong kind of budgeting. I believe this danger is present in the minds of even some members of the opposition who asked us recently about the dangers of inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize a last supplementary question from the hon. member for St. John's East and then recognize the hon. member for York South.



POLICIES TO ACHIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT TARGET RECOMMENDED BY ECONOMIC COUNCIL

Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Does the Prime Minister accept the target and the definition of the Economic Council of Canada which describes full employment as being 3.8 per cent, and does the government intend to pursue policies which will achieve this level of employment by 1975 as recommended by the Economic Council of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, any level of unemployment is unfortunate for the percentage of people who are unemployed and therefore there is no reason why I would accept a target of 3.8 per cent. If we could go lower we would prefer it. In fact, just a couple of years ago there was less than 3.8 per cent unemployment in some parts of Canada and more in other parts. Therefore I cannot accept this target. What we want to do is, to achieve the lowest possible rate of unemployment consistent with stable growth.



MANPOWER


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in the unfortunate absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct a question, or perhaps more than one, to the Prime Minister, of which I gave him notice. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has appointed J. P. Lefebvre, executive director of the Liberal party of Canada in Quebec and former member of the Quebec legislature to carry out a manpower policy study or some similar study in West Germany.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration today. I want to thank the hon. member for giving notice of his question which has now been passed on to me. I have asked that an inquiry be made into the matter and I will get a report on it for the hon. member.

March 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: Without in any sense trying to belittle the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration, may I ask the Prime Minister as well as the minister in question to look into the matter of the appointment of Mr. Lefebvre and whether he still holds the position of Liberal party executive director in Quebec?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order. The hon. member for York South has the floor. Perhaps he might be given a chance to ask his supplementary question.


David Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to compete with the noise across the way and I can stand and wait until hon. members are quiet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on, now.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the Prime Minister and the minister this question. If Mr. Lefebvre is no longer executive director, when did that position end? Also, does the contract with him provide that he is to receive a salary of $600 a week as well as travelling and per diem allowances and the cost of secretarial services in addition to the salary, and exactly when was the appointment made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that the first part of his question as to whether someone ig a member of a political organization is hardly a question that can be asked of a minister. In any event, I am sure the second part of the question is in order, and the minister might be allowed to reply to that part of the inquiry if he has the information.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman, like all of us, is interested in the facts of the situation. I am going to ascertain those facts and make a report.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciated that a question about holding a certain party position could not be directed to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. That is precisely why I directed my question to the Prime Minister as well as to the acting minister. It seems to me the Prime Minister has the authority to make the appointment and should inform the House whether this is another example of his new politics.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rose on a point of order. I disagree entirely with his interpretation of the Standing Orders so far as his point of order ig concerned.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the situation is becoming increasingly worse because a great number of unemployed must wait five, six or even ten weeks, especially in Quebec, before drawing their first cheque of unemployment insurance benefits, can the Prime Minister tell us whether his government intends to improve those conditions in the very near future?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am answering for the Unemployment Insurance Commission today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: If there are cases of what is alleged to be an inordinate delay these will be investigated immediately, as the hon. member is aware. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there has been a dramatic decline in the number of complaints about delayed payments in the last two weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-POSSIBLE DECENTRALIZATION OF SERVICES FROM MONTREAL

Léonel Beaudoin: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since these difficulties have been experienced only after payment services were centralized mainly in Montreal, could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the government is planning to decentralize the offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, there are now 200 centres in Canada, either main offices or service offices, to attend to the unemployment needs of the Canadian people. In addition, the resources of 400 manpower offices are being investigated to make sure that every possible service is extended to the unemployed of this country.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is because there are so many unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have glanced round the House and noticed that there are exactly 13 members who are rising to ask supplementaries. I am not sure whether that number is lucky, but we certainly cannot spend too much time on supplementaries. I will try to be fair by
March 7, 1972

having a sampling of hon. members on supplementaries and then go to the next questioner.



MONTREAL-DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS- REQUEST FOR INQUIRY

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary who has just answered my colleague.
Since all cases of delay in the payment of benefits which have been submitted to hon. members have been forwarded, at the minister's request, to the regional office, as well as to the central office in Montreal, and since after several weeks, these cases have not yet been settled, in spite of what the minister has said, is the latter prepared to order immediately that an investigation be held regarding the operation of the Commission's electronic computers in Montreal so that cheques can be issued and people can stop living on fresh air only, thanks to appropriate resources?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members that there is a continuing study taking place into methods whereby the most modern electronic techniques may be introduced to improve unemployment insurance services further. There are a number of specific studies under way, and if improvements can be made they will be made.



DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-ACTION TO PREVENT LOAN-SHARK OPERATIONS

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I should like to refer to a question to the parliamentary secretary by another hon. member, as recorded on page 262 of Hansard for February 25:
Is the department aware of loan-sharking operations, the lending of money against unemployment insurance cheques, resulting from the delays in payment and, if so, what action is the commission taking to prevent this occurrence?
Has the parliamentary secretary any further answer today?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that this is a source of great concern to the minister and to the department. Our UIC general legal counsel has contacted the small loans division of the Department of Insurance and they are prepared to carry out an inspection of the books of some of the people who advertised in the Calgary and Winnipeg press. I assure members that an investigation is being carried out to determine whether the practices being followed by the so-called loan sharks infringe the law. If such is the case, I can assure hon. members that if possible appropriate measures will be taken. This is not a practice that is welcomed by the government or the department.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to put a supplementary question?


Roch La Salle: This is not a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize on a last supplementary the hon. member for Temis-camingue.



DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-POSSIBLE DECENTRALIZATION OF SERVICES FROM MONTREAL

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary to the minister who says that there are 200 centralized offices across Canada.
We would like to know whether the department intends to decentralize?
In my own area, for instance, that is 400 miles from Montreal, they always answer that the Montreal computer is out of order and the people have not received any benefits since October.
Does the department intend to decentralize in order that an area like ours, for instance, may have an office.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, there has been a 50 per cent increase in the number of unemployment insurance offices since 1970. If the hon. member car. develop a persuasive case for the extension of unemployment insurance services in his area, it will be looked at.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This debate is now ended and the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Kent-Essex.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-REASON FOR DELAY IN RESUMING TALKS ON AUTO PACT

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he indicate whether the delay in the trade talks between the United States and Canada on the auto pact will last until a definite agreement is reached on the value of the Canadian dollar compared with the U.S. dollar and, if not, what is the other basic reason for the present delay?


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give reasons why the Americans are not yet ready to open formal discussions with us on this matter. I can only say it does not appear to be related to the factors mentioned by the hon. member,

March 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
nor to the presentation of a foreign investment policy by the Canadian government. It seems to be in an area of its own not related to other factors.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Can he inform the House why the government has decided to wait until after the next election before it signs a new agreement on auto trade with the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is argument and not a procedurally legitimate question.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the collapse early in 1971 of the North American market for swordfish, which has caused financial hardship for our swordfish fishermen, has the minister given any consideration to licensing selective swordfishing operations in any areas of Atlantic Canada in order to determine whether there has been any decline in mercury levels and, if so, when can we expect an up to date report on this important aspect of our fisheries?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the basic problem arises with the United States food and drug administration requirement that no fish be imported into that country with more than half of one part per million of mercury in it. We can export swordfish to Europe with impunity, but the price is not attractive there.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask just one supplementary question. In view of the fact swordfish are still being landed in some of the New England markets, has the minister taken any steps to secure the lifting of the ban on swordfish sales to the United States?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, swordfish being landed in the United States do not enter into interstate trade. Since we face national standards rather than state standards we have difficulty selling our swordfish in the U.S.A.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. In view of the apparent leaks of the contents of the Bryden report submitted to the then Minister of Manpower and Immigration last June, leaks which I contend do not correspond to the substance of the report, would the minister inform the House about the recommendations made by the task force in order to dispel the suspicion that the Treasury Board

and, more specifically, its President are using the ignorance of the public with respect to the contents of the recommendations in order to put the public service unions under pressure in the current disputes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This appears to be an argument, but the minister might be allowed to reply briefly to the question asked by the hon. member.
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the question if only to introduce myself as the minister responsible for this particular phase of government operations. All I want to tell the hon. member is that the report to which she refers is in my hands at the moment and is under study.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Would the President of the Privy Council agree to table the Bryden report in its entirety so that the public, the unions involved and their membership will be finally informed about the government's intentions in respect of amending the Public Service Staff Relations Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to tell the House that it is not my intention to table this document because it is an internal document for the advice of the government and that is why it will not be tabled. I should also like to mention that the reports I have read in the newspapers about this report are highly speculative and, finally, that there is no intention to have legislative action on this report at this session.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May I ask a final supplementary of the President of the Treasury Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be allowed a last supplementary on this subject.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNIONS-ASSURANCE THAT RIGHT TO STRIKE NOT BEING THREATENED

Winona Grace MacInnis: I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he can assure the House, solemnly or otherwise, that he is not using the threat to rescind the right to strike as a bludgeon in current negotiations with the Public Service unions?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member, both solemnly and otherwise, that I have never threatened withdrawal of the right to strike.



CRIMINAL CODE


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
March 7, 1972

Some ten days ago, in Ontario, the Prime Minister stated that he was not contemplating any change in the legislation on abortion as long as he himself is not convinced of the need for such a move. I would like to ask him if he can assure the House and the Canadian population that no change in that connection will be brought about before the government has put into effect an effective family planning policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,
I had some difficulty understanding the whole question. If I do not answer correctly, the hon. member may wish to ask a supplementary.
Government policy on this subject has already been announced. We intend to have a debate in the House and to hear the views of hon. members. I hope the hon. member will take that opportunity to indicate what his own opinion is.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. During the period while the background study is being rewritten and until the government introduces its legislation outlining its policy on foreign investment in Canada, is it the intention of the government to issue guidelines or set out any procedures for regulating the takeover of Canadian companies by foreign interests?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member should feel perfectly free to proceed as he wishes.


George Harris Hees: Is the country to assume that the government intends to continue to deal with each of these cases on an ad hoc basis founded on nothing more substantial than political expediency rather than according to an established policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is obviously argument. The hon. member for Calgary North.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General. On February 28 I asked the Solicitor General a question which appears on page 302 of Hansard and on March 1 I put the question again to his parliamentary secretary, of which he took notice. I wonder if the minister is prepared to give an answer today. I will read part of the answer in order to familiarize the Solicitor General with the situation. His reply was:
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Speaker, someone who claimed to know where Mr. Geoffroy is suggested it to me. My reply was very simple: the laws of the country apply to every citizen. If Mr. Geoffroy wants to ask for a new trial-
The Solicitor General has said that someone approached him. Was that done by telephone, was it done by letter, was it done by personal contact, who was that person and what day was that contact made?


Mr. Basford:: You are not in a court room.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I find that the hon. member's informer, against whom a warrant for arrest for fraud was issued in 1971 by the Quebec Police Force, has not yet been apprehended.
A reporter, acting as such, called me on the phone. There was no blackmail nor dishonest proposal, and I told the reporter, as I stated in my answer, that the laws of the country applied to all citizens, including Mr. Geoffroy, and that if the latter felt that he was entitled to a new trial, he had to put forth his reasons for so believing, just like any other citizen, directly to the Canadian Minister of Justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe the Solicitor General misunderstood one part of my question. What was the name of that reporter and who did the reporter say he was with at the time he made the telephone call to the Solicitor General?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's informer against whom a warrant for arrest was issued in 1971, has himself revealed the name of the reporter, and the reporter has confirmed. So, I do not hesitate to say it: it is Mr. Lavergne, who is the editor in chief and a very responsible reporter for Montreal's Dimanche-Matin.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Solicitor General.
Since the hon. minister has just referred twice specifically to an informer of my hon. colleague from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I should like to ask him who are his informers concerning the Geoffroy case, and whether he has others, outside of his department, who could give him information on the Geoffroy case.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps the same informer to whom the hon. member resorts when launching false rumours to the effect that-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a question of privilege.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The Solicitor General has just stated that the informer who allegedly gave information to my colleague was also my informer. I flatly assert that the hon. minister lied to this House when he said that. He must withdraw his

March 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
words because the person to whom the Solicitor General referred is not at all my informer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is clearly a difficulty between the minister and the hon. member. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie is well aware that he cannot accuse an hon. member or a minister of lying. I am sure the hon. member for Sainte-Marie might like to express himself differently to indicate that he is not in agreement with the minister.
In my opinion, there is clearly conflict as to facts between the hon. minister and the hon. member, a daily occurrence in the House, and I believe there is no necessity, when a minister and an hon. member do not agree as to interpretation of facts, to resort to unparliamentary language.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
I used the very expression the Solicitor General himself used on television yesterday when he accused opposition members of lying. If the Solicitor General is willing to withdraw the imputation in his statement to the effect that Richer was my informer, I shall withdraw the word, "lied" as you have invited me to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I agree with the hon. member for Sainte-Marie that the minister-

Order, please. I wonder if hon. members might like to take an interest in what is going on in the House at the present time, if there is an interest in what is going on at the present time.

I would suggest to hon. members that certainly no minister or member can credit another member with any intentions and that such was not the wish of the hon. minister. The latter was certainly not entitled to do that any more than the hon. member is entitled to use unparliamentary language. I am prepared to take it that the minister confirms to the House that he would not impute any motives to the hon. member who in turn will confirm that he did not want to use unparliamentary language. Thus both will be considered as having withdrawn their remarks in so far as they are not of a parliamentary nature.
Does the hon. member agree with my interpretation of the Standing Orders?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I agree.


Georges-J. Valade: I agree for the first time with the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: So everybody is satisfied.
(Mr. Valade.]



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister indicate whether in his conversations in Halifax last week he got into serious discussion with the premier of the province of Nova Scotia of sharing arrangements with regard to both royalties and responsibility for administration and regulatory control in respect of offshore minerals?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We discussed offshore mineral rights.


Mr. Forrestall:: Is the minister prepared to indicate whether during the course of these discussions with the premier and other officials of Nova Scotia a slightly better or a more relaxed position than the 50/50 sharing arrangement that has been publicly suggested to date was discussed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my visit to that particular city was to hear the premier's viewpoint and I did so. I did not make any offer to him.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE AND JAMES BAY POWER DEVELOPMENT-CANCELLATION IF DAMAGE TO ECOLOGY TOO GREAT

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of recent statements by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the effect that a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley is virtually assured, will the Prime Minister assure the House that such a pipeline will not be allowed to proceed if the potential damage to the ecology is too great?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy on this has been stated many times. I believe the Minister of the Environment can give the details of the $15 million program in which we are engaged to make sure that this does not happen.


Randolph Harding: Can the Prime Minister give the same assurance with respect to the James Bay project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the assurance cannot be the same because the problem is not the same. However, I believe the House was notified a month or so ago that a joint study on the problems of the environment was made by the Quebec government and the federal government. This study was made public, Mr. Speaker.
March 7, 1972



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Eric Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a related question to the government House leader. The petition of the Old Crow Indian people was laid on the table last week. Will the government House leader consider favourably allowing the House to refer this petition by unanimous consent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Would the government House leader give this matter his earliest consideration and perhaps make an announcement with regard to the government's intentions with respect to hearing the people of Old Crow on their petition?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to give this matter further consideration. However, at the present time it appears to me there are some procedural difficulties with which the House has really not yet dealt in terms of referring petitions to standing committees for study. I will give the matter further consideration.



AIRPORTS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the very strong and angry opposition to the new airport location at Pickering and the destruction of the very finest of farmland and an historic village? Does the minister propose to make a statement to the House on this matter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: No,
Mr. Speaker. I do not propose to make any additional statement to the House other than the one I made when announcing the project. However, I might point out to the hon. member and the House that the expropriation proceedings allow for and, in fact, require the appointment of a hearing officer and the lodging of complaints in a formal manner. These are dealt with in the appropriate way. If there are objections, they can be heard at that time.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have been reading an article in today's March 7 edition of the Globe and Mail. It is hard to tell the page number because I only have a photostat. This article draws attention to a LIP program in my constituency. I would like to make an explanation to the House concerning it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister knows the rules. He cannot rise at any time on a question of privilege which has reference to an article in a newspaper. The minister has to give notice to the Chair in the usual way according to the Standing Orders and explain the question of privilege at the opening of the House. That is the standard practice and it should be followed by all hon. members. I should not say "standard practice". It is the practice provided for by the Standing Orders and should be adhered to by all hon. members.
* # *



HOUSING


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Can he tell us why his department granted a $950,000 loan for the housing project known as "Residence Richelieu" at Ville de Laval, which may be demolished any moment now because of zoning regulations? Can the minister give us some explanations in this regard?


Stanley Ronald Basford: would like to look into that, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member has any information that would assist me I would appreciate having it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member and the minister might communicate and consult later.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs perhaps the Prime Minister might answer my question. Are discussions planned with the United States for later this year with respect to the future of NORAD, and is the government of Canada giving consideration to attempting to bring about major modifications in our defence-sharing agreement with the United States during those discussions if they are to be held?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question was covered in our white paper on defence. If my memory is correct, the NORAD agreements only expire in 1974.


An hon. Member:: 1973.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore I assume there will be no meetings in the immediate future. I will consult with the Secre-

March 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
tary of State for External Affairs to see about the further future.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the very numerous representations that have been directed to the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General and, indeed, to many members of parliament objecting most vigorously to the action taken in removing the initials "RCMP" from police buildings and vehicles and replacing them with the word "police", can the Prime Minister assure the House and the country that the initials "RCMP" will be displayed as prominently as the word "police" in the designation of our national police force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of this question is that it had been decided as an administrative matter by the police themselves. I believe their decision was to use the word "police" more prominently in some cases than the letters "RCMP".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the widespread protests with regard to the action that has been taken, will the Prime Minister consider using his good offices and influence with a view to having this directive either withdrawn or reversed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly ascertain whether the Solicitor General discussed this matter with the Commissioner of the RCMP. I am rather certain he has discussed it. The RCMP must be aware of the kind of noise that has been made on this subject in the past couple of weeks. If the Commissioner feels the decision is wrong, he will discuss it with the minister. I, personally, do not propose to tell the RCMP that they should make a change on my direction.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PLANS FOR CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Solicitor General whether he will take the first available opportunity to make a statement on motions concerning the plans of his department and the RCMP with respect to the celebration of the centenary of that force next year?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, an internal committee is in the process of planning the centennial of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, an institution, a symbol which belongs to all Canadians regardless of their ethnic origin or their tongue. In that spirit we will surely see to it that this centennial is a happy event in which all Canadians will be invited to

participate. In due course, they will be advised of the program.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH-SUGGESTED TABLING OF EVALUATION REPORT ON 1971 PROGRAM

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It follows the commitment he made yesterday to investigate the leaking of the Cohen report relative to the summer youth program last year. The Prime Minister said he would look into this. Bearing in mind the fact that early last September the Secretary of State indicated that Mr. Cohen's report would be tabled by the end of the year, by the end of last year, has the Prime Minister been able to ascertain when we may expect to have this important document, particularly since a little more than 24 hours remain in which applications under the Opportunities for Youth program can be made?


Abram Ernest Epp: Perhaps the Prime Minister wishes to answer, but as Acting Secretary of State I believe there is some confusion in the mind of the hon. gentleman. The Secretary of State undertook to table an evaluation of the program, noting that the evaluation involved a number of reports including that which is called the Cohen report. I doubt very much, subject to correction, that he undertook to table the Cohen report.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, I am grateful for the information from the Pooh-Bah-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -from the acting minister of whatever he is acting for. I do not have the record before me, but I checked it before I came into the chamber. On December 9, in response to a question in the House, the Secretary of State indicated that the Cohen report would be published in full by the end of the month, acknowledging that the initial report was but a preliminary document-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This discussion between the minister and the hon. member for Egmont could go on for a long time. Perhaps the two hon. members might get together and pursue the matter later. We have reached the end of the question period.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a supplementary point of order or to ask a supplementary? The last point of order has taken the last few minutes of the question period and we have to call orders of the day.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order-


Mr. Gibson:: On a question of privilege-
March 7, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Egmont resume his seat? Perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth would allow me to complete the point of order raised by the hon. member for Egmont. I think that in principle there would be priority for a question of privilege, but with his indulgence I will hear the point of order first and then listen to the hon. member's argument in support of his question of privilege.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, first to the Leader of the Opposition and later to myself, that he would give some idea when this important document might be published. Could we hear from the Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State as to whether in fact this document will be made public?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I think we shall have to clarify just what the Secretary of State did say in the mind of the hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: It is on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order? Obviously we are getting into a resumption of the argument between the hon. member and the minister. I suggested a moment ago that an attempt be made to clear up the situation at some other time. It certainly cannot be done on a point of order or by a statement today.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a question of privilege, if these important proceedings in the House during the question period are to have any value whatever, then surely an undertaking by the Prime Minister in answer to a question raised yesterday must be followed up by some kind of response, either from him or from another minister of the government. So far we have had no answer to this question and I am wondering whether the rights of the House generally are not being infringed by the cavalier approach which the Prime Minister and other members of the administration are taking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. We are merely continuing the same debate. I shall now listen to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth on his question of privilege.


Colin David Gibson: In view of the irrelevant questions asked by the opposition, I want to ask an emergency question from my riding about damage-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that he cannot, under the guise of a auestion of privilege, ask a question. I have advised hon. members from day to day that when we have reached the end of the question period they should not seek to direct further questions by raising points of order and questions of privilege. If a very urgent question could not be asked today, I am sorry. I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth was the only one who did not have an opportunity to ask a question. I tried to note those who were not able to ask questions today and I will do my best to give them priority tomorrow. I undertake to recognize the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth during the question period tomorrow.
Control of Government Expenditures


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wish to raise a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have waited until we have reached the end of the question period. It is well known that, even though it is not officially recognized by the rules of the House, the government has unilaterally imposed a roster system involving the attendance of ministers to deal with questions of the day. This system has never functioned effectively and we find ourselves this afternoon at a point where six ministers listed on this infamous roster are not present to answer questions, leading to the public spectacle of one of the neophyte ministers having to answer for half the government ministers. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, as the senior officer of this House, to take into consideration the government's deliberate commitment to keep more than half the members of the administration away from this chamber during the important business of the question period each and every day.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I move: That this House condemns the government for its mismanagement and waste of taxpayers' money and urges that parliament take steps to exercise greater scrutiny and control over estimates and expenditures.
He said: May I rise for a few moments on a point of order Mr. Speaker? First, as to the wording of the motion as it appears on the order paper, I should point out that in the third line, the word "urge" appears. It should be "urges". I exonerate the officers of the House, as I did encounter a little difficulty yesterday in putting the motion together. Second, it has been suggested that after the first four speakers have taken part in the debate the time allotted to hon. members should be limited to 15 minutes. I am making this suggestion because it might well be, as a result of the interest in the subject matter, that a large number of members will wish to make contributions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no objection to there being a time limit of 15 minutes, but I wish to make it clear that the spokesman for the government, whether he is the fourth speaker in the debate or whether he speaks later, will not be limited.


Gerald William Baldwin: I understand that. The official spokesman for the government would, of course, be allowed 30 minutes pursuant to the rule.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Our understanding of the situation is that the mover will have 30 minutes, the official spokesman for the government will have 30 minutes and the first spokesman for each of the other two

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures parties will have 20 minutes as provided in the rule, while the remainder of the speakers will have 15 minutes each. We agree to that.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we agree but with reservations similar to those voiced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am really very sorry to break up this interesting question period but the rules allow me no alternative. May I point out to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that it may well be that this subject matter is not as colourful and controversial as some members might like. Nevertheless, it is the view of the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition that every once in a while during the course of a parliament some effort should be made to come to the aid of the beleaguered taxpayer.
It seems to us that there are an awful lot of taxpayers. To paraphrase what Abraham Lincoln said, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must love the taxpayers because he has made so many of them. In any event, this matter is surely of the essence in view of the fact there is no doubt at all that there are a great many responsible people who are concerned about the performance of the economy and that the real problems of unemployment, inflation and economic growth, not only in Canada but in the United States and Europe, are not responding to orthodox remedies.
There is a lack of confidence. There is lack of confidence on the part of the business community in this government. While the government may be temporarily altering its stance, we note that this is only temporary. There is lack of confidence on the part of consumers in this government. They lack the confidence that the government cqn take the essential steps to place under some control the accelerating cost of living. Finally, there is lack of confidence on the part of the taxpayer that this government has the capacity or the will to check the deadly twin viruses of increasing taxation and inefficient handling of the taxpayers' money. Attempts by the Parliament of Canada at restraint and scrutiny have become a mockery and a farce. There needs to be a new flowering of the strength of parliament to deal with this very serious problem.
Governments more and more seem to be bland, anonymous bureaucrats with the power to command the lives and take the property of people, to tell them what do do and how to do it, and there seems very little hope of getting any change. The end result is inevitable: there is cynicism, frustration, militancy and often confrontation and violence in the streets. People will therefore turn their faces away from government as we know it, from the legislative system and the whole democratic process, and many of them are.
But despite all the warts and defects of the parliamentary system, I suggest all the other methods by which

people contrive to order their affairs are infinitely worse. The neat trick is to take what we have and make it better, make it work, and, like the ideal of justice, make it be seen to be working. The infinite wisdom of the ages lies in all of the people in society, and the problem is to find and use these truths as the basis for the rules under which society operates. People need to know this. They need to know and to believe that the system can be delicately tuned and made responsive to their views; that not only the majority but the minority, even the individual, who has a cause to plead, a wrong to right and a proposal to urge, will be provided with some means by which to do so. This can be the parliamentary structure when it has the freedom and the mechanism to operate. But that is what is lacking today.
The parliamentary system of government should be like the two pans of a scale, evenly balanced between the executive branch on the one side, and the legislative branch on the other side. That is a principle that, I think, is acceptable to all people. But what has happened? There has been a grotesque distortion. There has been poured into the pan on the executive side of the scales more and more weight; on the other side, there has been a taking away from the legislative branch of many of the powers and authorities it requires. In the result, this distortion is very apparent in the limited way that this parliament can check expenditures and scrutinize the estimates of government. I know government needs to have power, strength and the ability to act quickly. But there needs to be, as the Prime Minister himself said, a countervailing force. This is what we lack and it is what this party proposes to do something about.
Recently the Prime Minister, in a speech made to the National Conference on the Law, said something which I regard with great concern. These are his words:
Perhaps in some instances the adversary system, so revered by lawyers, is a counter-productive element in the political process; for example, in relations between various levels of government.
Further on in his speech the Prime Minister confirmed that view. I question the validity of that assertion. The doctrine of infallibility comes, of course, easily to those who occupy the chairs of state. Such being the case, the only safety lies, in part, in the adversary system, with the ability to press for change, to refine, to restrict or in any way to cope with the bureaucratic despotism, stupidity, inaction, stealth and secrecy which from time to time characterize this administration. The white paper on taxation was changed largely because of the adversary system. When in turn that white paper was translated into a bill, there were important changes made in the bill as a result of pressure exerted by people both outside the House and inside this House. That is the virtue of the adversary system.
That is not all, Mr. Speaker. I could list a number of issues that have benefitted from this system, such as the government reorganization bill, Bill C-176, the grain stabilization bill, and, of course, the infamous bill that this government brought in over a year ago in an attempt to curtail the power and independence of the Auditor General. Because of the adversary system, and because of pressure outside the House and representations made in the House, the government was compelled to withdraw that
March 7, 1972

bill. Hearing statements of this kind made from the Prime Minister and supported by his colleagues, and noting many of the trends of the government in Ottawa today, it is time for all good men who believe in the parliamentary system to draw together and challenge the government.
Without in any way restricting the list, let me outline some of the more dangerous changes that we see taking place from day to day. There are the fundamental changes in the character of legislation, where today all too often bills are merely enabling acts, vague declarations of principle, with the dry bones being fleshed out by orders in council, decrees and regulations made by the bureaucracy in the secret places of their private offices without the knowledge, consent or advice of parliament. In that regard I urge the government to take steps at once to establish the scrutiny committee that is set up by the statutory instruments act. That committee will form one of the bulwarks against this kind of despotism which we so often encounter in this country.
We must also consider the growth, at an abnormal rate, of this bureaucracy. Their elite have now become the high priests of our society and we build great, shining temples to them throughout the land and worship before the altars in those temples. Then, we must consider, as well, the enlargement of the office and the growth in power of the leader of the government so that, through the bureaucratic machine at his command and by the skilful use of the media, he will always appear larger than life; also, the refusal of government to furnish people with proper and adequate information of the public affairs of the land. Further, we must consider the lack of adequate checks and restraints on public spending.
That old grey mare the Treasury Board has recently unbent enough to put out, during the last two sessions, a shiny new pamphlet called, "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent".


Mr. Dinsdale:: She ain't what she used to be.


Gerald William Baldwin: On page 9 of this year's copy appears the following statement:
Rooted in Canadian tradition and through centuries of British history is a basic parliamentary responsibility of granting 'supply', the term applied to the process by which Parliament considers proposed government expenditures-
One of the continuing and basic powers of Parliament is its ultimate control over the public purse.
That, Mr. Speaker is the way it should be.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is the way it used to be.


Gerald William Baldwin: But that is not the way it is. That statement is pure and utter bilge.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is the way it is.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not alone in my view. My colleagues share it. If hon. members opposite were free to speak their minds, they would agree with me when I say that the statement I have read does not represent the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Control of Government Expenditures Mr. Baldwin: But they dare not say that.


George Harris Hees: Be careful; big brother is watching.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I now quote from a column recently written by that great Canadian columnist, Charles Lynch. He wrote this soon after the latest blue book of estimates was inflicted upon Parliament:
The unfortunate thing is, however, that while the costs of government continue to go up, there is no sign of an increase in government efficiency.
-the size of the public payroll today, relative to the amount of work being produced, is a bigger disgrace than ever. Glassco was too late, and nothing can save the taxpayer now, or ever.
Time is of the essence in debates of this kind, so that I will simply limit myself to outlining some of the areas where there is ground for legitimate complaint on behalf of the taxpayers of this country about the way their money is being spent by the government, and the way in which estimates for those expenditures are placed before Parliament and approved.
In this connection, as well, we shall need to consider the unholy mess disclosed by the secret memorandum from the Deputy Director of Information Canada; certain expenditures on behalf of the Department of National Defence relating particularly to the Bonaventure, the hydrofoil vessel and the DDH destroyer program, which is still pending; some of the projects contained in the local initiatives program; the manpower training and unemployment insurance benefits fiasco, and the housing program; and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and its method of making grants and providing subsidies. If I have an opportunity, and if time permits, I will go into details with respect to these matters later, Mr. Speaker. Some of my colleagues who will follow me will deal particularly with some of the areas I have mentioned, and will outline clearly sufficient evidence to convince even hon. members opposite that the government is stupid. They will establish beyond any reasonable doubt incompetence, mismanagement, waste, stupidity and gross carelessness in the payment of taxpayers' money.
It is the duty of an opposition to be critical, Mr. Speaker, to point out errors and defects in the operations of government. I submit that Her Majesty's loyal opposition has, during the course of this Parliament, gone beyond this and from time to time made a series of alternative proposals and suggestions which will be found incorporated in the various amendments which we have offered, either with respect to legislation or in the form of various opposition day motions we have moved. I am not suggesting that they contain the sum total of our alternative policies. I want to make the point, in answer to those who have indicated that we have not suggested any alternative remedies, that a full examination of the parliamentary records and of Hansard will make it abundantly clear that we have discharged our proper responsibilities and offered rational alternatives. Why, then, have some of these programs slipped through? Why are they being maladministered? Why is money being paid out as it is now being paid out? And, what can be done about it?
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the committee system has not worked as was expected and many of its original proponents now doubt its value. I have talked to hon.

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures members opposite, who agree with me. Many of them, as I say, doubt its total value, particularly in so far as estimates are concerned. Mr. Speaker, there must be changes. All we have today is a minuet of committees. In many instances there is no opportunity and no means for hon. members to come to grips with the question of estimates, payments and expenditures. The basic principle governing supply, a principle that has come down to us through the ages, has been eliminated. This principle is that supply ought to be held up until basic grievances raised in this place by members of the House on behalf of the people of Canada have been answered. At present, Sir, there is no real opportunity for this to be done.
At present, estimates must be passed by a calendar date. Even if there has not been adequate study with regard to some of the items, and in many instances there certainly has not, all the votes are automatically deemed to have been passed by a certain date. In committees, the intention was to provide government members with an opportunity to be objective and independent, and avoid the party whip. This has not been the case. Government members fall neatly into file and toe the party line when estimates are challenged. A recent column written by George Bain in the Toronto Globe and Mail demonstrated this. He said in part:
-the principle of responsibility always looming, the committees in the end will report on any vital matter precisely on party lines.-
-But it would be worthwhile to examine, openly, to see whether it would be beyond Canadian ingenuity to devise a system which, by reducing to a very small handful the occasions on which a government might be defeated in the House and have to give up power, would permit some relaxation of the dead hand of party discipline as now applied.
I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will heed the message and relax the stern discipline under which all members are restrained when estimates are discussed, so that backbenchers on the government side in particular may be free to vote according to the dictates of their consciences rather than according to the way they are told to vote.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You people had better watch your own discipline.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let me talk for a moment about supplementary estimates. Today we were given supplementary estimates B, involving some $433 million. Supplementary Estimates A were tabled in the House on November 19, 1971 and totalled some $872 million. In other words, by virtue of these supplementary estimates, more that $1 billion has been added to the spending program of this government. What opportunity do hon. members have to deal with these supplementary estimates? What has happened, Mr. Speaker?
The estimates of 25 departments were contained in Supplementary Estimates A which totalled altogether $872 million odd. There were 87 votes in all in those supplementary estimates. Because of the limitation of time pursuant to our Standing Orders, only 32 of those votes were considered. We never discussed 55 of them. They were never debated, never questioned. Not a single question was put in the committee, largely because of the fixed date for passing the estimates which governed the work of the committee. The estimates were out of the committee

on December 7 and were the subject of an appropriation bill in this House on December 9. Mr. Speaker, that was shabby treatment. That was not good enough. The people of Canada are being ill served by Parliament when the rules established by this government permit sharp practices by the government and even encourage this to happen.
There is a great lack of detailed information in the estimates. I shall not go into the details of that, but I defy even members of this House, after looking at the estimates to comprehend what is involved. They are full of gobbledygook. Those people in the Treasury Board who know about them may understand them, but to the average member of the public and even to members of this House they simply do not make sense. I am not alone in saying this. The Auditor General said it in many of his reports to this House. The Public Accounts Committee has said it also on a great many occasions. I suggest that a very serious look should be taken at this particular problem, so that when we examine these estimates they will be comprehensible and we will have the capacity to deal with them.
In addition to that, I suggest that the estimates of at least four or five departments must be brought to the House each session by way of Committee of Supply. These should be at the choice of the opposition. This would mean that, during the course of the average Parliament of four years, more than half the departments of government would have had their estimates discussed in the wider forum of the House of Commons. I am not suggesting at this time that we revert entirely to the old system. We may consider this, at least as a half-way house, but I think it is absolutely essential that commencing this session at least four or five departments should have their estimates considered in the House in Committee of Supply. Then, there should be a vote on every motion brought in by the opposition parties on the 25 opposition days, although only six of these would be construed as being non-confidence motions. There is no reason the government should not be compelled to take a stand and that all members be counted. This could be done if it were clearly understood that these were not non-confidence motions. At the present time, unless there is a motion on which there is to be a vote, the procedure becomes more and more futile so far as the opposition is concerned.
I have already indicated that in my view the form of the estimates should be changed to conform with the proposals made by the Public Accounts Committee and by the Auditor General. In that regard there is one important suggestion I make to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). Members of this House, members of committees and the public should be aware of the present estimated cost of programs. We have often seen the situation where some large program is introduced with a blaring of trumpets and loud hallelujahs. It is rumoured that the cost will be X million dollars. Each year we find in the estimates a limited amount of money included to cover that particular year's work on that project. What we do not know, however, from year to year is by how much the cost of that project escalates and, by the time the project is completed, we learn to our dismay and certainly to the
March 7, 1972

dismay and anxiety of the taxpayer that it cost not X million of dollars but rather four times X million of dollars.
I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that in each vote of the estimates of this kind there should be included the original project cost, the present estimated cost and any proposals or thoughts which may be in the mind of the Treasury Board about the final cost. Such information should be available in clear and specific language to members of the House and the public so that they would have knowledge of the ultimate cost of the project. In this way, the taxpayers would know what they are facing, and then if they wished to object through us as their representatives we would be in a position to do so, basing the objection on facts.
There should be a moratorium on dollar items. In the supply items given to us today by the Treasury Board we find 12 dollar items.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are 20.


Gerald William Baldwin: I stand corrected. I have not had an opportunity to examine them. I noticed 12 at first blush. We all know what dollar items are. The government brings in an item for $1 and within the limited wording of a vote in the estimates there is a provision for spending which should be contained in legislation. I suggest there is no reason, save in cases of emergency, that the government should not with proper timing and proper understanding place legislation before the House. We have an example in Information Canada. We have an example in the local initiatives program. There are dozens of examples costing hundreds of millions of dollars for which this House has had no opportunity, during the course of considering a bill, to make proposals, to make amendments, to make changes or to call witnesses before a committee. The items are there, and they are subject to a time limit. As I said before this is an exceedingly shabby way to treat the taxpayers of this land.
Finally, the relations between the Auditor General and the government should be altered so that we get better service from this official. A question was asked in the House of Commons yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness). Today, I am told, there is an article by the Canadian Press containing a statement made by the Auditor General, in which he says the reason he was not able to produce his report at this time is that his staff has been reduced. He says also there is a lack of morale among the staff because of the failure of the government to meet with his request concerning salaries and classifications, as a result of which Public Service Board has not been able to recruit the staff he requires.
I believe this requires a very substantial and serious answer by the government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he would look into it yesterday. It is a very dangerous situation when the Auditor General, the last defence of the taxpayers of our land, is treated in this shabby way. According to the press release the Auditor General's report will not be out until at least May. The Public Accounts Committee is now dealing with the report up to March 31, 1970. Should an election be held this spring or summer, this House will have no opportunity, through the Public Accounts Committee, to deal with
Control of Government Expenditures the report of the Auditor General. It will be left in abeyance until next fall and it will be almost two years after the event before we get around, through our committee, to a study of this report. Since the Auditor General has stated one reason for the delay is the very large number of mistakes in the public accounts, this calls for a very serious examination by this House and some explanation by the government.
Let me close on this note. Today all over the country people have sent, or have prepared, their income tax returns for 1971. They will shortly be coming under the new tax laws which were enacted last session. This is probably neither the time nor the place-and in any event I do not have sufficient time at my disposal-to deal with all the various programs and policies covered by the vast expenditures for the coming fiscal year. However, there is one duty which is obligatory upon every member of this House on both sides. It is to ensure that the taxpayer who is compelled to fork over his money to the government receives a dollar's worth of value for every dollar he pays. This certainly is not the case today. Most people realize there is a responsibility, within the opportunity afforded by their particular earnings, to make a reasonable contribution to limit poverty, distress, unemployment and the problems of the older people. I think the great majority of Canadians are also prepared to attempt to help, at least to some extent, narrow the gap which exists between the various regions of Canada.
Having said that, I think in addition the people of Canada are entitled to, and I demand on their behalf, a fair break. I know there is no government which spends other people's money which is 100 per cent efficient. That is the way it happens. But I think it is a shocking and a shameful thing to see exposed in this House year after year and month after month details of profligacy, of improvidence, of stupidity, of waste, of extravagance and mismanagement and absolutely no corrective measures taken. We demand on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada that this sort of nonsense be brought under control. I have attempted to offer some suggestions. We have criticized the government, and I think we are entitled to do so, but we have not limited ourselves to that. We have offered suggestions as to ways that this situation might be remedied. I suggest that the government should pay some attention to these proposals and give a reasonable answer to the people of Canada before this debate is completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I look upon the motion made today as a very important one, and I regard it as a motion which we should discuss in terms of looking at our House of Commons operation with respect to the estimates or, to put it in other terms, with respect to the expenditures that parliament is called upon to vote. I realize that in the first part of the motion there is a phrase that seems to get into most opposition motions, namely that we condemn the government, and so we should. No doubt before the day is out some speakers will elaborate on that part of the motion. But I confess that I am more interested in the latter part of the motion, which urges that steps be taken so that we can exercise greater scrutiny and control over
March 7, 1972

Control of Government Expenditures estimates and expenditures. I, therefore, propose to discuss this matter, as I have already said, in terms of looking at the ways in which the House of Commons deals with the estimates.
As hon. members are aware, we made some pretty drastic changes in our procedures a few years ago, and I want to say quite openly that I think in some respects the changes that we made were good. I believe that we did improve the process by which we handle legislation. I think it was a good idea for us to arrange for practically all bills to go to standing committees and for us to eliminate the duplication that we used to have when a bill could be discussed at length in a standing committee and again at length in the committee of the whole House. We got around the complaint that might arise because bills go to standing committees that members not on those committees do not have a chance to speak on the bill by providing for the report stage at which it is possible for any member, by putting down a motion, to achieve a discussion on a phase of the bill in which he is interested. That is not before us today, but I felt that I would like to say that I think we did a good job in the changes we made with respect to the legislative process.
However, I think we have not succeeded to the same extent-in fact I think we have not succeeded at all-in our efforts to find a better way to deal with the estimates or the expenditures which parliament is called upon to vote. I welcome the attendance in the House this afternoon of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), and I hope he will take the remarks I wish to offer in the vein in which I present them. I present them not as an attack upon the government but rather as a plea that the House of Commons as a whole take a new look at the whole question of how we handle our expenditures. I am frequently twitted about the fact that I have been around here for a few years. As I said last night, I am only beginning my stay in parliament, for I hope to be around for several decades yet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: sleeve was that it could say to the government, "These are the departments we want to deal with on the floor of the House of Commons in this particular session". I think that system worked fairly well. Perhaps modification of it would have been a good idea, but the main difficulty with that system, as I say, was that it was transitional only, and we did not renew it.
Then, we moved from that to the present system under which we send all of the estimates to committees, every last one, including the supplementaries, such as were tabled today. We have abolished the committee of supply. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the procedural committee that recommended this, and we thought we were producing a method that was better than the former one. We decided that since all members were doing on supply days was making speeches anyway, we would put in their place 25 opposition days; that we would be honest about it and say 25 days are for opposition members to discuss whatever they wish. In return for that, we would let the estimates go to committees and renounce any right to deal with estimates on the floor of the House.
I think that was a mistake. I do not think we should be faulted for having proposed the idea and for having given it a trial. But it has not worked. The estimates go to committees. Perhaps in the first session of a new parliament the estimates of this department or of that one will get a fairly good going over. But so far as parliament as a whole is concerned, the members not on a particular committee get no chance at those estimates. A day comes, therefore, at the end of the session when a vote has to be taken, and unless those members put down motions, as some of us have done on occasion, all these millions or billions of dollars are voted in a very few minutes, without debate at all.
I think it might almost be better not to do it at all, and merely pass one act which provides that whatever estimates the Treasury Board has brought in are deemed to have been passed when the session ends. But I am sure the President of the Treasury Board does not want that authority. All I am saying is that what we do is so ridiculous that we might as well go the whole way. It is time we had a look at the experience we have had, a look at the four methods, assess them, and ask whether there is not some better way than the one we now follow.
I think the present system is no good. I think the second of the regimes I mentioned just a while ago was likewise no good, that is, when we sent all the estimates to committee of supply but with a time limit of 30 days. I think the system that was in effect when I first came here was the best, but it is not possible to go back to it because there are still only 365 days in the year and there is so much more business to be done. But I think something of the order of the third of the systems I described would be a lot better.
I would like to see us arrange for the estimates to go to committees, and I want to make some suggestions about that, but I would like us to make it part of our rules that the opposition has the right every session to name three or four departments-and it does not have to name them until on in the session-that would also be dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons. Whether that would
Control of Government Expenditures be done by a committee of the whole or a committee of supply does not matter. I would even go so far as to say that this should be without time limit. Lengthen the days if necessary. Have morning sittings then, instead of morning sittings in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. If there is anything to the supposition or myth that parliament controls the public purse, we ought to set it on a basis where we really will be doing this kind of thing.
With regard to the committees that handle estimates, they should be looked at as well. Some of my colleagues may develop some of the points in an amendment that I am going to move, namely, that there should be more services for those committees, more space for them. Don't kick us out of this building and put us over in the Confederation building somewhere. Leave us in this building, but provide a building in which committees can operate as they should. There should also be proper time for the committees to do their job. Now, I am back to an old theme that I often proclaim, namely, that there should be times when parliament does not meet but committees do so that they can do their job.
Then, we have to look in particular at the kind of job committees do on estimates. I go on committees that deal with veterans affairs and with health, welfare and pension matters. These are subjects in which I am interested. But when I do go on these committees, what is my interest? My interest is getting all the money I can for veterans, for pensions, for health services, or what have you.
When my farm colleagues go on the Agriculture Committee they are not interested in saving money. They are interested in getting money and services for the agriculture industry. That is part of our job. None of us is going to renounce it. But in my opinion there is a place for a committee on estimates made up of auditor types, public accounts types, members who will devote themselves to this and will scrutinize the estimates the way the Treasury Board is supposed to scrutinize them before they ever get into the book. I believe that whole programs should be looked at with what we sometimes call a fine-toothed comb, if that isn't a mixed metaphor of some sort. The job our committees do now on estimates is not an auditing job. It is not an inspection or scrutinizing job. It is a job that members do because they are interested in the subject of the committee to which the estimates have been referred.
Another fact of life around here is that in any parliament each department gets a pretty thorough going over about once, and then examination tends to peter out. It is repetition. Maybe it would be good enough in a four-year parliament that every department would have one thorough examination with, shall we say, a special committee on estimates, that could have the authority to call for three or four or five different departments that it would examine, not with an eye to getting more dollars for this or that program, but with an eye to close scrutiny of the estimates. This is the type of thing I am advocating. I think we should go back to a combination of reference of estimates to committees and of dealing with three or four departments on the floor of the House of Commons.
I also think, so far as the committees are concerned, that the standing committees generally should have more

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures time, and space, and services, and that there should be a special estimates committee which again would have the authority to call each session for three or four of the departments to come before it for the kind of close scrutiny that could be given to them by that type of committee.
Now. Sir, it seems to me that this is the kind of thing we ought to consider. I do not put my ideas out as the final answer, and I would certainly be glad to see them modified or amended. However, I do plead that we not go through another Parliament handling or mishandling or failing to handle estimates as we have these past few years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The process of handling supply the way we do on both interim and final estimates is really a joke. The President of the Treasury Board filed supplementary estimates today, getting them in before the end of March, which means that we do not get the three extra days provided in the rules under certain conditions. The day will come when he will ask for a vote for interim supply for the months of April, May and June. He will get it without any debate on the floor of Parliament because that is the rule. By the end of March, he will have his interim supply for the months of April, May and June and by the end of June, because it is in the book, he will get his vote on the main estimates for the balance of the fiscal year, or until the end of next March. We did this with our eyes wide open because we did not like the old system by which money was being voted on at all. I think we are to be commended for getting rid of that farce, but now we have another one.
As I say, I am trying to present this not as a case of confrontation between government and opposition, but I am asking that we discuss our own operation as a House of Commons. The rules that we have were produced by us. In terms of the legislative process, we made tremendous improvements and we do not need to worry about them within the life of a few more Parliaments. Naturally, members will come along who will want to change them, and that is the way it should be, but in terms of the supply process what we have now is not any good at all.
The President of the Treasury Board may not go as far as the judgment I have made, but I think he will agree that he would like something much better. What he has is very convenient; he knows that once Treasury Board produces the estimates his troubles are over. He gets interim supply before the end of March and the main estimates before the end of June. The worst that could happen is that there might have to be one or two votes on the last night in June on some opposed items, but even that process is hard to pursue. We have put them down for the Prices and Incomes Commission and for the Senate, but there are very few items in the estimates that we can oppose entirely. There are a lot of government programs of which we are critical but we cannot put down a motion of opposition for the entire item. The whole system is for the birds. It does not fit the requirements of a Parliament that is supposed to be giving close examination, is sup-

posed to be scrutinizing the estimates and is supposed to fulfil the role of guardian of the public purse.
I shall welcome further comments made during the course of the day about this matter, but since I see my time is about up I had better present the amendment to which I referred. I should like to offer an amendment to the motion presented by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which suggests in general terms the kind of thing for which I have been arguing. I, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the motion be amended by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"by amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons so that the handling of estimates, instead of being perfunctory and ineffective, will be put on a proper basis, including provision for adequate committee time, space and services, and for consideration of certain of the estimates on the floor of the House of Commons."
Now, Sir, hon. members may have other suggestions and those I have set forth could be modified, but in the main I think what we are proposing is clear. We accept the fact that the legislative process, using committees as it does, is good but we are not satisfied with the process by which estimates are handled. We think it could be improved by strengthening committees, by giving them adequate time, space and services. We think the whole process could also be improved by having an arrangement of the kind I have described, namely, that some of the estimates could be dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons at the instigation of the opposition and also that some of the estimates each year could be dealt with by a special committee set up for that purpose.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the motion that has been moved so that the House can discuss these matters today. We hope the House will look favourably on our amendment and, whatever happens on the vote tonight, we hope that this House will make up its mind that if it is not done before the forthcoming election, in the next Parliament we will have to find a better system for carrying out our function as the guardians of the public purse of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating today, moved by the official opposition, means that Parliament should be empowered to scrutinize thoroughly federal expenditures.
Indeed the motion is worded as follows, and I quote:
This House condemns the Government for its mismanagement and waste of taxpayers money and urges that Parliament take steps to exercise greater scrutiny and control over estimates and expenditures.
The motion refers to a "waste of taxpayers money" and this is just about what is happening throughout the country. Today, I would like to deal briefly with the local initiative projects approved by the federal government.
Some projects had to be submitted first to the provincial authorities, the Municipal Affairs Department in Quebec and similar departments in other provinces, and
March 7, 1972

the minister or his department accepted the projects presented to the federal government.
Later on we had answers such as this one: This project has been refused. A phone call to the department brought this reply: Certain funds earmarked for these projects have been spent and the total of these amounts exceeds the budget-a budget of $50 million for the whole country. It so happened that many important local initiative projects were refused while others less important were accepted.
For example, the creation of snowmobile trails had been requested and certain municipalities or parishes asked for the improvement of community centers. All they wanted was money to pay the salaries since the materials would be supplied by the parish or municipality. This was rejected.
Substantial amounts of money were spent to create jobs and while these were being created the number of unemployed was going up. The reason given is that the number of people entering the labour market is increasing rapidly; so unemployment goes up and at the same time the government tells us it is creating new jobs.
It may be true that new jobs became available because in February, for example, I saw men cutting branches in three or four feet of snow. Our unemployed were in the snow right up to the belt cutting branches. They had to dig to cut branches. It is obvious that the branches will be growing again this spring and that next winter this will provide other jobs.
However, when I saw those unemployed working in temperatures of 25, 30 or 35 degrees below zero I thought it might be wise for the government to undertake, next winter, another local initiatives program to allow these people to work in a heated place, for example, by buying balls of wool and knitting needles and having them knit mittens. There are not anough mittens in politics. We need more.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we probably need a new minister, a minister of balls of wool to ensure fair distribution to those who want to knit. They could knit in a heated place. This would be as intelligent as having them cut branches in the middle of winter.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not yet thought of it. In the coming election campaign we will see if he does not promise us a department of balls of wool and knitting needles to take care of the jobless next winter.


Roch La Salle: Would the hon. member allow me a question? Would he make a suggestion to the government?


David Réal Caouette: No, but I am ready to suggest the replacement of our present crazy system. My suggestion would be as crazy, but not more.
Mr. Speaker, important projects have been rejected while, I repeat, others which were unimportant were accepted. Who made the decisions?
Some municipalities, for instance, are told: Your project has a fair chance of being accepted. A building project of sorts is then submitted to the Minister of Municipal
Control of Government Expenditures Affairs providing that the government would pay the salaries involved. The municipality concerned is given to understand that the federal government will accept the project. The provincial government gives the go ahead and subsequently an architect is hired. The plans are drawn at a cost of $10,000 to $12,000 which the municipality is called upon to disburse. The plan is then submitted to the provincial government and the minister declares that it is accepted and that it should be immediately forwarded to Ottawa. Two or three weeks elapse-these things take time-after which Ottawa decides to reject the project. The municipality is then compelled to pay $12,000 to an architect for a project that has been rejected. The government does not contribute a cent. That is, once again, a brilliant system: Parishes and municipalities are compelled to run into debts and pay the salaries of architects whom they are obliged, by provincial laws, to hire. This is done with a promise that the project will be accepted, but then it is rejected.
Only recently, I was talking to officials of the department responsible for the Local Initiatives Program, and they admitted to having gone over the budget. They have spent $15 million already, and the minister says he is not going to add a penny.
Mr. Speaker, since we have established a Local Initiatives Program, let us at least respect the projects which make sense. Let us not make petty excuses and say that all the money has been spent. Let us create a budget!
Yesterday we were presented with a $219 million budget designed to make up for the deficits of the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. Strangely enough, we will manage to find the money! Why cannot we do the same thing for serious local initiatives projects-not, of course, for revolutionaries and rebels!
There is a local initiatives project in Mont-Laurier, for instance, where the FLQ leader Pierre Vallieres, who has now been released from jail, has been hired, even though he said: I will never stop working towards the separation of Quebec.
That same night, the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) stated humbly in a television broadcast in Montreal that Pierre Vallieres had a right to work. I do not question this right, but let him go and work for Rene Levesque-not for the federal government.
Vallieres is paid with the Canadian people's money for working towards the destruction of Canada, towards getting Quebec out of the Canadian Confederation. Where do they send him? To the poor people in Mont-Laurier, so that he can see whether it is true that there are poor people there, and why and how they are poor, and so he can give them advice: You know, fellows, the reason you are poor is because of Ottawa. If you were on Rene Levesque's side in order to make the separation of Quebec come about sooner, you would be a little poorer but it would not show so much. This way he tries to stir up people against the country. Ottawa does not raise any objections. They say: It is a Mr. De Serres who is responsible for the project-another notorious separatist, another man who is openly anti-Canadian. And this project gets $46,000 or $48,000 from the federal government.

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures
The same goes on in my area of Rouyn-Noranda. Small groups of separatists receive federal subsidies for local initiatives projects. They use that money to try to destroy Canada. You meet them in groups of ten, twelve, and they tell you: Ottawa is stupid enough to pay us, but we are not so stupid as to turn it down. And so they accept subsidies from Ottawa to work towards the destruction of Canada. The government has money to finance those projects but when it comes to the parochial complex of Nedelec, in Temiscamingue, it does not. They refuse a subsidy of $52,000, while in a neighbouring parish, they subsidize a skidoo trail, part of which is built on a river! When the ice melts, the trail will disappear. Still, $46,500 were granted for that project.
I have nothing against skidoo trails; I like the sport myself and do some skidooing. But, Mr. Speaker, projects of greater importance than skidoo trails have been truned down. If they were not, all would be well. Skidoo trails are fine indeed for week-end fun, but they are of secondary importance. In a logical system, that is the way things would be. But under our present system, skidoo trails have the priority over parish halls, and municipal or provincial improvements.
Money could be spent towards achieving better understanding between the various elements of Canada, so that all might work towards buttressing Canadian unity. But no, money is spent on projects that are worth very little.
So, Mr. Speaker, I distinctly blame the government for this situation. The opposition is quite right in saying it has been a stupid waste of taxpayers' money. That is what we are protesting against.
Now, let us turn to the area of unemployment insurance. To a question I put this afternoon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) replied that there were 200 major offices throughout Canada. They have been centralized in the province of Quebec. For our region and the Hull region, the regional office is in Montreal. Anyone applying to the local Rouyn-Noranda office is referred to Montreal. Some people have received no benefits since October 25, a period of four months. We are entering the fifth month, with still no cheques forthcoming.
Yesterday, for instance, an applicant from Larder Lake, a village in the riding of my friend, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), told me that he has been in touch with the Timmins office since October 25. The day before yesterday, he was notified that his case was still pending. They have been processing the case of this applicant for four months. He was advised to apply to a welfare office for assistance pending settlement of his case. Anyone applying to the provincial welfare office is told: "Your unemployment insurance benefits will be coming through." Yes, but when? In the meantime the applicant is required to undertake in writing to make his cheques over to the office when he receives them and he will thus obtain a small cash advance in the meantime. That is the game they are playing with the unemployed.
There is a still more serious case in my region, Quemont Mines which closed down, laying off 350 miners. These people, according to their working contract, had accumulated a fund of $750 each, which they received when they were laid off. They applied to the Manpower

Centre, but they were told: Gentlemen, when you have spent your $750, we will pay you unemployment insurance benefits. Now, the miner who has not found a job the day after his dismissal does not receive any unemployment insurance benefit. On the other hand, the one who has found one continues to receive an income. He is not told that he will not have to pay unemployment insurance as long as his $750 are not spent. Unemployment insurance contributions are required from his first working day. After having paid unemployment insurance contributions during 20 years, those people are denied benefits, not because they are unemployed, but because they have accumulated $750 during that period. That amount is considered as an extension of their wages.
I suggest that the Department of Labour is stealing from the workers of the Quemont and Noranda mines whose wages amounted to $3,000 or $3,500 at the time of their dismissal. This means that the Department of Labour is a department of thieves whose victims are the miners who have spent their lives toiling at 5,000 or 10,000 feet underground, have lost their job and are now receiving $750 for 20 years of work. And then they are told: Gentlemen, you must spend your $750 before you can get unemployment insurance benefits.
I brought this problem to the attention of the minister who told me: Officials have made a decision. What is the use of a minister who cannot make decisions? It is the officials who are going to decide in the case of the Quemont miners! These men have paid their unemployment insurance contributions, which means that it would come to the same if the government or the public servants said: Gentlemen, over your 25 years of work, you have saved $4,000 or $5,000; so we will have to check. Spend your $5,000 and then, we will pay you unemployment insurance benefits.
As for the $750, the government has collected them from those miners during 20 years. He has collected unemployment insurance contributions. And, when the time comes for benefits to be paid to them, they are told: Spend your $750 allowance, and then we will start paying you unemployment insurance benefits. The Quemont miners began receiving benefits at the beginning of March when they had lost their jobs in August, in September or in October last year. And this is supposed to be normal!
Mr. Speaker, that is a waste of the taxpayers' money. It is more costly to hire someone like Lefebvre, a former Liberal organizer, at $600 per week. Six hundred dollars per week! Money is available for that, but to help the unemployed, there isn't any.
For political patronage, money is available. To serve man, there is not. Appeals are made to the department, to the minister, to the deputy minister to solve some cases, because one cannot do so by oneself. And, suddenly, one finds that shameful waste is the rule in many fields, in several sectors of the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, no wonder provinces and municipalities are opposing Ottawa. Millions, billions of dollars are thrown away. When we ask the government to spend money for the people instead of taxing them and spending
March 7, 1972

money for the benefit of a few privileged persons, we are laughed at.
Ten years ago when I was advocating on television that the Canadian economy be given a push, I suggested distributing $100 to each Canadian only once so as to see the results five or six months later. A family of 10 would have received $1,000 of Canadian credit. One of five would have been given $500. We could then have found out if it was a failure or a profitable undertaking. The Liberals laughed at us. Fools!
According to the estimates for the current year, interest on the national debt is $2,335 million. Do we know what that means? $106.43 per person in Canada. It means that a family of 10 must pay $1,064 in interest on the national debt. Do you see any government members rise up to protest against the interest on the national debt? Of course not. If the amount of $106 is paid to financiers, that is fine, but, if it is paid to Canadians, they cannot see it. They are such fat-heads.
Mr. Speaker, government expenditures are tremendous. Out of a budget of $18 billion this year, nearly $2.3 billion will go to pay the interest on the national debt alone. Nobody protests against that. It is the worst waste in the whole budget, in the whole federal administration.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes object to this waste and urge, as it is said in the motion, a fair and honest scrutiny of the Canadian government expenditures, in order to serve the whole population.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are considering appears to have two aspects. In one of them, the government is roundly condemned for what is described as mismanagement and waste of taxpayers' money. In the other, parliament is urged to take steps to exercise greater scrutiny and control.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) cited instances of expenditures which have been fairly well examined, I think. In every instance they have been explained, and in many instances the course of action taken has been justified. To describe these now, at this late date, as examples of waste, extravagance, inefficiency and the other attributes he was able to find in his dictionary, is not likely to take us very far in this discussion; I do not think it would be helpful if I were to attempt to rehash all this old history again.
Let me put on record some information with regard to government expenditures as a whole. It is true that government expenditures have been rising from year to year, though I suggest they are not rising at so great a rate as the increase in the responsibilities of the government would indicate. This increase in responsibilities results from the growth in population and from economic growth as reflected in the increase in our gross national product. Public expenditures in Canada have been rising quite rapidly in the past few years. However, they have been rising much more slowly in the federal field than has been the case either in the provincial area or in the combined municipal and provincial area.
The average rate of growth of federal expenditures during the period from 1967 to 1971 inclusive was 11.8 per
Control of Government Expenditures cent per year. Of the total federal expenditure, very substantial sums are transferred annually to the provinces and it is the provinces which in the final analysis make these expenditures and control not only their size but their scope and administration. If one subtracts from the total of the federal expenditures I have mentioned transfers to the provinces, one finds that net growth in federal expenditure exclusive of these transfers to the provinces in the year 1967-68 was 7.8 per cent; in the year 1968-69, 11.6 per cent; in the year 1969-70, 9.8 per cent; and in the year 1970-71, 7.8 per cent, for an average net federal expenditure growth rate of 9.3 per cent per annum. That is pretty much the same as the growth rate in our gross national product.
In a similar way, growth of public expenditures by the provinces is rather more spectacular. From an average annual growth rate of 18 per cent per annum, one subtracts the substantial transfers made by provinces to hospitals and local governments for administrative control and expenditure purposes. This leaves a net figure for provincial administration growth rate in the year 1967-68 of 16.9 per cent; in the year 1968-69, 12.9 per cent; in the year 1969-70, 23.5 per cent; and in the year 1970-71, 24.7 per cent, for an average annual growth rate in provincial government public expenditure, not including sums transferred for local control and administrative purposes to hospitals and municipalities, of 19.5 per cent. So, one can see that the expenditures of the federal government, exclusive of transfers to the provinces, have been something in the order of the gross national product growth, but have grown at a conservatively lesser rate than provincial government expenditures.
Another feature I should like to emphasize is that about one-half of our total annual expenditures are derived not from programs put forward in the estimates and under the appropriation acts, but from separate parliamentary statutes that provide for expenditures on a scale, at a rate, and under conditions determined by the particular statute itself. About one-half of our annual expenditures have been devoted to this particular purpose; the other half go toward appropriations under programs contained in the estimates.
Growth in statutory expenditures as against what we might call discretionary expenditures or appropriations in 1967-68 was about 43 per cent of total federal expenditures, rising in 1972-73 to about 482 per cent. So that the amount of discretionary expenditures under the appropriation acts both in relation to public expenditures as between the provinces, municipalities and the federal government, and in relation to the federal government itself as between statutory expenditures under the control of acts of parliament and discretionary expenditures, has been decreasing. Indeed, it has shown the slowest growth of all the expenditures I have described. This is the particular aspect to which the hon. member for Peace River directed his attention.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Except that he is not paying any attention now.

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Then perhaps I should not say directed his attention, but directed his remarks. So the fact is that the suggestion that these expenditures have been growing out of control is not borne out by the facts relating to total expenditures. I will not dwell any more on that particular item.
In making his litany of complaints, the hon. member for Peace River referred to worshipping at the temple of bureaucracy. That is a temple at which I do not worship, though perhaps he does.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are in it.


Mr. Nowlan:: You built it and you own it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. member for Peace River is prepared to worship at my feet, I do not like it but I will accept it. Like the disposable public expenditures that I have mentioned, the bureaucracy itself has also not been growing out of control. During the past ten years the average rate of increase in the size of the public service has been 1.5 per cent. I think this represents a much slower rate of growth than the increase in responsibility for the very large, new expenditures, public benefit schemes, such as the Canada Pension Plan, the guaranteed income supplement, the reform of the income tax system and the issue of capital gains. The additional people required to administer these programs-


Mr. Douglas:: How much do you pay into the Canada Pension Plan?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government of Canada is required to provide the administration for the Canada Pension Plan. We are talking here about numbers of people, about growth in the federal bureaucracy. I am saying that in spite of these new large programs, growth in the population of Canada, and substantial growth-something of the order of 9.5 per cent per annum-in the gross national product, the size of the public service, including departments and departmental corporations but not including, of course, the CNR or armed forces, has been of the order of 1.5 per cent per annum during the last 10 years.


Gerald William Baldwin: But your casuals employed under contract arrangements take the figure up.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sure the hon. member would hardly represent that contractors' form part of the bureaucracy, certainly not that part of the bureaucracy of which he calls me an element.
The next item the hon. member mentioned and with which I propose to deal concerns the form of the estimates which, in his view, calls for some criticism. I can only assume that this criticism is based on lack of opportunity to look them over; I think it could hardly be lack of intelligence. The fact of the matter is that the present form of the estimates was the unanimous recommendation of the public accounts committee which gave the question long consideration, I suggest much greater consideration than the hon. member for Peace River has given the new form of the estimates. The committee was impressed with the fact that the revised form of the estimates now disclose more in the way of intelligible information than has ever been given to parliament before.
[Mr. Basford.J
Again I make the point I have made in the past, that power is based on knowledge, and that knowledge is power in the kind of institution we have. The government's endeavours to provide information to the public and, indeed, to members of the opposition apparently so overwhelmed those hon. members that they have not been able to assimilate it all and, consequently, they have had to take exception to the size of this great big, thick volume known as the blue book. There is too much information in it, and it confuses them. The hon. member cannot understand it.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is not properly put together.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. member feels that it is not properly put together, let him make specific suggestions.


Gerald William Baldwin: I already have.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Let him make those suggestions to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the body which gave consideration to the new form. That committee, including the chairman, unanimously adopted the new form and-


Gerald William Baldwin: One chairman of that committee made recommendations which have never been followed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I can only say that it is perhaps fortunate that they were not followed, because the subsequent Tory chairman in my view was correct in not paying attention to the recommendations of an earlier and less competent chairman.


Gerald William Baldwin: He was not allowed to carry out those recommendations, because the majority of committee members would not let him.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member suggests that there should be votes on all opposition days. Apparently the ability of the opposition to articulate grievances or, indeed, to find grievances is so limited that by about half past eight in the evening on an opposition day there is no way of compelling opposition attendance except by requiring a vote and ringing the bell.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, no. The minister has that all wrong.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We thought that we would establish a system in this House involving proceedings that are sufficiently interesting to command the attention and presence of hon. members without the sort of school boy announcement that would call them in for a vote on every one of those extra 25 days. Surely, it is a most unsatisfactory commentary on Parliament, and on the conduct of the opposition, when the only way of getting the attention of those hon. members is by ringing the bells and calling for a vote.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know the minister would not want to mislead the House on what I said. I think I must, under the Standing Orders, correct him and say what I had in mind was that I hoped some of the boneless wonders who sit behind him would be prepared to vote on motions that are not confidence motions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 7, 1972


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what kind of remark that is, other than being an endeavour to get on the record a description of intelligent people as "boneless wonders".
The suggestion made by both the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was that there should be consideration of the estimates of a number of departments, chosen in some way, in the committee of the whole. There should be a certain number each year so considered. The hon. member for Peace River did not explain why he would like this. His, I suppose, is the conventional wisdom that suggests that certain things can only be considered adequately in the committee of the whole or on the floor of the House and that it is impossible to have any kind of meaningful scrutiny, any kind of meaningful acquisition of information, except through an exchange of views across the floor of the House.
I myself feel that, under our committee system, there is an orderly opportunity for detailed examination and detailed scrutiny of estimates.


Mr. Alexander:: It is all too fast.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In the consideration of estimates in committee, there are available for this purpose about two and a half times the number of hours that were available in the past. By referring all the estimates to committee, by abolishing the committee of supply, we have succeeded in providing more House time for the formal legislative process. At the same time, we have obtained two and a half times the amount of parliamentary time for the scrutiny of estimates than was the case in the past. I would feel reluctant to back any scheme that would diminish this level.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested that one reason for bringing this matter back to the House was that the members-he must have meant the members of the opposition-were concerned only about seeing that there was more money for their friends, for their constituents, and, consequently, that such scrutiny can hardly be described as a scrutiny of the estimates. For instance, the Standing Committee on Agriculture presumably is not competent to examine certain estimates in a critical way. The suggestion was that opposition members were there merely to see that there was more money for their constituents; or, they would represent that they were trying to get more money for particular constituents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Be fair; this involves all the members on both sides.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Well now, Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member making that statement. I do not accept that all the members on both sides are engaged in that activity. I happen to be a member of the House of Commons; and, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this has not been my object in attending parliamentary committees.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Of what committee is the minister a member?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not a member, but I have attended-
Control of Government Expenditures


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister been a member of any committee?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, I have been. Not only have I been a member of a committee, I have been a member of a committee as an opposition member.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister is one of the Commissioners of Internal Economy. That is the committee on which he sits.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the real difficulty facing members of parliament is the vast volume of business that must be accomplished in what are described as only 365 days of one year. It is a fact that all of us try to undertake perhaps more than we can accomplish. We are constantly being frustrated, not because of the lack of information, not because of any lack of energy, but because of the lack of time to do everything we want to do. The essential problem that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was raising, and that the hon. member for Peace River referred, to, was the problem of how more intelligently to allocate our limited resources of time.
The one arena in which time pressures are very great indeed is the arena of the House of Commons. I think, perhaps, better use could be made of opposition days. If anyone wished to scrutinize a particular department on a particular opposition day, this could be done. Today, for instance, if the opposition had agreed to look into a particular department and had expressed that desire, that could easily have been done. That it has not been done makes me assume that perhaps the opposition does not want to do this. The information on which intelligible and intelligent debate can be constructed is readily available, either in committee or through the committee system, where all pertinent information can be obtained quickly from knowledgeable people. I include in that term both ministers and officials. Such information is available and can be obtained in a way that it could never be obtained across the floor of the House, either in committee of supply or in committee of the whole.
Although, undoubtedly, our system is not perfect-


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister must not say that, please!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -I am not persuaded that the improvements suggested either by the hon. member for Peace River or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre constitute an improvement over what we have today.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has described our present system of scrutiny as basically the obtaining of information in relation to programs. If information is not obtained and if the scrutiny, as he put it, is perfunctory and ineffective, that can onlv be because those members who claim to want information cannot be bothered to go and ask for it and cannot be bothered to get it. We have made a sincere endeavour, with the help of the Public Accounts Committee, to display more information than has ever been displayed before in the printed estimates. So great is the volume of information that the hon. member for Peace River has complained he cannot lift the blue book, because there is so much information in it.
606

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures
The committee system is designed to make even more detailed information available. The informed opposition should then be able to carry on a constructive critical debate on opposition days and perhaps then call for rather more closely argued and more closely reasoned responses from the government than perhaps now is the case.


Gerald William Baldwin: You will have an opportunity to try it after the next election.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member suggests I will have an opportunity after the next election.


Gerald William Baldwin: If you are lucky, that is.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 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. I hope this experience will be taken into account, but I also hope that in consideration of the question there will be a real understanding of the essence of the problem and not an endeavour to construct a facade which perhaps will make it easier for the members to do their business without putting effort into what they conceive to be their business but rather into what I think the system calls for.
I would reiterate that I do not believe the case for the motion and the amendment which call for a change in our procedures has been really put forward strongly. I appreciate that the hon. member for Peace River rather was using this as a nominal or adjectival exercise, whereas I had the impression that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) really hoped to improve our system. But if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will accept that the most useful thing that can be made available to him as an instrument by which to fulfil his particular responsibility is information and knowledge, then the suggestions he made do not seem to me to make knowledge more available to him, and this is really what he should be after. The conduct of a so-called scrutiny of a department in committee of the whole is not really a sincere effort to acquire information but merely an opportunity to make points. This can adequately be done in the 25 odd days per session which are now called opposition days.
Another point was raised by the hon. member for Peace River. This was in relation to the Auditor General. I regret very much that the Auditor General appears to have made some comments, not to the Public Accounts Committee through which he reports, but in some other fashion and as a consequence I do not know exactly what he had in mind or to what questions he was responding in relation to the remarks attributed to him by the hon. member for Peace River. I shall try to inform myself concerning what this particular problem is, but at the moment until I ask the Public Accounts Committee what the problem is it would perhaps be unwise of me to make any comment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to be involved in the debate of what we believe is a very significant motion.

I feel that, without question, one would be ill advised to come to the conclusion that there has been no waste or mismanagement on a gross scale since there are so many facts and figures which suggest this is a proper conclusion. I was impressed somewhat by the speech given by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). I think one thing stands out. He indicated to us, I believe in all sincerity, that in effect we in this House of Commons are attempting to deal with more than we can accomplish. I think this is a problem which is becoming more severe as we go along, particularly exemplified by the passage of the tax bill which, as I understand it, is an imperfect bill. This is readily admitted. There were amendments upon amendments and there are amendments to come. Yet because of expediency and because of some deadline, we attempted to deal with more than we could accomplish. The end result is imperfect legislation being foisted upon the Canadian public.
I was also very pleased to have the opportunity to listen to my House leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and I was equally impressed with the arguments developed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I have come to the conclusion that if changes are not made in our Parliamentary system we can probably call the exercises which are perpetuated in this House of Commons, facades-facades in the committee, facades in the House of Commons and facades continued by ministers-I say with all due respect-before the television cameras out in the hall. In other words, it would seem that this place is becoming meaningless for the member of parliament. We are here to represent our constituencies, to look at estimates, to project and give constructive criticism, and yet the ideas of a member of parliament are not usually accepted. The direction which he wishes to place before the House and the people of Canada is not accepted, and the implementations he would like to see pursued are not accepted. They come from the Treasury Board.
Without intending to be nasty in any way, I suggest that many members on the government side are frustrated. I do not think I am letting anything out of the bag when I say they want a more meaningful role, and they want an opportunity to debate and question the integrity of the government. They want an opportunity to vote in order to register their concern. However, because of the system which this government perpetuates they are denied this opportunity. It would be easy for me to condemn the government's handling of the Bras d'Or, the Bonaventure and Information Canadian, which are glaring examples of waste and mismanagement. However, I will leave that to other colleagues of mine on this side of the House.
Another very significant statement by the President of the Treasury Board was his acceptance of the fact there has been an increase in the government's responsibilities. He went on and on in respect of several programs, outlining the why's and wherefors. However, he missed mentioning the responsibility that this government has toward our most important asset, that is the human resource. It is in this area that a stinging indictment is due this government because of its shameful and disgraceful attitude towards people. The government should receive the highest condemnation. They should be condemned for their lack of understanding, lack of proper policies in terms of
March 7, 1972

priorities for people who want to work or who have been in the work force but have lost jobs as a result of this government's fiscal and monetary policies. The Government has stood by and watched this happen as a regrettable side effect, and therefore there is deliberation in the creation of the unemployment for 600,000 people.
What disturbs me is that this government, through lack of understanding of its priorities in the spending of money, has deliberately decided not to reward initiative and not to give incentive. As I understand it, the rate of unemployment is unprecedented and, as I pointed out, it will continue to get worse as a result of the lack of understanding of the government of what the priorities should be in terms of the spending of government money. We need an industrial strategy which will take into consideration the tax cuts and incentives, through the co-operation, understanding and assistance of other levels of government, of labour and management, in order to set the first priority of full employment. The words "full employment" are bandied around day by day, and yet there was a stinging indictment in the presentation of the Canadian Labour Congress which, I believe, speaks for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. I want to put on the record some of the things they have said in this regard.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I disagree with most of what they had to say on the subject.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: One must be careful not to be side tracked by interjections. This is what the Canadian Labour Congress had to say:
Many Canadian families will continue to suffer because of past policies, probably the most inept, ill-advised and inhuman policies ever thrust upon any nation in modern times. Knowing fully well that this country for years has had a much more rapidly expanding labour force than any other advanced industrial nation, your government nevertheless persisted over a long period of time in pursuing the kind of policies which seemingly ignored this important labour force fact.
An exception was taken to the phrase "your government". The government said it should be "our government". I do not know why anybody should want to call it "our government". This is a stinging indictment which I believe embodies the thinking of all Canadians.
It would be very easy for me to relate my remarks to the inadequacies of the LIP program and the Opportunities for Youth program. One cannot question the principle behind these programs, but it is this that we are talking about when we refer to an industrial strategy, this ad hoc, off-the-top-of-your-head, make-work program which apparently is not making work, which apparently has been criticized from all sides, and which apparently has been condemned by the task force which has indicated that the Opportunities for Youth program has been a total failure. Let us remember how much money has been spent on the LIP program. As I said yesterday in the House, I do not know how these programs get through or what kind of scrutiny they are given before moneys are spent on them.
I refer to such programs as the one in the city of Hamilton which opposes the principles by which all of us abide in terms of our social, political and economic development
25020- 39 }
Control of Government Expenditures and instead propagandizes Communism. I do not know whether this is acceptable to the government and whether this is the criteria that was set. Sometimes I wonder whether it is a devious plot on the part of the government in order to reward someone back on someone's riding. That is as general as I can make it without becoming too offensive.


Mr. Deachman:: Don't overdo it; you are going to blow it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Other members who follow me will put the facts on the record I hope, indicating that the suggestion which I just made is well founded and truthful. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to put some facts on the record with regard to housing. However, let me say that the government has wasted time in dealing with the problems of those who live in our urban centres. I look right now at the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), and I wonder what he hopes to accomplish.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am waiting for facts.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is waiting for effects. How can there be effects when he and his predecessor have done nothing. We on this side of the House have brought to the attention of government members the problems that are associated with urban living. We have said that the constitution should not become a straitjacket precluding this government from action, but they said that under section 92 of our constitution the cities are the creatures of the provinces. Lo and behold, we now have a Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The establishment of this ministry was made at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. They are now involved in tri-level conferences, which was also the suggestion of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Instead of taking our advice in the first instance, the government spent some $14 million in an attempt to find out just what to do.
I wish to put a few facts on the record so that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will be able to reply to me in his usual charitable and friendly way. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) submitted his resignation citing differences between himself and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the range of the federal government's responsibility in the housing field. The government initiated partial plans did not work. They tied down the construction industry with petty regulations and bureaucratic red tape, and they reduced housing availability to crisis proportions. Dr. Harvey Lithwick had a major opportunity within the government to design a coherent and active housing policy for this decade, but he resigned because he felt that the federal government was not prepared to admit the dimensions of the problem and was not willing to sufficiently change its thinking and discipline. The ministry proved itself to be primarily a co-ordinating agency with no power to develop programs or to implement them. What then is the sense of spending $14 million of the taxpayers' money if the government does not recognize the problems which the study set out to uncover?
Let me carry on for just a minute more, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago Mr. Dennis of Toronto's Osgoode Hall headed a task force on low income housing. What became

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures of Mr. Dennis and his task force report? Is there trouble in the printing department getting it ready for publication, or is it that such sweeping demands are being made for change that it could never be published for fear of putting CMHC totally out of business as a lending agency?
When it comes to waste and mismanagement the government's record is classic. The Prime Minister says to his supporters, "Let us not go to the public on our record." I don't blame him. Members opposite with any sense of responsibility dare not go to the people on their record. They want to talk about their future plans, but I want to talk about their record. It is a horrible record, a disastrous record, and lacks any indication of a sense of responsibility.
Hon. members opposite sit in fear because they know we have the right to stand up and criticize, and with our mandate have the right to be the protectors of the people's interests. I can tell the smiling Minister of State for Urban Affairs that this is our function, and we will continue to carry it out with all the strength in our bodies. When we show the people that we know what is going on, we increase our credibility, and as a result of our constructive criticism the people will learn that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will be a reasonable alternative to the government after the next election.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to chastise the government as the preceding speaker did. I wish to talk about what I consider to be a problem which affects the role that members of parliament play as representatives of the people with respect to the operations of government.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) talked a lot about the idea of providing members of the opposition with more information. Mr. Speaker, I have more information here than I can ever handle. The President of the Treasury Board says that we are provided with additional information in these estimates. Mr. Speaker, if the directors of Bell Telephone or General Motors in the United States put out a financial statement similar to this, they would not last until the next board of directors meeting.
This financial statement respecting the country is not read by the general public. It is no longer even an interdepartmental document. One can no longer pick it up and find out what Joe Blow in another department is being paid. All one can find out is the general expenditures of a department, with the specifics referred to in very general terms. There is even a page for each department in the estimates with nothing but pure propaganda. These statements sound like those the CBC makes when it runs those promotionals on "I Love Me." That is what each department has.
All countries are having difficulty supervising, in a democratic way, the expenditures of various government departments. If there is one thing for which the present government can be criticized, it is that it has given up the idea of democracy. It intends to rule, and be damned to everybody else. On more than one occasion the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has told the Liberal caucus, "I am the only one who can win the next election. Therefore, if

you don't like what I do, leave." The Prime Minister is telling opposition members of parliament, "If you don't like it here, leave." And he is telling us, through his supporters in the various committees, "If you don't like the way a committee is being run, get out." The only thing the government seeks from its backbenchers is their vote. By having a majority on all committees it does not need to give out information. All it needs is sufficient members to vote and pass something, and then get on to something else.
England has this problem. But in England they believe in paying attention to the expressions of the loyal opposition. Democracy will not function if questions are not asked about the expenditures of government. That is their system in England. We may have become confused in Canada by having more than two political parties in our system. This may be part of the reason a government with a majority says, "We will use our majority and, if the country doesn't like it, the country can change that majority." Frankly, I found the same attitude displayed by the previous Conservative government. But it is magnified in the present government.
I can remember only one occasion when the Prime Minister showed enough interest in the debates that take place in this House to remain in it. That was one late evening, after midnight, when he did not have any place else to go, so he dropped in here for a few hours. Government members in one of the committees this morning talked about what wonderful thing this was, particularly when opposition members, who had other plans for the Christmas holidays, may have been away in other parts of the world.
We have changed many of the procedures in this House, but those changes have not made it easier for the opposition to scrutinize estimates. I believe we will have to set up an independent agency to scrutinize estimates, and examine them in the same way as the Auditor General examines expenditures. If we are going to examine en masse all governmental estimates, we will have to make an effort to discover what policies are wrong, simply because we do not have the time or ability to do much about the actual expenditures themselves.
It is an exercise in futility for some of us to spend two or three hours, two or three times a week, for two or three months in a committee listening to some of the experts explaining items in the estimates, when we know that the government members have a majority on the committee. Unless the Fourth Estimate picks up a particular incident, the public will learn nothing about it. If the government were really serious in saying parliament should scrutinize estimates it would give us the opportunity to do so, and allow us to correct anything wrong that civil servants may have done with respect to estimates.
Members on an estimates committee should be interested in determining that there are no abuses in the expenditures covered by the various estimates. But that is not the way we do things now. We have the adversary system, with one side made up of a majority of government members. In my opinion, there have been damned few occasions when members of the opposition were able to change in any meaningful way any estimate of any department. The question of whether we should handle
March 7, 1972

estimates in this House is one that is worthy of consideration. The minister responsible for the estimates of a department had his officials before him and replied to the questions being raised. This seemed to be a satisfactory system. I would be quite prepared to listen to the argument made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) that we should have some estimates in the House in those 25 days allotted to the opposition, but I would agree to that only if it were in committee rather than with the Speaker in the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: It seems to me that if we could correct one or two problems a year in a particular department, we would be doing an excellent job on behalf of the public. Let us not fool ourselves. The general public knows nothing about the estimates and expenditures within a department. The general public is given the information that the total expenditures for the nation are so much and each person is concerned with what it costs him.
The same is true in every municipality. I am sure that hon. members will be faced with this problem everywhere they go, particularly in respect of rising education costs. Nobody seems to be able to do anything about it. I am sure in the provincial field the same holds true; the general public continually objects to large expenditures in certain fields but has no way of doing anything about them.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that members of parliament have absolutely nothing to do with the estimates prepared for Parliament by various departments. I cannot remember, over the last three or four years, when there was ever one dollar changed in those estimates. I cannot remember when there was an amendment to the spending of $7 billion or $8 billion in the period allotted to discussing estimates. I cannot remember when there was one opposition amendment to those expenditures that was either received or accepted in this House. If there were changes, Mr. Speaker, they were made by a cabinet minister increasing the estimates in his department, not correcting something that might have been overlooked in their preparation.
In the estimates before us today, Mr. Speaker, we see a number of transfer payments. Parliament, in a previous session, has already passed estimates but the money was not used, so there is now a dollar vote transferring it from one year to the next. This is being done for many departments. The amount that is being transferred by the estimate of one dollar may be $50 million. Here, for an extra dollar, you can get $50 million!
In the United States, where they use the committee system, it is the practice that every member on a particular committee has an equal right. They are not committed to the defeat of the government, nor are they committed to the maintenance of the executive who prepared the budget for their consideration. They face a problem as they see it; they make the comments they wish to make; they make changes and, on a number of occasions, to my knowledge they have substantially reduced the request of the executive for money in many fields. They can do that in the United States because in their committee system
Control of Government Expenditures members are not committed to either upholding or defeating the government. We do not operate on that system, but many members of this House are confused because of their great adherence to our committee system.
Today 15 committees were meeting for organizational purposes, starting at 9.30 a.m. this morning and running until later this evening. It is not unusual, Mr. Speaker, for 20 committees to meet in one day and there just are not enough people to go around. So committees cancel meetings; they borrow people from one committee to go to another. They go to a committee and say "You leave this committee and come to the other one so that you can vote." As soon as the vote is taken, those members leave and return to the original committee. Everybody moves around for the vote and then they leave.
If the general public saw how most of these committees operate, they would not be very satisfied with the system. I am sure that if you questioned your wife's budget for the next month because you were having difficulties on your salary and the alternative was to go to your boss and ask for more money, you would trim the budget here and there. That might prove easier than asking for the raise.
We have made changes and all kinds of concessions. Every time we make a concession it reminds me of a little story in one of my early school books. An Arab had a tent and a camel. The camel was standing outside the tent and he asked the Arab if he could put his head in because it was cold outside. He got his head in, and then he wanted his feet in; then the hump, and then the rest of him. Pretty soon the Arab was outside the tent and the camel was inside. It seems to me that is the way it is with the committees, Mr. Speaker. Every time the opposition gives an inch, the government is in a position to take advantage of it but we do not get any concessions from the government, except the one with which the President of the Treasury Board is very enamoured, and that is information. He will give us research people and all kinds of experts, the same as the government has. That does not seem to me to solve many problems. Our experts talk to their experts, and soon our computer talks to their computer but what about Joe back in the riding? How is he being protected by my computer's conversation with their computer, if it gets to that stage?
The thing that worries people in this country today more than anything else is that they are being reduced from human beings, from people who counts, from people in a democracy who have a right to elect people to represent them, to a social security number.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: If they are not being represented by us in regard to these budgetary expenditures, I think the day will come when confrontation in the streets will be their answer to the problem.


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I would have found it difficult to refrain from speaking on the motion moved by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, a motion which is so general that it does not contain anything. In

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures fact, it blames us but without stating precisely in which area we have failed to do our duty and caused waste.
I thought that the basic role of Parliament was to approve budget expenditures. However, it seems that the opposition does not agree with Parliament sovereignty, with the adoption of its estimates and when I notice that the motion refers to waste I believe that today is a total loss since I doubt we can reach our objective by debating such a motion.
The opposition might have moved a more flexible and more accurate motion aimed at a specific department, blaming it for its management and proving it. It would have been much easier for the party in power to defend its position.
I do not think we can defend ourselves in any area when the government is condemned for mismanagement in such general terms. In my opinion, Parliament should be blamed since it is its responsibility to approve the country's expenditures. If waste does exist, Parliament should be blamed for it and, of course, that includes opposition members.
Parliament is also urged to take steps but I do not know which steps we could take to improve the study of the estimates. I do not believe that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)-whom I hold in high esteem-is suggesting that every member of the House should be an auditor on the same basis as the Auditor General. Someone is policing the government's expenditures and I do not think it would be in order for hon. members to interfere in the Auditor General's work or to take his place by themselves becoming auditors.
In that case, it would be very difficult, if we spend more time than we do now dealing with the estimates, to pass legislation to improve the standard of living of the people.
The Auditor General, in his report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1970, page 1, describes his terms of reference as follows:
The Auditor General shall report annually to the House of Commons the results of his examinations and shall call attention to every case in which he has observed that
(a)	any officer or employee has wilfully or negligently omitted to collect or receive any money belonging to Canada,
(b)	any public money was not duly accounted for and paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund,
(c)	any appropriation was exceeded or was applied to a purpose or in a manner not authorized by Parliament,
(d)	an expenditure was not authorized or was not properly vouched or certified,
(e)	there has been a deficiency or loss through the fraud, default or mistake of any person, or
(f)	a special warrant authorized the payment of any money, and to any other case that the Auditor General considers should be brought to the notice of the House of Commons.
I think then that the terms of reference of the Auditor General are clear enough and I believe that neither the motion now before us nor the amendment can significantly contribute to the control of government expenses since there is already an agency entrusted with this particular job which operates conscientiously considering the results of its work and its annual reports. I am referring to the Committee on Public Accounts which is under the chairmanship of a member of the opposition.

Since 1968, two important changes have occurred in the procedure for reviewing estimates: First, all estimates are referred to committees and second, as was mentioned earlier by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), there has been a revamping of the estimates form of presentation. This form of presentation has been studied in depth by the Committee on Public Accounts and the present one has been unanimously approved.
Prior to 1968, a committee, known to this House as the committee on supply, used to meet in the House itself. Almost 200 hours could be allotted to reviewing the estimates. [DOT]
Today, the opposition complains that it has less time to carry out this review. I have made some calculations myself which I would like to convey to the House, proving that today the opposition, besides the 25 days allotted to them to debate supply, can still manage to spend 1,248 hours on this review. This, is how this result has been obtained: Sixteen committees sitting at least twice a week will be studying the estimates according to the orders of the day, which makes 32 meetings of roughly three hours each, that is to say 96 hours; if those committees sit during the months of February, March, April and May, 13 weeks all told, this comes up to a total of 1,248 hours of work alloted to the estimates.
Furthermore, of the 16 committees, two include 30 members and 14 include 20 members, which adds up to 340 members. In other words, some members will evidently have to sit on more than one committee, as indeed I and several of my colleagues and hon. members of the opposition do.
All hon. members who sit on committees are able to ask questions from officials and ministers who appear before them to explain the basis and the objectives of the estimates. I do not see how a member of the House can complain of being unable to study the estimates, for he has every opportunity of doing so. If a minister is called upon to give evidence before a committee and there is not enough time for hon. members to ask questions about the estimates under consideration, the minister and the public servants accompanying him are recalled by the committee-the committee comprising representatives of the opposition parties and of the government party-in order to comment on those estimates.
Therefore, I do not see why there are complaints, Mr. Speaker. One should make a distinction between consideration of the general estimates, which are tabled in February, and the supplementary estimates, which are tabled twice a year, that is in March and in December. This difference being taken into account, we might have to increase the number of sessions if we want to be able to consider everything that is referred to this committee.
As chairman of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, I think I have reasons to believe that hon. members, even those on the government side, sometimes show indifference when time comes to study estimates. In the past, the committee sat when only four hon. members of a total of 20 were present including only one opposition member. Some will complain that there is not enough time to consider the estimates. That is beyond my under-
March 7, 1972

standing. I do not see how one can complain of such a situation when one can readily settle the problem by other means.
Such a motion, I feel, should have been introduced in the procedure and organization committee. The very object of this committee is the study of House and committee procedures and I think that instead of taking the time of the House on a motion as vague and, I believe, as useless as this one, it would have been better had it been introduced before the standing committee of the House whose responsibility is precisely to study problems of this kind.
Today, we could have discussed more interesting questions. All together, we could have thoroughly studied the estimates of a single department, for instance. It has been suggested that when the opposition's 25 days are used up it might be advisable to meet in committee of the whole for detailed scrutiny of the estimates of any particular department. However, it can still be considered that the estimates for the same department can be thoroughly examined in an already existing standing committee.
At the time when the Standing Orders of the House were altered, Parliament voted in favour of the changes, and I for one feel the new rules have been quite adequate, since we have been able to release the House from the work of examining estimates, thus allowing us more detailed study of bills.
I am surprised that the Creditistes seem to approve the motion and the amendment because in the three committees to which I belong, the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee which I have the honour of chairing, the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, I have yet to witness regular attendance of Creditistes to study estimates referred to those three committees.
I understand that they are not many, and they will be fewer still after the next election. However, when they are appointed to a committee, they should at least try to attend the meetings, because on the committees I have mentioned, at least one Creditiste is appointed. They should consider it their duty to be present, particularly in committees dealing with economic affairs, which are of the highest importance. It seems that the social credit theory clashes with the procedure of the House of Commons, and they are not happy to sit in on committees; they prefer practicing demagogy-inside the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time is expired.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion I do not intend to indulge in a shell game with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). Suffice it to say that in the six years I have been here, total government expenditure has more than doubled-from $7.2 billion to $15.7 billion. This is borne out by the handy little booklet the hon. gentleman caused to be distributed at the same time as we received the estimates.
I agree that to talk in global figures at this time might not accomplish what we have set out to do here. I submit
Control of Government Expenditures there has been mismanagement and waste by the government. In support of this contention I intend to deal specifically with one agency of the government, namely, Information Canada, which ironically tabled its first annual report today. Without going into detail concerning this report, which could itself be the subject of further debate, I would say that its form is specious and basically flimflam. Though colourful in style, it is empty in substance, trying to flesh-out a skeleton and instil life where there is no purpose.
When the political archeologists sift through the sands of the just society, if they find any trace of Information Canada at all they will have found in capsule form the dreams and despairs of that society. Embalmed with the dried-out petals of flower power, the remains will be mute testimony to the frustrated hopes and disappointed expectations of thousands of Canadians who happened to live during the Trudeau era. They yearned for a new era in politics: they got parliamentary profanity. They wanted compassion, but they were fed into a computer. They hoped for substance and sensitivity: they received the style of a shrug and a smile. Vacillation, indifference, task forces, surveys, waste and policy vacuums were the telltale mark of the day.
Where better to see this story than in the birth and the life of Information Canada? But, really, what should we have expected from an agency which was a pet project of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), conceived in haste with a troubled pregnancy and subjected to an induced and troubled labour. And to compound all these problems we had as midwife Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon. There was naturally going to be a retarded growth with these ingredients, not a retarded growth in terms of cost or size but certainly a retarded growth expressing a feeble function and one deficient in purpose.
Doubts about the purpose of Information Canada and fears regarding its function as a propaganda tool of government were crystallized by the appointment of Mr. Gagnon, a former propaganda chief of the Liberal party in Quebec, as director-general. This is where the Prime Minister made his first basic mistake in his tenure of office. He failed fully to appreciate the human factor in the appointment and the seeds of suspicio^n which the appointment sowed-for without reference to past associations or former political friends, the appointment of the chief of the new agency should have been an appointment beyond reach of suspicion, like Caesar's wife. He should not only have been pure, but he should have been above suspicion. Here, there was certainly suspicion, the same type of suspicion as if one appointed Vves Geoffroy as head of the penitentiary service. We would know he was doing a job but we would wonder who he was doing the job on.
If my remarks appear unduly harsh, I invite hon. members opposite to look at the record. The report of the task force was tabled on November 4, 1969. The announcement of the creation of Information Canada was made on February 10, 1970. Much to the surprise of some, this was the only parliamentary framework within which we had to work in so far as Information Canada was concerned since there was no legislative proposal which Parliament

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures could scrutinize on an annual basis. By April 1, 1970, Information Canada was in operation.
The annual report of Information Canada was filed today. We know it went into operation, without any parliamentary approval, in 1969-70. In the estimates for that year there appeared a supplementary estimate of $1 million. The first item that appeared before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee relating to Information Canada was an estimate of $2.1 million. I have tried to trace the estimates year by year following that, but the picture is confusing because there were two revolving accounts affecting the exhibition commission.
However, as shown in the estimates, Information Canada, having started with a $1 million supplementary estimate followed by a $2 million budget at the end of the first fiscal year 1969-70, grew in 1970-71 to an approved estimate of $7,910,000, and in 1971-72 to a proposed expenditure of $8,700,000 with a supplementary estimate of $456,000, for a total approved budget of $9,156,000. Then in the current year the estimate shows a growth to $10,354,000.
Meanwhile, the number of employees grew-from 377 in 1970-71 to 403 in 1971-72; and for 1972-73 the number is close to 500. While this growth was taking place, the duplication that was supposed to have been avoided and the savings that were supposed to have been made proved baseless. In other departments informational agencies also increased in size. So from the answer in the return given the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather), it appears that on November 16, 1970, the number of employees engaged on informational services work prior to Information Canada was 950, and since Information Canada was formed has grown to 978.
Following all this growth, the House of Commons and people of Canada have been exposed to the confidential memo of the deputy director-general outlining the present lack of policy, purpose and direction of Information Canada. I could refer to many quotations in support of this, but it is clear there is no policy. As reported in the Globe and Mail of March 2, Mr. Phillips stated in his confidential memo:
The record of the past six months ... leads one to conclude that it is urgent to consider some projects to justify our budget and existence.
He then refers to a policy vacuum and says that planning has come "to a virtual standstill." Not even preliminary work has begun, he said, nor can it begin without guidelines relating to organization and other policies. Then he talked about many other gaps existing in planning and direction. I think the most interesting statement is this, and it relates to the estimates. He said:
With only about six working days left for the submission of our financial forecast-
As I have indicated, this already shows a substantial increase in amount.
-not even preliminary work has begun, nor can it begin without guidelines relating to organization and other policies. This should ordinarily be a job lasting at least one month.
I do not have time to refer to other quotations, but it is clear there has been a growth in expenditure and in

personnel, while other informational agencies of the government have also been growing. Let me quote the two laws of Parkinson which I hope the minister responsible will heed. The first is that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. I think the memo of Mr. Phillips to Mr. Gagnon supports that first law of Mr. Parkinson. The second law of Mr. Parkinson is that expenditure rises to meet income. Certainly, when the deputy director-general of Information Canada says that they have to get plans in order to spend money to justify their existence, you wonder what is happening to the expenditure of public funds in Canada. If this is happening with Information Canada, the pet hobby of the Prime Minister, what is happening in other Crown agencies where millions of dollars are being expended?
Let me read more about the second law of Parkinson, and I trust the director general and the minister responsible will take note of it:
It is the paradox of administration that fewer people have less to do and more time, therefore, in which to think about what they are doing. When funds are limitless, the only economy made is in thinking. The worst inefficiencies do not stem from a lack of funds but from an initial failure to decide exactly what the object is. It is this muddled thinking that leads to waste, and often to waste on a colossal scale. Towards eliminating public waste an essential step is to reduce the total revenue. Officials are less inclined to squander what is not there.
I commend the two laws of Parkinson to those in Information Canada who, on their own admission in the internal memo of Mr. Phillips to the director-general, do not really know how properly to spend the taxpayers' dollars. If there was any question that Information Canada has a purpose, why has it not been delegated to deal with the advertising campaigns of various departments of government? The government campaigned to tell Canadians how to fill out a census return, and this cost $798,000. The government campaigned for the Manpower Department, at a cost of $392,000; and to tell Canadians that they would have a new Unemployment Insurance Act it spent $585,000.
These advertising campaigns, which are not political but are more of a functional and administrative nature, should come within the ambit of Information Canada if this body is to have any basic design for its existence. Instead of this, the money was doled out to friends of the government in a complete violation of recommendation No. 13 of the task force report which stated there should be established, amongst other things, an independent board composed of advertisers and representatives of the media to deal with government advertising campaigns.
My time is limited, but there are many recommendations I could make of a positive nature. However, I leave this thought with the House: Let us do something different. Instead of squandering millions of dollars on Information Canada-$10.3 million to date-let us look at some real participatory democracy, in which the Prime Minister says he believes, to say nothing of parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister proved this when he established research funds for the opposition parties. In the speech from the Throne in September, 1968, and in the statement he made on November 15 of that year he said, somewhat fleetingly, that he believed in parliamentary and participatory democracy.
March 7, 1972

But what has happened since? The annual funds allotted to members of the official opposition amount to $125,000, to the NDP $35,000, and to the Ralliement Creditiste $35,000, for a total of $195,000. Subsequently the Liberal caucus, which is basically a body of about 40 Liberals who do not have a position as parliamentary secretary or minister, received $130,000. This amounts in all to $325,000.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume the same at eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, just before the supper recess I suggested that instead of wasting money on Information Canada-and I documented how money had been wasted since Information Canada was conceived-we should shift attention and financial resources to the sort of research facilities that a former prime minister in one enlightened period made available to opposition parties. I suggest that this would give us not only a better informed opposition but a stronger government, because with an informed opposition there will be a strong government and thereby the public will be better served.
I also said that the funds allocated back in 1968-69 for opposition parties totalled $325,000. I showed how that amount was divided among the parties. These amounts to be expended solely on salaries of staff members of professional status-economist, sociologist and jurist; the sort of people the Prime Minister hopefully stipulated would be employed-have remained without increase throughout the 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 budgets. I suggest that Mr. Speaker has not been able to recommend that these employees should receive the annual 6 per cent or 7 per cent increase granted to other House of Commons employees. Although all four research branches have requested translation facilities, these facilities have been constantly refused. This, surely, is contrary to the principles of the bilingual policy enunciated by the Prime Minister and carried out by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier).
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to contrast this treatment with respect to research facilities available to us in this House with the figures of the annual budget of the Prime Minister's office over the last three years. The amount of $110,000 has been deducted from figures in the estimates to cover expenditures for the maintenance of the Prime Minister's residence, for his salary and car allowance, and for allowances to former prime ministers. We arrive at the following expenditures for the Prime Minister's office, exclusive of any supplementary expenditures: for 1970-71 there is $989,000, for 1971-72 we have $1,078,000, and for 1972-73 we have $1,095,000. These sums, of course, are exclusive of salaries of members of special inquiries, of task forces or of amounts paid to contract workers who report to the Privy Council in aid of the Prime Minister's office.
Control of Government Expenditures
I ask hon. members to contrast the amount of money available for opposition research facilities in the federal Parliament with the amount that was made available for opposition parties in the Ontario legislature in 1972-73. In that legislature, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition happens to be the Liberal party, thank goodness. That party received $200,000. The NDP received $191,000, making a total of $391,000 for both opposition parties, which is more than the total of $325,000 made available in this House for opposition parties.
If one adds to that sum the $486,000 which is available to members of the government caucus in the Ontario legislature, one will see that in the Ontario legislature $877,000 is spent on research facilities, compared with $325,000 spent here. It may be added that these amounts represent increases from the original sums granted because the value of the service to the parliamentary process has been proven. In the result, Mr. Speaker, the two opposition parties in the Ontario legislature receive for research facilities double the amount received by the three opposition parties in this House, plus $1,000.
The research branches of the opposition parties have more than proven their worth and their contribution to the parliamentary process as that contribution and objective has been defined by the Prime Minister. Information Canada, on the admission of its second-ranking deputy and of the Prime Minister, has not proven its worth. That body, I suggest, has not fulfilled the function expected of it. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our decision-making process can admit of only one course to be taken. I would hope that future expenditures in this area would be frozen and that funds would be switched to help establish research facilities. We hope that further money will not be wasted on Information Canada.
In conclusion, I mentioned Parkinson's law before supper; I said Information Canada obeys the law laid down by Mr. Parkinson. I wish to mention another law or principle. I am referring to the Peter principle which indicates that every man rises to his own level of incompetence. Information Canada has definitely risen to its own level of incompetence. In the process, that body has obeyed another law of science, Newton's law, which says that everything which goes up must come down. I say that everything that goes in must come out. I think we should vote in support of the motion before the House and say that there has been waste and mismanagement by this government. In that way we could get rid of some people who have robbed the taxpayer of tax dollars that rightfully belong to him.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering a non-confidence motion presented by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) as well as an amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The motion presented by the hon. member for Peace River reads as follows:
This House condemns the government for its mismanagement and waste of taxpayers' money and urges that Parliament take
614

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures steps to exercise greater scrutiny and control over estimates and expenditures.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre states that the committees do only a perfunctory study of government expenditures and it recommends that we go back to the practice of past years, that is to say that certain items be considered by the House of Commons and others by the Standing Committees.
The criticisms and remarks of the hon. member for Peace River dealt mainly with generalities, Mr. Speaker. But as was suggested by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) this afternoon, part of the increases in government expenditures are transfers or amounts being spent on cost-sharing programs.
I would like to give a few examples of increases in those cost-sharing programs as well as in transfers of funds to the provinces. Among others the amounts allotted to National Health and Welfare for the 1972-73 fiscal year total $3,831 million as compared to $1,824 million for 196465, which represents 24 cents out of every dollar of taxes paid by the taxpayers of this country.
As far as economic expansion or development is concerned, the estimates are $2,241 million, compared with $805 million for the year 1964-65.
As for transfer payments made to the provinces, in 1964-65 they were $358 million, compared with $1,307 million for 1972-73.
We note that in 1964-65, the government spent $28 million for education support programs compared with $667 million earmarked for this purpose in 1972-73.
Under the heading of cultural activities and leisure, expenditures now total $368 million against $169 million in 1964-65.
The estimates for 1964-65 totalled $7,218 million and $15,749 million for 1972-73. The figure I have just mentioned for 1972-73 represents 52 per cent of the estimates for this year.
I would like also to draw a few comparisons relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare. In 196869, expenditures for medical services amounted to $35 million and for 1971-72 to $581,200,000; in 1968-69, the federal government contributed $560 million for hospital services compared with $841,556,000 for 1971-72.
I could go on listing figures, Mr. Speaker, I will point out, moreover, that part of the estimates increase since 1964-65 results from transfers to provinces or from federal contributions to cost-sharing programs.
I would like now to touch briefly on the question of control over government expenses. Some would like to revert to old methods. I too experienced this in 1961-62. That was when the House, sitting as a committee of the whole, then known as the committee on supply, was reviewing government expenses.
In 1964-65, the votes of only two departments were referred to standing committees: the committee on veterans affairs and the committee on external affairs. And I remember, Mr. Speaker, that in 1961-62, while the government proposed to the House to review the expenditures of a department, strangely enough, one or two days later, it

submitted the expenditures of another department or a new bill.
I for one prefer the method adopted since 1968 whereby all government outlays are referred to one or other of the 16 standing committees of the House. I do not understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he says that those committees study government expenses superficially.
If I refer to a study made by the Committees Branch, Mr. Speaker, I see that during the second session of the 28th Parliament, 152 meetings were spent on the study of the various departmental estimates. Having had the honour of being chairman of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, as well as a member of other committees-not, like the President of the Treasury Board, on the opposition side only, but both as an opposition and a government member-I would say that on the whole members who sit on committees are responsible people and study government expenses in depth.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) say this afternoon that in some cases debates are cut short. I have sat with the hon. member for Timiskaming and I do not think it is easy for a chairman to try and stop him from making remarks.
Now, if I refer to the third session of the 28th Parliament, I think that the 16 committees spent 179 meetings on an in-depth study of government expenses.
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. Public accounts were tabled two months earlier than for 1969-70 for volumes II and III, and three months for volume I.
The Public Accounts Committee set up a suD-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.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the formula whereby the study of government expenditures is referred to standing committees, and once those expenditures are made, their study is entrusted to the committee of public accounts, is an excellent one.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, as other members said it before me, that we have to find more efficient means to improve that situation and those procedures. I see that the Auditor General is being blamed, because his report for the year ending on March 31, 1971 will be tabled late, but he gave the reasons for that delay. As a member of this House, I would have liked the Auditor General to make
March 7, 1972

his comments not to a representative of the Canadian Press but to the Public Accounts Committee, because when a minister makes a statement outside the House, the members opposite do not hesitate to blame him for doing so. He said in that statement that for 1970-71, he found more mistakes than in past years. I think that we must be realistic, especially when we note that the estimates for the financial year 1972-73 will amount to some $15 billion. There can undoubtedly be some administrative mistakes, but I think that we have the necessary tools to correct them. And if, in its wisdom, the House or the committee responsible for improving Standing Orders can find a better formula, either to consider government expenditures or to check them, I will be the first to support such an amendment to Standing Orders.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to take a few minutes to speak on the motion before the House regarding government spending and the lack of control by Parliament and the Canadian people over government spending. Because I have only 15 minutes in which to speak I should like to touch upon a topic of current interest and controversy. I refer of course to the Local Initiatives Program. I recall in the early part of October, 1971, when many questions were put by members of the opposition regarding the critical unemployment problem facing the nation, unemployment which at that time was in excess of 6 per cent despite the prognostications of the then minister of finance that we would have a decreasing unemployment rate in 1971.
I remember that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and other members of the House were constantly on the back of the government and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), asking for early consideration of special measures to deal with what appeared to be a critical problem in the winter of 1971-72. It was not until the unemployment statistics were released in October, 1971, that the government decided the problem did exist.
I remember, when I was a youngster, reading a story in my kindergarten book about the young chicken that sat on its perch and closed its eyes thinking that nobody would notice its presence. The Prime Minister acted like somebody who did not realize that this government could adopt policies which would result in serious unemployment. He refused to face the fact. He sat there stubbornly and told the Canadian people they could either like it or lump it; they could either put up with his policies or throw him out of office in the next election. The result of that reactionary stubbornness was that at one time last year 750,000 people were out of work. Finally we got word that various ministers of the Crown had ordered their deputies and departmental officials to dust off all the drawers in their offices and come up with old projects and programs that had been laid aside during the two years of the depression which existed in 1970 and 1971.
Lo and behold, we witnessed the birth of the Local Initiatives Program which was announced on October 14. The program was born out of panic. The concept and philosophy behind it not only has the support of the Conservative party but is the type of philosophy for which the Conservative party has been known since its incep-
Control of Government Expenditures tion, namely, to encourage people to involve themselves in their own economic environment, to do things for themselves, to become productive and to have a share in the economy of the nation as well as to have the satisfaction of being involved.
Certainly the concept and philosophy are healthy, but the fact is that the program was born out of panic and many of the attitudes and frustrations which are experienced across the nation right now are the result of poor planning, a panic situation where the government was caught with their proverbial pants down in October of 1971. They came through with the program without proper co-ordination with the provinces and without ability to initiate a serious and sensible program to combat unemployment this winter.
The word "isolation" was mentioned several times in the Speech from the Throne and it seems to be the keynote of the speech. There is no other word that can so aptly describe some of the aspects of the Local Initiatives Program which was prepared in total isolation from the provinces of Canada. Many of the provinces had already begun their own winter works programs and they found that LIP overlapped and conflicted with them.
Also, there was little co-operation with the municipalities which are creatures of the provincial governments. They found themselves forced into the situation of having to hastily prepare programs and projects. The program was initiated in isolation from the House of Commons. There was no reference to members of the House, the representatives of the Canadian people, and in October of 1971 the announcement was made of the $100 million program which had to be increased to $150 million with no explanation to the people's representatives as to how it would be administered and implemented throughout the country.
I should like to mention generally and briefly two concerns of the Canadian people. The first is, who is benefiting from the Local Initiatives Program? On the one hand hundreds of responsible groups had the foresight and the insight to come through with constructive projects, among them municipalities, Lions Clubs, churches, schools, community councils, athletic associations and many similar organizations. On the other hand we have to admit one thing, that the communities which were best structured, the more formalized communities which had better organization and were more in contact with government programs, had a big advantage compared with small, rural communities throughout Canada. The communities that were closest to the scene, had better contacts with their Members of Parliament and were better provided with information services, had a very big advantage.
This past weekend, Mr. Speaker, I had a unique experience, speaking against the background of my brief experience as a Canadian. I went to Toronto. I must admit that the visit was not in my capacity as a Member of Parliament. I do not say that the people involved knew who I was. I did not advertise myself as a Member of Parliament, as John Lundrigan does, but I did visit Rochdale college. I had this unique experience, and I feel almost guilty about admitting publicly that I used a pseudonym, or whatever you call it, when I visited the Process Church
616

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures of the Final Judgment. There I observed the results of the decisions of the Canadian government whereby moneys were advanced to some of these groups. I have to say that despite my broadmindedness toward young Canadians and my eagerness to get involved in making money available to groups that can make worthwhile changes in our society, it is inconceivable to me that the Canadian people through their representatives here could be satisfied with the allocation of funds to some of these groups that are totally under mismanagement, if in fact one can use the word "management" in conjunction with their programs.
It is absolutely unbelievable that the government would allow money to flow into some of these activities and programs with no more control than it has shown to date. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely no control over the way these moneys are being expended in the various communities across Canada, let alone over the way they are being expended by some of these groups that do not know where they are going and are never likely to know.
After seeing the program of the Final Judgment church and talking to some people at Rochdale college, that institution which certainly has to be questioned-a large, beautiful building that could be used to great advantage by young Canadians or by some other formal institution- I was reminded of the thousands of projects put forward by action groups, community councils, churches, schools and athletic associations across this nation but which were turned down.
In October, 1971, when the government introduced the Local Initiatives Program the authorities actually went on a rampage of phoning the churches, the colleges, the town councils, the mayors, the chairmen of local groups and committees and telling them, "Get your projects in. We will be looking at your projects."
Let me point out the way this program has been handled and the absolute frustration that has resulted from it. These groups were all activated. I know that many communities just sat there and were very lukewarm about getting involved in any type of program such as this, but they were encouraged to do so. In Halifax, for example, in the Atlantic region, the director-general phoned groups and told them to get their projects moving. In some cases these groups had formal leaders and in some cases informal leaders. They got together at public meetings, preached the Local Initiatives Program from church pulpits and from mayors' seats at council meetings. Then the communities began to advance their projects.
As the projects started to come in, the government, being very interested in showing an early impression on the unemployment statistics, began to accept almost everything that came along. Tens of thousands of little communities began to get programs under way for the provision of fire halls, parks and the cleaning-up of cemeteries. One commentator writing in a local newspaper in St. John's, Newfoundland, said they were interested in both the quick and the dead, the athletic programs and the cemeteries, which seemed to attract the greatest attention of the administrators of LIP. At any rate, these thousands of projects started to come in and finally in the month of January, with almost all their money running out, the administrators discovered they still had thousands of projects coming in. As a result, the vast majority

of the projects that came in during January were turned down.
Can you imagine the frustration of a local community group or action group having its project turned down after first being stimulated and publicly encouraged to take part in the program? At the same time, groups that were turned down could point to nearby, little communities that were proceeding with a fire hall or had projects approved for other purposes. At the same time, too', they could point to some of the groups which have been exposed in Ontario during the last few weeks where projects of a very questionable nature were approved. Those who were turned down were devastated by the rejection of their programs.
All this points out to the opposition and to the Canadian people that the government's program was very ill-defined in the first place. It had no clear concept of what it was getting involved in. The program originated out of panic in October, 1971, when members of the government realized they had an unemployment problem, that they had to take some remedial action or perhaps we would have a worse situation in the winter of 1971 in terms of frustration and public demonstrations. The over-all program was ill-planned. It is very poorly administered and is causing a tremendous amount of hardship and frustration. It will have the effect of literally annihilating thousands of project leaders across Canada who caused their communities to become interested in their projects and who are now flattened by the rejection of the federal government.
I say two things are needed, Mr. Speaker. In these types of government programs, regardless of their merit, more planning has to be done. They have to be properly evaluated in order that mistakes which occurred in the past can be corrected. The second thing needed is that the representatives of the Canadian people must be given more control over this type of government spending. There is no way, as representatives of the Canadian people, that we can stand up in this House today and approve of the manner in which many of these projects were approved, no way in which we can justify money being refused to other projects without any excuse or hope for the future. To those who were turned down the government did not say, "We will reconsider your project at a later date "or," We will set up a kind of priority system whereby your project will be re-evaluated next fall." No hope at all was given.
As a final step the government will have to come up with a co-ordinated effort so that these programs will not be launched in isolation from other programs of a worth while nature. There was no co-operation with the provinces. The Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Blakeney, complained vigorously in December that the LIP program was not getting off the ground. From Saskatchewan they had sent in over 100 applications, only 22 were accepted and they had no word with respect to the others. There seems to have been little co-operation with the provinces. The program was not introduced as part of a major package that would stimulate the economy, put the confidence of the business community back into shape and get the whole economy moving ahead again. It was a program launched very much in isolation of the needs of the
March 7, 1972

Canadian people. Such a program cannot continue and hope to achieve major results.
A number of references have been made by hon. members in this debate, including my colleague from Egmont, to the lack of government control. We have asked that these programs be re-evaluated. Last year we had the Opportunities for Youth program. It was announced early in the spring of 1971 and was concluded at the end of the summer. An evaluation of it was undertaken. I do not know exactly how much this cost but I believe it was $32 million. We have not yet received the results of that evaluation. This year another Opportunities for Youth program was announced, with the closing date set at March 8. I repeat that we have received no evaluation from last year, and now we have another program under way. We have asked for special reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in order to have the program evaluated and to call before it people whose projects were rejected and, of course, people who had projects of a questionable nature.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that at least we should have right now a thorough exposure of these programs before the appropriate committee so that the Canadian taxpayer will see the results, learn where his hard-earned dollars go and the reason for the increase in taxes.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, it may sometime seem too easy to criticize. Since this is our part in the opposition, government members are misled and ignore our criticism, thinking that after all we are just playing our part. This, Mr. Speaker, is a serious mistake by the government. If constructive suggestions from the opposition were accepted more often, there would be more harmony, and especially more efficiency. But there is this devilish practice of thinking that the party which has won more seats enjoys an exclusive monopoly over legislation.
So, we are quite right in rejecting all blame on the only people responsible for present difficulties-the members of the government. The nefarious results or consequences of ineffective laws, coupled with the refusal to accept either our projects or our amendments, make this nonconfidence motion right and true.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the mismanagement of the government. Going from childish hesitations to dubious decisions, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet have managed to dissatisfy almost everybody: the unemployed, welfare recipients, workers, white collars, professionals, tradesmen, businessmen, I repeat, everybody.
We are accused, among others by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) who, furthermore, did so in a pitiful manner, of making general and vague charges. No doubt the hon. member was not present when the leader of the Social Credit (Mr. Caouette) did in fact list very specific facts and circumstances. Furthermore, I intend to point them out again.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, what should one think of the famous announcement with regard to unemployment insurance, which threw dust in people's eyes with the $100 weekly benefits and which also became one more bone of
Control of Government Expenditures contention between Quebec and Ottawa. It is a four-, five-, six-, what I am saying, seven-month delay that is imposed on the unemployed.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the government, like the other opposition parties and the Social Credit, should know that the humble worker is always waiting for his pay cheque. As soon as he becomes unemployed, it is a catastrophe. Why strike at his dignity in this way, by making him wait for weeks for something that he is entitled to, because he has paid contributions in order to be able to face unemployment periods easily foreseeable in such a badly-governed country as ours? Why those weeks of waiting? Those are so many ways taken by the government and the technocrats, as the minister admitted candidly this afternoon, to raise many hopes but to give nothing.
What should one think of this shower of money falling from the clouds where the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is amusing himself. He squanders money, Mr. Speaker, as if it were going out of style. He does not worry about the consequences, sometimes disastrous, of the subsidies he grants, no planning, no true concern for progress. But what he deems important is the political capital which this may bring. As the party's organizer, did he, perchance, ask those receiving such subsidies to make a contribution to the electoral funds of the party? I would also like to say a word, Mr. Speaker, about the local initiatives projects. Theoretically they were the outcome of a good idea. Once again, how was it applied? We had to keep on fighting for the approval of serious projects while thousands of dollars crumbled under ski-doos.
Mr. Speaker, as the Social Credit leader was saying, we are not opposed to the approval of recreational projects but we are disappointed with the implementation of this program designed to create jobs during the winter and the beginning of the spring. For weeks and months there was publicity and propaganda: "Canada works". It was not working fast enough in December. Advertising was increased. All kinds of groups were formed, some of them concocting all sorts of uncanny inventions. In the meantime our municipalities were considering, developing and approving useful, necessary and even essential projects. Then the Department of Municipal Affairs in Quebec revised, ratified and sent everything to Montreal.
Of course, it was impossible to do all that in a few days; thus, most municipal projects were received during January, before the January 31 time limit. All goes well up to that point, Mr. Speaker, but then, things are beginning to get serious.
All this work had been done for nothing because the funds were all used up by December 30, 1971. This is dishonest, deceitful, demagogic or, as the Prime Minister once said, and I sum up his three famous words: It's God-damned fuddle duddle merde.
Our little Robert, who is short-winded, in Quebec City, is always short of money. What a splendid opportunity his Ottawa master offered him. That is how most of the funds earmarked for municipalities under the local initiatives program ended up in the large empty pockets of our little Robert in Quebec City.

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures
Again, Mr. Speaker, it is shameful to defraud in such a way the municipalities and all the taxpayers. Therefore I fully endorse the motion which enable us to set things right.
Thus it is high time:
-that Parliament take steps to exercise greater scrutiny and control over estimates and expendituresas it is said in that motion.
We do all we can here to help the government with our advice, our suggestions and even with the solutions we are proposing. They already have laughed at them and they tried to attack them. They make a pretence of ignoring them, but, Mr. Speaker, nevertheless our solutions are still there.
A healthy administration can be based only on a philosophy that guarantees individual freedom while ensuring security.
There should be security on every level. It is therefore urgent to start at the beginning and reform our monetary system in order to establish an economy which is fair, human and progressive. It is our duty to correct the inadequacies, injustices and stupidities of the present financial system.
As for the population, it is willing to accept mandatary reforms. Then, I shall be asked, how is it that everyone does not vote for the Creditistes? Mr. Speaker, during the next election campaign, the steamroller of election funds will again attempt to overwhelm all opposition.
It is not the Creditiste doctrine they will be attacking. It is known that people are ready to accept its implementation, but they will resort to demagogy.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) gave me a little fore-taste of that this afternoon. He was taxing the Social Credit members with insufficient attendance at committee sittings. Besides, I notice that all government members, in their contributions, bring up that subject: the work achieved within the committees. However, the hon. member for Laurier is well aware that we cannot fraction ourselves in order to attend two, three or four committees simultaneously, committees which, moreover, operate more or less efficiently. Since we are unable to divide or multiply ourselves, at least before the elections we must voice our criticisms on the stages of the bills debated right here in the House, and that is what we are doing.
We did not convince our constituents through the use of money, propaganda, misleading advertising or-I almost said-through the support of the underworld. Only honesty, simplicity and the appeal of our doctrine convince the people. This is the greatest tribute that the people can pay to our sincerity because, Mr. Speaker, we convince the people in our constituencies through the force of conviction brought about by what we believe.
We are increasingly convinced that a great number of Canadians understand-because the present government has proved it himself clearly-that it is high time to change the system, to end this wasting of the taxpayer's money and to bring to everyone this security that we all wish we had.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the dollars and cents that have been wasted in

the realm of government spending in recent years will probably never be known. Certainly it can be counted in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps in the minds of some it will ever be thus, but I am not prepared to accept the proposition or argument that this wasteful spending is something over which we have no control.
In the first place, it can be clearly demonstrated, I suggest, that inept political leadership at the ministerial level can be blamed for virtually all waste within the capital equipment spending program of the Canadian armed forces in recent years. From horses on the payroll all the way through to the DDH-280 program we have glaring examples of failure by political leaders to accept advice from professionals in the forces. We have the resultant and obvious end to which this has led us- wastage of money, purchase of ill-devised equipment and a national arts centre. Even worse, in virtually every case it can be very clearly demonstrated that inept political leadership has led to these bad decisions being made.
The mid-life overhaul of the Bonaventure is a classical example in which we saw responsible ministries of government fail to tell what I consider to be the full truth. They preferred to let professional serving officers and non-officers take the blame. It is to this waste and avoidance of public responsibility that I wish to direct a few thoughts in today's debate. Going back to the Bobcat, there was a wastage of $9 million. We purchased 115 CF-5 aircraft at a cost of $1,114,000 each. Incidentally only about 11 per cent of that program was put up for tender. What did we do with these aircraft? We have some in storage, we sold a few to Venezuela and some are being used for training. Their operational use is in question. Indeed, they were bought against good military advice. What have we done to compound this mistake? We have ordered an additional 20 aircraft. If they were no good in the first place, why are we buying more?
I think we must deal with the Bonaventure. This is probably as good a place as any to set out one case that may stand: I hope in fact it does stand as an example and substantiation of the claim that it is not always the professional public servant or professional soldier who is to blame. Prior to the calling of tenders in the mid-1960s for the mid-life overhaul of the Bonaventure, professional, naval and civilian engineers and other support staff in the dockyard at Halifax carried out a work requirement or job order. They advised DND headquarters in Ottawa that the mid-life overhaul would cost approximately $14 million. That was not good enough. Instructions went back to these professionals instructing them not to change the job requirement but to substantially reduce the dollar content. Back came a revised estimate and another directive went to Halifax to substantially reduce it. Back to Ottawa came an estimate of $8 million, which the Canadian public will recall was the amount at which the overhaul contract was let.
What was the final cost? Two figures are being quoted around the country. I am not certain which is correct. One is $14 million plus, and the other is $17 million. In any event, the point is that DND HQ was advised of the approximate dollars and cents cost and the government, for political purposes, instructed the professionals to reduce it. How can we continue to live in a country that tolerates this practice? Many Canadians, including
March 7, 1972

myself, are fed up with the incompetent political leadership that permits this to happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: The manipulation of professionals in the public service and the Canadian armed forces by incompetent political leaders is morally wrong. Because of actions like this the government will find itself out of office. The story of the Bonaventure has been a black eye, if you will, on the Canadian armed forces ever since the incident. But it is not the professionals, it is not the serving officers, it is not the five men who were directly involved and who got the axe one way or the other; much more directly it is the result of inept political leadership.
Perhaps even more glaring is the question of the final cost of the DDH-280 program. In 1968, estimates for this program were set at $170 million or thereabouts. Here again, there were half a dozen different figures given. No one knows what the figure was. I could mention one as low as $140 million. In any event, in 1966 there was a figure of $170 million estimated to cover the total cost of those four ships. To date those ships have cost Canadian taxpayers $282 million, and the ships are still in the river yards; they have not gone down to the Atlantic Ocean where they will serve. Worse, there is no way of getting an indication from the government of the final cost of this program. It is a simple question of how much will these four ships cost when turned over to the commander of maritime command for operational purposes, with the keys in the ignition and the supplies and crews on board?
We cannot get an answer to that question. These ships will go to Halifax. They will be finished there. Work will be necessary following sea trials. Work not finished in the river yards will have to be done at the dockyards in Halifax. While I have no doubt about the ability of the tradesmen and the professional people on the east coast to complete this work, I begin to wonder to what extent the Department of Supply and Services let the river yards off the hook with respect to the moral obligation they had to complete this program. How much have they got away with? Who knows? I doubt that anyone will ever know.
No information as to the final cost has been forthcoming from either the Department of National Defence or the Department of Supply and Services. Are they afraid to admit that not even they know what the final cost will be? Do they believe that Canadians are blind and stupid and cannot understand or accept the truth even though it may hurt a little? I say to the political leaders across the way that it is not themselves they are protecting; rather, it is the professional officers whose reputations they are damaging.
In the case of the DDH-280 we have probably the finest ship of its kind in the world. Why do we not say so? Why do we not admit that mistakes were made, that the prime contract was ill-conceived and entered into without proper consideration? Why do we not admit we have made mistakes and tell the public that we are hot sure what this program will cost but that everything is being done to keep costs in line? But the government does not do this. The government prefers to procrastinate, to be evasive, to mislead, to protect its political hide at any cost.
Control of Government Expenditures The government will never tell the Canadian public the whole story.
In this case the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) should give us some answers. As was mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), perhaps after all our experimentation with the committee system it is right here in the House, in committee of the whole, that Parliament will become effective. This is where we may learn the full answers to our questions. We shall not get them in committees which are understaffed and poorly administered with respect to timing. I think it is time we paid a little more attention to this chamber because perhaps in committee of the whole extravagant, wasteful decisions, decisions made for political purposes against the advice of professionals in the various departments, can be avoided.
I can suggest no better place to start than right here. Otherwise, there will continue to be waste to a degree which is not acceptable to the public until there is more frankness, more honesty and more concern about the work we are trying to do on behalf of Canadians.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Skoberg:: Go to it, Alf. They are spending all your taxes.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I hope the House has carefully noted my cheering section.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I think the official opposition has done well by bringing in a motion saying that the actions of the government should be more carefully scrutinized. Our approach is also one of examining expenditures to bring them properly before committees so that they can be thoroughly considered.
I wonder whether Canadians realize how many programs are carried out without examination either by the House in committee of the whole or by standing committees. For example, the government spent something in the neighbourhood of $80 million on the Lift program simply on the basis of an estimate. This spending was not examined thoroughly. They made payments to farmers and then said to the same farmers, "All that money was not really due to you. We want some of it back." Then on occasion they changed their position and said to the same farmers, "Sorry, but we are wrong again. Do not bother to send anything back." Obviously there was poor bookkeeping here or inadequate guidelines. The method of payment was never really understood by some farmers. In many instances they did not know what the basis of payment was.
We were presented with a similar kind of program under the stabilization bill. As responsible members.of the House sitting in committee of the whole we said we were not prepared to accept the bureaucratic approach taken by the government, and in turn we were told we were obstructing parliament. Time after time during the short while that I have been in this House, when opposition members have demanded to know how money is being spent and what effect programs are going to have on the

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures people, we have been charged with being obstructionist, with preventing .the government from getting on with its business, even to the extent that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that those who sit on this side of the House are, as far as he is concerned, nobodies. I can well understand, in view of the actions of the government, that the Prime Minister really believes that.
I have watched the operations of two government programs, Opportunities for Youth and more recently the Local Initiatives Program or LIP. In these two cases the programs have been financed simply by an estimate and without legislative approval or proper guidelines have having been laid down. As a result, people who participate in the programs, have had to wade through yards of red tape. Decisions have been delayed. Decisions are being made in the month of March in relation to programs that were prepared early in the winter and are going to expire in May. A senior citizens' group in the city of Saskatoon asked for some money under the Local Initiatives Program to rebuild an old hall that they had been using for recreational purposes year after year. The hall badly needs remodelling, as well as needing new chairs and furniture. Their application was turned down.
In my constituency I have taken the trouble to write to all organizations that made application for funds to determine whether their applications were accepted or rejected. That was the only way I was able to find out. Certainly you cannot get an up to date reading from the government of what is happening in one's constituency. Last summer I talked to people in my constituency who were taking part in the Opportunities for Youth program. I wrote to all organizations and finally wrote to the minister's office asking for an accounting of what was happening in my constituency and for an evaluation of the program. In effect, the minister said yes, there would be an evaluation of the better projects but not of the whole program. I think that is shameful.
I have before me a letter from Mr. Gray, one of the officials of the senior citizens' group to which I referred. He wrote that he was sorry that their application had been turned down. Then, speaking of the hall, he wrote:
-the present hall that the senior citizens have is 80 years of age. I think the same chairs are in the hall. I do not think there is a cushion on any chair in any way whatever ... It must give the older people a wonderful feeling to know the chairs they are sitting in are the same hard seats that their grandmothers sat on-
This organization has been denied the few thousand dollars it takes to give the senior citizens of Saskatoon a comfortable place in which to enjoy themselves in their old age. The people of that generation built this country. Although the government has money to throw around here and there, causing the Ottawa Citizen to call the program a disgrace, none of it is spent on these people.
This morning the Standing Committee on Agriculture held its first meeting. Since I have been in the House, this committee has worked hard examining the estimates and legislation that has come before it. Yet what did the ruling party try to do in that committee this morning? They wanted to pass a bylaw to the effect that there does not even have to be a quorum for the committee to examine witnesses coming before it.
The government does not even want to honour the organizations appearing before committees of this House

with a full attendance of members to ask questions and to hear what they have to say. We spent one hour during our first organizational meeting arguing whether or not there should be a quorum at all times when the committee was sitting. Surely, if a committee is set up it should have a quorum. If it is prepared to sit without a quorum, then I would question whether the committee should be set up at all.
I have been in committees where we have had to fight for information, for the opportunity to hear witnesses and representatives of the farmers from the agricultural communities of Canada give their assessment of what should and should not be done in terms of legislation. As the admendment to the motion says, we must put our committees on a proper basis by providing adequate committee time, space and services and we should consider certain estimates, those of greatest importance, on the floor of the House in committee of the whole. We must remember that we are responsible for spending the taxpayers' money. When we take from those who earn $10,000 or $12,000 a year about 30 per cent or 35 per cent of their income in the form of taxation, it is only fair and reasonable to give them the right to know where and how their money is spent.
Although we are spending large amounts on temporary programs, the city of Saskatoon has to plead for money to build a proper and permanent air terminal. This should have been rebuilt last year. The Department of Transport is going to spend the magnificent sum of $350,000 this year, but what can you do with $350,000 when what you need is an enlarged air terminal? An enlarged air terminal would be a permanent improvement and very useful to Saskatoon. We do not even have adequate transportation for grain from the Prairies to the west coast. All that is needed to provide this transportation is the money to build more track and boxcars, but this money is not forthcoming.
We need to examine fully and completely, in committee of the whole or in a standing committee, how the taxpayers' money is being spent. We must see that this money does long-term as well as short-term good in providing benefits for Canadians.


Mr. I. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Alexander Jerome: -I am a little nervous to be on my feet and facing the august cheering body to which the previous speaker referred without having the usual number of supporters in front of me. I might go astray; however, I will try to stay on the topic we are discussing.
Before embarking on the main body of remarks that I wish to make in this debate, may I say that I cannot help but sympathize with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave), who just spoke, in his appraisal of this morning's proceedings before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Those of us who were attending and hoping to get on with the business of other committees expected to see a brief organizational meeting of that committee. For myself-and I speak as an urban member-it was the
March 7, 1972

first exposure to the proceedings of the agriculture committee, proceedings which became renowned during the period in which the committee held a birthday party with respect to one of the bills before it.
I know that if the hon. member had been given more time to expand on that theme he would join me in saying that his criticisms are not the result of any fault of the government. It is a pity that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is not in the House, because the destruction of the work of that committee is a result-an achievement, if you want to call it that-which can be laid at his feet. The blame must be laid squarely at his feet. I am sure that the hon. member, if he has the interests of the farmers of this country at heart, will be dismayed at the manner in which that man destroyed the work of the committee and made a shamble of it. And that is not the fault of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Downey:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who now has the floor has referred to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). He has made some disparaging remarks about him and spoken totally from ignorance. I do not think he was present at any time when the committee met, and his knowledge of the situation in agriculture is practically zilch. Yet he stands in this House and pretends to speak from knowledge.


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


Cliff Downey: I do not think he ought to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat? The Chair appreciates the intervention of the hon. member. However, in accordance with the rules of the House the hon. member has merely raised an argument and not a point of order.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would touch a nerve so easily. I thought that the gathering opposite looked hostile, but not sensitive. If I may speak to the motion before us, it seems that it was hastily drawn up. One gets the impression, from the lack of vigour that was exhibited in the earlier stages of this debate, that the official opposition must originally have chosen some other motion for presentation today. Perhaps certain events of the weekend made it impossible for them to proceed with the originally intended motion and this one had to be substituted rather hastily.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gilbert:: Would the hon. member care to go into more detail?


James Alexander Jerome: I want to direct my remarks primarily to that portion of the motion which urges that Parliament take steps to exercise greater scrutiny and control over estimates and expenditures. I do not think there is any argument that general agreement existed in this House for the changes that were introduced which resulted in the elimination of the long period of time in which estimates were examined solely in committee of the whole.
Control of Government Expenditures
It was obvious that the former procedure, by bunching up the examination of estimates so that only the estimates of a small number of departments were examined in the time available, had deleterious effects on the general examination of estimates. The first of those effects was that the estimates of a great number of departments were not examined at all, and the second was that the bulk of work involved in the examination of estimates took place at a time when it was really too late for us to be examining estimates.
The increase in workload that this was putting on Parliament was obvious for all to see. The increased spending and increased operations of government made it impossible for Members of Parliament to keep up with the work which had to be done in that field. In any event, we came to the point in committee of the whole where it was clearly not possible for us to give close scrutiny to individual items in the estimates.
When first coming to this House in 1968 I was impressed with the members of the committee on procedure who worked on the rule changes. A tremendous amount of the talent of members of opposition parties was seen on that committee. The mover of this motion was a member of that committee, as was his colleague the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the House leader for the NDP, was a member of that committee. He has put forward an amendment to this motion. One is tempted to conclude, Mr. Speaker, that those hon. members are quick to forget. The conclusions that the committee on procedure came to in 1968 were based largely on their contributions to the committee and on their accord.
That committee reached conclusions about changes in the rules and dealing with estimates. The result is that we have dealt with estimates ever since in the way we now deal with them. The rule changes that were made permanent in 1968 as a result of the work of the committee which began in 1968 were introduced in part in this House on a trial basis in 1965. What were those changes, Mr. Speaker? First we saw the establishment of a trimester allocation of time with respect to the examination of estimates, and the adoption of Standing Order 58(14) which had the effect of referring estimates to committees by March 1, to be reported by May 31 right in the middle of the third term, so to speak.
This now means that the unfortunate timing of the examination of estimates has been as nearly as possible eliminated. Estimates are now examined during the most meaningful time of the calendar year. This change also means, Mr. Speaker, that estimates have been referred to standing committees instead of to committee of the whole House. Also, a great deal of flexibility has been introduced into the process, so that instead of examining at one time the estimates of any one department, which was the method adopted when estimates were considered in the House, it is now possible for the estimates of several departments to be examined carefully at the same time in several standing committees.
Further flexibility has been introduced into the system in that witnesses who attend committee hearings are able to testify. That flexibility certainly has been of value. This means that not only can more than one minister testify at

March 7, 1972
Control of Government Expenditures
one time but that departmental officials can also attend. Frequently they can testify directly before the committee, sometimes in the presence of the minister or his parliamentary secretary and sometimes on their own. That flexibility I am sure did not exist in committee of the whole. Certainly we do not see it in remaining procedures involving committee of the whole House. Officials can appear in the House-that is, they can sit in the House- but they may only talk through elected representatives. In the House an hon. member cannot question an official directly, whereas in a standing committee he can. That is certainly of benefit to hon. members who are serious about examining estimates.
Another important effect, Mr. Speaker, of the flexibility that has been introduced into our committee proceedings may best be exemplified if I tell hon. members what I saw when I once attended the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. I was not a member of the committee and did not participate in the proceedings: I simply dropped in and watched a very important meeting taking place. At that time the government was being questioned on a certain tax agreement that it has entered into with the Ford Motor Company. Members of the opposition undoubtedly were able to ask questions about a most important subject. Present at the meeting were just about all the responsible officials who could conduct a meaningful examination into that section of the estimates.
The Auditor General-or on this occasion I believe it was his deputy-was in attendance. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of National Revenue, because this matter involved a tax concession, and their officials were present. The officials of the Department of Finance, the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Trade and Commerce were all there. There was no opportunity, as had existed under the previous system, to pass the buck. I know this feature was welcomed by opposition members. The questioning was very good and very vigorous. The proceedings of the committee on that occasion were a chronicle of the maximum potential achieved in a system wherein the estimates of various departments are examined in a meaningful way before a standing committee.
The rule changes, upon recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General, led to better preparation and presentation of the estimates, the result being that members were in a position to compare the figures with those of the previous year, those estimated and what was actually spent in the previous year. Any member who wishes to conduct a thorough examination of the estimates can do it with a minimum of difficulty. In other words, because of the rule changes that were introduced in this Parliament we have taken other important steps which should be reviewed, not the least of which is the allocation of research funds to the opposition parties.
I think this fact has been largely overlooked in this debate.
What has happened in this combination is that a tremendous potential exists for expertise and specialization to be developed in the opposition parties. Imagine the effective manner in which estimates could be examined if the opposition parties would take the trouble to allocate one or two
(Mr. Jerome.]
members thoroughly to study a particular subject. They could pool all the talent-I am using that word in a generous sense-of six, seven or eight members of the combined opposition parties and with their combined resources of research staff they could develop in respect of each department's estimates a team which could go into every item. There could be developed a team on each subject and each department which could undertake a thorough and meaningful examination of the estimates.
The truth is that this is not done, but that is not the fault of the system. The fact is that the research assistants are busy writing funny speeches for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or are campaigning for the New Democrats in by-elections. These are all areas to which these talents are being directed, and that is the choice of the opposition. If they want to be spendthrift and wasteful with these resources, fine-but why come here and say that the estimates are not being carefully examined? The truth is plain and clear-the facilities and opportunities exist but they are not being used to advantage. There are 25 opposition days in the three semesters in which the year is calendarised. Any opposition member who is truthful will admit that sometimes during the course of the parliamentary year it is difficult for the opposition to fill up those opposition days with a subject of criticism of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


James Alexander Jerome: It is the truth. There are too many opposition days-25 is too many. But if the system were to be changed by the government so that the number of days was reduced, we know the cries that would be heard from the opposition benches to the effect that we were trampling on the rights of a democratic society.


Cliff Downey: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) obviously has not much on his mind. I am wondering if we could relieve him by letting him know that he does not have to talk out this motion.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker,-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie rises on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member has used up all the time allotted to him, and Your Honour should now recognize a member on this side of the House.


James Alexander Jerome: Well, Mr. Speaker, opposition members have an opportunity to participate in the debate. Why do they not get up and make a speech?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member raises a question of privilege concerning the time allocated to the parliamentary secretary, and I will
March 7, 1972

point out to him that the Chair has to time speeches and, at the same time, take into account interjections and points of order which have the effect of extending the time allocated to the parliamentary secretary.
If hon. members want to rise, as they are entitled to do, to make numerous points of order and interrupt the member who has the floor, by so doing they extend the time which the Chair has to allocate to the latter. This is precisely what is happening right now. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.


James Alexander Jerome: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel I should point out in passing that in the period between eight o'clock and ten o'clock tonight eight speakers have had the floor, only two of whom have been from the government side. In that sense it is difficult to accuse government speakers, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) and myself, of occupying too much time.


An hon. Member:: You do it more than anyone else.


James Alexander Jerome: I did not interrupt the hon. member and I wish he would accord me the same privilege. In any event, hon. members opposite will be happy to know that I am very near the end of my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah!


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the last step that has been taken in respect of assisting hon. members of the opposition to carry out a careful examination of the estimates has been that which was implemented two days ago on an experimental basis for this month. I refer to the new system we are trying out of scheduling committees so as to reduce as much as possible the problem of members who sit on more than one committee.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I say it is the duty of the Chair to respect the time allowed members of the opposition, who have the same privileges as government members when it comes to expressing their views in this House.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been speaking for 20 minutes, while no member of the opposition parties was allowed more than 15 minutes, including the time used up by interruptions; I ask the Chair to act impartially in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The hon. member should resume his seat!


Georges-J. Valade: You should pipe down!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I am sure the hon. member did not want to criticize the Chair or the way in which it presides over the deliberations; destroying or criticizing the Chair cannot help this institution, I am sure. If hon. members will co-operate and allow the parliamentary secretary to finish his remarks, the Chair can give at least five minutes to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.
Control of Government Expenditures
Order. In view of the exchange that has just taken place, I doubt that the hon. member should ask the Chair to extend his time. Even then, he would probably not get unanimous consent, and this can only be done if unanimous consent is given by the House.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for recognizing, at last, that the opposition can have a few minutes at its disposal.
We are supposed to be in a just society; yet, we notice, once again, that through its vociferations, the government tries to silence the opposition, to keep it from expressing the views it has the right to express by virtue of the mandate given by its electors.
Some government members have chided me for being absent from the House; yet, I am present more often than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Mr. Speaker, as I have only a few minutes left, because since it has been in office the present government has been restricting our interventions through closure, I will only deal with one aspect of the motion now under consideration, that is the mismanagement and waste of the present government.
Since I did not make any preliminary comment, I would like to say that I would entirely approve some aspects of the local initiatives program if they were carried out so as to really lessen the burden of unemployment which is a scourge now raging in Canada. However, as I must be brief, I would like to expose in this House the uses made in some quarters of the local initiatives program.
I would like, for example, to mention an amount of $11,665 which, in the constituency of Saint-Marie, under the pretext of reducing under-employment, was paid to the president of the federal Liberal association of that constituency, for a project under which description of the task to fulfill is as follows: 5 jobs created. Information of the public through films is also anticipated. So, we are right in wondering whether the government is going to keep on wasting millions of dollars of the taxpayers money and this, not only in order to alleviate the burden of unemployment in Canada, but also to prepare an election campaign whose results it does not seem to expect for its policy over the past four years has been one of laissez faire, a policy of indifference toward the workers who have been plagued by unemployment since the Liberals have been in office.
Mr. Speaker, not only did the liberal government ignore the reasons why millions of dollars were entrusted to it by the Canadian taxpayers but, furthermore, if one is to believe the article I am holding, it seems-even though my friends opposite do not agree with the opinions expressed in the newspaper Defi of March 10, 1972-that in the constituency of the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the administration of these programs, an amount of $450,000 was awarded for local initiative projects solely for political purposes and only in order to restore some prestige to the Secretary of State who is becoming increasingly a liability for the Liberal Party and for the general public.
Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to go into more detail. I believe my friend, the former Quebec Creditiste member turned Liberal who commends this waste, when he was a

March 7, 1972
Division
Creditiste member, denounced the extravagance and waste of the government he was then fighting. And I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that a responsible member is in this House to accept one day what he condemned the day before. At any rate I myself cannot accept such a reversal when in Canada, and particularly in Montreal, in my constituency, despite these programs aimed at purchasing consciences, unemployment constantly increases.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.
It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion before the House. Accordingly, the question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Pursuant to Standing Order, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.13 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday. March 8. 1972