1973-06-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since many persons employed by hospital services have to undergo retraining and since the allowances granted them are inadequate and less than unemployment insurance benefits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That the House study the necessity of revising the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations with a view to permitting persons taking retraining courses to draw unemployment insurance benefits complementary to their course allowances, for an indefinite period of time, as of November 30, 1973.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43 it requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FISHERIES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the disastrous storm on June 17 which so seriously affected the Atlantic fishing industry, in view of the great hardships and losses of potential income caused to the fishermen with the loss of their nets and lobster traps, and taking into account the various bipartisan representations and expressions of concern by members of all parties in the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House instruct the Minister of the Environment in charge of fisheries to immediately, if he has not already done so,
cause fisheries officers in the affected areas to make a survey and inventory and assessment of the losses in individual cases so that, when policy is determined regarding compensation, there will be a minimum of delay in forwarding aid and funding necessary loans and grants.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to the continued subsidization at a rate of more than $1,000 per day by Canadian taxpayers of the Grand Trunk Railway, which is owned by Canadian National Railways, operates solely in the United States of America and serves solely the interests of United States citizens. Based upon the need to conduct an inquiry into this disgraceful state of affairs I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That the unaudited annual reports-
I have included Air Canada because they are both together.
-of Air Canada and the Canadian National Railways for the financial year ended December 31, 1972, tabled in this House on June 5, 1973, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.
5050

June 26, 1973
Housing


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my motion is along the lines of the previous motion. I seek the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion. I do so because of the peculiar circumstances in which we find the taxpayers of Canada indirectly subsidizing commuter services to Detroit, Michigan. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House direct the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to examine in detail the operations of the CNR through the Grand Trunk Railway in the U.S.A. to determine whether the operations of that railway in the U.S.A. are of a financial or economic advantage to the CNR and to the taxpayers of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Mr. William Teron is scheduled to take over the position of president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on July 1 to administer the National Housing Act which, as amended by Bill C-133 in Clause 27.1(c), relies on the participation of neighbourhood residents, and in view of the rather extreme and negative views on the role of community groups in planning our cities as expressed publicly by Mr. Teron on June 22, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to call Mr. William Teron for questioning before the date of his effective appointment, in order to ascertain whether or not Mr. Teron's views are in accord with the legislation concerning housing and whether or not his appointment would in any way be in conflict with his direct or indirect financial interests.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The latest figures on government guaranteed fisheries improvement loans, farm improvement loans and small business loans in the Atlantic region indicate the continued lack of effort being directed by the chartered banks toward those provinces where the need is greatest. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and that the Minister of Finance, the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the President of the Chartered Bankers Association be called as witnesses to ascertain the reasons for the failure of this program in the Atlantic provinces, and particularly in the province of Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed to the House under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM AUSTRALASIAN REGION OF COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of all hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a delegation of parliamentarians from the Australasian region of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. These fellow parliamentarians from Australia, Fiji, Nauru, Papua and New Guinea, and Western Samoa are here as guests of the Canadian branch of the Association.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I know hon. members would want me, on their behalf, to extend a most cordial welcome to our Pacific colleagues. We hope their visit to Canada and their all too brief sojourn in the nation's capital, Ottawa, and our parliament, will be enjoyable and fruitful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 26, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, while waiting for the Minister of Labour to volunteer a statement in his leisure time about the unique arrangements in respect of lease accommodation for Information Canada in Montreal, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the lease arrangements in question were approved on February 16, 1972, did Information Canada open a book store in September, 1972, and, if so, why did Treasury Board approve a lease arrangement that commenced on November 1, 1971, and will the hon. gentleman table the general policy under which lease arrangements of this kind are entered into from time to time?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the policy is well known that leases before being entered into do require approval of Treasury Board. There has perhaps been some confusion in the hon. member's mind as to the dates on which the various transactions took place. Approval by the board of the lease, which was discussed in the House on Friday, in fact took place in February 1971, not, as the information was given, subsequent to entering into the lease.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion in the mind of the hon. gentleman. He understands precisely what the government was trying to do. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House why the Department of Public Works was not asked to open tenders for space in connection with a situation such as this?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in some instances the Department of Public Works is required to meet a specification which can be met only in the hands of one possible landlord. In such a case there is not much purpose in calling for tenders.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AUTOMATED INFORMATION MONITORING SERVICE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have one more supplementary addressed to the Minister of Labour who I understand is struggling to find a method of rationalizing and explaining this situation. Would he also explain at the same time the cost involved in the project known as AIMS, automated information monitoring service, which was launched by Information Canada in May of 1972 or earlier at a very substantial cost and was subsequently scuttled because there was no apparent need for it? Could the hon. gentleman explain the details of this program, what happened to it, and why it was in fact scuttled?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think I may have an opportunity during the course of
Oral Questions
the day to give a short speech on Information Canada and I would be pleased at that time to go into the details the hon. member for Peace River requires in respect of that project.


An hon. Member:: It had better be a long speech.


MONTREAL-ALLEGED PAYMENT OF RENT FOR TEN MONTHS WHILE SPACE UNUSED AND PAYMENT OF $300,000 TO BREAK PREVIOUS LEASE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. On Friday last certain questions were asked. He promised to give answers today, so I feel sure he has them ready. Just to refresh his memory, we wanted to know then if the government had paid $150,000 in rent for ten months while the space remained empty and also whether the government had made available $300,000 to break a lease. He was going to give us some information regarding those two queries.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, to reply to the latter part of the hon. member's question first, no, there was no $300,000 paid to anyone to break any lease at all. With regard to the ten-month period after the signing of the lease before Information Canada took possession, yes, that does come to roughly $150,000. I would point out, though, that there is a factor which I think hon. members should take into account. During that period of ten months there was a mezzanine constructed as part of the renovation which gave the tenant, Information Canada, an additional 2,200 square feet-I can check the exact figure-and certainly had a marked effect on reducing the square foot price.


George Harris Hees: I would ask the minister then whether any money was provided to break a lease and, if so, how much?


John Carr Munro: I have already said there was none.


George Harris Hees: No, you said $300,000 was not spent. Knowing how the government answers questions I figure it might have been a smaller amount, very slightly less. I would also ask the minister to explain to the House why a price of $25 a square foot was paid for this accommodation in Montreal whereas the highest prices paid in other cities for, I believe, even better accommodation was $8 a square foot?


John Carr Munro: I will again answer the latter part of the hon. member's question first. No money whatsoever was paid to break a lease. When the hon. member asks why this particular location was picked, I might point out to him that two other sites in this general vicinity were costed at the time. One was the marine building, which was $32, and another site was between $20 and $21, so this price was not that much out of line. I might point out also to the hon. member that in the comparisons that were used in the article net figures were given for other sites but the gross figure, counting renovations, was used for the site in Montreal.

June 26, 1973
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary for the time being. If hon. members wish to pursue this line of questioning later, they will be recognized for that purpose, but after this last supplementary the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Assiniboia.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister explain why it was found necessary to pay in the city of Montreal three times the amount that was paid for similar accommodation in Toronto?


John Carr Munro: I have already indicated that similar accommodation in the general vicinity in Montreal was either more expensive or just slightly less or just about right on with what was paid in Montreal. If the hon. member does not wish to compare similar sites in Montreal but to compare Montreal with Toronto, I point out that the shortage of space on the first floor level in downtown Montreal was far more critical than in Toronto where there was a surplus. There was a soft market in Toronto at that particular time, quite the opposite of the market situation in Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: By gosh, the price was right.


George Harris Hees: We know what went on.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It relates to the last report of the Auditor General and in particular to the incentive grant of some $570,000 given in 1970 and 1971 to a corporation unnamed in the report which, according to my information, is Hermes Electronics. In view of the fact the Auditor General's report has been tabled for several weeks, can the minister inform the House whether he has investigated the statement of the Auditor General that, contrary to the Regional Development Incentives Act, the grant did not help to create any new production facilities nor did it create the 395 jobs the minister has reported to parliament?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe you will permit me the time to answer the question in detail. I can say, in terms of new jobs being created, the assessment is probably incorrect because the application was not intended for that purpose. It was intended in fact to preserve the 375 jobs, or thereabouts, which would otherwise have been eliminated as the plant closed down.


William George Knight: In view of the fact that the act does not provide for that, I ask the minister the following question.

Will the minister inform the House whether he will look into the role in this transaction of Mr. Douglas Kendall, who is not only a senior executive of Hermes Electronics but also chairman of the General Adjustment Assistance Board of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and a board member of the Canadian Development Corporation, and into the role of Mr. Robert A. Wisener who, in addition to being a board member of Hermes Electronics-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a speech rather than asking a question.


An hon. Member:: It is a good question.


An hon. Member:: Why can't he ask it?


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


William George Knight: The minister was about to reply and I think he should be given an opportunity. I believe my question is quite in order.


Mr. Speaker:: The objection of the Chair, of course, was to the length of the hon. member's question. I was suggesting to him that his supplementary was rather lengthy. If the minister can reply briefly he will be recognized for that purpose, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for T4miscamingue.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I did not hear the last part of the hon. gentleman's question, but to the extent that I did hear it may I say that the information I have is that the gentlemen named had no connection whatsoever with this particular matter. However, I will be glad to look into it further.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I promise to ask one last supplementary. It is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The question also relates to the latest report by the Auditor General. Will the minister inform the House why he has not collected the debt of some $100,000 which Hermes Electronics, according to the Auditor General, owes to the federal treasury according to an agreement reached with that corporation under the defence industry production program, and will he inform the House whether or not he is going to take steps in the near future to collect this money?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that question could have been placed on the order paper, at least the second supplementary.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General.
In view of his intention to abolish, to all intents and purposes capital punishment in this country, and in view of the considerable number of murders committed in Canada over the weekend, does the minister intend to
June 26, 1973

offer a reward to the person who commits the most perfect murder?

[ English]


CRIMINAL CODE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Prime Minister on what date the cabinet decided to bring a bill before the House to abolish capital punishment totally? On what date did the cabinet make that decision, which was announced a few days ago by the Solicitor General?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question was brought before the cabinet by the Solicitor General in the last two weeks. I cannot give the exact date at the moment. I could, of course, check it out if it were relevant.


John George Diefenbaker: It is very relevant.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. member asks me to check it out. I will check it out.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Prime Minister whether he can let the House know when previously a constitutional monstrosity like this was perpetrated on the House of Commons, it having had a lengthy debate on a bill introduced with the support apparently of the entire cabinet, and then suddenly-


Mr. Reilly:: Boo!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I think hon. members would want to co-operate with the Chair.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


Peter Reilly: I have listened enough to the destructive arguments of the hon. member for Prince Albert. I will hear no more. I will sit here and boo every time he opens his mouth.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the House can proceed in an orderly fashion. All hon. members, including the right hon. member, have the right to ask questions and should be allowed that right without interference.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no convention in my constituency tonight.


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


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister this simple question. When previously over the years has a government, having unanimously given support to a bill introduced in the House, subsequently during the progress of that bill decided to do the reverse of that which it supported only a few days earlier?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that the right hon. gentleman is reserving to himself the right of raising points of order on this. If indeed it is a constitutional monstrosity, it would be interesting to hear him put a point of order and argue it.


LEGALITY OF PROPOSAL BY SOLICITOR GENERAL TO ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT COMPLETELY- POSSIBILITY OF WITHDRAWAL
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General a question along the same lines. Has the minister asked his legal officers for an opinion on whether his suggested amendment to abolish capital punishment completely is destructive of the principle of Bill C-2 which provides for partial abolition, and has the government now approved or retreated from that position, so that we may know and can get on with the work in the committee?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with my legal officers. They have told me that the amendment is in order. I might say that a similar amendment was moved in 1967 in committee of the whole to a similar bill. If it was in order in 1967 I presume it is in order today. I am not retreating on the amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will, of course, hear the hon. member, but I trust that the point of order is not related to the procedural acceptability of an amendment which may or may not be introduced in a committee of the House. I think that would be somewhat irrelevant at this point. The matter is not even before the House. The matter would be before a committee and it is not the Speaker who would be required to judge whether or not that amendment was acceptable, it would be the chairman of the committee. So the matter is still a long way from coming to the House for consideration, if it ever does come to us for consideration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I make this point of order. I should like to quote from Erskine May at page 494. First of all, let me say that the principle of the bill was set out in Bill C-2 and the principle was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the hon. member but it seems to me so obvious, evident and elementary that we should not be discussing here a point of order on the procedural acceptability of an amendment that is not before the House and which, as I understand it, is not even before the committee. I would think the hon. member would want to argue the point which he proposes the Chair should consider at this time in the committee. I have

June 26, 1973
Oral Questions
no doubt that the argument the hon. member proposes now would receive serious consideration from the Chair, but I would think that argument should primarily and firstly be submitted to the committee. Having said all this, certainly the hon. member is entitled to raise a point of order and I shall try not to interrupt him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The fact is, Your Honour, with the greatest respect, the minister pointed out that he was not retreating from his position at the committee level. I have read the committee report very thoroughly. The minister gave notice that he was going to move such an amendment to abolish completely capital punishment of any person convicted of murdering police officers or guards. As I see it, it now comes back and is a very important matter before the House at this stage. A committee is bound by the decision of the House given on second reading. We voted on the principle at that time, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out in his question. He pointed out that we were asked to vote on one thing and we have got another. Here is what Erskine May says:
A committee is bound by the decision of the House, given second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.
That is the point I am making.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Even choosing my words carefully, I say the minister has committed a fraud on this House by doing what he has done in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the fraud the hon. member is speaking of is procedural fraud, which would bring the hon. member's comments within the proprieties of the House. I repeat that we are obviously anticipating a point of order which may be very well taken if it is taken in committee and may very well be taken if the amendment to which the hon. member is referring ever comes before the House. All this is highly hypothetical. I suggest to the hon. member and all hon. members that we should not at this point try to resolve points which are not before us and should wait patiently until they come before us. I am sure if the matter comes before the Chair for consideration the argument now advanced in anticipation by the hon. member for Calgary North will be considered. I think I should remind hon. members that this is the question period and perhaps at this point we should return to questions and, hopefully, answers.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-
Mr- Speaker: The hon. minister rises on a question of privilege.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has accused me of fraud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: I put forward this amendment in good faith.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: As I just told the House, in 1967 when there was a similar bill before the House a similar amendment was put to the House in committee of the whole and was not ruled out of order. Nobody was accused of fraud at that time and I do not intend to be accused of fraud now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that at least a substantial majority of hon. members will agree with the Chair that this is not the time to try to resolve a matter which is not before the House. I am sure the distinguished parliamentarians from Australasia will be impressed by our parliament as a very lively situation.



POST OFFICE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Postmaster General as a follow-up to a question I asked him last February. Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to issue a commemorative stamp to recognize the time-honoured science of agriculture, particularly the one hundredth anniversary of the Ontario Agricultural College?
[ Transla tion]	*


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have received several representations on this matter from hon. members on both sides of the House. The Post Office Department does indeed intend to issue stamps on this occasion next year.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
Further to the statement of the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce that federal help clearly favours Ontario to the detriment of Quebec, does the minister intend to announce, in the near future, special programs to remedy this situation?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the statement of the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce on a matter I discussed specifically with him a few months ago at a meeting of which, by the way, I took th" initiative.
He is right in saying that there are disparities in the distribution of research money granted Quebec and
June 26, 1973

Ontario, but the other provinces are also at a disadvantage compared with Ontario. Research, as we know, has had a tendency of following the rhythm of development but now we wonder whether it should not precede it. That is why we are now planning a number of programs, which I shall have the pleasure of announcing in the very near future and which are designed to level the disparities in the distribution of research funds.

[ English]



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has he given an assurance to the chairman of the Ontario Jockey Club that legislation amending the Criminal Code to permit offtrack betting will be passed by parliament, as the chairman of the Ontario Jockey Club has said he received such an assurance from the present Minister of Justice and his predecessor?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not presume to suggest what would be passed by parliament in any case. My position on offtrack betting since the introduction for first reading last session of a bill has been that I would anticipate some changes in the law, particularly in the Criminal Code, to strengthen the penalties in relation to messenger services and other activities but even that not necessarily in this session.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister arising out of the inquiry of the chairman of the Ontario Jockey Club as to whether the Prime Minister has ever visited a race course. May I ask the Prime Minister what response, if any, he has made to the inquiry of the chairman as to why the Prime Minister has not accorded representatives of that industry the opportunity of pressing the case to him directly in person so that he may question the industry on matters that the Prime Minister does not understand?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the question being put to me by the industry whether I had visited a race track before or not. I will look it up and see.


George Harris Hees: Back to the old arrogance, Pierre. You know what it did to you last fall.
Oral Questions GRAIN



FEED GRAIN-RETENTION OF CONTROL OF MARKETING AND PRICING BY WHEAT BOARD-ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW POLICY PRIOR TO NEXT CROP YEAR

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Can he tell the House whether, at his meeting with the heads of the Farmers' Union, the three wheat pools and Unifarm last week when the government's proposed new policy for the marketing of feed grains in Canada was discussed, he was able to give the western representatives assurances that the Canadian Wheat Board will remain in control of western feed grains as the sole marketing and pricing agency for western farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the representatives of the groups I met last Friday tnat the government's decision in relation to feed grains had not yet been taken. I indicated to them, however, that I would expect to be able to show them that any new policy which was developed would be perfectly consistent with the Canadian Wheat Board protecting the interests of the farmers in western Canada.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the minister's reply that plans are not firmed up, is the minister planning any further meetings with these farm organizations and, indeed, with the provincial governments, at least, some of which, have been in contact with him? Is it his intention also to announce any changes in the present pricing and marketing policy for domestic feed grain prior to the new crop year and to bring legislation before the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we anticipate making the announcement before August 1. As I indicated in an earlier reply, the question of what legislation may be involved will depend on the exact nature of the decision taken, and that decision has not yet been taken. We are meeting frequently with farm organizations and their representatives and with farmers and provincial governments, and will continue to do so.
[Transla tion]



FEED GRAIN-REQUEST THAT EASTERN FARMERS BE PROTECTED

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In the line of thought of the hon. member who spoke before me, I would like to put a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
At the same time, did the minister insist that the Canadian Wheat Board correct the injustices that eastern producers have been suffering for the past 30 years?
[ English]


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact object of our policy consideration is to put in place policies in relation to feed grain which will be fair to
5056

June 26, 1973
Oral Questions
all sectors of the agricultural industry in all sections of the country.



INQUIRY RESPECTING CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES HELD AT CHARNY-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Concerning the question that I put last week regarding the fact that about one hundred trucks have been kept in a yard near the CN tracks in Charny, Quebec, and since the minister answered that he would consider the matter, can he now inform the House regarding this matter?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the inquiries I have made indicate that if any cars are being held oh sidings they are being held there for company reasons, not for other reasons.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received any report from the team of investigators studying the explosion of the DC-8 jetliner in Toronto? Second, can the minister now assure the House and those who were about to board that flight that the JP 4 aircraft fuel used by Air Canada is still the safest fuel?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the only report I have received indicates that they have not found the cause of the accident. As far as the second question is concerned, JP 4 fuel versus JP 1, this has been discussed at length by Air Canada and for many years it has opted for JP 4 because it is more efficient and more adapted to our climate. This is a technical question which was decided by those who run the airline.


Duncan M. Beattie: Can the minister tell us why Ministry of Transport aircraft carrying the minister and the Prime Minister do not use the same safe fuel but instead use JP 1 aircraft fuel?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is used by DOT.



POST OFFICE


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the fact no mail has been moved in Vancouver for the last two days, can the minister advise the House whether he has settled the Vancouver mail strike and whether the mail will be moving tomorrow?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I hope so. We are following this question very closely and I hope to be able to report to the House tomorrow.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that the Post Office is unwilling to meet with the union to discuss the causes of the strike, will the minister personally bring the two parties together and get the "royal snail" on the move again?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the hon. member that this work stoppage is illegal. On the other hand, the postal authorities would certainly not refuse to deal with the employees concerned. However, we hope they will resume work immediately and that, following their return to work, we may settle this conflict satisfactorily.

[ English]



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It has been asked three or four times and the matter has been the subject of at least three motions under Standing Order 43. Will the minister now, soon or ever refer the annual reports of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is still under consideration.



DECLINE IN PRICE OF CHERRIES BECAUSE OF IMPORTS- ACTION TO PROTECT BRITISH COLUMBIA GROWERS

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. I have given him notice. Did he receive a telegram over the weekend from B.C. Tree Fruits protesting about the serious drop in the price of cherries in British Columbia as a result of massive imports of cherries from Washington? If so, does he plan to do something

positive in response to this telegram and, if so, if I may use that phrase again, when does he plan to do it?


An hon. Member:: After the cherry season.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have received representations from some hon. members from British Columbia, from the Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia, from MLA's of British Columbia and from the marketing organization in British Columbia. We were in contact with them last week and were in contact with them again today. As I said on Friday, we are concerned about the plight they find themselves in on account of the influx of cherries from the United States and we will act, I hope, shortly.



AIRPORTS


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the terms of reference he tabled last week with regard to the board of examination into the Pickering Airport. Would the minister inform the House whether or not the board can be empowered under the terms he tabled to commission studies, particularly into alternative programs for the provision of air facilities in the Toronto area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if it is proper for me to interpret the terms of reference that have been tabled in the House. I should like to think about it before giving an answer.


John Paul Harney: Because of repeated rumours to the contrary, would the minister confirm before the House his statement that no construction, design or planning work will be carried out on the Pickering Airport site until such time as the board reports and a decision on the report is made by the government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the commitment we made before the committee of the House was that there would be no construction and no physical modification of the area affected.



PICKERING-INTENT OF VOTE L30 IN ESTIMATES

Mr. Norman Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport on the same subject. Would the minister clarify an ambiguity respecting the estimates before the House in Vote L30 where there is a difference between the French version and the English version creating an absolutely diametrically opposed position? The English version of the vote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member appreciates that this is one of the matters the House is supposed to consider later today. I doubt whether during the question period the hon. member can ask the minister to
Oral Questions
reconcile the French text of the estimate with the English text. I have some doubt whether a question in those terms is in order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could reword the question and ask the minister again if he would assure the House that the money set aside in the vote is money for design and not for construction in respect of the second airport in Toronto?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is for concept and design. There was a commitment before the committee that no construction is going to take place at Pickering.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Consumers' Association of Canada has recently been awarded a further $100,000 grant?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is hardly in order. The hon. member is simply asking whether the minister is aware of certain circumstances. Put in those terms it is scarcely in order. The hon. member might like to rephrase it.


William Charles Frank: Perhaps I could ask the minister whether he approved the recent grant the Consumers' Association of Canada was awarded?


Eugene Whelan: I am
aware of the grant they received and I approve of it. It is the same as the grant parliament saw fit to give the opposition parties so they could do a good job. I hope the Consumers' Association can do a good job with the extra amount they have been given.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, .hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the point in the question period when we should try to limit the number of supplementaries. There are only a few minutes left.


William Charles Frank: Since the minister is obviously in support of the principle of farm marketing boards, may I ask him how he reconciles this stand with the fact that one of his colleagues, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has awarded this grant to the Consumers' Association which is interested in counteracting marketing boards?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is hardly in order.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is insinuating that the association will find some-

June 26, 1973
Oral Questions
thing wrong with marketing boards. I am sure they will not. That is why I am in favour of the grant.


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order; it is a matter of debate.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. A press release put out on his behalf by the Minister of Justice on March 2 indicated there is to be a major change in the water development program under PFRA, which would involve concentration on multipurpose water projects, and that this would be subject to approval by the province. May I ask whether such approval has been obtained and whether further details are available?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Speaking from memory, I recall it has been approved by some western provinces but I am not certain whether all three of the provinces affected have actually signed. However, I will be glad to get a definite answer for the hon. member.


Stanley James Korchinski: Would this program be subject to approval by all the provinces or would approval by individual provinces be sufficient?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It would be a program which could, in fact, function as between one provincial government and the federal government.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the fact that the working document tabled by the minister on April 18 makes only a passing reference to the subject of day care, can the hon. gentleman now outline what specific proposals, if any, the government has made to the provinces, and tell us within what time framework the government intends to provide the country with a meaningful day-care policy?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: If the hon. member would care to keep on reading for a few more pages he would find that the timetable is set out in the document.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have read the document and it does not help with regard to day-care centres. Would the minister tell us at this time what undertakings his department has made with a view to providing 24-hour day-care service for mothers who work night shifts?


Marc Lalonde: There are no such undertakings, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Are Japanese interests seeking to buy the cannery owned by the Cassiar Fishing Company located just outside Prince Rupert? If so, has he any plans to prevent this particular sale?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: It is true that Japanese interests have been negotiating with the Canadian owners of the Cassiar Fishing Company for purchase of at least part of the control of that company. The company knows that if this were to happen the licences for the fishing vessels, which amount to the right to fish for salmon off the west coast, would change in status.


Frank Howard: Could the minister tell the House how these licences would change in status, and will he take steps to ensure that this enterprise remains in the hands of Canadians, particularly of Canadian fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: If the sale were completed and a transfer of control were to take place, the licences would drop from category A to category B and be subject to a definite time limit.

[Transla tion]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In Montreal, today, Mr. Finnigan, the president of Canadian International Paper Company, is meeting Mr. Drummond, the Quebec Minister of Lands and Forests. Are federal officials attending this meeting in order to settle this problem once and for all?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not sure whether federal officials would be present, but within a few moments I shall be calling the provincial minister to whom the hon. member has referred and discussing the matter personally with him on the telephone.

[ Translation]



CIP PLANT IN TEMISCAMING-ALLEGED THEFT OF TIMBER-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Considering the news I received at noon today from which it is alleged that the CIP is stealing the wood which is part of the deal, would the minister ask his officials to look into the matter and find out if there is any truth in these assertions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall be very glad to do that.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the minister's office has been deluged with protests to the same degree as mine has since attention was called to the inhumane conditions under which horses are shipped to Europe, may I ask whether the hon. gentleman has now made a decision that this practice will be discontinued where it adversely affects the Canadian processing industry?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the great concern expressed by the Chinese community of southern Ontario about a particularly tragic case, may I ask whether the minister is considering extraordinary steps at this time to prevent the deportation to Taiwan of Dr. Jenny Ho?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Dr. Ho's lawyer has recently asked the Federal Court for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal. W&ile we could legally deport Dr. Ho, under these circumstances, as a special measure at this stage this course of action will not be undertaken, certainly not until all avenues open to her in her appeal to the Federal Court, if granted, have been exhausted.
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE



RATE OF GROWTH IN NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES- INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Having regard to the fact that government expenditures provide a major base for the inflation which is taking place in this country, and having regard to the fact that the growth in the public service in the past two years has been running in excess of 12 per cent, is it the government's policy that this unwarranted increase in the size of the public service should continue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe that when the next estimates are tabled the hon. member will be able to see the rate of progress which has been made. But I would state, in answer to his question, that it is our intention to exercise as much caution as possible in permitting any growth in the public service.


J. Trevor Morgan: I wonder whether the growth in the public service was the government's answer to the unemployment problem.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It arises from the entry into Canada in late April of a group of gypsies from Europe. As these gypsies have victimized people in rural areas of western Canada-amounts as high as $6,000 are involved-will the minister order their deportation immediately so as to protect Canadian citizens?


Robert Knight Andras: I will certainly pay very careful attention to the representations made by the hon. member and to the information he has given me, but I cannot assent to take such a drastic course of action without further and thorough investigation.


Donald Craig Stewart: As these gypsies were refused entry into the United States and have entered Canada on phony German passports, will the minister have these people detained until this matter is looked into, as I understand they are now moving into the province of Ontario where the big money is?



FINANCE


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of

June 26, 1973
Procedure on Estimates
Finance. On June 15 the minister advised the House that the government was studying the fate of the government's guaranteed loan program in this period of high interest rates and said he hoped to be able to find a solution last week. Can the minister now tell the House what measures the government has decided to take to protect these loan programs, or whether any decision was in fact made?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I am still considering the matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the hon. member for Peace River rising on a point of order?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, assuming that Your Honour is about to call orders of the day, which involves the motion in the name of the hon. member for Yukon. I have some comments to make and a point of order to raise before the hon. member's motion is put.
I want to bring before the House what I consider to be, after deep reflection, a very serious, fundamental and basic privilege of this House, namely the right of the House, either in committee of the whole or in the House, to consider and dispose of estimates, to vote upon items in the estimates, and to have the right, at least to a limited extent, to vote to reduce estimates, something that has been basic to the House of Commons for a great many years.
Your Honour is aware of the problem. There have been discussions about the matter ever since last June, when by decision of Mr. Deputy Speaker regarding a number of notices to oppose estimates moved on behalf of hon. members of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Deputy Speaker made it quite plain that the motion to concur, which automatically follows notices to oppose items or parts of items in the estimates, would have precedence. Therefore, provided the hour of 9.45 had expired, this House was limited to voting on the entire amount of the estimate in respect to which the motion to concur stood in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, as it does today.
Obviously, this gives me some cause for concern. If there is no other way or means by which this House, either as a House or sitting in committee of the whole, has an opportunity not only to debate the reason or reasons for reducing estimates but to come to a decision on at least some of the items, then there is very little left which this House, or which the committee of the whole for that matter when we get to the appropriation bill, can do about estimates. It is common knowledge in this House-the Chair can take judicial notice of this-that very rarely do members move to reduce an entire vote. Obviously, the government can so put together estimates or items that it becomes completely impossible for any member or for any opposition party to move effectively to reduce the amount of an estimate, because the government can include the unattractive items with the attractive items.
It has been suggested that this right lies with the standing committees which were established by the committee on procedure in 1969, and approved by this House. That is not the case. It is true that, as happened this year, hon. members in standing committees have been able effectively to reduce votes in the estimates in part or in whole. But when that happens the President of the Treasury Board

comes into the House with a motion to concur, and the motion to concur involves the entire estimate, not that portion of it in respect to which the committee had been able to effect a reduction. This means the House is again faced with precisely the same situation where there is no effective way of reducing part of a vote.
In light of this situation we have taken advice and there has been some consultation. I hope that the President of the Treasury Board and the President of the Privy Council will pay heed to what I say, because every member of this House is involved in this question. You, Mr. Speaker, as the first Commoner, the members of the cabinet, indeed all members are involved in an attempt to find a way to exercise one of the basic rights of parliament, which is to move to reduce amounts in the estimates.
I suggest there is a way by which this can be done, but it would involve some consideration of what has already been said in this House. It has been called to my attention that the first time a supply motion was brought under the new rules was under somewhat different circumstances, namely on March 3, 1969, when there was a procedural discussion and Your Honour gave a ruling. At the end of your ruling Your Honour said, as reported at page 6139 of Hansard tor March 3, 1969:
I have tried to suggest that it would be better to proceed at this point as though we were under allotted days which, according to my interpretation of the standing order, is that, when this discussion is terminated, and no other notice having been given, we should go on and put the motion to the House, that is, the motion that will be proposed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) for concurrence in the supplementary estimates.
Then, on February 7 of this year the House became involved in another discussion of this point. At that time there were rather unusual circumstances. The government, for various reasons and I will not harass them by going into the conditions precedent, was compelled to use the extraordinary procedure outlined in Standing Order 58(18). At that time full latitude was given the House to discuss certain questions and to proceed as if we were in the old committee of supply. As a result of a point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council at that time, and I think responded to by the hon. member for Yukon, Your Honour said, as reported at page 1060 of Hansard for February 7:
Actually, there is nothing to prevent the House from considering these motions outside of the provisions of Standing Order 58(10). I refer hon. members to the possibility of doing this under the provisions of Standing Order . ..
so and so. Then, Your Honour said:
I have even wondered why the House has not taken advantage of these provisions to bring these items under consideration forward for debate before the House reaches the last minute on a finally allotted day. That is a possibility that is always open to the House . ..
That is what I propose that the House do at this time, Mr. Speaker. It may be possible for hon. members opposite or for the treasury benches to frustrate my proposal, I do not know. But if that is the case, they do so at their own peril. They will be attempting to defeat the right of members on this side of the House, or for that matter all members of the House, at least to have a limited opportunity to debate, and to have the House or committee of the whole divide on, the question whether or not a vote
June 26, 1973

should be reduced. This is a fundamental right, Mr. Speaker, and all of us who were here at the time the committee of supply flourished are well aware of the procedure that then existed. When votes .were being put before the old committee of supply for consideration, it was competent for any hon. member to move that a vote be reduced. That was common practice. It was not done continuously, as hon. members had to consider the merits and the substance, but it was done from time to time. If there was a minister who engaged in actions which were repugnant to the House, or a civil servant who engaged in a similar practice, it was possible for a member of this House, sitting in committee of supply, to move a motion to reduce his salary or some of his departmental expenditures.
I recognize that this right has been largely taken away, but I intend to urge very strongly that this House and Your Honour give effect to a method by which, at least in part, it can be retained. It would be my suggestion that we should move at once, without having the motion put by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), to the consideration of the motions to concur, in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). Those motions should be put forthwith and followed through consecutively, then followed, of course, by the motion to concur in the unopposed estimates. In this way we would move at once to the bill which will follow the estimates, and at that time we would arrive at the stage in committee of the whole of considering the schedule. There would be available then to members of this House sitting in committee of the whole an opportunity for at least some limited debate in a manner somewhat reminiscent of what existed prior to 1969. Members of the House would then have an opportunity to put amendments, to discuss and debate some of the estimates.
My friend, the hon. member for Yukon, has carefully listed those items which he proposed to challenge on behalf of this party, and in respect of which we seek an opportunity to have the House divide. This is an opposition day and I think this House and Your Honour should be diligent and ingenious in attempting to restore at least to some extent that great privilege, the right to challenge and reduce votes in the House.
I see no reason that the hon. member for Yukon need put his motion. This is a vehicle which is essential, and I see that Your Honour is interested in this point. While this is a vehicle, I submit that if the motion is not put, or even if it has to be put, it is not essential that it be debated and we can move forthwith to the motions to concur, and thereby arrive at the appropriation bill. I would, therefore, at this time, subject to hearing arguments from other members of the House, propose that this procedure be adopted, and that this House lay upon itself the responsibility of devising a method by which certain of the votes may be the subject of discussion and of decision.
As I say, by the time we have gone through the motions of the President of the Treasury Board to concur, as well as to concur in the unopposed items, there is not a great deal of time left. I suggest that if that time is not made available, then the question of supply will be turned into an utter farce and will become a nullity. This House, in effect at the instigation of the government, when it comes
Procedure on Estimates
to the question of supply and voting a number of estimates, will become a kangaroo court. In that event, we might as well shut up shop and go home.
I urge that this should not be the case and that we do not leave this House today with the decision of the House and the Chair that there is no longer any means of challenging an item in the estimates. That is the point of order I make and I propose that this method be adopted. I challenge the government to co-operate and to see that this means is effected so that these matters can be dealt with, to at least the extent set out in the notice of the hon. member for Yukon. If the government does not do this the consequences will fall on its head.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some diffidence, having listened to the learned argument of my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), to add to the discussion at this time. I put it to Your Honour that what we are doing is reviewing and re-establishing the purpose of that stage of debate in this House we are undergoing today.
This all goes back to the change in the House rules in 1968 whereby the committee of supply was abolished. In no way in the mind of anyone, except perhaps the proposer of those rule changes and those who wish to close off debate by closure, did the change indicate that this House was abdicating one iota of its control over Crown expenditures. What has transpired since in the form of legalistic semantics has had the result of opening the door to complete stultification of that primary purpose of parliament. If this House, on this and on other occasions is prohibited from indicating its opposition to any item in the estimates we are wasting our time. The words in the rules refer to opposition to any item, whether by way of notice or by way of a formal motion, and the choice matters little. In this way this House can indicate its opposition to an item or items in the estimates, and this House must have the opportunity of debating that opposition.
This is an allotted opposition day; it is not a government day, and government motions are the last to be considered. If one reads Standing Order 58(10), he will see that the sequence matters not, but that there is provision for restoration or reinstatement when a total estimate is being voted out as a result of a decision of the committee, and there have been occasions when votes have been altered by the committee. That is what is covered by a motion for restoration. We also have provision for reinstatement and for opposition to any item. Does a motion of the government take precedence? I suggest not, because this is an opposition day. The notice of motion is the item that takes precedence as I conceive the rules, and I arrive at that conception as one who has worked on the rules and realized that the intention is not to stultify the effectiveness of this House.
The government has posted a formal notice of so-called restoration to opposition, but that is premature. The government motions are premature. There is opposition to an item or part of an item. Why does it require a motion to restore it? It has not been changed. The only place there

June 26, 1973
Procedure on Estimates
has to be a restoration or re-instatement is where in committee there have been changes made and the government must then come back to the House. This I will repeat and perhaps the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will understand it. This is not a government day; this is an opposition day. It is the opposition which has the control of the debate. I say with all due deference, Mr. Speaker, that here I will cease my pleas on this matter. The purpose of this exercise is the consideration of items that have been posted by the opposition and the subsequent procedure in respect of bills is an entirely different question. At the present time, however, we are considering the items put forward by the opposition and, under the rules, it is said that opposition be posted and notices, given. That is the purport of the debate today.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, who said procedure is stale? We certainly have a new point of order and a new situation to consider at the present time. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rose it had been my intention to raise a point of order. However, my purpose was not so much to complain about any motions that might have been put down or even to offer a solution, but rather to ask Your Honour to clarify the situation so that we might know what we are doing today if we proceed with the motion that is on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It seems to me one thing is being made very clear by what is happening today. That is, for all of the credit that may be coming to the committee which revised the rules of the House back in 1968 with regard to other phases of parliamentary business, we did not come up with the last word so far as the handling of estimates is concerned. I hope that out of today's experience we will find a way to improve things.
As I see it there is a certain defectiveness in the notices of opposition put forward by the hon. member for Yukon. I do not complain about that. Under the situation that was the only way he could file a statement of his opposition. But I remind you, Sir, and remind him and the House that in Standing Order 58 paragraph (4) and paragraph (10) there is provision only for a notice of opposition to an item in the estimates. The hon. member has not put down notice of opposition to an item but rather notice of opposition to part of an item. The result is, and I say this with respect to my friend the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), that once the hon. member for Yukon puts down a notice of opposition to part of an item, something has to be done to bring the matter before the House and so the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) puts down a notice calling for a vote on the whole of that item. It seems to me he has no option either, because Standing Order 58(10) provides that when the point is reached where we vote on the estimates there is no debate, no amendment and a proposal to reduce the item cannot be made at that time.
Therefore, I suggest there is something defective about the seven notices put down by the hon. member for Yukon in that not one of them is opposition to an item in the estimates but rather opposition to a part of an item in each case. He did that, if I may presume to read his mind, because he is not opposed to the whole item in any one of

these cases. This is his way of exercising what he claims to be his parliamentary right to call for certain reductions of items to a lesser figure. So, that is what we are wrestling with in this point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River. Have we, in changing the rules, lost our effective right to reduce any item in the estimates? If so, is there any way we can get back that right without having to re-write the whole rule with regard to supply?
If I may digress for a moment, the thought occurred to me earlier today that the hon. member for Yukon has put down seven notices of opposition to parts of items in the estimates which cannot be voted on because instead we vote on total items in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, but then the hon. member for Yukon has put down notice of a motion to be debated today unless he refrains from moving it. Standing Order 58 (10) says there shall be no debate on these so-called notices of opposition, but the member by the ingenuity of filing a notice for today sought to arrange debate on those very same items during the course of the day. If I have succeeded in confusing the picture, I think I have a right to do so because that is what we have in respect of this supply procedure. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) says that is what I wanted to do. No. I simply want to point out that the supply procedure which we came up with in 1968 just is not working out as we thought it should.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If there is no way of doing something along the line suggested by the hon. member for Peace River, either as he put it or in some modified form, then we shall go through the motions today of debating the motion put down by the hon. member for Yukon at the end of which there will be no vote. That debate will simply end at 9.45 and we will have had lots of speeches about DREE, the CBC, contingency items, Information Canada and others. But at 9.45 the Chair will interrupt the debate and there will be no vote on that.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be forgiven for interrupting the conversation which is taking place up the gangway a bit. I started to say that once we have ended the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Yukon without a vote, then the motions put down by the President of the Treasury Board will be called. Where my friends of the Progressive Conservative party have sought, for example, to reduce the CBC item by $59,999 to get at the salary of the president-


Mr. Alexander:: Good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that "good" is not attributed to me. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) wants it attributed to him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only way for the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Hamilton West to strike out the $59,999 will be by voting tonight against the whole item amounting to $232,797,000.
June 26, 1973

That is because this is precisely the way the rules are set up.


Mr. Nielsen:: It was never intended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only way in which opposition to the $59,999 can be expressed is by voting against the whole item. If the nays were to have it, the CBC would end its broadcasting tonight and we would not even get the national news at eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is what my hon. friends want, at least we know it. I do not take that view. I think that the CBC may at times need to have some things said to it, but I do not favour cutting off the whole CBC operation in that way. I say again that I am spelling this out because I think it demonstrates a lack in the procedure as we now have it.
Then, in the hon. member's notice of opposition No. 1, he wants to eliminate the $1 million which is designated for professional and special services from Vote 70 of the items of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. But in order to cut out that $1 million, he has to vote against the total item in which that $1 million is contained, which is a vote of $45,032,100, the amount for the entire conservation program of the national parks division of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Even if I have some sympathy with the desire to reconsider that $1 million, I do not want to vote tonight in a way that would end the conservation program of the national parks division.


Erik Nielsen: None of us do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the hon. member does not want to vote tonight against the $45 million, and he does not really want to vote against the entire amount for the CBC.
Then, there is the very ticklish question about a place called Pickering. I am told that there are people around here today who are concerned about this. My friends suggest that we cut out an item of $4,310,000, but the way the rules are set up there will be no vote cutting out that amount. There will be a vote for or against the total item of $157,596,000, which is for Dorval, St. Scholastique, Malton No. 1, Malton No. 2, Pickering, and possibly other airports around the country which may meet the approval of the Treasury Board. No matter how strongly members from the area may feel about the Pickering situation, I do not think anybody in the House wants to close down the whole airport improvement and development program by voting tonight against the total of $157,596,000. Certainly, I cannot vote against that item, and I do not want my vote for that item tonight to be interpreted as a lack of sympathy with those who are concerned about the Pickering airport situation.
And so I could go on, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that my hon. friends do not like the contingency fund being raised from $60 million to $80 million, but if they are responsible, they know how governments operate and they would not want to eliminate the contingency fund altogether. What happens when there is an act of God, a storm, drought,
Procedure on Estimates
flood or what have you, and the government has to find money before it is in the estimates to deal with that situation? No government can carry on without a contingency fund, and I am not prepared to vote to reduce it to zero. The way the rules are set up, if my friends of the Conservative party really want to block that increase of $20 million, they have to vote against the whole $80 million. But I cannot imagine they would do so, nor that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), a responsible gentleman who would like some day to be prime minister-


An hon. Member:: And will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -would want to vote against that. One can go over these seven items one by one. There is also Information Canada. My friends think that this vote is the easiest one to cut out entirely, but if we cut out the entire vote for Information Canada, as they say in the notice of opposition, not including expenditures for the Queen's Printer, what will be voted on is the entire vote for Information Canada, all its bookstores, inquiry centres, the Queen's Printer operation, the distribution of books and publications, and the distribution of Hansard-


An hon. Member:: Oh, God.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not
want to stop that, even before my speech is printed and distributed. I suggest that in reality my friends in the Conservative party, although they have put down these seven notices of opposition, do not really want to vote tonight against the total of any one of the items in respect of which they filed these notices of opposition.


An hon. Member:: What is the answer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some day a solution to that will have to be found. If it is not found today, I think, from the way I have spoken, Your Honour will know how we feel about the matter. We have criticisms to make in all these areas, but we are not going to bring the whole business of government to a halt because we want to reduce the salary of the president of the CBC or do something else.


Gerald William Baldwin: Are you prepared to move into the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has come up with a suggestion that I think is quite ingenious, and perhaps one of the reasons that some of us are talking at length is to give Your Honour time to think about the situation. As I understand it, the hon. member for Peace River proposes that the motion in the name of the hon. member for Yukon, which was put down for debate all day today, not be proceeded with. If he does not move it, and nobody else moves it on his behalf, that settles that and it will not be proceeded with. Then, the proposal of the hon. member for Peace River is that each of the seven items-I now have to say eight items because although there are seven notices of opposition, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has put down an eighth one, for the purpose of restoring an amount that was cut out in committee. Then, the bill will be brought in based on those motions that

June 26, 1973
Procedure on Estimates
have been passed. We will get that bill some time this afternoon and there will still be time left in the day to debate the bill.
His proposal is that when we get into committee of the whole on the bill members should have the right to move reductions in some of the votes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is where we want your support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say to my friend that I think the idea has ingenuity and possibilities.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are getting close.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let there be no doubt about this, Mr. Speaker. I would like nothing better than for a way to be found whereby we can reduce some of these items. I think parliament's handling of the estimates is a farce unless we have that right. I may not agree with some of the items that my hon. friends may want to reduce, just as I did not get much support from them when I tried to eliminate the estimates for the Senate.
The problem that I see is this: in the old days when we had the committee of supply we had the right to move that items be reduced. Sometimes we exercised it, and sometimes we succeeded. It was not often, but it did happen, but once the resolutions in the committee of supply were passed, they became an order for bringing in a bill based on those resolutions. If my recollection is correct we never had the right, once we got the bill, to change it from the resolutions passed in the committee of supply.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I see a problem about my hon. friend's suggestion. The reason I am mentioning it now is so that we can solve it before we get past the point of no return. My fear would be that if we concur in the nine motions of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), including the motion for all the unopposed items, those nine motions will be an order to bring in a bill based thereon, and that then the Speaker will rule that we do not have the right to reduce the items that are in the schedule.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a precedent to the contrary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My suggestion is that if we are going to get to the motions of the President of the Treasury Board fairly soon it might be better, on each of those eight or nine motions of nis, for us to have the right there to move a reduction. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will have a hard job finding a way to stop us from that.
There is, in Standing Order 58(10), language which says these motions shall be voted on without debate or amendment. But, Sir, and I emphasize this, that is only when they are called at 9:45 tonight. If they are called at 3:45 or 4:45 this afternoon-I certainly am not going to talk until 9:45-I suggest that the rule against debate or amendment does not apply, and that that is the place where we can move to reduce items.

That is my slight modification of the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). We may not agree on the same items as to the amounts by which they should be reduced. But on the basic principle, and I think this is more important than having debate on the omnibus motion of the hon. member for Yukon, on the principle that parliament should have the right to reduce these items, I think that we should find a way to do that, if we can.
My modification of the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Peace River is that we not wait until we get the bill, but that as each of the motions of the President of the Treasury Board is called, if the time is not 9:45 this evening, it can be debated and, if it can be debated then surely it can be amended, and in that way the House will find a way to express itself.
I come back to where I started with this afternoon. The situation into which we have got ourselves is a bit of a farce. I think the hon. member for the Yukon would be the first to admit that his motions do not achieve the purposes he wants because he and his colleagues cannot vote against global items. Surely, we can find some way of granting to the government less money than it is asking for, and I hope we will find a way to do that this afternoon.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I do not frequently engage in the kind of discussion we have been having, but I have been doing some research as the discussion has been going on, participated in by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), about the manner in which we used to deal with supply in committee of the whole and the kind of flexibility that in fact existed in those days. As I listened to hon. members discuss the matter, I felt the point to which I would like to draw Your Honour's attention is the fact that our Standing Orders do not have any definitions section as does some of our legislation.
I would like to suggest that, perhaps because of the particular circumstances that have occurred from time to time since the new Standing Orders came into effect, no real consideration has been given to exactly what is meant by the term "item" or "opposed item" in the estimates as it is referred to in the Standing Orders. As I recall it, in the first instance when notice was given of opposition to an item, it did refer in fact to the whole of a particular vote. I would like to suggest to Your Honour that neither the House nor the members decide what will be in the votes in the estimates. That is done by the government. My observation has been, and I have made reference to this in some of the discussions on estimates in the committees, that increasingly the estimates are drawn up in a form which tends to lump into what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has called a global item the whole ambit of the operations of a given segment of the government.
Reference has been made to the estimates of the CBC. If one does look at the current estimates one finds there is, so far as its operations are concerned, one vote. In the context of the notices that have been put on our order paper, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has taken it unto himself, I suggest, in filing his motion for concurrence to infer that the Standing Order relates to
June 26, 1973

the total vote in the estimates. I do not recall that this question of procedure has ever been considered in the House. I think we might reflect on the fact that perhaps we fell into this procedure accidentally. I feel that perhaps one of the questions to which Your Honour might give consideration is an interpretation, which is the sort of thing we have to rely upon as coming from you, of whether or not the term "item" and the term "vote" are synonymous, and whether that was the intent of the people who drafted our current set of regulations.
But certainly according to my recollection, if one were raising an objection to an item in the estimates in committee of supply, one could define it much more narrowly than a vote, in the terms in which votes are set out in the estimates as we have them presented to us today. My feeling for the common sense of the situation suggests that we are unnecessarily binding ourselves into a restrictive position so far as the freedom we used to have to move for the reduction of a vote is concerned. Some of us at least feel that that is a very important part of the function of parliament, that it goes really to the root of our beginnings as a body to exercise a proper check on the activities of the Crown. I feel that this particular matter is part of a problem that has been brought forward by the procedural situation today, where obviously it is the desire that certain specific and rather limited sums of money be objected to rather than the whole amount allotted for the operations of a given department or branch of government. The whole question of the ability of members of the House to exercise their displeasure upon a particular officer of government or upon a particular minister of government by moving for the reduction of their salary is such a traditional right that I hope Your Honour will find some way of ensuring that, even within the ambit of the present rules, that kind of freedom will remain in our hands.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this particular point because item No. 7 in the list of opposed items in the estimates has caused me some considerable confusion. I should like to draw the wording to your attention because I think it is relevant.
In item No. 7 of the opposed items, the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) gives notice of his opposition to the $4,310,000 which is for "(Construction and Design) for the Toronto International Airport No. 2 at Pickering". This causes me great difficulty because the wording of the estimate to which reference is made, as found at pages 27-44 and 27-55, of the main estimates, is "Construction Design" not "Construction and Design". As an individual member of parliament, I certainly would vote against an estimate for construction of that airport at this time, in view of the fact an independent inquiry is being conducted, but I certainly have no objection to voting in favour of design funds.
It seems to me appropriate that in the wording of such motions the opposition should accurately reflect the item in the estimates to be opposed. In this particular case it does not. I feel that motion No. 7 should be considered improper and out of order by virtue of the fact that it does not reflect any item in the estimates. There is no item in the 1973-74 estimates which deals with construction and
Procedure on Estimates
design at all. Therefore, I would request that this motion be ruled out of order.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I find the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) somewhat surprising. I especially found surprising the plea that he has made to the House that we ought to co-operate immediately in bringing the supply bill before the House so that it would be possible for him or his colleagues to take certain actions in the committee of the whole. Certainly, nothing done by the government has prevented that or will prevent that. What will prevent it, or at least postpone it is the action taken by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen); first of all, in putting down his motion of which he gave notice on Friday. The House had every right to expect that the official opposition, having taken that formal move of giving us notice, would be prepared to proceed with this motion. In accordance with that expectation, we are prepared to debate the motion and will have a good deal to say about the request that certain votes of various departments be opposed.
We cannot take the hon. member for the Yukon by the hand today and force him to move his motion but if he does not want to move his motion, in my view we then take up vote No. 1 of opposed items in the estimates, a motion in the name of the President of the Treasury Board that vote No. 70 in the amount of $45 million of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be concurred in. We want to debate that motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But it is not your day!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Edmonton West makes the point that it is not our day. That is a rather odd comment. It is an allotted day; it is devoted to the business of supply and the business of supply is the first item under government orders. While it is true that under the rules the opposition is enabled to put forward motions which could have attracted a vote if it had wished today, certainly the day itself is doing the public business because at the end of the day parliament will be asked to deal with the whole voting of main supply for the operation of the public service. So, it certainly is a day devoted to public business and government business because the whole apparatus is designed to permit parliament, at the very final moment, to deal with the question of supply.
Had my hon. friends had the foresight that is required in this operation, they would have desisted from putting any motions down today and would have had the bill in their hands the very moment we got into government orders. The bill would be there because they would not have put any other matter on the order paper. Instead, they have filled up the order paper with motions of various kinds and now they come to us to extricate them from political and procedural difficulties. They say to us, "Members of the government, please co-operate with us and help us find a way" and then they are shocked that we do not help them find a way to oppose the supply required to manage the affairs of the country. They ask us to help them find a way to cut out the expenditures that the government is recommending to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!

June 26, 1973
Procedure on Estimates


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We may look dumb over here-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -but we are really not that dumb that we are going to co-operate with the hon. member for Peace River in his funny tricks in committee of the whole. We are ready to deal with the motions-


Gerald William Baldwin: You are frightened of votes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that are on the order paper, put there not by members of the government but by members opposite. The hon. member for the Yukon is the official spokesman for the official opposition on matters relating to the financial estimates, so it is too bad that by this strategem they have put themselves in this position. Maybe next year they will avoid that problem.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Filibuster!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Peace River has said that we are afraid of votes.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have had a lot of votes since the beginning of the year and we have come through them one way or another.


An hon. Member:: Yes, one way.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Probably we will have quite a number of votes today, but it is really a bit irresponsible for the hon. member for Peace River to come into the House and say "Let's do these major votes now-let's call the vote at four o'clock or 3.30 on seven items in the estimates". Some of these would clearly involve confidence if carried. There is no question about it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Ah, now it comes out.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We should not say, "Let us do that", without having given any notice to the members of the House of Commons, most of whom went away on the weekend expecting that the official vote will take place at a quarter to ten tonight. Hon. members have been party to arrangements for taking votes at a certain time, so that hon. members will know well in advance when votes are to be held.
Speaking personally, if it were possible for hon. members to be given proper notice, it would not bother me much if we were to call these votes at the moment the debate has concluded. It seems to me, if the hon. member for Peace River had been serious about this proposal, he would have used the normal channels of consultation that exist in order to discuss this in a way that might have led to some sort of arrangement. However, to ask us without notice, to make an arrangement of this magnitude for the calling of a vote early this afternoon merely to ease the course for him to deny supply, is just a bit too much. I take it for granted that the hon. member for Peace River was not serious in making his proposal along those lines.

I, myself, am not entirely satisfied with supply procedures. I have made that clear before. Perhaps I should mention, however, specially for the benefit of new members of the House, that those supply procedures, bad or good as they may be, were adopted unanimously by the members of the House and every party supported those supply procedures. There are flaws in them; yet, surely, this is not the time to ask us to change the Standing Orders affecting this major part of our work to do with supply in order to accommodate a particular need at the moment. I suggest we ought to follow the procedures which have been established. If we come to those motions for concurrence, I would oppose very vigorously the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that it would be possible to make moves to reduce those amounts that are in the motions for concurrence. If that is attempted, I will argue the case. I am really, regrettably, telling the hon. member for Peace River and his colleagues that we are ready to follow procedures that they have laid before us, and we cannot co-operate with them in removing the obstacles which they have themselves placed in their own way.


Gerald William Baldwin: So, you are prepared to filibuster so that there cannot be any vote. It is as simple as that.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see the day when the leader of the House, a member of the government, would rise in his place and, in effect, tell the House that the primary purpose or function of the House is to be frustrated by the position he spelled out today. I am really, really disappointed. The primary function of this House surely is that of controlling the expenditure of public funds and the position he has taken today will completely frustrate that process. He cannot say to us in this House that he foresaw the procedural difficulties with which we are confronted today at the time these rules changes came about. When he says that members of the House supported unanimously the changes relating to supply, it ill behooves him, in making his excuses to us, to cry his huge crocodile tears and tell us that he wishes there were a way around the difficulty. He did not go quite that far. Obviously, it is the will of the members of the opposition that there be found some way around the difficulties with which we are confronted.
What does the argument put forward by the minister amount to? Hon. members opposite, in effect, are afraid to vote on the items concerning which notice of opposition has been given. They are afraid to vote because they know very well that the opposition is likely to be united on one or more of those items. It is interesting to note, too, that he admitted without reservation that some of those items clearly involve confidence. That is the first time such an admission has been made. What is the result of the position the government is taking? Although it is the primary function of Parliament to debate estimates, to examine them and to vote upon them, the government, because it is afraid of the result of the vote, is subverting the very purpose of Parliament for its own political ends. That is what this means, nothing more or less.
The minister suggested that if we had desisted from placing certain motions on the order paper we could have dealt with the matter when the bill is considered. That is absolutely incorrect. Even if it were not so, the minister,
June 26, 1973

by advancing that kind of argument and urging on Your Honour that the rules changes that have brought about these difficulties are to be adhered to and are good, is completely denying the effectiveness of the whole procedure of referring estimates to committee. What is the purpose of considering estimates in committee if the reports, when they come back to the House, are not to be the subject of meaningful debate and division? We purposely considered the difficulties before placing on the order paper the motion that stands in my name. We carefully considered the rules and we appreciated the difficulties that will arise today. I can say now because of the government's position, that unless it is prepared to take a very responsible stand,-we will not be proceeding with the motion standing in my name, because its position will completely frustrate the whole intention of the exercise.
On more than one occasion hon. members opposite have suggested that what we should be doing, if we want to debate these items, is use opposition days for that purpose. That is precisely what we are doing. If the matter is not to come to a vote, of course it would be a useless exercise and a waste of time today if we were to proceed with that motion without getting as quickly as we can to a meaningful debate on the items that are put down on the order paper.
I want to say something in passing about some of the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I thought I was pretty good at technical hair splitting. I suggest to him that he will frustrate the whole meaning of estimates examination if he confines his interpretation of the word "item" to the whole of a vote. I do not think the two are at all synonymous and I think there is a valid distinction to be made, in interpretation, between a vote and an item. I think it was never the purpose of the rules changes to deny members of Parliament the opportunity of putting forward a motion or notice opposing part of an item. An item should not be interpreted as a vote.
The hon. member suggested, too, that we shall be placed in this position if we do not proceed with the motion standing in my name, which will be the case. I will be making application to Your Honour for consent to withdraw it. If, after my motion is withdrawn, we come to vote on the nine motions standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), we shall, according to the hon. member, be precluded from making any alterations by way of amendment to the bill that is to follow. With respect to the hon. member, sir, I disagree with that position. There is a precedent which supports that view, which I understand the hon. member for Peace River showed to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre before he had concluded his remarks. It is to be found in a ruling made by Your Honour on February 7, 1973, as found on page 1060 of Hansard. The relevant portion of that ruling is as follows:
The various stages through which a bill progresses (normally but not necessarily on separate days) are intended by the practice of parliament to provide so many opportunities not only for consideration but also for reconsideration. Such stages may be taken to include the passage of any necessary financial resolution. Thus an entire bill may be regarded as one question which is not settled until it is passed. Hence, no objection can be taken to an amend-
Procedure on Estimates
ment on any particular stage on the ground that it raises again a question decided on an earlier stage.
I submit this authority most strongly to Your Honour. This decision, cited by Your Honour while in the chair on a previous occasion, is clear authority to support the proposition that amendments can be advanced at the appropriation stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The argument advanced by the hon. member is very interesting and I shall listen to him carefully as I shall to all hon. members who are participating in this procedural debate. I am wondering, however, whether we are not anticipating a difficulty which might arise later on, that is whether a motion standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board is debatable or amendable. That, of course, is not before the House at the moment. Nevertheless, I realise that the matter is of such importance that the Chair should not stand in the way of argument being advanced. However, we can keep in mind that at the moment we are discussing the situation in abstracto. We are not yet confronted with a situation in which an amendment is before us, and I do not believe the hon. member would expect the Chair to make a ruling in advance. However, as I say, the matter is of great interest to the Chair and I will listen further to the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect, that was only half the reason I intend to advance in support of my submission, because if we are to find our way out of our difficulties it will only be with the consent of the government; in other words, with the unanimous consent of the House.
The second part of my argument is this: Even if the Chair did not accept the proposition I have set out, we could, given a reasonable attitude on the part of the government, retain the right of parliament to examine items of expenditure such as these. We could proceed in this manner by consent. I want to make it clear that the notices of opposition which appear on the order paper in my name closely describe the nature of the objection we take to a particular vote. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rightly assumed that we in this party would not be voting against the whole of the proposed appropriation. We are only attempting to retain the privilege, as members, of expressing our objection in this way to the portion of the vote described in the notices of opposition.
With respect to the reduction by $1 million of the vote of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for conservation operating expenditures, that intention is clearly confined, as described, to professional and special services. The same applies to all the other items standing on the order paper in my name as notices of opposition. So, there should be no doubt on that score. We ought not to be placed in the position of being able to vote only against the whole of the item. Surely, the President of the Privy Council does not suggest for a moment that parliament does not have the right to reduce an item.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is exactly what he is doing.


Erik Nielsen: If he continues to maintain this stance, what he is doing is denying the right of parliament to

June 26, 1973
Procedure on Estimates
express itself as opposed to a particular facet of the estimates. It cannot be done in committee.
If this argument is advanced, I would point to notice No. 6 on the notice paper where a motion stands in the name of the President of the Treasury Board for the purpose of restoring an item in the estimates of the Solicitor General. We want to reduce that item by $278,000. The reduction is aimed wholly at the police and security planning and analysis group-to the moneys devoted in the vote to the maintenance of that group. Yet if the President of the Privy Council maintains his position, we are confronted with a choice either of voting for the whole of that estimate or of voting against it. No one on this side wants to vote against the whole of the estimates of that department. All we want to do is vote against the provision of $278,000 for a specific item because we do not support the existence of the police and security planning and analysis group.
The fundamental right of members which is at stake here is the right to debate and the right to divide. The position being taken by the government at the moment is to deny us that right because of a technicality. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River shakes his head to denote the contrary. I say that when he refuses the suggestion which has been made by my hon. friend from Peace River, as modified by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, he is denying us these basic rights to divide and to debate. What is worse, in denying them to us, as members of the opposition, he is, in effect, denying them to the taxpayer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Much has been said by hon. members in this debate about the right of parliament to control the public purse. The Auditor General had a few words to say on that score as well. Parliament, he said, was losing this right and it will be the final nail in the lid of the coffin if the position taken by the government is maintained today, because all right to effectively control expenditures will disappear-the rights of the opposition will be completely destroyed. Surely, the President of the Privy Council ought to reconsider the position he is taking in this regard.
There are three possible choices open to us. We could proceed with the motion in my name, which would bring about a negative result inasmuch as the question would be debated but we would not be able to give effect to our opposition by voting-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You will.


Erik Nielsen: The President of the Privy Council says we will. What he is asking us to do is to vote on the motion standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board. But as I have pointed out, our notices of opposition relate to specific items which are only portions of departmental votes. When the President of the Privy Council says we have an opportunity to vote he is saying, in effect, that we have Hobson's choice; we either vote for the whole amount or for nothing at all. We are not willing to be placed in the position of voting against the whole of these votes; we want to be on record as opposing only those portions as described in the notices of opposition. It is this

which the President of the Privy Council and members opposite are preventing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Standing orders are preventing it, not


Erik Nielsen: If they were motions, I would agree. But they are not. The motions standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board take precedence, as the minister knows. I cannot see how he can seriously advance the proposition that we retain the right to vote and give effect to our notices of opposition in such a way. We either vote for the whole item or not at all.
The second choice we have is to refrain from moving my motion and to deal with the motions immediately standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board. If we do that, then under Standing Order 58(10) there is no debate; the motion is simply put.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, you can debate it all day if you like.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Until 9.45.


Erik Nielsen: Then, we might be debating one item all day. Standing Order 58(16) provides:
There shall be no debate on any motion to concur in the report of any standing committee on estimates which have been referred to it except on an allotted day.
I take that to mean that a motion to utilize an allotted day for that purpose has to be made, and if we do that the matter does not come to a vote.


Mr. Reid:: Standing Order 58(10).


Erik Nielsen: That provides:
On the last allotted day in each period, but, in any case, not later than the last sitting day in each period, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedingsand so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You need concurrence to do that.


Erik Nielsen: In order for us to reach that stage, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, we have to have government concurrence to bring the bill on before 9.45. Otherwise, we cannot debate or move amendments after that time. The position that the government is taking is that it does not intend to concur with that but intends to hold to the rules, in which case there can be no amendment after 9.45 p.m.
The third, and surely most acceptable, choice for all members of the House with any regard for this institution is to move right into the bill and agree with the concept that the provisions of a bill may be amended in committee. If we do that at once, debate will arise on suggested amendments which will give precise effect to the notices of opposition describing amounts by which we want certain votes reduced. That surely is the only reasonable position for a government to take. If it does not take that position but denies parliament and the taxpayers the right
June 26, 1973

to question estimates in this fashion, then we may as well fold our tents and depart this place, because the whole purpose of this debate will have been subverted by the stand taken by the government.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say on this debate on procedure.
As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said earlier, this procedure was, in my view, unanimously adopted and it was up to the Progressive Conservatives to move a different motion from the one they have moved today. I believe that we are in utter confusion. What is being sought is an amendment to the House Standing Orders to have the estimates discussed, not in the House, but in committee. We have had time to debate only some of the estimates, and for an hour and a half we have been debating what procedure we should follow in studying the estimates we have to vote tonight.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had today moved a motion aimed at studying the recommendations of the Auditor General of Canada, whose task it is to check on government excesses in all departments, the motion would be much more acceptable and would deserve greater consideration from the House than the one now before us. In any case, we have to vote hundreds of millions of dollars this evening. We knew that beforehand. Why, on the days reserved for the opposition, did the member for Yukon or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or someone else, not move a motion two or three months ago so that we could debate it? But no, they have waited till the last minute. There will be a vote tonight at 9.45 and now the member for Yukon is prepared to withdraw his motion if the government agrees to debate the items one by one and to accept some amendments which we would adopt as they arise between now and 9.45 tonight.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Order was unanimously adopted by the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not true.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we are wasting valuable time when we should be discussing the important matter of votes. I myself intend to discuss some of them with regard to departments which, to my mind, do not deserve them. Let us attack those expenditures, let us attack the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) if we want to, but let us do something. Let the hon. member for Yukon withdraw his motion or not, but let him know what he must do and then let him do it, so that we can get on with the discussion of the votes on which we will be voting this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no further contributions to the very interesting procedural debate that we have had, I will make my own comments, which will be brief in relation to the length of time that we have spent on the discussion of this item.
My understanding of the situation is that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen) has placed on the order
Procedure on Estimates
paper, as is his right, a notice of motion for consideration by the House on an allotted day, which is the last allotted day in this period. Normally, under ordinary circumstances, such a motion would be put by the Chair on the calling of orders of the day and debated for the rest of the time allotted for the consideration of government business until the time of adjournment.
As hon. members know, there are 25 such days set aside during the fiscal year or supply periods. In each period, two of the motions are subject to vote. The two voteable motions have been proposed to the House already, so this is not a voteable motion. The hon. member has brought forward a motion which is very interesting and original in form, and if hon. members had decided to proceed with it, certainly at the moment I can see no objection to it because it would have given the House an opportunity to consider certain specific items which the hon. member for Yukon or other members feel should be considered by the House.
The difficulty, as I see it, is that there would not be an opportunity to vote, and this is the difficulty with which we are faced. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Yukon have stressed that very point. Where they feel our Standing Orders fall short is that there is no opportunity for the House to express itself in a vote, not necessarily on an item in the estimates but on a reduced item.
Hon. members point to the fact that under our Standing Orders as they existed before 1968 there was an opportunity in committee of supply to vote on reduced items. But by decision of this House-and it has been mentioned that this was an unanimous decision of the House-it was decided to change that procedure, and instead of considering these votes in committee of supply it was suggested that these debates and votes should take place in the standing committees of the House. Under special procedures our estimates are now referred to different standing committees, and in each committee the estimates of a department or agency of the government are considered, and hon. members while considering those estimates have an opportunity to either vote for an item, against an item or to reduce an item. That is the right, privilege or opportunity which we had when we had a committee of supply that we have passed on to the standing committees.
It may well be that was not the intention of hon. members when they worked very diligently in reforming, changing or amending our rules in 1968. It may well be they were anxious to preserve an opportunity for the House itself, either in committee of supply, committee of the whole or in the House with the Speaker in the Chair, to vote to reduce an item, but I am not sure that this particular opportunity has been preserved. Obviously, in the last four years since the rules were changed there has not been that opportunity.
It may well be that hon. members want to change that procedure, and it may be that some interpretation of the rules will come forward in the weeks ahead which would make it possible for members to vote not only against an item but against part of an item. It is in an effort to obtain

June 26, 1973
Procedure on Estimates
this result that hon. members sometimes give notice of an objection to an item by referring to part of it, but as the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) says, there is some difficulty in this kind of interpretation of the rules under which hon. members, rather than oppose an item, give notice that they oppose part of it. In practice the result is the same, but what we are called upon to vote on is not that part of the item opposed by the hon. member, but the whole item. This is the procedure we have followed until now, and I think it would be difficult to interpret the rules differently.
The discussion we have had up to now, which has been very enlightening, and my comments, which are very much less so, I am afraid, are somewhat hypothetical, as I took the opportunity to say earlier, because the situation we are faced with now involves the possibility of debate today on the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The Standing Orders make it quite clear that the hon. member does not have to proceed with his motion, in which case the motion is dropped. Then, under Standing Order 58(12), we are limited to the consideration of supply and, on an allotted day, we proceed to the consideration of motions standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).
Hon. members will have to agree with me that in this hypothetical situation we have not yet reached that point. I understood that hon. members thought this discussion should take place to determine what the position of the government might be if the hon. member for Yukon decided not to proceed with his motion. I believe, under the guise of the point of order, the hon. member has now ascertained what the position of the government will be, as expressed by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), and now knows what the position of the Chair might be in respect of a point of order raised later on. It now remains for the hon. member for Yukon to have the last word, and indicate whether he intends to proceed with his motion. In that regard, I think the House would like to hear from the hon. member or someone on his behalf.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just on one aspect of Your Honour's remarks, am I correct in understanding you said that, under the rules as they now exist, the committee can effectively reduce an estimate?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My understanding is that, in fact, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), in spite of what is done in committee, can bring forward a motion to concur in the whole item, or restore it, and that this takes precedence over anything else. It is my understanding that evidently, under the rules which now exist, there is no way by which the House can properly consider the question of reducing an estimate presented to this House.


Erik Nielsen: They have taken away that right.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think that is a correct interpretation. Before I sit down, I should just like to say to the hon. leader of the House that he has succeeded today in using the rules, and by refusing to give consent to any change, to frustrate this House in an attempt to take a decision on a

reduction of any of these estimates. I should just like to remind my hon. friend that two can play at being difficult as far as the rules are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's very shabby use of the rules to accomplish its political ends here, I see no choice but to ask the Chair to put my motion. At least by that means we retain the right to talk about this notice of motion, even though the government denies us the right to divide on it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Erik Nielsen: -That this House opposes the following items:
(a)	Vote 70 of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Department, Conservation Program to the amount of $1,000,000 (for Professional and Special Services);
(b)	(i) Vote 5 of the Department of Labour for Information Canada-exclusive of Queen's Printer Program expenditures;
(ii) Expositions Revolving Fund of Information Canada, authorized by Supply and Services, Vote L149b, Appropriation Act No. 1, 1970, and increased by Supply and Services, Vote L30, Appropriation Act No. 3, 1971;
(c)	Vote 15 of the Department of Public Works-Accommodation Program, Capital Expenditures, to the amount of $43,900,000 (General Purpose Buildings);
(d)	Vote 1 of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion-Regional Economic Expansion, Operating Expenditures, to the amount of $1,000,000 (for Professional and Special Services);
(e)	Vote 50 of the Department of the Secretary of State- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to the amount of $59,999 (for the President's salary);
(f)	Vote L30 of the Department of Transport-Air Transport Program, to the amount of $4,310,000 (Construction and Design) for the Toronto International Airport No. 2 at Pickering;
(g)	Vote 5 of the Treasury Board-Government Contingencies and Centrally Financed Programs, except for an amount of $60,000,000.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, because of the use the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has chosen to make of the rules of the House, I regret that parliament is being denied the opportunity to perform the function we were sent here to perform, indeed, the purpose for which parliament was created, that of controlling the expenditures of government in a useful way.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: I regret that this has been done, Mr. Speaker. I do want to outline some of the concerns that exist throughout this parliament about abuses that have taken place within several departments, particularly within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I refer to the right of the House of
June 26, 1973

Commons, the people of Canada and those people particularly concerned, to know about decisions and the gathering of information which vitally affect their careers and lives. Had the President of the Privy Council not intruded in order to deny parliament, by his use of the rules, the fundamental right that parliament has to control expenditures of the government, I should have used the opportunity to defend and preserve that fundamental right, not simply of parliament but of all democratic government anywhere. I should like to refer particularly to the right to public information and to open decision making.
I should like to speak specifically in respect of Vote 70 of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the conservation branch, as it specifically relates to national parks and the professional and special services of that branch. Let me make it clear at the outset that we are not, by this debate, opposing research. What we are against here is incompetent research and secret research of the kind carried on by the department. In this House there is no consuming interest in national parks, with the notable exception of the interest shown by the hon. members for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and Comox-Alber-ni (Mr. Barnett), as well as some others who have national parks within their constituencies.
I think as well there is a disposition to approve of the commendable initiatives-and I am quite prepared to call them that-of the minister in establishing certain new national parks in remote parts of the country. I certainly approve of that as a member of that party which started the policy of national parks in Canada. I should like to make the point in passing that there is a very serious weakness in the practice of establishing national parks, in that so many of them are established at points far distant from the population. If I may say so, that is the relatively easy part of the job of establishing national parks, but we will soon be in the position of having the best isolated park system in the world.
If the minister wants to earn the accolades he has received, he should place a higher priority on establishing parks closer to where the people live. It is certainly our party's commitment to work with the provinces toward the establishment of a genuine national recreation policy that will meet the growing needs of the people which have resulted from increased leisure time. I have in mind the need for recreation of my people who live in large metropolitan areas, a long way from Kluane. That, Sir, is another point and one that I want to make at another time. The point now is that we generally approve the good things that have been done. But it is clear to us, and it must be clear to the House, that there is both a dark side and a light side of the national park policy in Canada. There has been a certain celebration and commendation of the light side, and I think that the dark side is not known for the very good reason that the government realizes it does not stand scrutiny.
Earlier in this debate I referred to the right to public information and open decision-making. Those are fine sounding phrases and abstractions, but they are a reality to people who are denied the opportunity to enjoy either the right to public information or open decision-making. Unhappily, an attitude runs through the parks branch that
Estimates
is both colonial and dictatorial. I, personally, believe that attitude grew out of hand because the minister is called upon to be the minister of three departments, in effect and is preoccupied obviously elsewhere with questions of northern and native policy. We have a situation where bureaucratic control has developed. Bad policy has developed as a consequence. There was the hope in this House that it might be possible for parliament to control the bureaucracy if the minister would not, but by the actions of the President of the Privy Council today we have been denied even that opportunity.
I want to review for a moment the situations which result from many aspects of the national parks policy. I wish to indicate that when I used the word "colonial" in relation to that policy I used it in a literal sense. Few people in this House know that at this moment the people of Banff and Jasper have no municipal authority. They must come to Ottawa for authority to levy traffic fines, for authority to collect garbage and for authority to have their streets paved. That is the situation which exists. It is a denial of the powers of a normal municipal government as a result of over-control by a bureaucracy distant from the location. That situation is changing.
In answer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) the other day, the minister indicated that his officials were in discussion with representatives of the Banff Advisory Council, but it is instructive to know why that is changing. It is changing because the Alberta Government, at the request of the citizens of the townsite, began an action which forced the hand of Ottawa. In other words, the bureaucracy has not acted on its own. It acted because it had no alternative. The question of perpetual leases, I believe, is not known particularly well in this House. This is a situation in which the government of Canada acted in a way which the courts of Canada decided was illegal in trying to terminate the rights of people who have been settled in national parks for a long time. That action, which was a matter of grave concern, proceeded in secrecy and darkness. The question of duress leases, which were signed while the court decision just referred to was still pending, under which people were forced to accept terms which were adverse to them or be stalled forever in the granting of leases, is another matter.
The question of consultant reports is a matter of specific concern here. On February 9 this year a return was tabled in the House in response to a question of mine about the cost of various consultant's reports undertaken at public expense by this department. In addition, I was given the date on which these reports were released. I wish to read briefly the responses to the question concerning the dates on which they were released. In respect of the master development plan for Lower Lake Louise, the answer was that it was never released publicly in total. In respect of the urban development plan for Jasper, the answer was that it was not fully released to the public. Then, with regard to the land lease problems of Banff National Park, the answer was that this report was not released. In relation to the report on a form of municipal government and administration for Banff Townsite the answer is, "intended for internal consideration". Then, there is the report on economic feasibility re commercial core visitor services centre at Lower Lake Louise and so on. The

June 26, 1973
Estimates
answer is that this report was intended solely for branch use. In respect of the retain demand study, Banff and Jasper townsites, the answer is that this was not released in its entirety. That is the story of what happens to consultant's reports which are undertaken in respect of public business at public expenses.
These are matters of very grave and urgent concern to the people who live in the townsites and the people generally who are concerned about national parks policy. This reply relates only to those reports on which we can obtain some answers. There are innumerable other reports by people whose competence, to say the least, is suspect. There are private reports which are redundant and expensive and which, in many cases, contain information which is not valuable when received. However, in almost every case the information is withheld from the public and from the people directly concerned.
Again, this attitude of refusal to divulge plans relating to public policy, this refusal to involve the people, this insistence on secrecy by the government, was evidenced this month when a public meeting was called at Banff as a consequence of extreme housing shortages which have been a source of trouble there for years. The minister and his officials not only refused to attend but, unless I have been wrongly advised and the minister will have an opportunity later to say if I am, sent direct communication to their representatives at Banff, where the meeting was being held by citizens who could no longer put up with the situation, instructing those officials not to attend.
It is not my purpose today to express the grievances of people who live in parks, no matter how important the people who live there are. What I want to do today is illustrate the practices of the department. I had hoped, if we had had the powers which parliament was originally created to exercise, that the House of Commons would be able to indicate its disapproval of practices of this kind. This is bad enough in terms of individuals, specific individuals with rights, but it is worse when one realizes that the decisions in respect of parks in Canada are among the most important decisions we will make if we are seriously concerned about the quality of life in this country.
Consultants' reports are the symbol. They represent the preference of the bureaucracy, which the minister has allowed to run that department, for so-called experts instead of the citizens who must live there, and the public of Canada generally. I repeat that the reports often are unnecessary and ignored. They usually are expensive. The fundamental fault is an attitude which says, in effect, the public be dammed. The public is aware of the decision that was taken recently in respect of Ship Harbour in Nova Scotia. This attitude was evident there and it was evident in the original treatment with regard to the fishing rights of the native people in the new park at Kouchibouguac. It was evident in respect of Sally's Cove in Newfoundland. It was certainly evident at Jasper where the department introduced for discussion the possibility of removing a rail centre, which is the means of livelihood for some 1200 people living there, and then refused to meet the people concerned.
This is the attitude we saw recently when the government of Alberta invited this government to appoint a

representative to sit on the panel holding hearings into the eastern slopes of the Rocky Moutains, where most of the national parks in Alberta exist and which are the prime recreational target areas for people not only in Calgary and Edmonton but in much of Canada and the rest of the world. This government refused even to send a person to sit on that panel. There is a consistent pattern of shutting out the people and trying to act as though the national parks of Canada were the private preserves of a few people in the department. That kind of attitude breeds arrogance which is very dangerous to government. Sometimes the arrogance slips over even into the mouth of the minister.
I want to advise the House of the words the minister used in the standing committee when questioned by my friend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) relative to the development of Ship Harbour. He said:
There were two or three pockets containing a small number of fishermen which it was quite important should be included in the park if we were to have a real conservation area. We decided to move the people.
He goes on to say:
Perhaps we were a bit too tough. Perhaps we stuck to our guns too much, if you like. We are quite preoccupied because you know the kinds of problems we have when there are too many people in the parks. In Banff and Jasper the problems are quite difficult at this time because of the great numbers of people residing in the park. So, we had the tendency to go completely overboard.
Now, he can claim some credit for coming back on board. But the fact is that the department consistently goes completely overboard. Again, the arrogance slipped out of the minister when not long ago, before I was in this House, he attended a public meeting in Jasper where citizens came to him with concerns which were genuinely and deeply held. He suggested to them at the public meeting that there was a road east and a road west, and that if they did not like to live in the national parks on his terms, they should take one of these roads. That is an unacceptable attitude, the kind of attitude to which we should be able to respond with the power of a denial of the appropriation, which we would do but for the intransigent attitude of the President of the Privy Council. That attitude prevails only because parliament is silent, only because funds are voted without regard to the waste they involve or the way in which they are used. If that does not offend the sense of responsibility of the President of the Privy Council-who has disappeared-or of other hon. members here, it should offend their sense of what is necessary for good policy. Bad policy results when you hide the decision makers away behind red tape and reports which can be published or ignored. Clearly, conservation suffers from isolation.
The government is now moving only when it has to move. It is moving slowly, at a turtle's pace, on the matter of self-government because the government of Alberta forced it to move. For a long time it has ignored the legitimate demand for a public housing policy. Now that a public meeting has been called, there is an inclination to meet the representatives of that group. It ignored the legitimate interests of the people of Ship Harbour until after there was an outcry. It has yet to come up with a firm policy on growth limits for national parks and town-sites within them. Much of the land of Alberta is in the
June 26, 1973

national parks, and when the provincial government offers to take part in the first large scale investigation of the requirements for recreation on the easterm slopes of the Rocky Mountains and takes the unprecedented step of offering the government of Canada an opportunity to have a member sit on that panel; the government refuses to accept it. I suggest that national parks are far too important a matter to leave to bureaucrats. It is time to ease out the consultants and let in the people; to end the secrecy and to encourage public discussion about the best way to meet our recreational needs and the need of later generations for unspoiled nature.
Parks are a public trust, not a private trust of a particular bureaucracy. In preparing these remarks, I assumed that parliament would have the fundamental right to control the expenditures of government by voting on the estimates. I was concerned that the minister or his spokesman might reply in such a way as to imply a kind of blackmail that would intimidate me or other members of the House from making the points we believe have to be made by suggesting that certain necessary appropriations would be taken from our constituencies or areas that have obvious national needs. If we had been able to vote on our notice of opposition to limit some vital service, there is no question at all that funds for these services could have been found from other sources within the department. It would not have been the first time that this government has engaged in lateral bookkeeping. If money or services had been taken from the townsites of Banff and Jasper, which I represent, that would simply serve to illustrate the highly unsatisfactory nature of a situation where a government can, by a whim, eliminate services that in any other community are essential.
If that argument were used, it would simply demonstrate the need to move quickly to improve the capacity for self-government and for some kind of authority to impose taxation to maintain these communities within the national parks. The day is over when one department can shut out people and provinces from decisions which vitally affect each one. When we vote tonight, as we are forced to do because of the President of the Privy Council and because of our rules, to support the full appropriation, I suggest that we will be also supporting the kind of arrogance which tells concerned citizens that "there is a road east and a road west", the kind of thoughtlessness which proposes to arbitrarily terminate fishing rights or take away fishermen's homes-rights that have existed for generations-the kind of ostrich planning which declines an invitation to sit on the board at public hearings regarding the use of regions dominated by national parks. It will encourage this and subsequent governments to believe that they can go on without parliamentary scrutiny, violating the rights of individuals, ignoring the traditions of the country, and developing the new and dangerous tradition that parliament will give any departmental estimates automatic passage.
I am afraid that that is the situation in which we find ourselves tonight because of the decision that has been taken for partisan reasons by the President of the Privy Council to save his hide and that of the government. I regret that we will not have an opportunity to bring this matter to a vote. I am glad, as the hon. member for Yukon said, that we retain, at least in the House, the opportunity
Estimates
to speak even if we do not, because to the machinations of the President of the Privy Council, have the capacity to control the government as parliament in ancient times was created to do.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today. I do not want to give advice to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), but may I point out that rather than give hell to the President of the Privy Council today he should have been on his knees thanking him for the action he has taken, because if the hon. member had realized how foolish the motion of the hon. member for Yukon was, he would have been the first one to do that. When he is asking for the right to deny us the $1,500,000 in Vote 70, he should look into the vote and realize that half of this money is going into western Canada and that most of it is going into his own riding. If we were to vote in favour of that motion tonight, tomorrow morning the first thing I would have to do would be to eliminate the protection of the beautiful forests in Banff and Jasper, because we have a contract with the government of Alberta to protect the forests there. If we were to vote for that motion tonight, tomorrow morning I would be obliged to close down all the campsites in Banff and Jasper.


An hon. Member:: Give them a LIP grant.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We would be in a situation where we would have to deny access to this park to half a million visitors this summer. If we were to vote for this motion, we would have to deny food and shelter to the 290 people with whom we have a contract to work in the backwoods of the parks to protect the environment. When you are 100 miles into the forest you cannot go for lunch to a restaurant, so we have to provide them with food and we do this through a professional contractor. This would mean the closing of the operation. If we were to vote for the motion, we would be obliged tomorrow to fire the 200 veterans who work in the historic parks, and the protection staff who are under contract with my department as members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. I can go on and on. I am trying to describe in a few minutes how this procedure would create a real mess for the hon. member and for his constituency of Rocky Mountain. If we were to vote for this motion tonight, I would be obliged to close down Banff and Jasper tomorrow. How irresponsible can those guys be!
When I came here today I thought the hon. member for Rocky Mountain would ask the hon. member for Yukon to please not put his motion. Yet, he was the first member to say to the President of the Privy Council that he was making a fool of himself. Instead, he should thank the President of the Privy Council for having saved the neck of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain.
The hon. member claims we have not put out enough information and that there are not enough public hearings. For the first time in the history of the national parks in Canada, in 1969 we started a program establishing public hearings all over Canada regarding the future development of national parks. We had piles of information to distribute to any people who wanted to participate, not only to the people of Banff but the people of Alberta, and they asked me for a specific public hearing on the develop-

June 26, 1973
Estimates
ment of lower Lake Louise. I had already arranged for complete public hearings on the development of Banff National Park, but I introduced arrangements to provide a special hearing in order to give an opportunity to the people of Canada to look into that project.
And, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that after the representations I received from people everywhere in Canada I decided not to give the O.K. to the development of that $30 million project. Some people were opposed to it because it was too big. Some people were opposed because it would be used in the main by Americans, employees of Imperial Oil and so on. I said no to that project because I listened to the people. Now, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain gets up today and accuses me of not listening to the people. What else am I to do?


An hon. Member:: Let the people vote.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The vote should be on whether it was the right decision or the wrong decision. That is the only question you should ask, and I know that a lot of members agree with me that it was the right decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Really, the hon. member's remarks were so irresponsible that I do not know what to say. He referred to new national parks. Of course there are problems in the creation of new national parks. The hon. member said that all the parks we have created were in the backwoods. Mr. Speaker, one or two hundred years from now I would not be ashamed when people will be going to the Yukon to see the most beautiful mountains in Canada in the Kluane area that we have made a national park. I will not be ashamed that we decided to take the last wild river in Canada, the Nahanni river, and make it a national park.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will never be ashamed that we took the best part of the northern tip of Baffinland and created a national park that will preserve one of the most beautiful parts of Canada, not for a hundred years but for hundreds of years.
Not only have we created new parks in the north but we have done so closer to the centres of population. La Mauri-cie National Park is only 90 miles away from Montreal. I am not ashamed that we have taken the most beautiful part of the Gaspe Peninsula and made it a national park. It is true that we have had some problems, and still have some problems. I am not perfect, Mr. Speaker, but I am not shy when I have to backtrack a bit. We had some problem when we were establishing Ship Harbour National Park, which is only about 40 miles away from the city of Halifax. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should know exactly how far away it is from the city.
Of course it is more difficult to develop national parks close to cities because over the years that land has been taken up by the private sector. But we have done a lot to improve the situation. The hon. member from Vancouver Island, who is presently in the chamber, can tell you that

we have taken one of the best beaches in Canada and included it in the Pacific Rim National Park on Vancouver Island. The hon. member is quite happy about the fact that we have taken the last good forest available on the Pacific shore to protect it for the enjoyment of the people of Canada for generations to come. Certainly, I would like to have more national parks closer to the cities. I have talked to the Quebec government and to the Ontario government. I would like to have a national park not too far away in the Chippawa area on the borders of Ontario and Quebec. I may say that Quebec is more or less willing, but I think the hon. member for Rocky Mountain should talk to his friends in Ontario and get their assistance, because such a park would be only 200 miles away from Toronto and Ottawa. I can only try to persuade those people, but I need the help of everyone.
I would like to have more land for a national park on Georgian Bay. I have talked to the Ontario government for years, because at present we only have a small national park there. But we cannot come to terms. We offered Ontario the same check-off terms that we offered to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Of course, we have problems, Mr. Speaker, but I do think we have made a lot of progress.
At the beginning of his remarks the hon. member for Rocky Mountain said there was a bright side to the problem. I thank him for that. Now, I would like to deal with the situation in Banff and Jasper. It is difficult because in a sense we are stuck in a situation simply because of our success. We have to live with the problem of our success. Last summer almost three million people visited Banff. When I first became minister five years ago, only half that number visited the park.
It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that I have a double mandate. One is to make some accommodation available to the public and the other is to preserve the area. There is a difficulty, because if you open up more lots for development you are destroying the environment, and of course like citizens elsewhere in Canada people in the area would like to have their own little lots. I point out that some people who live both in Alberta and elsewhere have summer residences in Banff. This is something I do not like very much. That is why we decided to tackle that problem right from scratch in Nova Scotia. There was a problem at Ship Harbour, but I think that problem can be ameliorated. In effect, there are two situations. First, there is the situation concerning the people who have been fishermen. Most of them live in three little enclaves which have been excluded from the park. Then, there are about 150 people in Halifax who have summer homes in the area. So, we have decided to exclude these three little enclaves, because they are right in the middle of the park, and the summer residents.
Of course, the summer residents made representations, first using the case of the 25 fishermen who are involved. I have talked to the Nova Scotia government, Mr. Speaker, and I think we have found a formula, with which the hon. member from Newfoundland who is presently in the chamber is familiar, with respect to Gros Morne National Park. As I say, we have found a formula that could be acceptable, under which the fishermen who are in the park will stay there until they stop fishing operations, but if
June 26, 1973

they want to sell their houses they will be obliged to sell them to the government because, as I say, we do not want a repetition of the situations at Banff and Jasper.
I may say that this is a departure from the original policy, which was recognized in the committee as being harsh. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that when I see a mistake I am ready to correct it. But if there are only one or two mistakes I ask why should we deprive future generations of Canadian citizens from enjoying some of the best beauty spots in Canada that we can take steps to preserve now? If we had not moved quickly, Halifax would never have had a coastal national park close to it, and Newfoundland would not have Gros Morne National Park which includes some of the most beautiful fiords in Canada. New Brunswick would not have the Kou-chibouguac area preserved as a national park, and Vancouver Island would never have a national park. I believe that in 10 years from now all coastal lands will be taken up by private owners, many of them non-residents of Canada. We have moved quickly and made a few mistakes, but in the long run we have acted to preserve the most beautiful parts of our land.
The hon. member also talked about the consultants' reports that we have not tabled. I have the list here, Mr. Speaker. There were 18 different consultants' reports involving lease-hold lands and related problems in national parks in Canada, from 1963 to 1973. Out of the 18, eight have been released to the public completely; three, because of the nature of the report-and they were very narrow in scope-were available to the Jasper Chamber of Commerce, to the public in the park. Three will be released on request. They are available and there are only three that have not been released and will not be. One of them is related to the lease problem and involved confidential information about the business operation of businessmen in the park. We have some obligation to those people who, in good faith, gave information to the government about their financial position in the development. There is another concerning the form of municipal government which is quite an old report; the data is outdated and not related to the situation today because of the growth in the number of visitors to the park. There is another related to the lower Lake Louise commercial development. It was a preliminary report and led to the proposition of the lower village at Lake Louise. All the information was available in discussions at public hearings held last year which led to the decision to say no to this development.
I was in Banff last week and I did not know this debate was coming up. I had the pleasure of accompanying Mrs. Gandhi in Banff and had a few hours to enjoy the great panorama there, one of the most beautiful spots in this land. When I came back I had occasion to meet with a group interested in the housing situation. I have recognized in the committee and here that, because of the growth of population in Banff, some people are living in places like Canmore, 11 miles away from the town. People want to live in the park because it is so beautiful. I understand that but at the same time we have the problem of people who are just summer residents and people who are no longer active in Banff. I do not think we can allow Banff to become a city of retired people. We discussed that
Estimates
and they came up with some suggestions to which I hope we will be able to respond.


Charles Joseph Clark: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitated to raise it because I thought the minister might make a remark that would occasion another one. My point of order relates to giving to the House information which is incomplete, and in a way that is misleading. The reply I received dated February 19 contains no reference, despite a question which would have invited such reference, to the fact that the reports to which the minister now refers as being available, would be available. Either there has been a change in policy or the minister, at the time of tabling that earlier reply, was denying to the House of Commons information and his response to the question on the order paper was misleading.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on this point of order. I say there is in the reports confidential information and that is why they were not released before. Sometimes I have been able to take out from the report some of this confidential information and make the report available. If that is the case now, I will check and report. I do not want to mislead anyone. The point I want to make is that out of 18 different reports in a period of ten years, 15 were made public one way or another and the others, for good reason, were not.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has claimed that if we are moving now it is because of the Alberta government. I must say that I was privileged during the last two years to have as my parliamentary secretary the former member from Rocky Mountain. He is the one who started this and who convinced me and the people of Banff to try to find a compromise. I hope it is coming to fruition now and I think one should be thankful for that. Everyone knows that it was Allen Sulatycky. We had been working on a compromise long before that, but it did not come to fruition. We needed to convince the people and to be convinced ourselves. We have a mandate, and it is very good to satisfy the people there. Our mandate is a very important one.
I had a very good discussion with those people. Some top decisions have to be made, but if they are made by me at this time the hon. member will get up and say it is a bureaucratic decision from Ottawa. I like to meet the people in Banff who have raised some very fundamental questions like the right of people who do not have permanent residences in the park, to be there. If I am to do that the hon. member knows the kind of abuses to which I would be subjected. If the people of Banff want to make that kind of decision, I will oblige but that will be real participation. I hope we will form an agreement with the Banff Advisory Council to give them more autonomy. To my surprise, at this time I am informed that we were even willing to give more than they felt was needed. There was a lot of research and discussion by my former parliamentary secretary and, of course, by the president of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development who had a special assignment on that. Before Mr. Sulatycky became my parliamentary secretary, there had been discussion with these people.

June 26, 1973
Estimates
It is easy for the Alberta government in that situation to try to pressure us. We had public hearings about the national parks and listened to the representations made. Now, they are having their own public hearing outside the park, and we will do exactly with them what we have done-we will go and make a presentation but I did not think that it is advisable at this juncture to mix "le tout" of the government, since I have no authority for Alberta territory outside the park. Inside the park is our responsibility, and we intend to discharge it.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will agree with me that I stand today in my place to defend the interests of the west, to defend and protect the operation in Banff and Jasper. He should be grateful and tell the House that we have made the right move and that he was saved by the bell-by the President of the Privy Council because if we had not succeeded in the procedure-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but the time allotted to him, plus extra time because of the point of order, has expired. Hon. members know that the Standing Order might give him the status of a 30 minute speech instead of 20 minutes, but I am informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council that ministers who reply in this debate consider themselves to be 20 minute speakers. If this is so, the time has expired and the minister could only continue if he were given unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying to the hon. member that he should be happy. We were almost obliged today to close Banff and Jasper. Now, he should be relieved and call for-


Charles Joseph Clark: Blackmail.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, it is not blackmail. I can give the list that I read here. It is very clear. The fire protection service from the Alberta government published it, so I hope it is a good one. All the camp sites in Banff and Jasper are operated under contract rather than by the department. If we had been obliged to accept the vote we would have been obliged to close all but one, Tunnel Mountain. It would have been the same thing with the catering service. It serves 290 employees in the park at a cost of $200,000. It would have been the same thing with the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. We would have been obliged to fire those people and close down the operation. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain and I will not be forced to do that because of the wisdom of the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain will be dealt with initially and, hopefully, finally by the minister and the hon. member for Rocky Mountain.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak this afternoon briefly on part of the matter before us. It has to do with the part of the motion presented by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)

relating to vote L30 of the Department of Transport, and has to do with the expenditure of $4,310,000 for the construction and design of Toronto International Airport No. 2 at Pickering.
There has been a great deal of debate outside and inside the House during the past year or more on this important matter. As we know, people in the Toronto area and elsewhere are opposed to the construction of that Pickering Airport. Sometime ago, when it was announced that a second international airport would be built at Pickering, many people had good reason to think that the action of the government was ham handed; indeed, some called it dictatorial. Since then there has been a considerable amount of motion on the part of the government, not necessarily in the direction that most of us wanted. It has not been all that rapid; some of it, however, has been in a proper direction and some of it has been swift enough. I should like to review some of the changes in attitude that the government has gone through as a result of the significant pressure put upon it.
Many of the people who opposed the airport sought two things in the main. They requested, reasonably, that the whole decision to build the airport be reviewed thoroughly. They had reason to think that the decision to build a second international airport near Toronto had been a hasty one. Many felt that as the Department of Transport realized a number of years ago that there would be extra demands for air service in the Toronto region and as the then minister of transport had made the commitment to the people in Malton area that there would be no expansion of Malton, the department and the minister had probably acted in the normal, standard way and said, "We need more air facilities; we are in the habit of building large airports; we shall build another large airport in the Toronto area." Apart from that, it was probably felt that this kind of thing was politically saleable.
It is only in relatively recent history that the citizens of this country have objected to major capital projects being undertaken in their localities. In the past, people were expected to welcome government expenditures. But the mood has changed, Mr. Speaker; it certainly has changed in the Toronto area. Some years ago the movement to stop the building of an expressway in the Toronto area was ultimately successful and the building of that expressway has been stopped. This is certainly a first for Toronto and, indeed, I might add, for Canada, and perhaps even for North America. The people of Toronto said, "The kind of development you are proposing and which you claim is good for us is not going to be good for us and we reject it." The same kind of thinking arose behind the opposition to the building of the Pickering airport. Indeed, the government must have been surprised to discover that many people, not only those coming from the immediate locality but many coming from outside the area, were opposed to the building of the airport. The people of the area said, "No, we do not want that kind of expenditure in our locality. We do not want that kind of capital construction. We do not want that kind of disruption of our way of life. We want to see public money invested in a different way."
As a result of fairly extensive debate the government, as I suggested a while ago, moved. It changed its position slightly. It has accepted that there should be set up a
June 26, 1973

board of examination. Finally, we heard the other day what the terms of reference of this board of examination will be. Without question, the terms of reference, as at present we know them, would not have been handed down a few years ago. The approach of the government, particularly of a majority government, would have been much more dictatorial, if I may use that word, and it would certainly have been within the capacity of the government to ignore public outcry. It could have said, "The decision has been made after proper study and proper hearings under the act." Now, the government has bent to the political winds of the day and I congratulate it. I congratulate it, to a certain extent, on the terms of reference tabled the other day by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand). I wish the minister had made a statement on motions about those terms of reference. Since then, all we have been able to do is ask questions, bit by bit, and try to elicit information from him as to some interpretation of the terms of reference.
For example, this afternoon I asked the minister if he could inform the House whether the board of examiners would have the power to commission studies into alternative programs, alternative facilities for the provision of air services around Toronto, and he was forced to say, "Well, it is a matter of interpretation; I will take the question under advisement." Fair enough. If he had made a statement on motions the other day, all of us interested in that particular project could have commented then, and the minister would have been able to prepare proper responses. Most observers would have to admit, apart from that and the question as to exactly how the report of the board of examiners is to be made public, that the terms of reference are fairly good in that the board of examiners will look into the need for the airport, into the question of the location of the airport, into the alternatives that can be suggested to take the place of a large international airport at Pickering, into the social and environmental impact of the construction of such airport, and so on. I could go on. In sum, at this particular point of time, the terms of reference appear to be fairly satisfactory.
There are a few other points that must be cleared up. I hope the minister will clear up the matter of the right or capacity of the board of examiners to carry on or commission studies and to spend money for the commissioning of such studies. I understand, from statements the minister made earlier this week in committee, that he does not expect this board to be a passive board, but an active one. It will not be a board that simply waits for people to make depositions before it, but will go out and search for solutions. It is in that spirit that I hope he will interpret the terms of reference, so that there will be a truly active board that will look into these questions.
The other matter relating to Pickering airport has to do with the expropriation of property. It is very easy to be glib about expropriation. It is easy to say on the one hand that everybody in the area wants to be expropriated, or to assert on the other that nobody in the area wants to be expropriated. The fact is that a massive operation of this kind affects hundreds of people who hold different views as to the quality or desirability of the action being taken. Some members of the House, myself included, were satisfied when at the beginning of May the minister undertook in committee to see that no person in the area who did not
Estimates
wish to be expropriated would be expropriated at this time. He gave this as a solemn undertaking, and since he is an honourable member of this House I certainly accepted it.


Mr. Atkey:: The expropriations were completed on April 30. Read the law.


John Paul Harney: Of course. And I have read the law. The whole action with regard to expropriation was taken long before April 30. The confirmation was duly sent out before April 30. But April 30-and this is what is important about that date-was the day by which the government had to make an offer of money, and if an offer of money was not made by April 30 the expropriation would, of course, be null and void. The government did make that offer of money. But the point is this; we have a solemn undertaking on the part of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) that no person in that locality who does not wish to be expropriated will be the subject of any action taken against him, nor will any decision not to go to court or avail himself of any process of law prejudice him in any way until such time as the board of examination has completed its report and the government has disposed of the report in one way or another.


Ronald George Atkey: The title has passed. They will have to give the land back.


John Paul Harney: If they have to give the land back, then they have to give the land back. If the government winds up with egg on its face, it is because it has been trying to concoct a rather ungodly omelet. It is their problem, not mine.


Ronald George Atkey: Then why do you support them?


John Paul Harney: The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) calls out: "Why do you support them?" What he means by that question is why did I, as a member of the committee, vote against his motion in committee? That is what he is talking about. Let us find out what he has to say about his own motion in committee. By the way, it was a motion-


Ronald George Atkey: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) has risen to challenge remarks made by me on the ground that they reflected on votes taken in committee. His view was accepted by the Speaker on those occasions, and I would think the same rule would apply to him as would apply to me. I would ask you so to rule.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The committee has reported, and that is the difference.


John Paul Harney: At the time the hon. member for St. Paul's made most improper statements in this House he was reflecting on a vote taken in committee. All I intend to do now is to read from the record of the committee. I am quoting the hon. member:
I move that vote L.30 be reduced in the amount of $89 million relating to the Toronto International Airport No. 2, less amounts already granted in interim supply by parliament.

June 26, 1973
Estima tes
I say to the hon. member that if his motion was so important and so appropriate at the time, why is it not before us today? All I see here is some niggling little amount of $4 million having to do with construction and design. I suspect very strongly that the hon. member for St. Paul's has realized, finally, that his motion was totally inappropriate even if it were proper from a procedural point of view. I say this because the motion would have had the effect of preventing the government from paying those people who wished to be expropriated. I think we have to be fair to everybody in this case.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Right on.


John Paul Harney: I will state now that the fairly rational response by the Minister of Transport to the case which was put before him has resulted, for the time being, in a relatively reasonable solution, which is that there is to be a board of inquiry and, further, that no person who wished not to be expropriated will be expropriated or proceeded against until the board has reported. If the hon. member for St. Paul's felt that his motion at that time was so valuable, I wonder why he does not put it forward on this occasion. He and his colleagues have apparently found another device. I think it is worth while reading a few other items from the committee report. On several occasions the hon. member has suggested that our failure to support his procedural gimmickry at the time amounted to an act in support of the Pickering airport. Let me read to you, Sir, what he has said about the value of his own motion:
The intent of this motion is not to kill the Pickering airport-
This is to be found on page 6:8 of the committee report.


Ronald George Atkey: Read the rest of it.


John Paul Harney: I will certainly read the rest of it, and much more. On other occasions, when questioned by the minister, he made statements to the same effect. The minister said:
Mr. Atkey, for my own personal information-do not answer if you feel you should not answer- the other day, when you presented your motion, you said the motion did not have as its purpose to prevent Pickering from being created. Did you say that?
The hon. member for St. Paul's replied:
I said the motion was not intended to kill Pickering. It was intended to delay it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have delayed Pickering; we have delayed it by at least a year, during which time all interested parties will be given a chance to speak before, make depositions before and bring witnesses before the board of examination. If this was the purpose of the motion, then it has been achieved. I continue to cite from the committee report:


Jean Marchand: Yes, well, that means that those who voted against it were not necessarily supporting Pickering.
That is an absolutely correct interpretation. I do not know where the hon. member for St. Paul's learnt his logic. I understand he is a lawyer, and perhaps he has different kinds of logic. But it is certainly basic that to take a negative stand against a negative stand does not mean to say one opposes the positive stand. I do not know

whether he can follow that, but it is fairly elementary. In answer to the points of the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for St. Paul's said those who voted against it were supporting the government in the sense that the government would be allowed to proceed full tilt ahead. Mr. Speaker, we had already been given a guarantee that a board of examination would be set up and that no procedures would be taken against those who did not wish to be expropriated.
In my view, and in the view of other members of the committee, this was fair enough. After all, the people who were organized to oppose the airport had been asking for these two things, and these two things were achieved. I would say to the hon. member that if he really wishes to stop the construction of an airport at Pickering he might as well work along with those others who wish to stop the airport there. If he simply wants to make political points, let him go ahead. But just as I, standing here, would never question his motives, let him not question mine.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having said all these nice things about the government there are some un-nice things I want to say.


Mr. Wagner:: Right on.


John Paul Harney: Shortly after the Minister of Transport made his statement, there were serious allegations made in the Pickering area that those who did not wish to be expropriated were being pressured. Responses have come from the government benches, but to this date people in the Pickering area are not satisfied that no pressure is being exerted on them. These allegations should be cleared up. I suggest that the relationship of trust which should exist between the state and the people of this area would be greatly enhanced if today the government were to say to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), "We do not think that your motion is totally in order, but nevertheless it makes sense with respect to paragraph (f) which is a very small item of $4,310,000 for construction and design."
Since the Minister of Transport has stated time and time again that no construction would commence in the Pickering area until the board of examination had finished its hearings, would it not be nice, as an earnest of his sincerity in this matter, to say, "Very well, we will also willingly and voluntarily cut out of the vote this small item for construction and design and will not go ahead with construction for at least a year, since the board may recommend against the building of the airport"? Would it not, then, make sense for us not to proceed with the construction and design of an airport that may never be built? I appeal to hon. members to consider this very simple point.


Ronald George Atkey: I am glad you see the logic of that.


John Paul Harney: The hon. member for St. Paul's, like the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) and myself, is put in an unbelievable bind today. We are all in an extremely uncomfortable position. I object to this particular item. I think it is silly to go ahead with construction and design and to waste $4,310,000 on something that may never be built. However, we now know that in order to vote against this item we have to vote against all of item
June 26, 1973

L30, which means-and the hon. member for St. Paul's might shrug along with me-that we would have to vote against the operation of Malton and Dorval. Now, I may not like airports but I must admit they are fairly useful at times and that many Canadians like to use them. To vote against the operation of Malton and Dorval would be absolutely unreasonable, but that is the bind we are in.
I do not know whether there is any device whereby the Minister of Transport could say to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), "I do not really need this money, so let it go". As a matter of fact, until the Minister of Transport said in response to one of my questions in the House today that there would be no construction at Pickering but there might be some design work going on, many of us had been under the impression that he had said in committee that there would be no planning or design as well as no construction.


Ronald George Atkey: Quote some of his remarks.


John Paul Harney: The hon. member asks me to quote some of his remarks. As a matter of fact, I spent the better part of this afternoon looking through the records of the committee to see whether I could find evidence of the Minister of Transport having said that there shall be no planning or design work. If the hon. member for St. Paul's can find the passage where he said that, I would be extremely grateful. What I found is something close to that, but not quite that. There are references to other members saying that the minister had said there would be no design or planning work, but I cannot find the minister saying that. I am in the records of the committee as clearly saying, "Considering that the minister did say there would be no planning or design", and so on, and I went on to ask a question about expropriation. Unfortunately for the case I was trying to make, the minister answered with regard to the case for expropriation. But, as I say, if the hon. member for St. Paul's can help me find the passage I want in this voluminous report, I would appreciate it.
The important point is that the impression was created in the minds of hon. members that no planning or design work would be done. Certainly the people in the Pickering area would have reason to feel more secure about the sincerity of the minister and his department if this small item were removed. Since the government is running the risk of having a fair amount of egg on its face should the decision go against the Pickering airport, it could save itself this amount of yolk by not spending $4 million on planning something that might not be built.


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


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, of the votes enumerated in the motion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), two are fairly important of which Vote No. 5 concerning Information Canada-exclusive of Queen's Printer program expenditures-which is being questioned.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows, and specially the government members, that Information Canada is nothing but a publicity agency for government affairs, for the liberal
Estimates
party. Information Canada is difficult of access; yet, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) agrees to all the expenditures of that agency, and submits them to Parliament asking that we vote for those funds which are listed with those of the Department of Labour. On the other hand, when we ask him to help us finance our offices, to help us serve our voters better, he never has any money. Funds cannot be found to give us the secretaries we need, while at Information Canada people trip over each other the staff is so numerous. That reminds me somewhat of the 12,012 Hydro-Quebec employees whose shoes have steel uppers to protect them from crushing each other's toes.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we are being asked to vote for Information Canada, and I see that the President of the Treasury Board, who is in his seat, is taking note of that. When we ask for additional services, it is not for the fun of it, it is not to enable more people to fill their pockets, but to give our electors the best possible services.
Another item that interests me greatly is Vote 50 of the Department of the Secretary of State - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to the amount of $59,999 for the president's salary. That item should be cancelled. The idea behind this motion is that the people's representatives should be allowed to have some say in how the taxpayers' money is spent. It is not meant to censure the president of the CBC, whose salary we propose should be reduced.
Mr. Speaker, this year the CBC has the audacity, the nerve and the effrontery, as usual to ask Parliament to vote it $232,797,000. The proposal made to the committee that this amount be reduced by $1000 was adopted by six votes to five. Mr. Speaker, the CBC-I repeat-is a separatist stronghold, as far as the French network is concerned.
That does not mean that they are all incompetent, no, but I think that the $232 million budgeted for the CBC should be completely rejected. It would be a good idea to close up shop for at least a year, to do the house-cleaning that is needed, and start again on a solid foundation, to provide better services to the Canadian public.
I see the CBC as a means of uniting Canada, of helping Canadians to know and understand each other better. What one hears least about on the CBC are the problems which Canada is facing.
Everyday the news is broadcast in all the provinces. At night one hears about Viet Nam, Russia, Algeria, France, Africa, about Watergate or Argentina. As for news, out of a total of 20 minutes we get about 2 minutes of Canadian news.
On several occasions, following the question period, I was invited to go to Room 130-S for an interview. There I was questioned and the interview was filmed. Then it was not shown when I listened to the French news at 10:30 p.m. or to the English news at 11 p.m. When you listen to those guys you would swear there were only three political parties in this House: the government, the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats. The Creditists do not exist. We have not yet succeeded in making them understand that we do exist.
5080

June 26, 1973
Estimates
Mr. Speaker, I think it is pure injustice. As far as the CBC programming is concerned I watch the movies quite often in the evening and most of the time French movies are very bad. Last night it was not too bad, but on the night of the Cine-club that is a bad scene. It is often a Czech, a Japanese, a Russian or a Chinese movie and those movies are not dubbed. They give you a condensed translation at the bottom of the screen. This is what I find really clever. The CBC cannot do any better. In the afternoon, when we are sitting in the House at 2 or 2:30 p.m. there are very good movies. In the evening we get subtitles written in white on a white background of course.
You can easily read: CBC efficiency. I do not know whether it is Marc Thibeault of someone else who dreams up those programs but I have drawn this question to the president's attention, Mr. Laurent Picard, who told me: I will look into it, I will look into it, I will look into it. He has been looking into it for over one year and things are exactly like before. Cine-Club should be altogether eliminated from CBC programs.
I said earlier that they do not give a damn about the public; the same thing happens when we ask for something as members of Parliament. This Crown corporation is responsible before Parliament and its members but tells us to go to hell. However, when the time comes for us to study their estimates, they come around and sit in the galleries to see whether we accept them. We are here to pay. But if we request something the corporation is more important than we are. The CBC's president is more important than the minister sitting here.
The CBC's minor employees are more important than any Parliament member whether he be a liberal, a progressive conservative, a creditiste or an NDP member. You meet those arrogant people throughout the province and Canada. If you want to meet an arrogant one go to Vancouver and meet James Bamber. Watch him on TV! If you want to see some more of them in Montreal and Quebec, I could give you some names. In fact, the CBC is crawling with those kind of people and this is why I often protest. I am not the only one to protest against the CBC. Recently, the auditor general stated that additional votes of $137 million will have to be granted to the CBC-a nice small corporation-because of some outstanding debts which the CBC will not be able to meet with its income. Either we shall have to grant it additional loans or subsidize it.
Quite recently the CBC's president stated, and I quote:
.. . Within the next 5 or 10 years, the CBC will be strangled by its financial burden.
The CBC strangled? They will simply present the bill to the President of the Treasury Board, who puts forward votes and who approved the amount of $232,797,000. Mr. Picard is not about to lose his job, nor are the others.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General found out a few things about CBC employees; the present Progressive Conservative member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly), who was employed by the CBC and used to work in the United States-we know that many of them work outside Canada, in Viet Nam, almost everywhere, in Europe, in China, in Australia, to provide us with news about these countries while they have no time to go throughout Canada to give us some news of our country, to enable Canadians to have a better knowledge of one another-received from the
[Mr Caouette (Temiscamingue).]
CBC the amount of $661.98. Well, since he had not paid his income tax on this amount, the CBC paid it for him.
U.S. authorities have claimed $134,574 in tax on the incomes of the CBC employees. The latter said: We do not pay. Then, the President of the Treasury Board said: No sweat, we are going to pay and we paid.
Mr. Speaker, we, members of Parliament, cannot do the same; there is not one employee who can do the same here. Even lumberjacks in Kamouraska who are going to work in the United States are obliged to pay. However, the people of the CBC do not pay, and the member for Ottawa West receives $661.98, that is the income tax paid by the CBC because he did not want to pay for it.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks I wanted to make about the vote concerning the CBC; I said and repeat that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation must be cleaned up. We must put there Canadians with a Canadian mind, who will enable all Canadians to know our country from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak tonight I must begin by saying I am disappointed that we in the official opposition will be denied the right to register our disapproval of government waste by shutting off funds for the continued operation of Information Canada.
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has the responsibility to alert the Canadian people to waste in government spending, and it is a dark day for parliament when we are required to sit by and watch while the public purse is plundered. The funds earmarked for Information Canada in the estimates that we are debating represent taxes paid by Canadian wage earners. These funds are the property of the Canadian people and no government has a moral right to dissipate them on frivolous pursuits. Information Canada is a frivolous pursuit, Mr. Speaker. The case against this agency is well documented, so well documented in fact that there is no way that this House could in good conscience appropriate one more cent to prolong its life.
I would like to quote from Hansard of February 10, 1970, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his attempt to justify the creation of this agency. Incidentally, it is more than a little significant that Information Canada was established on April Fool's Day in 1970. It is also significant that it was created at a time when the Prime Minister was looking for a soft job in which to place the Liberal camp follower and co-chairman of the B and B Commission, Jean-Louis Gagnon. As reported at page 3405 of Hansard of February 10, 1970, the Prime Minister said:
This organization-
June 26, 1973

Information Canada.
-is proposed mainly for three reasons. First, Information Canada will promote co-operation among federal information offices now operating in mutual isolation. The object will be to increase effectiveness as well as to save money by reducing duplication in the use of staff and equipment and by better joint use of the government's information resources.
The Prime Minister further stated, as reported on the same page, that the staff of Information Canada would total no more than 150 people. This figure was exceeded by the time Information Canada got into operation and it has been growing at a great rate ever since. The establishment of Information Canada has not had the effect of reducing the number of people employed in an information capacity in government departments. In fact, now that Information Canada is in full operation it is more important than ever that government departments be allowed to continue informing the public about what they are doing.
Anyone who has had the misfortune to be dependent upon Information Canada for information knows full well that this agency has become just another top-heavy, cumbersome bureaucracy whose main purpose today, as in the past, is to provide jobs for loyal supporters of the present Liberal government. So far as saving money on information services is concerned, this is a well documented misrepresentation of the true facts. For example, in 1970, when the agency was established, the budget for the nine departmental information agencies was $19.32 million. This fiscal year it is estimated at $36.67 million, plus more than $10 million being asked for to keep Information Canada in operation.
This is economy, Mr. Speaker, but only in the lexicon of the present government. By 1971-72, information costs for these nine departments had increased to $26 million. By 1972-73, similar costs for these nine departments had increased to over $30 million. The document I have replaces an earlier one dated March 7, 1973, where the estimate is over $36. This increase over a four-year period since Information Canada was announced is approximately double the information costs of selected government departments. In addition, forecast expenditures for this agency in the main estimates are now over $10 million.
Although it is clearly evident from these statistics that Information Canada has not lived up to the Prime Minister's expectations of saving money, it may still be asked what in fact this agency has done except to fritter away taxpayers' money. Can Information Canada justify not only the increase in its own budget-which is over 30 per cent in four years-but also explain why other information costs have doubled since it was first created? Although it can be demonstrated conclusively that in the first three years of its existence InfoCan was not able to live up to its mandate of saving money, it can also be demonstrated that so far the agency has wasted its mandate in other ways.
On January 28, 1972, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) was designated as the minister in charge of Information Canada. Furthermore, Jean-Louis Gagnon, the first director, and Robert Phillips, the deputy director, had both been moved to less sensitive fields, and since last summer Guy d'Avignon, the new director, has been slowly
Estimates
trying to smooth things out. Of these individuals, deputy director Phillips achieved additional fame from his leaked memorandum to his chief last year. In it he said that InfoCan has become "a mere grey presence", that it exists in a "state of largely suspended animation", and it is "urgent to consider some projects to justify our budget and existence, other than carrying on operations which existed before we did".
In the current issue of Maclean's magazine there is a story about the former auditor general, Maxwell Henderson. This story is a revelation. I am thankful that the Canadian people can get his comments on the newsstands, because if they had to wait for Information Canada's version of the auditor general's remarks they would have to wait a very long time and they would get a biased and distorted version. The auditor general said in the Maclean's story:
Regrettably, in my most recent report, I have to illustrate how the Treasury Board was using its energies and resources to circumvent parliamentary control instead of improving efficiency and setting an example for other departments.
Then he stated that he had pinpointed 130 cases that required effective management action, 65 per cent of which could and should have been cleared up by the Treasury Board. He said:
It is not surprising, in these circumstances, that Treasury Board officials are resentful of the auditor general.
If the government were at all interested in ensuring that the Canadian taxpayer was getting a fair shake for his tax dollar, they would welcome the auditor general's recommendations. Instead, as we in this House are well aware, the government has been carrying on a running battle with the auditor general for years and in fact at one point attempted to take away his authority to make public his findings.
The auditor general has urged the government on many occasions to disband Information Canada as a wasteful and ineffective agency, and it is unfortunate that we are not able tonight to start the process of eliminating this expensive boondoggle by denying this government another cent toward financing Information Canada. I will echo my leader's pledge, though, that when we form the government after the next election Information Canada will become just another bad memory, a reminder of how this government has used the taxpayers' money to pad the federal payroll and create comfortable jobs for any and every person who served the Liberal cause.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on the motion which is currently before us. First I would like to refer to paragraph (e), vote 50, which deals with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I say at the outset that the motion in paragraph (e) which deals with the CBC is a rather dangerous one. This motion which stands in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would cut $59,999 from the salary of the president of the CBC. No matter how any member of the House feels about the president of the CBC, it is impossible to vote at this stage against this individual item. When the vote is taken, it will be taken not on the president's salary but on the whole of vote 50, which is the entire budget of $232,797,000 of the Department of the Secretary of State for the CBC. I feel this is another
26446-31J

June 26, 1973
Estimates
irresponsible blunder by the Conservative Party. To get at the president of the CBC. the Tories are ready to destroy the CBC.
I have some criticism of the CBC, but may I remind the House that over the years it has provided the only radio and television service to many rural parts of our country. Private stations serve primarily those areas where profit can be made; there would be very little service provided to many of our outlying rural areas if it were left entirely to private television and radio. For this reason, I have no intention of voting to scuttle the CBC by supporting the Conservative motion. If the motion of the hon. member for Yukon carries, it will close down the CBC television and radio stations from one end of Canada, to the other, for no money would be voted to operate them. In my opinion it is an irresponsible and negative position taken by the official opposition. Many improvements are needed in the over-all operations and outlook of the CBC, but to destroy it completely is no answer.


An hon. Member:: Who is trying to do that?


Randolph Harding: The motion will do that if it carries. There is no use kidding yourselves, because the motion is on vote 50 which is for the entire budget of the CBC.


Ronald George Atkey: Read the motion.


Randolph Harding: I have some criticism of the operation of the CBC in my area and I intend to take this opportunity to outline briefly where I believe it has been negligent.


Erik Nielsen: This is the last chance you will have.


Randolph Harding: To begin with, the area which I represent in the province of British Columbia is very mountainous, the mountains run north and south, and it lies right up against the U.S. boundary. People in certain sections of that area have never had the opportunity of seeing CBC broadcasts despite the fact that it is our national broadcasting system. Radio reception is also extremely poor and has to be brought in by using the telephone lines.
In this particular area many of the small communities have been forced to finance their own little satellites in the mountains. It costs them a great deal of money and effort each month, and all they receive is a poor picture. And where does the picture come from, Mr. Speaker? In nine out of ten cases the only signal they can pick up comes from the United States. In many sections of the riding the people get their television pictures and news only from south of the line. I feel they should have an opportunity at least to see and hear what is going on in their own country.
In the Kootenay area we do get some CBC signals, but here again we have a bone to pick with the CBC. It has been talked about for years and many plans have been suggested: always something is going to be done, but it is never done. The CBC signal we get comes from Calgary, which is east of our area. It is in a different time zone, and when the CBC closes down its station there at midnight that is the end of reception for residents in the Kootenay area despite the fact it is only 11 p.m.

Within the last year we have received only one regional news broadcast per day from the CBC. We are interested in what goes on in the rest of Canada but, for example, we are really more interested in getting weather forecasts for British Columbia than for Toronto, and in getting regional news from the capital of British Columbia rather than regional news from other parts of the country. I do not think we are asking too much when we ask the CBC to send its signal in from Vancouver. That signal is received in the Okanagan Valley some 100 to 150 miles to the west, and there is no reason in the world why the whole southeastern section of British Columbia should not be serviced from the Vancouver station and given B.C. news, weather forecasts and the regular Vancouver programs.
As I say, the mountains run north and south, and in sections of the area there are several communities of 700, 800 or 1,000 people. They have set up their own satellite systems, but currently all they can pick up are signals from American stations. It would not be a costly business for the CBC to use satellites and transmit CBC signals to these communities. Through taxation we have been paying for CBC radio and television service to the rest of Canada. The big cities of Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver get top priority. I believe that now people in the rural areas should receive some top priority. I bring this matter before the House and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the attention of the minister responsible for the CBC.
I will give another example of poor service. We have a station in Rossland which receives the signal and broadcasts it to the areas around Trail and down the Columbia area. Because of the mountainous terrain there has been a desperate need for a reflector in that area. The reflector was promised back in 1967, before I became a member of this House. They were getting ready to bring it in; they had done all the surveying; the reflector was ready to be put in. But one delay followed another until finally we hit the austerity program and the government clamped down on everything.
We still do not have that reflector. The CBC cannot scratch up enough cash to put it in. Now they tell me it will be installed this summer. It was supposed to be put in last year, and the year before. I repeat that these small rural areas should receive some priority from the corporation and the government, if for no other reason than the people there should have access to at least one Canadian station that broadcasts Canadian views and news. Again I point out that the reflector is not a costly project. All the surveys have been done. Surely they do not have to be done 50 times. If it was on the agenda back in 1967 and 1968, why has it not been installed since then? We have been raising this question in letters to the CBC, but the delays continue. While I am very critical of this aspect of its operations, I am still a supporter of the CBC for the simple reason that if it goes down the drain all Canadian coverage will disappear. Problems like this are to be found in many rural areas in all provinces. I hope they will be overcome.
People living in a border area in the east, say at Windsor, have a choice between American stations and Canadian stations. But in many areas people have no choice at all. If little communities have satellite service and the only
June 26, 1973

signal they can pick up may be from an American station, then that is not good enough in this technological age.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks to item No. 7 of the motion relating to advances to the airports' revolving fund, particularly the item for construction design in the amount of $4.3 million for the Pickering airport, Toronto International Airport No. 2. We have had one speech on this subject today, from a member to my left, and I will be addressing myself to a number of his comments in due course. However, before doing so I want to set the record straight about a number of facts. I think facts are very crucial in an important debate such as this.
The first fact is that the expropriations relating to Pickering airport have been completed. Legal title in the lands intended for use as an airport has passed to the Crown. The property owners at Pickering no longer own their property; the government owns it. Therefore, I am somewhat astonished that the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) should suggest there is a possibility that the expropriations can be delayed. Mr. Speaker, the expropriations have been completed.
The minister, perhaps in a moment when he was referring to the legislation rather than to what he might have hoped would be the case, made a statement on May 8 during the committee proceedings dealing with the estimates for the Pickering airport. To paraphrase his words, the minister stated in committee that the expropriations were completed and that if the board of examination recommended that the airport not go ahead there, the Crown would have to decide what to do with the land. The Crown might decide that it wanted to use the land for a park. The Crown would perhaps have to consult the province of Ontario as to the disposal of the land. Perhaps it might in some form or other be made available to the original owners or some other owners, but clearly, Mr. Speaker, the words of the Minister of Transport on May 8 and 10 were to the effect that the expropriations had been completed.
Yet the hon. member for Scarborough West, perhaps to explain the vote that was eventually taken in the committee, in which he supported the government's request for funds to proceed with the project, gave this interpretation of the law and the supposed agreement that had been arrived at with the government: he said that those who wished to have the expropriation completed should be given the assurance that it would be completed, but if they did not wish to have it completed for whatever reason, the proceedings, in effect, in legal terms, should be given a hoist. "Given a hoist", Mr. Speaker: those are the words of the hon. member for Scarborough West. I suggest that is wishful thinking on his part, and wishful thinking at best. Expropriations have been completed, and he and the minister cannot change the terms of the statute.
The second point I want to deal with relates to the motion that was put in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications originally on April 17, prior to the completion of the expropriations. Then, after a rather lengthy meeting which involved filibustering by members
Estimates
of the Liberal party opposite, another motion was put on May 8 which was finally voted upon. The purpose of that motion should be fully clarified for the record because there has been some misunderstanding, some misquoting and some misphrasing of the particular intent and words of the motion. On May 8 I spoke these words in the committee in support of the motion to delete a certain amount of money from the Pickering airport estimates in the airports' revolving fund:
The intent of this motion is not to kill the Pickering airport. The intent of this motion is to withdraw from the airports' revolving fund the proposed allocation of some $89 million for this fiscal, and subsequent years. There has already been some $21 million in previous years' estimates allocated to the Pickering airport. It is still open to the minister at any time following the disposition of this motion to bring before this committee a separate supplementary estimate or an estimate in next year's estimate for the fiscal year 1974 and 1975. However, the necessity of the delaying action is merely because of the statement of intention of the minister in the House and in other public places to the effect that he is prepared to set up an inquiry, a study group, to determine various questions relating to need and location and the configuration and the planning aspects of the Pickering airport ... I think it would ill behoove this committee and the House in general to approve some $89 million in expenditure for a project which may never go ahead. I think it would be the cautious and prudent position for members of this committee merely to reserve parliamentary approval for the $89 million until such time as there is a firm intention to go ahead with the airport, and the question of need and the question of site location has been clearly demonstrated and proved as a result of the work of the independent study group.
That was the stated purpose of the motion before the committee on which all members of the committee voted. I was surprised that there was some justification put forward at that time, and indeed today in this House, by the hon. member for Scarborough West for the necessity of his approving the Pickering airport estimates, to the effect that some of the property owners would not otherwise have been paid. The very words of that motion, Mr. Speaker, exempted from it, of course, the interim supply amounts that had been given for the Pickering airport and the other airports funded by the airports' revolving fund.
There was some $20.5 million already available to pay property owners: that was admitted by the minister and his deputy. Moreover, there was an additional $14 million available in the airports' revolving fund as a result of allocations in previous years' estimates-money which was in the fund ready to be paid to property owners and which in fact had not been spent. There was $34.5 million in the fund, and I would suggest to the government that this was more than ample to pay those property owners who had expressed a desire to take their money immediately rather than await the valuation proceedings that would take place subsequently. I would challenge the government and the hon. parliamentary secretary opposite to state that the $34.5 million was not enough and to say that more money is needed this fiscal year to pay the property owners. That motion could have been supported; in fact it was not supported both by government members and members of the New Democratic Party. To me this suggests one thing, that the members who voted against that motion were anxious to have the Pickering airport project go ahead.
Reference has already been made today, Mr. Speaker, to the terms of reference of the board of inquiry or so-called board of examination which was first announced by the

June 26, 1973
Estimates
minister some 4 V-z months ago. We waited patiently for those terms of reference. They came officially last Thursday, but we have yet to hear the names of the members of the board. One can hope they will be appointed in the very near future. But I suppose we should be grateful that at long last members of the public in the metropolitan Toronto region can make representations to an independent board and put questions to the departmental experts who really advocated this second airport in the first place.
There are a number of problems with the terms of reference, however, and I might refer to them briefly at this time. The first major problem-and it is fundamental, Mr. Speaker-is that these terms of reference are based on a premise that there will be two international airports for Toronto. That is stated very clearly in the first sentence of paragraph 2, which reads:
The primary airport components of the regional air system have been defined as the Toronto International Airport, Malton and the New Toronto International Airport at Pickering.
Mr. Speaker, try as it might, the independent board of examination cannot change that premise. The government has decided. Second, the comment was made by the hon. member for Scarborough West that this was going to be an active board and he was assured by the minister that the terms of reference of the board of examination reflected this fact. Mr. Speaker, this is utter and patent nonsense. This board will not be able to perform as an active board, going out to seek evidence; it will sit only as a passive board to hear the submissions and allegations and information brought to it. In the absence of anyone bringing information to it, Mr. Speaker, the board does nothing. That is embedded in the terms of reference. Specifically, in clause 4 it says:
Evidence on the question of airport need and location will be received if forthcoming.
Clearly, that implies that the board is to be passive and not active, and the hon. member for Scarborough West is blind if he suggests otherwise.
Third, the board of examination has no power to subpoena departmental and outside experts who have advocated that this airport be built. So far these backroom people have been the kingpins. They are the ones who persuaded this government, for worse, I suggest, to go ahead with this unnecessary project. There is nothing in these terms of reference that will give the public of the metropolitan Toronto region the right to have these people called before the board. The board is only given power to hear departmental or other witnesses who appear. There is no power to compel them to appear, the implicit suggestion being that the only people who will come before the board from the Department of Transport will be the people that the minister or his department will see fit to send. The experts to be sent will not necessarily be those who have made the decisions. The government may wish to shield them from cross-examination or other forms of inquiries. These people will be protected from that under these terms of reference.
The fourth problem connected with these terms of reference is that there is no guarantee that the government will pay any attention to the recommendations of the board,

once made. If the government were serious about these terms of reference, indeed if it were serious about the board of examination at all, why, may I ask, would it be asking in this year's estimates for $4.3 million for the construction and design of the Pickering airport? If the government is allegedly prepared to ask the board of examination to consider the crucial question of need, why does it want the money now to construct and design the airport? Surely that proves that the whole idea of an independent inquiry is a charade. It is merely putting off the inevitable in order to placate the restless public in the Toronto region. That is one thing for which we in this party will not stand.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough West during the question period today made a very good point about this board of examination. In his question to the minister he suggested, inferentially, that the board of examination should have power to commission separate studies related to the planning and the environment. I thought that the suggestion was good. However, there is nothing in these terms of reference that would permit that, and the minister was unable to give a clear answer as to whether that would be the case. I hope the minister might reconsider this and amend the terms of reference so as to take care of this matter.
Mr. Speaker, an element of unnecessary delay has also been introduced into the proceedings of the board. When the minister announced his intention to set up a board of inquiry on January 30 he said it was to report within one year. The people of Toronto were led to believe that it would report on January 30, 1974. Within three months the minister changed his position and said, "No, it is to report one year from the date on which I set up the board of examination." Then the Minister of Transport announced the terms of reference and decided that there is not to be a report within one year of the setting up of the board of examination, but within one year of when he appoints the members to it. The date is going back progressively into 1974 and 1975. Can the minister be serious when he constantly changes the dates when the board is to report?
In this debate we are talking about a $4.3 million item for the design and construction of this airport. The hon. member for Scarborough West referred to that amount as a piddling item. I have not heard comments like that since the days when C.D. Howe asked, "What's a million?". Notwithstanding the hon. member's remark, that amount of money represents an important symbol to the people of the metropolitan region and is an indication as to whether this government is really serious about reconsidering the Pickering airport decision. I think it is legitimate for them to ask, "Was this government serious in setting up an independent board of examination in the first place? Does it really intend to read carefully the evidence and pay heed to the recommendations of that board? If it does, why does it want this money in 1973-74 for construction and design?"
The government, by a devious procedural manoeuvre, may well prevent a vote tonight on the $4.3 million item. I think the people of the country and the people of metropolitan Toronto will be only too aware of the government's motives in trying to head off that particular vote. But it will not save them or the NDP. Why does not the
June 26, 1973

minister, in a show of good faith, withdraw this $4.3 million item? After all, this matter affects not only the people of the Pickering region; it affects the entire municipality of metropolitan Toronto. It does not merely involve some 30,000 expropriated property owners; it involves an urban area with a population of between three million and four million. As I say, to demonstrate his good faith the minister ought to withdraw that $4.3 million item. He does not need it, unless he is determined to go ahead with the building of the airport regardless of what happens, and unless he is going through the motions of setting up an independent board of examination merely to placate a restless public.
I suggest that in the months ahead sound and valid submissions and arguments will be put before the board of examination and the government would do well to listen. I suggest that there will be arguments saying that housing and public transportation should enjoy greater priority in the urban regions of Canada, particularly the region that I know so well, metropolitan Toronto. I suggest, also, that the government has made a fundamental mistake in planning. It has planned on the basis of passenger projections taken to the year 2000 which show that the municipality of metropolitan Toronto area by that time may have a population in the vicinity of eight million people. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) suggested two weeks ago that it was assumed implicitly that the area would grow to six million people. He might be surprised to learn that many thousands of voters in the urban areas of the country reject the notion of uncontrolled and unqualified growth.
There is a fundamental issue at stake in the planning of this airport. It is not just a question of a few expropriated property owners, although they are important; it is the whole question of urban priorities in our country that must be considered. The government should give the matter serious reconsideration. I hope its actions and further terms of reference, be they in the form of amendments or further directions from the minister, will reflect more serious concern and demonstrate good faith for a change, so that the board of examination can earnestly listen to the people of the area and carefully recommend to the government the wisest course of action to follow.


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


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House in order to say a few words about Information Canada. As the House knows, various questions have been asked about Information Canada, the most recent having to do with arrangements in the city of Montreal and a project called AIMS.
Before going into some of the questions which have been raised about Information Canada, I wish to review some of its activities. It has been attacked in the House and elsewhere for being ineffective and not performing a useful role. We should recall at the outset the original purpose of Information Canada. Let me just repeat its main purpose. It was to make factual and useful information on federal policies and programs more easily available to the average citizen who previously often became lost in the bureau-
Estimates
cratic maze when seeking such information. I do not think any hon. member would disagree with that objective.
Problems exist. A great deal of suspicion arises when you set up an agency to disseminate factual information about government programs to the Canadian people who have a right to know the particulars and details of those programs, and the question arises, how can you distinguish between that information and so-called government propaganda? That the line between the two can at times be very thin is no reason for negating the primary function of disseminating information to the public concerning government programs. Think of all the citizens who go to members of parliament, visiting their offices or writing letters seeking detailed information about a whole range of government programs. Senior citizens ask for details about old age pensions, guaranteed income supplement or about some of the complicated features of the Canada Pension Plan. Others ask questions about family allowances, workmen's compensation and various welfare programs. Questions about mothers' allowances are asked by widows, or divorced or separated parents.
These people do not have the patience to listen to a dissertation about the various fields of jurisdiction-federal, provincial, municipal. All too often they went through a maze of bureaucracy before they came to their federal member for assistance. Very often the MP has to obtain an answer for them whether the matter falls within his responsibility or not. As a result of the government becoming involved in so many fields in an effort to mitigate hardship, a need arises for the details of such programs to be explained to citizens so that the less fortunate may have access to them as well as some of the more educated and better informed citizens who because, of their occupation or background, are more familiar with them. So hon. members can see there is a real function to be performed here.
I agree it is important that there should be a marked distinction between propagandizing government programs and getting factual information out to the public concerning details of programs designed to help them. How can people take advantage of such programs if they are unaware of them, or unaware of the location of the regional office or of the existence of staff who could assist them? I suggest that because of the very nature of parliament, the politicians who make it up and the media which comment on events, Information Canada is subject to a strong monitoring process. We constantly hear it criticized, sometimes to excess in my view, particularly should there be a question of it crossing the fine line between the dissemination of factual information on one hand and propagandizing the government on the other.
Frankly, after looking over much of the material put out by Information Canada I think it would be very difficult for members of parliament to conclude that its function is to aggrandize the image of the government of the day. Most of the information is factual: there is very little flowery rhetoric attached to it. I would be the first to concede that the agency has made mistakes. But if hon. members agree that the primary function is to make factual and useful information on federal programs more easily available to the average citizen, I would ask them this

June 26, 1973
Estimates
question: If not Information Canada-and perhaps that is an unfortunate name-what agency should fulfil this function? I am confident it is the feeling of the House that such a function needs to be fulfilled.
The publishing and distribution of government publications alone takes up about two-thirds of Information Canada's budget. Let me talk about the other things which the agency is trying to do, in particular the citizens' inquiry service, one of the new services. Six of these centres have been set up; they are established at Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver. I believe all these cities wanted these centres set up. There have been requests received from many other cities urgently asking that these inquiry centres be established there. As a result, five new centres are planned for cities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
Our records show that inquiries are now being received and dealt with at a rate of more than 500,000 a year. This rate will increase as the five additional centres are set up. This year, we calculate that the increase in the volume of inquiries amounts to some 20 per cent. Fifty-five per cent of all the inquiries are handled by Information Canada without referral to other departments. It can be said, then, that the departments are being relieved of about 275,000 inquiries a year. As more information retrieval systems become operational, Information Canada will be able to answer each inquiry in less than two minutes, on average, and the percentage of referrals will be greatly reduced. This is what has happened already in connection with the citizens' inquiry centres; 500,000 inquiries a year are being handled.
As hon. members know, there has been some talk about opening constituency offices by individual members of parliament. If this should come to pass, a great many requests for detailed information about government programs would no doubt be received at the grass roots level, and I am sure all hon. members will agree that the service provided by the inquiry centres would prove most useful in dealing with these requests. Let me use the Vancouver citizens' inquiry centre as an example. Many of the other information services are run by groups of volunteers and are of great benefit to citizens in the lower income brackets who wish to take advantage-sometimes urgently-of government program designed to assist them. These services count heavily on Information Canada inquiry centres. This calls upon them to have answers to questions for particulars as to what it takes to qualify under various government programs.
The Information Canada inquiry centres back up this whole network of information centres and information inquiry services provided by volunteer groups and other agencies. So I do not think this is a light matter: when one talks about disbanding Information Canada, one talks about disbanding a very necessary service that has been of tangible and positive benefit to many Canadians whom I would argue urgently require this service.
I should like to go into another new function over and above the functions that Information Canada took over from other departments, namely, the consolidating of

information dissemination services of other government departments at the regional level. Members of parliament are all very aware of the information services being provided by all government departments in Ottawa. Of all the government departments, only six out of the 44 major departments have information dissemination services at the regional level. Yet it is at the regional level, the grass roots level, that people urgently require information about governmental services.
As I indicated in the committee, one of the primary functions of Information Canada is to do away with what could very well be a proliferation of regional departmental information services for all 44 departments. By Information Canada setting up these centres in all major areas in the provinces, they can consolidate this service and make the information that the public has a right to, emanating from all departments, available through one agency at the regional level, Information Canada. I suggest this would be of positive assistance to the citizens of Canada, to say nothing of the ancillary benefit of establishing a positive federal presence with respect to the services provided by the federal government to the citizens of Canada.
A third new function that Information Canada is just embarking upon and, hopefully, will get under way in a more constructive and concrete fashion in the fall, is making the whole information dissemination apparatus in Ottawa a more complete one. There has often been talk in parliament and in the media about an excessive preoccupation with secrecy on the part of the federal government, that information is being accumulated by competent people in the various departments and ministries which is not being made available to the Canadian people as it should be. It is said it should be made available to parliamentarians, and through parliamentarians to the media, and so on.
In keeping with its original mandate to which I referred, Information Canada is prepared to collaborate with the Privy Council in an endeavour to find new guidelines. It is prepared to analyse all of the material and information presently with the confines of the various departments which has not been made public, and to produce new guidelines which will, hopefully, make more information available to the public. It also hopes to have a more open system and to develop an impartial monitoring system of judgments rendered with respect to keeping certain information from public knowledge. I think members of parliament would agree that if Information Canada did nothing else in its many other useful functions, some of which I have elaborated upon, this would be a highly worth-while function indeed. I think it was on that basis that Information Canada receive the support it did in committee.
I have touched, Mr. Speaker, on three of the new endeavours that Information Canada is embarking upon, namely, the inquiry centres, the consolidation and dissemination of information from all departments at the regional level rather than each department doing the task itself, and thirdly getting under way with a new set of rules to help us develop a more open system of making information available to the public.
I should now like to remind hon. members that if they were tempted to deal with these estimates in a way that would, in effect, totally incapacitate Information Canada,
June 26, 1973

they should think quite seriously of the functions it has taken over from other departments. I have already mentioned some of the new areas of endeavour, but I am now referring to the functions it assumed and to what the whole system of government as well as this House and all its members are very dependent. upon. I am, of course, referring to the publication and distribution of government information-periodicals, documents of all kinds, the variety of which is evident when members look through the pink slips which they receive in the mail each day and pick and choose what they require.
This operation would come to a standstill if these estimates were denied, and surely this would be unthinkable in a parliament that wishes to be well informed and constructive in its debates and deliberations. So I do not really think that anyone would seriously entertain denying this agency the needed moneys to carry on its very essential functions.
In this connection I should like to mention something of which members may not be readily aware. When we talk about an over-all budget for Information Canada of something in excess of $11 million, it should be remembered that in the distribution and marketing of government publications certain costs are recovered. The latest figure I have discloses that during the last fiscal year, cost recovery from the sale of publications amounted to $4 million. This is money recovered from the sale of governmental publications and goes directly into the consolidated revenue fund rather than appearing as an offsetting item in the estimates. Members should keep this in mind. A number of bookstores are being opened and the number has increased from about five to 55. During the next little while the allocation of agencies for bookstores will be up to 150, with urgent requests coming in all the time. Therefore, because of far more aggressive marketing, cost recovery from the sale of government publications will increase substantially over $4 million.
There are just one or two other items I should like to touch on briefly, Mr. Speaker. Information Canada also has an expositions division which handles some 600 projects a year, including 150 domestic and foreign exhibits, at a cost of $6.8 million. It operates on a full cost recovery basis with all the departments and agencies involved. Since there has been criticism of Information Canada, I might point out that Information Canada has won many awards for its expositions.
May I also refer to another function Information Canada has taken on, the federal identity program of which hon. members are aware. I am sure they have seen the maple leaf and bar design which is associated with all departments. It appears on trucks, stationery, and so on, and is becoming increasingly familiar throughout all cities in Canada. I think this serves a very useful purpose in a country such as ours, since it establishes a federal presence across the width and breadth of Canada, which as we know has regional problems.
In summary, I hope that the House will be agreeable to giving Information Canada a renewed mandate on the basis of the very useful and necessary functions it took over from previous departments at its inauguration, together with the very necessary new functions it is prepared to perform.
Estimates
Very quickly, I should like to answer one or two questions which have been asked about the rental of premises in Montreal. Let me elaborate in that regard. The rental paid by Information Canada, Montreal, amounted to $21.40 gross per square foot, not $25. As a result of the basic rate of $20.24 per square foot there were renovations to the premises which accounted for an additional 2,000 square feet as the renovations included a mezzanine. This brought the gross cost down to $21.40. That compared very favourably with other locations in the immediate vicinity, such as Place Ville Marie at $21 to $22 and the Marine Building, 1023 St. Catharine's Street, at $32.85. Although the cost, in terms of comparable sites in the immediate vicinity, is certainly well justified I could go into further justification in terms of traffic and-


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


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: If the hon. member is rising for the purpose of asking a question, I must advise him that this can only be done with unanimous consent.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, although I do not intend to take away from the time allotted to the next speaker. The minister said that all members of parliament depend on Information Canada. I draw to his attention the fact that there has been one exchange between Information Canada and myself, and on that occasion the shoe was on the other foot; they were seeking information from me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I should like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I would suggest that the hon. member requires the consent of the House, as the minister's time has expired. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) rose on a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Then may I rise on a point of order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Perhaps I should pass judgment on the point of order raised. In my opinion it was more an expression of opinion than a point of order. I do not think we should take advantage of points of order or questions of privilege to ask questions, especially when the time is limited. I should clearly ask the House if there is unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether the sending out of Liberal party notices of meetings by the Department of Labour office in Hamilton is a function of Information Canada. We notice they have been sending out many notices for the minister in his constituency. Is that part of its function?
5088

June 26, 1973
Estima tes


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could be more specific. Obviously, if the office I have in the federal building in Hamilton under the Department of Labour has been sending out information of the nature described by the hon. member, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with Information Canada. Perhaps it has something to do with the Department of Labour, or it may represent an improper act on the part of whoever it was in the Department of Labour who sent out the information. But I do not see how that is relevant to Information Canada, as it has nothing to do with it.


Erik Nielsen: It is a government agency being used as a propaganda agency.


John Carr Munro: Perhaps the hon. member would care to be a little more specific.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, although my main purpose is to speak to the notice of opposition to vote 1 of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, item No. 4 of the proposed estimates dealing with professional and special services in the main estimates for the fiscal year ended March 31, there are a few general remarks I should like to make regarding governmental and departmental policies.
The ever-increasing cost of all phases of government activity is fast becoming, like the energy situation, a national crisis. Not only is it distorting many traditional ways of the marketplace and personal management; it is becoming one of the root causes of and contributory factors to inflation, the inflationary spiral which keeps raising its ugly head despite the Prime Minister's assertions that he had it licked. If the government could slay the inflationary dragon with the flair and dispatch with which St. George slew his dragon of mythology, how well off this country would be. Unfortunately, however, the dragon of rising costs is not a creature of mythology; it is all too real.
A major cost in our governmental process has been the cost in respect of so-called professional and special services, which includes consultants. It is interesting to study the meaning of "consult", Mr. Speaker. According to Webster's College Dictionary it means "to consult as to seek information or instruction from; ask advice of". There is also another meaning, "to keep in mind while acting or deciding". There has been a tremendous increase in the use of consultants but there has been little resulting action or decision by this government.
We are weary in this country of hearing about statistics compiled by consultants. It has been said that statistics can be made to support anything, especially statisticians. The same observation applies, in my opinion, to consultants. With statistics supporting statisticians and consultants consulting consultants, it is little wonder that the ordinary Canadian wonders how the economic affairs of the nation are being managed and from whence comes the guidance and direction from this government.
Surely, in the name of economic prudence, there is a case for reducing departmental expenditures on outside consultants. In 1968, for example, total government spending on outside services listed as professional and special services in the estimates amounted to $300 million. Today, approximately 4V4 years later, the 1973-74 estimates con-

tain over $600 million collectively allocated to these services.
A breakdown of the estimates dealing with regional economic expansion indicates at page 22-10 of the blue book, so-called, that the total departmental expenditures on outside consultants lie within this vote and that costs of consultants for the department for 1973-74 amounted to $5,665,000.In 1971-72 the cost was $1,901,000; in 1972-73 the cost was estimated at $2,609,000, and the estimates for 1973-74, as I have mentioned, almost reach $6 million. Why this great increase, and where are the resulting benefits? Personally, it disturbs me greatly to see the apparent disproportionate amounts being spent on consultants, not only with reference to the estimates for regional economic expansion but having regard to total government expenditures on professional and special services.
As far as DREE is concerned, departmental expenditures to outside consultants have increased by over 100 per cent from only a year ago. Furthermore, consultant costs of all kinds comprise approximately 14 per cent of the estimates in vote 1, and as such represent one of the highest percentages of all government department expenses allocated to these services. The average government department allocation is between 3 per cent and 4 per cent.
Out of the more than $507,000 paid by DREE from August 1, 1972, to February 28 of this year, having regard to one list of consultants provided by the minister, over $150,000 was spent for services with no report required. This amount represents about one-third of all the moneys paid out during that seven-month period. Furthermore, of the more than $150,000 spent, over $60,000 went to one man alone. In addition, it appears that up to February of this year at least three or four more such individuals from outside the department virtually monopolized the policy review and implementation for the whole Atlantic region, yet the public which ultimately pays for all this receives the mere mention of services only with no report. I hope that valuable services were in fact provided. I emphasize that one cannot fault the consultants; after all, they did not coerce the government into employing them.
On April 12 of this year the committee on regional development passed an explicit motion requesting that- The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion table a complete list of consultants and consulting firms who have been under contract or who are still under contract with the department and a description of their work and duties during the time of the contract, and salaries and costs of such consultants and consulting firms.
Instead, we received a seven-month accounting with no mention of when or how the remainder will be placed in the estimates. Coming back to the larger subject of total moneys allocated by this government for professional and special services, and by way of comparison, the amount of money allocated for professional and special services in the 1973-74 estimates is greater than the estimated provincial gross national expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, of several provinces.
According to Statistics Canada, catalogue 68-205, under the heading of "Estimated provincial gross national
June 26, 1973

expenditures for fiscal year ending March 31, 1973" one finds the following: the province of Newfoundland, $551.8 million; Prince Edward Island, $109.6 million; Nova Scotia, $613.4 million; New Brunswick, $569.3 million, and so on. The Northwest Territories, for example, has a figure of $103.2 million, and for the Yukon it is $36.5 million. This gives an idea of the vast amount of money being spent for professional services and consultants in relation to what the provinces are spending to largely fund their whole operation of government.
I feel that the opposition to the total of $5,665,000 for professional and special services is well founded and that the deletion of $1 million would still leave ample funds for consultants' services. The $1 million so deleted could be allocated to development applications or, indeed, to social ends to improve the conditions, for example, of the preretired miners under the jurisdiction of DEV CO. The minister has indicated on different occasions that he is receptive to policy suggestions and comments in so far as his department is concerned. The minister apparently has spent a great deal of time ascertaining from the provinces and other interested parties what variations could be applied to make DREE a more workable, efficient and generally beneficial program.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following observations which I hope the government and the minister will consider. It is time, for example, that DREE established its presence in the north. The hegemony of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in our north should be checked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is time for the establishment of a small departmental section of DREE with responsibility for northern Canada, with special emphasis on the creation of development regions in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Special importance should be attached to resource management, northern transportation and development of entrepreneural skills among native people. The status of federal and provincial Crown corporations should be reviewed. Temporarily, at least, one should consider suspension of the establishment of further corporations such as the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, Metropolitan Area Growth Investments Limited, and similar entities in our provinces. These types of organizations may prove to be too political and evaluation should proceed before more are organized.
At the same time, existing bodies and related councils should be fleshed-out, the executive officers and other necessary personnel appointed quickly and the potential explored so that the value of these corporations can be fully ascertained at the earliest possible time. So far as departmental reorganization is concerned, I should like, with deference, to say to the minister that further reorganization is certainly necessary. The minister has said publicly that he anticipates no difficulty in getting this type of co-operation through related departments such as transport, industry, trade and commerce, public works, and so on, whose activities are necessarily concerned with the activities of DREE. This being the case, the minister and this government should at once proceed to set up an interdepartmental organization and explore and expedite
Estimates
procedures so that these related departments can work with DREE to focus and co-ordinate their efforts specifically toward regional economic development without any wasted effort.
Consideration could be given to reorganization also along the lines of a national transportation section of DREE and a national municipality section specifically oriented toward the problems of our third level of government, the municipalities, in so far as regional economic development is concerned. Also, a regional venture capital section might very well be in order to pay closer attention to the requirements of developing industries and financial procedures implicit therein. Certainly, the representatives of the Northern Ontario Development Corporation pointed out deficiencies in the co-ordination between DREE and this particular provincial development corporation, one of the main reasons of conflict being DREE's prohibition against so-called stacking. I see no reason why worthy development projects should have to opt for either DREE or provincially funded aid. It seems to me that if a project has sufficient merit, there is no reason it could not accept aid from provincial development agencies as well as from DREE.
On the subject of rural development, I suggest that this government should consider the consolidation, in some areas, of FRED, PFRA and ARDA into a new program for rural and agricultural areas. Major emphasis should be placed on expansion of assistance available under FRED, particularly for such areas as northern Ontario, central Nova Scotia, Cape Breton and central British Columbia. I maintain that if the infrastructure is provided and the area is made sufficiently attractive from a residential point of view, the service industries and finally manufacturing will follow without necessarily giving large industrial incentive grants.
Certainly DREE should continue to experiment with its policy of providing industrial incentives, but more emphasis should be placed on developing a climate attractive to industry. DREE should be charged with the assessment and feasibility of infrastructure in areas where slow growth exists and, together with the provinces, facilitate this development in co-operation and conjunction with all government departments and agencies having jurisdiction in the areas involved, such as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport, and so on, as previously mentioned.
It seems obvious that there should be a more continuous liaison between the provinces and the federal government in this regard, and there should be at least one individual responsible for ongoing consultations between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and each province where DREE is active, to avoid the seemingly endless rounds of consultations and studies and passing the buck back and forth between federal and provincial government.
The third level of government in each province-the municipalities-should also have liaison with DREE so that the department would have continuing up to date assessments and appreciations of the position of all involved. This would also provide great benefit in evaluating progress of activities in special areas, and in monitor-
5090

June 26, 1973
Estimates
ing the success of new concepts such as Metropolitan Area Growth Investments Ltd., and so on. The consultative process is necessary but it must be more efficient, with more action and less repetition.
DREE should interest itself more in promoting a regional banking policy in co-operation with the Department of Finance. The restructuring of the branch banking system to provide, among other things, Bank of Canada offices in different regions of Canada would definitely secure more policy input through different interests and be, as well, an instrument for regional development.
The Department should also take a more active interest in promoting the concept of equal pay for equal work by federal employees under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board. I am certain there are areas where disparities and inequities exist in this regard, and there is no justification for them. The government should consider the formation of the domestic counterpart of our Export Development Corporation-I know the minister has indicated he has this in mind-to provide the same type of aid to slow growth areas of Canada for large projects as it provides to impoverished nations through our foreign aid programs. The reasons are obvious. When foreign interests finance major capital projects, such as oil refineries in Atlantic Canada, conditions are imposed whereby much of the equipment and related functions are provided by foreign interests to the detriment of Canadian manufacturers and tradesmen.
Certainly DREE should be decentralized so that regional offices can provide services to small industry with as much pragmatism and efficiency as banks and finance companies. Only in special cases involving projects over a certain amount would decisions need to be referred to Ottawa. There are many other concepts to which the minister should address himself, such as the emerging legislation of foreign investment review, with definite implications so far as DREE is concerned; upgrading of the status of the Standing Committee on Regional Development-the same can be said of most other standing committees of the House of Commons-and the need in future years for the committee to commence its proceedings earlier in the session.
In closing, and on a positive note, I want to thank the minister sincerely for his attention to many of the matters brought before him in committee and otherwise, such as problems with regard to DEVCO, the needs of the Cape Breton miners, his change in policy in publishing monthly reports on DREE whether or not parliament is in session, and so on. The minister took into account some conditions which the president of DEVCO did not. He paid heed to the experience, recommendations and representations of the committee on regional development. He did not restrict himself to the recommendations necessarily of the president of DEVCO. Those of us who were members of the committee appreciate this and sincerely wish to thank the minister. As Professor T. Wilson, a noted authority on regional development, said in his report prepared some years ago for the Atlantic Provinces Research Board:
The fact remains that the case for assisting the less developed regions will be all the stronger if the assistance can be given in a form which does not involve a conflict of objectives and does not call for the permanent subsidization of these areas by the rest of the country.
If regional measures can be made to strengthen rather than retard national development, then the case for such measures will be made to rest on a firm foundation.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the motion standing in my name and which has been moved by me. Ordinarily the rules would prohibit me from speaking in the debate at this stage. As Your Honour realizes, I have not yet spoken. There are one or two brief matters on which I would like to speak in connection with notices filed by the opposition on this allotted day, and I therefore seek the indulgence of the House and ask for unanimous consent to allow me these last twelve minutes in order to deal with these matters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the request of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Is there consent to allow the hon. member to take the floor at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: May I thank hon. members for their courtesy-


An hon. Member:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Too late.


Erik Nielsen: -in extending this privilege to me.


Mr. Symes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I said "no" from back here. You did not hear me.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. He did not say "no" until after the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) began speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members should be aware of the fact that it might be very difficult for the Chair to hear the yeas and nays, and hon. members also have the privilege of rising. If they rise, they can be recognized. I did not see the hon. member. The fact is that I have already called upon the hon. member for Yukon. With the consent of the House, I think he should be allowed to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Very briefly, in the short time left, Sir, I want to deal with the notice of opposition in connection with the police and security planning group in the Department of the Solicitor General. The item stands on the notice paper as No. 6, and the motion to restore the vote stands in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).
The police and security planning and analysis group has been a sore point with us on this side for some time, ever since it was set up by the previous solicitor general, now the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). As the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has informed not only members of the public but the House, we had an in-camera briefing session with the group at headquarters which left members of this party far from satisfied that the group is

June 26, 1973

performing a useful function or that it is free from the possibility of political subversion. In any nation which has set up a civilian police force of this nature, checks and balances are written into the system which is given birth legitimately by legislation. Here we have an organization set up by executive order that takes its instructions from time to time. Even if the possibility exists that the purposes of the group could be subverted for political purposes, the danger should be met by either voting the force out of existence or legitimizing it by legislation.
This party believes that a bill should be brought before parliament to legitimize PSPG in the same way that the CIA is set up in the United States. The president of the Treasury Board shakes his head, meaning that this is not so; but my information, and I believe it is accurate, is that there is legislation supporting the setting up of the CIA, legislation passed by the legislature in the U.S. The same thing exists with respect to the SIS in Great Britain and with respect to the Gehlen organization in Germany. I am not certain, but I believe the same legislative foundation to a security force exists in the Deuxieme Bureau in France.


Mr. Goyer:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Supply and Services on a question of privilege.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers constantly in his remarks to agencies which carry out police-type duties. I find that comparison odious. The hon. member is well aware that this agency does not conduct any police operations. Moreover, the planning, research and analysis group was set up in full agreement with the group-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. minister. The point he is raising is surely a subject of debate. If he has a question to raise concerning House procedure, he has not yet brought it to the attention of the chair. The hon. member does have a right to his opinions, as does the hon. minister, and I think that at this time, we should, if possible, avoid interrupting hon. members, in view of how little time remains before the House votes. The hon. member for Yukon has the floor.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I simply wish to say that when the hon. member quotes examples chosen outside Canada, he tends to lead the House to false conclusions, since the example he gives is completely contrary to the facts-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hair has no wish to doubt the truth of the hon. minister's remarks and opinions, but the point he is raising is, nevertheless, a subject for debate, at this juncture I do not consider it acceptable.
The hon. member for Yukon has the floor.
Estimates


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the minister is still keeping in very close touch with the force which he originated himself and which still bears the imprint of his name.


Steve Eugene Paproski: "Goyer's gumboots".


Erik Nielsen: The fact is that both he and his successor have said very often that the force is operational in the sense that it can pick up the telephone and report to the RCMP that such and such an individual or circumstance in this country should be made the subject of an investigation. It has happened, and when that can happen it is a danger.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: If that can happen, legislation should be brought before the House and passed to legitimize that group, and into that legislation should be written checks and balances which will assure us that the force cannot possible be subverted for political purposes. An argument can be made for such an organization, and this might be the nucleus of it-but not in this way. In other countries, of which apparently the minister has no knowledge as was obvious from his interjection, there is for instance in the West German organization and the English organization a requirement that the force report as frequently and as fully to the opposition as it does to the government. That information is subject to the oath of a privy councillor that is taken by the leader of the opposition. That is the kind of check and balance of which I am speaking.
There may well be this evening a vote on the item dealing with the Pickering airport. I just want to forewarn the House that this may occur. Should this party take this stand and vote against the whole of the estimate, it does so because the government has put us in the position where we have no alternative but to vote in this fashion in order to register the opposition which we have to the money which is set aside for the Pickering airport. That vote contains moneys for the Montreal airport and two others. The fact that the government has placed us in this position compels us, should we decide to vote against that particular item, to vote against the whole of it with the urgent suggestion to the government that it bring in immediately a supplementary estimate, should the vote against the motion succeed, in order to provide the sums that would be necessary for the continuing operation of Montreal and the other two airports. This can be done, and the government would have our assurance that it would get immediate assent, as rapidly as it wanted, to bring this about.
Now, Sir, we are pretty well finished with the last phase of the business of supply. We are in the last allotted day for the period ending June 30 and the notices of opposition have been filed. I now intend to raise two points of order that must be raised before the motions can be dealt with. The first point of order that I raise is with respect to the questions on the motions set out as No. 7 and No. 9 on the order paper. Motion No. 7 seeks the concurrence of the House in vote L30 of the Department of Transport for "Air transport program-advances for operating and capital

June 26, 1973
Estimates
purposes of airports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974 . .My objection will be that the vote is not for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, but for "the current and subsequent fiscal years." I invite Your Honour to refer to page 27-22 of the main estimates.
Motion No. 9 is that the House concur in "the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974 ..." My objection will be that the main estimates contain a number of votes that are not for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, but for "the current and subsequent fiscal years." There are 16 of these votes. There are 17 if the air transport program vote is included, and there are 22 if votes 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of the Department of National Defence are added. These five votes are extended into subsequent fiscal years by a provision in vote 1 of the National Defence estimates. These 22 votes that are out of order total only $80 million short of $3 billion. The total estimates are for something over $19 billion, so that one-sixth of the sums requested by the government are procedurally improper. I have a list of these improper votes, Mr. Speaker, and for your convenience I will be glad to supply you with a copy.
There can be no doubt that motions Nos. 7 and 9 cannot be put, and I advance the following reasons in support of that argument. First, these motions offend against section 54 of the British North America Act. Section 54 reads as follows:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed.
The estimates were recommended by the Governor General to this House in the following terms as recorded in Votes and Proceedings No. 34 of February 20, 1973, page 127:
His Excellency the Governor General transmits to the House of Commons the estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending on the 31st of March, 1974, and, in accordance with the provisions of "The British North America Act, 1867", the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Again I draw Your Honour's attention to the limitation imposed by that. It will be observed that the recommendation of the Governor General extends only to the "sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending on the 31st March, 1974 ..." That is the defined and limited recommendation of the Governor General. The purpose of his recommendation is "for the service of Canada," but only to March 31, 1974. The purpose of his recommendation does not extend to any sum in the estimates that is required beyond that date.
There are innumerable decisions by the Chair that the Governor General's recommendation limits not only the amount but the purpose. The sums or votes I refer to not only exceed the amounts required for the current year insofar as they are required for subsequent years, but they offend against the purpose recommended by the Governor General, that is, supply for the service of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1974. It may be harmless to include these improper votes in the estimates, but certainly Mr. Speaker cannot put to this House a motion, in my submis-

sion, that includes them. That is contrary to section 54 of the British North America Act and to Standing Order 62(1).
A second ground supporting my point of order is section 20 of the Financial administration Act which provides as follows:
All estimates of expenditures submitted to parliament shall be for the services coming in course of payment during the fiscal year.
Not all the rules of procedure governing this House are contained in he Standing Orders: there are several in the British North America Act, 1867. Section 48 of the act provides for the quorum of this House; section 49 governs voting; section 50 concerns the continuation of this House. Again, there are procedural rules in several separate acts of parliament. Among these are the Speaker of the House of Commons Act, the Senate and House of Commons Act, and the House of Commons Act. More recently there have been the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Statutory Instruments Act with respect to affirmative and negative resolutions.
There is also in many acts the provision with respect to tabling annual reports in parliament. There are several procedural provisions in the International Act which affect the conduct of the business of this House. Section 20 of the Financial Administration Act is a procedural provision that is binding upon this House. Section 20 is a practical restatement of the constitutional rule in section 20 of the BNA Act which provides:
There shall be a session of the Parliament of Canada once at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the parliament in one session and its first sitting in the next session.
That provision of the BNA Act is explained by the statement in May's seventeenth edition at the top of page
31:
-while the practice of providing money for the public service by annual enactments renders it compulsory upon her-
That is Her Majesty.
-to summon parliament to meet every year.
Section 20 of the Financial Administration Act-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -is the procedural rule which, as a statutory limitation upon the Crown's prerogative of summoning parliament, ensures that the prerogative must be exercised to summon parliament for voting one year's supply but no more; and that, Mr. Speaker, for the public service of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but there are several reasons why the Chair does so with reluctance. The hon. member has been quoting to the Chair sections from various enactments of Canada and the British parliament.
I do not think it is the role of the Chair to make an interpretation of law. I think it is the role of the Chair to deal with questions of order that arise in proceedings. At a quarter to ten this evening it is the duty of the Chair to interrupt proceedings and to put the questions that have
June 26, 1973

to be disposed of. I see nothing raised by the hon. member, with due respect to his knowledge as a parliamentarian and as a lawyer, that gives rise to a question of order. I therefore propose to put the question.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege. There is nothing in the rules, with great deference to Your Honour, which prohibits an hon. member from raising a point of order before any motion is called, before any bill is called.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Surely, Sir, every member of this House enjoys the privilege of stating a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Erik Nielsen: -to the Chair before it is ruled on. I have not yet completed the point of order I was making. Surely it is the rule, in all fairness, that the Chair listen completely to the point I am raising.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member does have a point of order in connection with two of the motions that are now on the order paper, I suppose the proper time for him to raise them will be when they are reached. At the moment they have not been reached.
With the conclusion of this debate, proceedings on the motion before the House having expired pursuant to section 10 of Standing Order 58, the House will proceed to the next item on the order paper, namely, consideration of the business of supply.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 70, DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 70, in the amount of $45,032,100 of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for conservation-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974 (less the amounted voted in interim supply), be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see the hon. member on his point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I do not know why it is, Sir, that I have such great difficulty in being seen by the Chair on a point of order. This is one of the votes that is affected by the
Estimates
point of order I was raising a little earlier. I had offered, as a matter of courtesy, to send up to the Chair a list of the votes affected, if it was the wish of the Chair. As I was saying, I am applying the argument on my point of order that was made before I was interrupted. I will complete it so that Your Honour might have something to decide.
The matter is a procedural one, that these continuing votes in the main estimates will, if allowed to remain, erode that procedural and constitutional safeguard by almost one-sixth. If one adds the provisions in these estimates-which I have not done-that allow for non-lapsing votes, contrary to the procedural rule in section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, transfer votes and the revolving funds established in other years, one finds an erosion of parliament's constitutional control over supply in excess of one-sixth of the supply requested by the government in these main estimates.
I should like to refer the Chair to a ruling by the Chair on June 22, 1972, which established that under the new rules this House has lost its power to reduce votes in supply; the House can only vote for or against them. The decision was a landmark warning that this House must, under the new rules, if it is to play any role at all in granting or controlling supply, insist that the estimates comply with the constitution, the statutes of this parliament and the rules, statutory or otherwise, of this House.
Under the new rules, this is the first opportunity the House has to raise a point of order of this nature. The rules are different if a point of order is raised at the appropriation bill stage: there the statutory rules of construction may come into play. I say "may" because the point was raised in the other place on a supplementary appropriation bill during this session, but has since remained unresolved. There is interesting, and perhaps helpful reading, in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on National Finance of the other place, issue No. 2 of February 23, 1973. The committee was considering Bill C-141, the supplementary estimates appropriation bill, with the assistance of the President of the Treasury Board. When the President of the Treasury Board disqualified himself as an expert, the director of the legislation branch of the Department of Justice undertook to furnish the chairman of the committee with a written opinion to explain how the bill could contain votes in the schedule that extended beyond the fiscal year, and thus contradicted the title and the body of the bill.
Although some months have elapsed, I am informed that written opinion has not yet been received from the Department of Justice by the chairman in the other place. The partial explanation offered by the Department of Justice representative at the time, that the appropriation bill amended the relevant provisions of the Financial Administration Act as being later in time and particular in quality, does not, of course, avail here. I am objecting to a motion that exceeds in scope the Governor General's recommendation and violates section 54 of the British North America Act, Standing Order 62(1) and section 20 of the Financial Administration Act. A mere motion, of course, cannot of itself amend a statutory provision.
If the Chair would like to have a copy of the votes that are affected and that go beyond the scope of the recommendation of the Governor General, I will send it up.

June 26, 1973
Estimates


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Well written.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well taken, too.


Erik Nielsen: That, Sir, concludes my point of order. I would ask that Your Honour rule first of all that it is a matter of procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: In the first place, that it is a procedural matter, not a constitutional matter and not one requiring interpretation except for the application of the rules of the House and the statutes of this parliament; second, on the basis that the government has exceeded in these estimates a year's supply, that strictly this House is not empowered to go beyond the recommendation of the Governor General to the end of the fiscal year in March, 1974.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) on the same point of order.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the arguments we have just listened to all hinge on the wording of the notice of motion appearing in today's routine proceedings, the order paper.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, you do not understand.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The reference to the motion on which we are to vote and consequently, by extension, the message of the Governor General are not in accord. The terms of the Governor General's message strictly accord with the wording in the estimates. If one looks at the Governor General's message and at the wording in the estimates under vote L30, Department of Transport, it will be seen that in respect of the estimates submitted for 1973-74, that is these documents, provision made both in the message from His Excellency and in the wording of the vote for an advance in current and subsequent fiscal years. This is in accordance with long-standing parliamentary practice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have been in this field for some time, Mr. Speaker, and I am surprised to discover that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) should have been so led astray on this particular point. If he refers to the wording of notice of opposition No. 7, to which reference was made, he will see that the words "for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974" do not purport to limit any amount but are merely descriptive of the item contained in the estimates. Thus, they constitute a description of the estimate rather than a substantive motion in accordance with the terms of the Governor General's nessage. The estimates and the act which will flow from them are the valid documents. This is merely a notice of motion.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if one interprets correctly the meaning of the words in vote L30 "for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974" as being descriptive, as being a convenient way of describing, the rest of the long, constitutional and legalistic argument Your Honour has heard

will not be supported. I think we could then proceed as we always have in previous years and follow the practice with which we have got along so well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rising on the same point of order?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am rising on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had not intended to intervene, my hon. friend for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) having presented an excellent case. But when I heard the extent to which the spokesmen for those bungling buccaneers of bureaucracy are attempting to pervert the decent amenities of democracy, I felt I must point something out.
The government is attempting, by these estimates and by the appropriation bill which will follow, to appropriate to the services of the Crown money which will be spent not in this fiscal year alone but in this fiscal year and years following. I will not go into the other issue, but the matter is plain. The list of estimates, or of notices which the hon. member for Yukon has sent up to the Chair makes this abundantly clear. If the government is allowed to get away with this, we may as well shut up shop because there is no way by which the House can place any restrictions on the expenditures of this government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was all settled at the time of Charles I, at the time of the Petition of Right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The difficulty of the Chair is that the list sent up by the hon. member for Yukon refers to items to which objection was originally taken, Nos. 7 and 9, but not to the one under consideration. However, the hon. member has raised the point and has presented an argument on it and perhaps the Chair might be allowed one or two minutes for consultation, with the forbearance of hon. members, before making a ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what Your Honour received, but I sent up to Your Honour a list of all the offending votes and not merely a reference to Nos. 7 and 9.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon has raised a point of order with regard to the first of the proposed items in the estimates set forth under item vi at the end of today's order paper. The hon. member has also been good enough to send the chair a list entitled "Votes in the main estimates 1973-74 which continue beyond the current fiscal year ending March 31, 1974."
As I understand the hon. member's argument, it is based on a section of the British North America Act, a section of the Financial Administration Act and Standing Order 62(1). He suggests that the Chair should not put the vote because the spending in connection with certain items would continue beyond the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974. I have noted previously that the argument he advances is not applicable to an item in the list sent to me, but I think there is agreement in the House that since argument has been made I should deal with the point of objection although it might more properly be raised, as the
June 26, 1973

hon. member himself said, when making his argument under items 7 and 9.
The Chair has taken somewhat longer than usual to make a ruling, for the simple reason that the relevant files are in another part of the building and I thought it proper we should ascertain whether there was a record in those files of a specific case which would support the argument advanced by the hon. member for Yukon. I should like to read to the House Standing Order 62(1):
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
Hon. members note that the words "in the session" apply to the session in which the vote is requested of the House of Commons. There is nothing in this particular provision of the Standing Order that says the spending shall be carried out within that particular fiscal year or session.
I suggest to hon. members they reflect on the fact that when they pass estimates in the House of Commons, for example for such public works as a wharf, there is never the requirement that the wharf be completed, say by March 31, or that the money voted for the wharf may not find its way into the contractor's hands some time after March 31 at the conclusion of the fiscal year. The only requirement is that it may not be proposed in any session unless it is preceded by the recommendation of His Excellency or the governor in council.
There are other examples. I could refer to loans, investments and advances which may be dealt with in one particular fiscal year and carry on into other years. What the hon. gentleman is suggesting is that the Chair make a ruling which would have the effect of setting aside a long and well established practice of this House, and this the Chair cannot and will not do.
Is the House ready for the question?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to facilitate the business of the House. The members of this party are agreeable to passing all items on the order paper from 1 to 9 inclusive, save and except item No. 6, on a voice vote. If this is agreeable, when Your Honour calls No. 6 I shall have a point of order to raise on that item.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that proposal is quite acceptable and is an example of the great spirit of co-operation that exists in this House.


MOTIONS FOR CONCURRENCE IN DEPARTMENTAL ESTIMATES
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will now call item 1, vote 70 of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; item 2, which is vote 5 of the Department of Labour for Information Canada; item 3, vote 15 of the Department of Public Works for accommodation; item 4, vote 1 of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for regional economic expansion operating expenditures;
Estimates
item 5, vote 50 of the Department of the Secretary of State for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation operating expenditures; item 7, vote L30 of the Department of Transport for air transport program advances; and item 8, vote 5 of the Treasury Board for government contingencies for the fiscal year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And item No.-9.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I cannot call item No. 9 because obviously it and item 6 have a certain relationship. The items I have called are moved by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Is it the pleasure of the House to concur in the said motions?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On division.
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 (Mr. Drury) agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1 in the amount of $2,978,000 of the Department of the Solicitor Genera] for administration-program expenditures, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974 (less the amount voted in interim supply), be restored in the main estimates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon is rising on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that Your Honour call the item and call for the yeas and nays.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Yukon. The motion has been put, so perhaps I can dispense with reading it again. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN MAIN ESTIMATES
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, except those items disposed of earlier this day, and less the amounts voted in interim supply, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Drury) agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-204, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, be read the first time and be printed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The bill will now be distributed to hon. members.

June 26, 1973

Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-204, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


Erik Nielsen: It might be of some assistance, Sir, if I could make a suggestion to the House in order to expedite matters. We are prepared to pass all three stages of the bill on a voice division, subject to the item on page 24, the schedule, under the Department of the Solicitor General dealing with the vote we just disposed of on the motion of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the hon. member for Edmonton East rising on a point of order?


Mr. Skoreyko:: I am not rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I said "no" to clause 2 of the bill. What concerns me primarily is that it was passed without you hearing my voice, Mr. Chairman. How can we in this House stand here-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. I will put the clause again. Those in favour of clause 2 will please stand.
Clause 2 agreed to: Yeas, 127; nays, 1.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the co-operation of members of the committee. When the vote was called, one member left after casting his vote and another member came in. I would remind hon. members that this is against our customs and practices. Shall clause 3 carry?


Erik Nielsen: On division.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the hon. member for Ottawa West asking for a vote.


Peter Reilly: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.
Clause 3 agreed to: Yeas, 126; nays, 2.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The discussion is on clause 4.
Estimates


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Chair now call subclause (2) of clause 3. It is normal practice to call them clause by clause, and since subclause (2) deals with the schedule in which is included an item which we on this side want to vote against, namely, the estimates of the Solicitor General's department, you might want to give that some thought.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Chair is in the hands of the committee and will be guided by what the committee requests. There is a request by the hon. member. I would have put it had it been presented to me. However, I did put clause 3 without breaking it down into subclauses (1) and (2). I am trying to be fair and direct, but I cannot be direct after the event, with great respect to the hon. member. Is the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East rising on a point of order?


Mr. Forresfall:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out to you that the purpose of my rising is to vote against the subclause. I think the normal procedure is to call these clauses item by item. I had some fear that you were not going to call the item that had to do with the Treasury Board, and that prompted my rising in opposition to the vote.


Robert Jardine McCleave: With regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, I think the Chair can best help by pointing out that Standing Order 58(10) provides as follows:
On the last allotted day in each period, but, in any case, not later than the last sitting day in each period, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and, if those proceedings are not in relation to a no-confidence motion, he shall put forthwith successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, main estimates, and supplementary or final estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the estimates or any opposed item in the estimates, and for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon.
The Chair is in exactly the same position, no better and no worse, than the members of the committee. I have the rule book in front of me. It was the wish of hon. members at one time that this be the procedure by which we govern the consideration and passage of estimates in our chamber, and I have to be the servant of that decision.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The question is on clause 4. Shall clause 4 carry?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board, through you, whether clause 4 is in precisely the usual form?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman, it is in the form of previous years.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 26, 1973
Estimates
Clause 4 agreed to: Yeas, 125; nays, 5.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The question is on clause 5. Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 5 agreed to: Yeas, 127; nays, 4.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, it is not for us to debate the vote, but I have often seen the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) rise to vote against the estimates. If he had brought the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) with him to the House, perhaps he would have had one more vote.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that I objected to clause 5 and opposed it because it is contradictory to-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have read the relevant section of the Standing Order to the committee, and I must ask the co-operation of the committee. I am no more able to change rules in the middle of dealing with a bill than is any other member. I do ask co-operation in this regard. The question is on clause 6.
Clause 6 agreed to.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The question is on the schedule. Shall the schedule carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: On division with respect to the item on page 24 referring to the Solicitor General's department.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The schedule is carried on division as noted by the hon. member for Yukon.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Scarborough West.


John Paul Harney: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Scarborough West.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is quite similar to the one which I raised on the last occasion when the appendix to an estimates bill was submitted and studied. At that time, I pointed out-it may not be very important, but it affects me, and I am sure that it also affects other hon. members-the fact that although bills and Hansard are published in English and French, the appendices to the bills are always printed in English alphabetical order, which means that, for the unilingual
[The Chairman.]
French member, the appendices are not in alphabetical order, and he always has to hunt to find what the debate in the House is all about.
In short, Mr. Chairman, I will say that English-speaking members, I am sure, find the convention of the alphabet to be a very practical and useful one; moreover, it is perhaps the only one on which they all agree.


An hon. Member:: It is just as necessary.


John Paul Harney: Yes, but I would like-and I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of other members-this commodity to be available to all hon. members.
I know, of course, that that does not have to happen every time, but perhaps in future the appendices could be presented alphabetically and alternately in English and in French.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same point of order. In looking at the list of estimates in alphabetical order in this bill I see that it does not make one hoot of difference if they are not written in any language, because we have gone through this very stupid exercise since we changed our method of dealing with expenditures. I would be quite prepared to have the English version in nonalphabetical order: it would not add to the confusion one bit.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think, at the risk of being out of order, I might have sympathy for the point raised by the hon. member for Scarborough West. It shall be followed up. Any hon. members who have suggestions to make in that regard might send their representations to the Chair.
Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall the title carry?
Title agreed to: Yeas 128; nays, 3.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Lotbiniere is recognized on a point of order.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is more in the way of a question of privilege, if this can be understood. I would like to protest with all my strength against the attitude of the Progressive Conservative party which is asking for votes, while it has not even the courage of voting.
Mr. Chairman, the Progressive Conservatives have wasted the time of this House; they have opposed votes concerning which they did not even have the courage to ask for a vote; they-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. The rules are clear. One is not permitted to cast reflections upon the vote of any hon. member or
June 26, 1973

members. The hon. member for St. John's East is recognized on a point of order.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I rose in my seat before you called for the vote on the title but you did not recognize me. I rose, Sir, not to vote against the title of the bill but to register my protest against this farce. I wish at this time to state my opposition to these rules which rob us of our rights. I object to them most strongly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. What is being considered by the committee this evening is Bill C-204, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1974. We are not considering the rules of the House of Commons.
Shall the bill carry?
Bill agreed to: Yeas, 205; nays, 4.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall I report the bill?
Estimates
Bill reported: Yeas, 201; nays, 5.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to carry third reading on division.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. At 11.34 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 27, 1973