1975-05-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hrtatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has recently implemented policy guideline circulars effective April 1, 1975 affecting Indian rights and obligations, in view of the fact that there is evidence that these circulars have been rejected by all elected Indian leaders, and since funding from the department will be cut off to bands not abiding by the guidelines causing substantial apprehension and concern amongst our native peoples, as well as in view of the minister's statement in the House of Commons on May 6, 1975 that if the guidelines create difficulties and problems his department is prepared to change them, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development immediately rescind the policy guideline circulars respecting housing and education and immediately convene meetings with elected chiefs and their representative bodies to obtain a consensus on mutually satisfactory guidelines to replace the present unsatisfactory guidelines.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that banks and other financial institutions have raised the mortgage rate and limited the funds available for mortgages for existing housing, and in view of the fact that CMHC has cut out all funding for existing housing
under the Assisted Home Ownership Plan thereby discriminating against moderate income home buyers who are now forced to obtain mortgages at 15 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House instruct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to re-institute AHOP funding for existing housing.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion arising from the centrefold photograph in the June issue of the magazine Nous showing the Prime Minister of Canada and Mrs. Trudeau under the heading "The best dressed couple of the year" in their prize-winning outfits which consist only and entirely of Canada's honoured maple leaf questionably replacing the traditional fig leaf.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Mackenzie):
That the House requests the Prime Minister to make an immediate statement as to whether this photographic venture is part of a new government policy of full disclosure and complete revelation that will eventually lead to the uncovering of many hidden things, hopefully including Mr. Michael Pitfield.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the obvious responsibility which he has under the Food and Drugs Act, can the minister assure the
5996

May 22, 1975
Oral Questions
House that the confusion which exists now in connection with meat inspection in Quebec will not appear in other provinces also, which would have very dangerous implications for the health of Canadians?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition undoubtedly knows, meat inspection is carried out, in some cases, by the Department of Agriculture of Canada, in the case of companies exporting meat outside one province. When the meat is sold exclusively within one province, the inspection is performed by provincial officials, except when the provincial authorities have delegated their responsibility to the federal authority, which is the federal Department of Agriculture. When inspections are done by the provincial authorities, it is of course their duty to enforce the regulations that have been adopted. As regards the responsibility of my department, the Food and Drugs Act contains very clear provisions on that subject, as there are in other acts, like the Criminal Code, for instance, provisions prohibiting certain practices. It is impossible to eliminate prohibited practices completely, but it is possible to make sure that when violations are uncovered immediate action will be taken by the Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of the provinces in order to enforce the law very firmly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that it has been known to the minister and his department for more than two years that in Quebec some 300 meat processing outlets were not receiving adequate inspection under either federal or provincial programs, can the minister tell us what steps he took during that period to strengthen surveillance of those facilities by his officers under the Food and Drug Act?


Marc Lalonde: I am afraid that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is ill-informed as regards the responsibilities of my department, of the federal Department of Agriculture and of the provincial Departments of Agriculture. In cases where companies operate within one province only, the responsibility, in the case of Quebec, for instance, rests clearly with the provincial authorities.
As Minister of National Health and Welfare, I am not the one who has the primary responsibility for meat inspection at the slaughterhouses. All I can do is intervene under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act. My officials are empowered to intervene under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act whenever there are indications that certain measures should be taken. As for the case in point, it was as a result of steps taken by officials of my department that a police inquiry was held in Quebec concerning certain apparently shady operations, and the results of this inquiry are now in the process of being submitted to the Commission of Inquiry into organized crime in Quebec.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it from what the minister says that despite his knowledge that a large number of plants in the province of Quebec-quite apart from his knowledge of what may be going on in the rest of Canada-were not

subjected to adequate inspection despite the Food and Drugs Act that makes it a crime to hold or to market food unfit for consumption, and despite the responsibilities of the minister in connection with that act and the powers given his inspectors under it, the minister did not feel any responsibility in terms of the health of the Canadian people to take any initiative whatsoever to see that in fact inspection did take place and the situation corrected in these 300 or so uninspected meat processing plants?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I am quite interested by the political speech made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, but I am not at all impressed with his allegations. Two years ago this inquiry was undertaken at the instigation of officials of my department and, at the time, they acted on the basis of hearsay only. There were no specific indications of criminal activities. But as soon as such serious indications did come up, we asked the police authorities concerned to intervene and to take whatever action was necessary; and we have now the results before us today. Furthermore, I feel that I have no apologies to make to the hon. Leader of the Opposition for the work done by my officials in this regard.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE QUEBEC MERCHANTS SELLING MEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. The RCMP knew back in 1969 that there was meat unfit for human consumption being sold on the market, and this matter was raised in the Quebec legislature as early as 1966 by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Why has the minister not carried out the responsibility which is his under the Food and Drugs Act and taken action under that act, because it takes precedence over any provincial legislation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I certainly was not Minister of National Health and Welfare in 1966, and I surely could find some assertions or allegations made in various places in 1953 and 1942 on this matter. We have to act as a department on the basis of somewhat serious information, and that is what has been done as early as 1973, where there were indications on which we could base our inquiry. It is hard for me to believe that the allegations made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe were taken seriously in 1966, any more than some others he has made since then.


James Aloysius McGrath: I regret very much that the minister finds this subject so humorous. I can assure him that the people of Quebec find it less than funny.
May 22, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: On October 24, as recorded at page 693 of Hansard, when the minister covered himself with less than glory the last time there was contaminated meat sold on the market, he gave this undertaking:
-in any case where there is precise proof that meat unfit for human consumption has been sold, proceedings will be instituted under the regulations.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Aloysius McGrath: He went on to say:
It will involve not only cases reported by my department's inspectors but also any one which might be spotted by any organization or any person.
Why did the minister not take action under the Food and Drugs Act immediately upon this matter being uncovered in the province of Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: For an excellent reason, Mr. Speaker. It is quite simple, it is because the inquiry initiated by my officials did not provide enough information to enable them to take any legal action against anybody; there were only indications and it was at that time that we got in touch with police authorities to ask them to make a full investigation. When the inquiry now under way, since we are still at the inquiry stage, even though it is a commission of inquiry-when the inquiry is completed, if there is enough evidence to warrant legal action, my colleague, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Justice of the Province of Quebec will surely be advised of the facts and will take legal action as provided under the law.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister is playing constitutional footsie with the government of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN NUMBER OF MEAT INSPECTORS
James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the widespread use of this practice of selling contaminated and diseased meat to the public, what is the minister doing now, in accordance with his authority under the statute, to increase the inspection capability under the Food and Drugs Act and to lay charges immediately?


Marc Lalonde: As I indicated last fall, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the number of inspections under the Food and Drugs Act. My colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), has over 1,200 officials throughout Canada who inspect meat, and the provincial authorities have also several hundreds of inspectors. As to the proceedings to be instituted, as I indicated yesterday, may I refer my hon. colleague to Hansard which he should at least make a point to read. An investigation is under way, and we have decided to postpone legal action so as not to cause preju-
Oral Questions
dice to the current investigation. We shall try to get all the facts and, as soon as they are known, the necessary action will be taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF CONCURRENCE IN PRICE INCREASE SUGGESTED BY ALBERTA-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PRICE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerns the announcement by provincial energy minister Donald Getty that the Alberta government has set the price for oil at $9 to $10 per barrel subject to negotiations regarding the time period during which this will be implemented. Can the minister tell the House if this is a unilateral decision by the government of Alberta or whether the federal government has concurred and the target price is to be $9 to $10 per barrel subject to negotiation regarding the time frame during which such a price will be put into effect?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can say there has been no agreement on a specific price with the government of Alberta either for this year or a specific target price in the future. I think it is fair to say there is common ground between the two governments as to moving to a further level of price for oil and natural gas over a period of time by a series of steps, but there has been no agreement either on a price to which we are to move or the level and the steps by which to move there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. In view of the fact that the present voluntary agreement of $6.50 per barrel for oil expires at the end of June, and in view of the fact that a great many business concerns and farmers will be interested in knowing what the price is going to be, is the minister now in a position to tell us what the price will be commencing July 1 and what price the government proposes to set? If he cannot tell us today how soon will he be able to announce the price following expiry of the present agreement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been guided by statements Premier Lougheed has made that he would see no necessity-I hope I quote him correctly-for a price increase on July 1 so long as there were significant discussions taking place on this particular question. I cannot confirm either that there will be an increase on
29561-36^2

May 22, 1975
Oral Questions
July 1 or indeed on any specific date. We are seeking to achieve the support, not only of the producing provinces but if possible also of the consuming provinces, for an increase at this time and I hope we can achieve that without further delay but I cannot be specific as to when.


OIL-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO PRICE INCREASE GREATER THAN INCREASE IN COSTS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance is seeking to combat inflation by suggesting that prices should not be allowed to rise unless increased costs warrant an increase and in view of the fact that production costs have not risen materially with respect to oil, can the minister give the House an assurance that following expiry of the present voluntary agreement there will be no increase in the price of oil beyond the present $6.50 per barrel?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance. The position taken in the producing areas is that there has been an increase in costs of production and exploration as a result of the general increases in price levels in Canada. We will be seeking to arrive at an agreement on price which we feel is fair both to producing provinces like Saskatchewan and to consuming provinces like Manitoba.


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In view of the fact that a number of borrowers have been unable to secure CMHC loans for the apparent reason that the Corporation has spent all its funds for the current year, could the Minister advise the House whether all the funds made available to CMHC for the current year have indeed been spent and, in the affirmative, whether he hopes he will be able to obtain additional funds from Treasury Board, so that this corporation may grant a greater number of loans and help start the building industry rolling again?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, some offices have used up allocations of CMHC, but I encourage the public to continue to pursue applications, as we are working with private lenders to bring in private money which is subsidized by the government. I am encouraging officers of CMHC to continue to accept applications, and we will work with private lenders to make sure that as many people are accommodated as possible.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I regret very much that the minister did not answer my question at all. It is all right to say that people may go on submitting applications, it is the easiest thing to do in the world. What is more difficult is to have one's application granted. That is what I want to know. Does the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation still have funds to answer borrowers' applications in the affirmative?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer specifically. I can only say that no offices are out of money, and they can continue to receive applications. I cannot anticipate responses in other areas. Naturally, we are pursuing the situation and seeing that as many Canadians are looked after as possible.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the utmost importance of the question, I would like to know whether Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is limited regarding the acceptance of secured loans, that is loans contracted with registered lending institutions, and whether the Corporation is subjected to a limit as regards the acceptance of those secured loans.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there is both direct lending and lending from private sources which we subsidize, so that both continue to be available.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, if he is in the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He has gone out inspecting the meat.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the growing desire being expressed by the majority of postal workers across the country for a fair and equitable contract similar to the one concluded recently with the Letter Carriers Union of Canada, could the Postmaster General inform the House if the collective bargaining process with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is proceeding on course?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, regretfully, no. I should like to be more optimistic but must be honest with the House. I intend to make a statement either in the House or outside tomorrow. There is no reason in the world why the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers should not obtain as good a

contract as the letter carriers obtained. They, I believe, will ratify their contract this evening. If the negotiating team would sit down and bargain in good faith, instead of establishing as their priority the settling of local issues in Montreal, particularly the case of the 39 people who have been disciplined, matters would be helped. I have no intention of backing away from that matter, in return for a settlement.


ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF MEMBERS OF UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the problem the Postmaster General has outlined and in view of the damage to the Canadian economy, particularly to small businessmen, which is resulting from the so-called sporadic study sessions being encouraged by certain post office union officials-obviously this is not a study in pursuit of the Ph.D. degree meaning post haste delivery.


Mr. Fairweather:: What's that?-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the evidence of violence within the CUPW, as indicated by the vandalism inflicted on the house of the national secretary treasurer recently, what action has the Postmaster General taken to deal with these illegal actions?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there are several illegal acts to which the hon. member has referred. First, I can understand the frustration of the members who have booked off sick in various regions of the country today because of the slowness of the bargaining procedures. If I, as an intimate friend of the labour movement, had any advice to them, it is to direct their attention to the bargaining team which is not bargaining in good faith rather than upset the economy of the particular regions by walking off the job and hurting innocent victims by what is really an internal problem which the union must learn to solve.
In so far as the damage and the vandalism done to the home of the secretary treasurer of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, this is unfortunate since he is a very responsible leader who has been associated with that union for seven or eight years. I do not pretend to know who is responsible, other than to say the pattern is very familiar since the same thing happened to five or six supervisors in the Montreal area. Possibly this union leader now understands the turmoil and anguish of the innocent supervisors who simply try to carry out their job and are subject to the same type of harassment. Again, it is the problem of the unions. The 95 per cent who are decent, law-abiding citizens will sooner or later have to stand up and be counted and rid their own house of the 5 per cent who have no place in the legitimate trade union in the first instance.


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


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
In order to enhance an orderly and real social climate in Quebec through concrete action, is the minister negotiating with his Quebec counterpart regarding jurisdiction on federal projects in Quebec, such as Mirabel, and is he ready to yield his jurisdiction in the matter? If so, under what conditions?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker. With reference to that particular problem, I am not in discussion with my colleague from Quebec. I am under the impression he feels that he and his colleagues in the Quebec government can handle the situation.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour.
Is the Minister ready to accept the proposal of an early meeting with Commissioners Cliche, Mulroney and Chev-rette, in order to deal with this special matter of jurisdiction on federal projects in Quebec and with the Cliche report as a whole, so as to enable the federal government to get better guidance in seeking the socio-economic leadership which the country needs so much?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I feel that this is very largely, if not entirely, a matter within provincial jurisdiction, which I am sure the hon. member is fully aware of and sensitive to, I feel the initiative would have to come from the province of Quebec with regard to any involvement by the federal government in terms of assistance of any kind.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. Is the minister aware of the breakdown in negotiations between the negotiators in his department and the ship repair unit of the Dockyards Trades and Labour Council from Esquimalt on the west coast and Halifax on the east coast, which has been working on a settlement for four months now?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have no specific statement to make at this time. The procedures provided for settling those disputes are well known. If the parties cannot settle them through negotiations, they can choose between arbitration or conciliation.

May 22, 1975
Oral Questions


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously not aware that this process has already gone through the conciliation procedure. Since it had been government policy up to the present to offer prevailing rates to these tradesmen and since on this occasion the offer to the ship repair unit of 12 per cent and 8.6 per cent in a two year contract with no COLA clause falls well below the prevailing rates, has Treasury Board changed its policy in order to conform with the consensus formula developed by the Minister of Finance or for some other reason?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, we do not negotiate in the House of Commons; we do so at the negotiation table.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning complaints Indian people in Calgary have about his department's office in that city. A great many of the complaints these people have centre on the delivery of social services from the Calgary Indian Affairs office. The Alberta Association of Social Workers has offered to conduct an independent inquiry into these complaints, and I would like to know if the minister is willing to let the association go ahead with such an inquiry.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, that particular request is something I will have to consider. As the hon. member is aware, we have agreed to fund this group in Calgary, the Calgary Urban Treaty Alliance, on the condition that there be some assistance as well from the provincial government. We have made this offer to the CUTA group in Calgary.


POSSIBILITY OF MOVING CALGARY OFFICE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter (Wally) Firth: A supplementary question. Has the minister reconsidered his department's decision to move the Calgary office away from the part of town where most of the Indian people live?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, again this is a matter I will have to look into.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that today's Globe and Mail article on the Quebec meat situation cited the country of origin of alleged criminals, will the minister assure the House that his proposed bill on human rights will attack this deplorable practice on the grounds that it is racism, divisive and totally irrelevant to the point in question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take note of the hon. member's comment when looking at the final draft of the bill. Of course, the bill will have certain limitations having regard to the federal as against the provincial jurisdiction and certain other factors which are bound to have a bearing on the decision.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Does the minister agree that his colleague's question would be answered if the minister would introduce this bill that has been rolling around for several years?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate having that kind of an answer before very long.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It has been reported that the agreement announced in April to delegate more powers and responsibilities to the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency is deteriorating. What specific action is the minister taking to rectify the situation in light of reports that British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec refuse to sign the agreement giving the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency the powers the minister feels are needed in order to operate the plan? Also, Ontario has agreed to sign, but has attached some very strict conditions to that signing.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the report I have from the egg marketing boards within the provinces is that some of them have placed certain riders on the agreement. These riders or clauses they have added to the agreement are being studied and will be reported to me as soon as a final opinion is made as to how they affect the agreement. Some provinces have signed the agreement in its original form. I disagree with the hon. member that the agency is about to fall apart. If they have ever been closer to running a proper program, I do not know when it has been.
May 22, 1975

Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


Jack Burnett Murta: It has been stated by the Ontario section of the egg marketing board that Ontario will rescind their agreement and pull out by September 1 if some form of controls has not been introduced into the egg situation in Canada. Is the government moving in this direction? If so, in what respect is there a move towards having some kind of control over the egg situation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we must remember first and foremost that this is a producer group trying to work together, working through their provincial marketing boards. They are working in conjunction with CEMA to try to develop an effective plan. I have no way of knowing whether some are trying to pull out. It is in their interests to make this plan work and if more of them pull out the less chance it has of succeeding.


SUGGESTION IMPORT CONTROLS OFFERED CONDITIONAL UPON SIGNING AGREEMENT WITH CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Statements before previous CEMA hearings indicate that two of the minister's predecessors promised quick implementation of import controls as an inducement for provinces to join an egg marketing plan. Can the minister tell us whether it is now government policy to offer import controls on the condition that the CEMA agreement be signed and ratified first, and if so does he view this as a reversal of government policy and a contributing factor of opposition to the agreement by the majority of the provinces?


Eugene Whelan: I am
amazed that the hon. member, who I believe is familiar with the laws of the land, since he is a lawyer, should suggest that this was being held up as a carrot. He knows as well as I do that if the supply-management program is in order one does not get into difficulty with one's trading partners, and it is up to the producers to look after this themselves if they want to make the plan work.


NATIONAL FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING COUNCIL-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONSUMER REPRESENTATIVES
William Herbert Jarvis: I am sorry if the minister misunderstood or chose to misinterpret my question. Before the CEMA inquiry, as well as later, he promised an announcement concerning the appointment of consumer representatives to the National Farm Products Marketing Council. Is the hon. gentleman now is a position to inform the House when such an announcement will be made?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make sure that if we have a council it will have something to manage.


NEED FOR FARM WORKERS IN NOVA SCOTIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his absence, I will direct it to the parliamentary secretary or to the acting minister. I believe the minister is a just man and that my difficulties with his department can be resolved. My question arises from the fact that farmers in central Nova Scotia, who have been able to employ up to 14 Dutch farm workers in the past two years, will, this year, have none. Would the hon. gentleman plough through the red tape to achieve justice?


PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT IN QUEBEC- PREFEASIBILITY STUDY BY SERU-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the hon. gentleman tell us whether he has received a copy of the recently completed "prefeasibility study" into an enriched uranium plant in the James Bay area which was conducted by SERU, and the James Bay Development Corporation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received a copy.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Given the implications of the study for the federal government which has control over the export of uranium and nuclear technology, does the minister intend to ask for a copy of this study and will he undertake to make a statement setting out the government's position regarding it, bearing in mind that enriched uranium cannot be utilized in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would certainly be very interested in seeing this study and if it provides a basis for a useful statement I will be glad to make one.


OIL-POSSIBLE PRICE INCREASE BY OPEC COUNTRIES- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does he now have definite information that it is the intention of the OPEC countries to further increase the world price of oil and, if so, what contingency plans has the government prepared in order to cope with such an eventuality in the light of the fact that the Atlantic provinces will be dependent on offshore oil producers for some time into the future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. gentleman knows, the compensation program has, in the past, protected the Atlantic provinces from the effects of this kind of increase and it

May 22, 1975
Oral Questions
will continue to do so. There is to be a meeting of the international energy agency next week at which I will be present; there will be an opportunity to discuss the prospects of an increase at that time and the possible implications for member countries.


John Angus MacLean: Do I understand the minister as meaning that if the world price of oil is increased, government measures will be effective in preventing such an increase from affecting the Atlantic provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Consumers in the Atlantic provinces would be protected under the arrangement for a single price for all Canadians; they have been protected so far by this kind of subvention and it would continue to be applicable, ensuring protection from increases above the single price across Canada which might occur from time to time.


INDUSTRY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the announcement by the Whitby Tire Company, purchased by Firestone from Dunlop a year ago-at which time they announced they intended to increase the work force by between 250 and 300 workers- that half the work force, some 290 workers, are to be laid off for an indefinite period? Has the minister's attention been drawn to this matter and, if so, what action has he taken?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: As hon. members know, I have just returned from a trip outside the country on trade business-this is the first time this matter has come to my attention. I will look into it.



FINANCE


David Orlikow: Might I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether, at the same time as his colleague is looking into this question, he will examine the claim of the union that the reason for the lay-offs is not the slowdown in production of automobiles but the reduction in the tariff from 17 V2 per cent to 12 per cent which has meant an increase in the importation of tires from the United States from 650,000 to almost 5.5 million in four years.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will look into that.



POSSIBILITY OF PROGRAM RELATED TO ABUSE OF DRUGS FOR ALCOHOLICS

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
A few months ago, the press indicated that the federal government had approved a program on drug abuse, such as drugs prescribed to alcoholics. Can the minister tell us whether such a program exists and to what extent it is being implemented?


Marc Lalonde: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no such program exists. However, I should like to study the hon. member's question in detail to see if I did not miss part of it, but I doubt that such a specific program exists as mentioned in the hon. member's question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, before I ask this question I should like to inquire of the President of the Privy Council, as leader of the House, whether the Prime Minister will be here before orders of the day are concluded, or whether he will be here today at all.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: The Prime Minister will be here for government orders. I cannot be sure whether he will be here before that time.


John George Diefenbaker: This question arises out of a matter I brought before the House the day before yesterday in connection with the dastardly attack which was made on the administration of justice by the High Commissioner for Jamaica. If ever there was a racist statement, there was one when he stated: "I am extremely dissatisfied with the administration of justice when there are clashes between my people and the police". That statement is incapable of any other interpretation but that there is one law for people of one colour and a different law for those of another. That is not Canadian in any way and it is a statement which ought not to have been made.
I put this question the day before yesterday to the Prime Minister. He had not heard about this matter. No answer was given yesterday in the House. Imagine my surprise- not my surprise, really, because apparently it has become a way of life-when the subject was referred to in the press yesterday instead of being answered in the House. Possibly we could get an answer now from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is an issue of consequence and one which will cause a great deal of damage throughout the Caribbean to the reputation of Canada for respecting the equality of all, regardless of colour.
May 22, 1975


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman has mentioned, I understand that the High Commissioner for Jamaica may have made an unfortunate allegation-


John George Diefenbaker: Worse than that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -while he was in Toronto to attend the funeral of a 15 year old Jamaican boy who had been shot while crossing a shopping mall. The officers of my department have spoken to the High Commissioner about this incident and have assured him that the Toronto police force is a competent, humane and efficient body. I am sure the High Commissioner has understood what has been conveyed to him, and I am quite sure that he, as an experienced representative in this country, understood fully the reasons for which he was spoken to on this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that answer is totally inadequate. Some official in External Affairs has spoken to the High Commissioner. He is an intelligent and an able man and that statement should be condemned by the minister and by the Prime Minister as something unworthy of anyone holding a diplomatic post here, particularly because it is one that, by reason of the country he represents, could not but have very difficult and strong reactions. Will the minister himself make it clear that this kind of thing is unjustified, instead of having some underling whisper to the High Commissioner?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: No answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was a speech, not a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether he will personally bring to the attention of the High Commissioner the totally unjustifiable nature of a statement like that which cannot but add fuel to the fires of difficulty between races which are bound to arise? I have every sympathy for that boy who was killed, and his parents, but that is no justification for the statement that our law in this country denies fairness, and it is also no justification for an attack on those who cannot defend themselves, namely, the chief and the members of the Toronto police force.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I still find it difficult to detect a question in that representation by the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Some more diffusion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can tell him that I have personally been in touch with the High Commissioner.


John George Diefenbaker: Why didn't you tell us?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I was in touch with the High Commissioner on this general subject some days ago, and in respect of this particualr incident my officials have spoken to the High Commissioner.
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Why not the minister?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the right to choose my own language rather than use the usual inflammatory language used by the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we now realize that with this minister nice, soft words are to be used always as was the case in respect of North Viet Nam and U.S. relations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to say that the use of the kind of expression the right hon. gentleman suggests is probably why Canadian foreign relations were in such tatters in the days after he was Prime Minister of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Canada's foreign relations are lower today than they ever were.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Prime Minister because of his interest in the philosophy of purity in politics, but perhaps I should direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. I would ask, to use some of the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, about certain transgressions, perhaps, of other administrations. Does not the Acting Prime Minister, who is the President of the Privy Council and the government House leader, believe that Canada's national police force, the RCMP, stands higher and with more integrity and character than one to become just the personal fiefdom of the minister responsible for the RCMP? I refer specifically to the advertising contract awarded to a personal friend of the Solicitor General without tender, namely, a firm that was formed for that purpose? Can the Acting Prime Minister give any explanation of the reason the RCMP should be subjected to this type of petty patronage and not be beyond any taint of patronage?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, deny the implications in the question. The Solicitor General is one of the most sensitive ministers in this House with regard to the RCMP. He defends it and he understands his position in relation to it. However, I know that he would like to answer the question directly on Monday.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will look forward to any answer from the Solicitor General, who I have said publicly is doing a very good job which makes it much more shocking that this type of patronage is going on. Since the Royal Commission on Government Organization in 1962, and that gets us back to the time when the House leader was Secretary of State for External Affairs, recommended that patronage should be kept out of the advertising busi-

May 22, 1975
Business of the House
ness, which recommendation was repeated by the eminent survey of the Task Force on Government Information carried out by Tom Ford and other notables, in 1969. They both recommended that patronage should be kept out of advertising. Could the Acting Prime Minister, the government House leader, with his vast knowledge of government apparatus, tell this House now which one of the six recommendations of the task force report on advertising contracts has been implemented by this government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall specifically the six particular principles that are included in that report, but the hon. gentleman does know that it is very difficult to ask for tenders on advertising, and one must make a selection of advertising agencies. While I am quite sure that whatever government is in office tends to favour those who are friendly to it, nevertheless, I believe this government in its dealings with advertising agencies has received very good value for its money.


An hon. Member:: And vice versa.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am the first to appreciate political realities and that you help your friends sometimes ahead of those you do not know, but does the Acting Prime Minister not believe, or can he not say to this House that when it comes to the national police force, the RCMP, that body should be beyond any taint or suspicion of petty political patronage, and that in respect of any contract of any size the agency should be awarded the contract on a free and open tender basis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is very seldom I can answer with an unqualified yes to a question. In this case, yes, I believe that is so. The RCMP is and should be beyond any political taint.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Why wasn't there a tender then?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Boulanger.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of this week and next week. Can he advise the House at this time whether in addition to the eight opposition days

next month he will be setting aside time for the budget debate?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the program I would put before the House is as follows. Today, of course, is one of the allotted days, and tomorrow is another. I hope the opposition House leader will give me some indication soon of the item he intends to call tomorrow, or whether there is to be a motion of any kind. Also, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week I would designate as allotted days.
On Monday I will ask the House to resume consideration of Bill C-58 in respect of Time and Reader's Digest. After the allotted days, on Thursday I should like to call the bill on the status of women, Bill C-16. If by any chance we dispose of any of those items during a day, I have in reserve Bill C-57, and Bill C-37 on ocean dumping.


Mr. Hees:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the question of House business. Since the Minister of Finance announced at the beginning of this week that he would be announcing the date of his budget by the end of the week, and since that time is almost upon us, has he that announcement now? Is it June 23, as announced in an Ottawa newspaper this afternoon?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is not the end of the week yet.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the government House leader in respect of House business? It has been indicated several times that a bill in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to amend the Old Age Security Act would be presented and dealt with in time so that some of its provisions could be in effect by October. In view of the fact there is talk about the House recessing for the summer, and since that makes it necessary for this bill to be dealt with and passed by the end of June, could we have a firm assurance as to when we will see this legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it has now been approved by cabinet and I intend putting it on the order paper immediately.


Mr. Horner:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to your attention and the attention of the House the fact that members of your staff acquitted themselves very admirably last evening in a ball game on the Hill, defeating the fourth estate in spite of the fact that they still have their winter uniforms and had to play under that handicap.


Mr. Speaker:: In response to the latter part of the hon. member's point of order, may I say I have been waiting for some time for an opportunity to mention that one step I have taken rather unilaterally, and which I now report to hon. members, is that the constables who so very dutifully serve all of us in the House of Commons will, in a matter of very few days, be attired in appropriate summer uniforms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order. If the House is to consider today the expenses of the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office, and we have been unable to question Mr. Michael Pitfield either in committee or elsewhere, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will stay here for the entire day to be available to answer questions on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question was raised during the question period.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Jean Marchand. (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table copies in both official languages of the majority and minority reports on bilingualism in air-ground communications.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,060, 2,200 and 2,291.
If question No. 2,178 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The Parliamentary Returns Office is not a separate entity but operates as a unit within the Departmental Secretariat which reports to the Deputy Minister. It is not possible to separate the cost for Parliamentary Returns work from the overall operating costs of the Secretariat.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): With reference to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, as of March 15, 1975 (a) how many persons were employed as pollution
Order Paper Questions
prevention officers (b) where was each located or stationed (c) what was the (i) highest (ii) lowest salary paid to such officers?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) Six. However, it should be noted that there are no Pollution Prevention officers per se. The responsibilities have merely been added to the duties that these officials already have. Consequently, the designation did not involve the creation of any new or separate positions: (b) Four, Yellowknife, NorthWest Territories; two, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, (c) (i) $29,500. (ii) $21,000.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	What is the Auditor General's annual salary?
2.	In the Auditor General's Office, how many employees receive a salary (a) over $50,000 (b) from $45,000 to $50,000 (c) from $40,000 to $45,000 (d) from $35,000 to $40,000 (e) from $30,000 to $35,000 (f) from $25,000 to $30,000 (g) from $20,000 to $25,000 (h) from $15,000 to $20,000 (i) from $10,000 to $15,000 (j) under $10,000?


John Napier Turner: 1. $40,000 to $45,000.
2. (a) nil, (b) nil, (c) 1, (d) 1, (e) 4, (f) 19, (g) 41, (h) 112, (i) 77, (j) 48.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	As of March 15, 1975 (a) what chemical dispersants were in the possession of the (i) Department of the Environment (ii) Department of Transport (iii) any other government agency or department to combat oil spills in the Great Lakes or off the coasts of Canada (b) what was the quantity of each such dispersant?
2.	In the case of each chemical dispersant possessed by the government to combat off-shore oil spills (a) in what location (b) under what specific conditions was each tested (c) what was the result of each such test?
3.	In each case where a chemical dispersant possessed by the government to combat off-shore oil spills was not tested in actual sea or Great Lakes conditions, off-shore, what was the reason for not testing in actual conditions off-shore?
Return tabled.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to five questions standing in my name on the order paper since last September 30. They are the five questions that have stood longest on the order paper, namely, No. 28, No. 32, No. 62, No. 64 and No. 69. Several of these were on the order paper during the last parliament. Two of them, namely, No. 32 and No. 69, have been on the order paper now, without an answer, for approaching a year. They ask about the use of government aircraft by the Prime Minister. They are very simple questions, such as the amount of flying time, what aircraft were used to go to the Ontario annual meeting of the Liberal Party in Sudbury, and other basically simple things such as the cost per hour.
These questions have not been answered. I assume the reason is that the questions also carry with them a subquestion asking for the names of those on the passenger

May 22, 1975
Order Paper Questions
list of the aircraft. I think that to take a year to answer these questions is totally out of order. I believe the Prime Minister, certainly, with all the staff he has in his office which increases almost every day, should be prepared to guarantee to this House that someone will get down to business and answer the questions. If he has a staff of 400 or 500 people, I suggest they should do a day's work.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before you give your ruling on a matter raised by the hon. member for York Centre yesterday as a question of privilege, I should like to make a suggestion for the consideration of the House. The motion by the hon. member for York Centre incorporates, by reference, the matter raised by myself as a question of privilege on Tuesday, May 20, which itself contained a motion, although the hon. member referred to only part of my complaint of the previous sitting.
You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that in line with the precedents you had no jurisdiction in the matter and that it should be settled in the committee in which it arose. Although the member for York Centre and I are in dispute, I agree with him that our complaints, antagonistic though they may be, are of such importance to the member for York Centre and myself, and to the procedure and proceedings of all committees of the House, that they should properly be referred to and settled by the committee that is the proper forum for hearing and settling grievances and complaints which arise in committees including the finance committee.
Not only is the committee to which I refer not a party to the dispute, but its findings and recommendations can achieve uniformity of procedure in committees. At the appropriate time in these proceedings, Mr. Speaker, with your instruction and the consent of the House I would be prepared to move that the subject matter of my complaint of Tuesday, May 20, and that of the hon. member for York Centre of Wednesday, May 21, and further procedural moves attempted today by government members on the committee, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privilege and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of privilege that the hon. member for York-Simcoe has put forward, followed in turn by the second question of privilege by the hon. member for York Centre, raised very serious questions about the relationship between proceedings in the committee and the Chair and, furthermore, between the opportunity to review the proceedings in committee and in turn the suggestion that the proceedings of one standing committee be reviewed by another one. Also raised are questions about the propriety of the remarks by the hon. member for York-Simcoe concerning the conduct of the hon. member for York Centre.
All this has caused me considerable concern, and with the indulgence of the House I would propose to consider this matter until next Monday at 3 p.m., at which time I shall try to have a definitive ruling covering all the matters which have been raised.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House in committee of supply to consider certain items of the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1976, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 58 (9)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved that a sum not exceeding $18,484,200 be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976 (less the amount voted in interim supply) as follows:
Vote 1-Privy Council-Program expenditures, including maintenance and operation of the Prime Minister's residence; the payment to each member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who is a Minister without Portfolio or a Minister of State who does not preside over a Ministry of State of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, the grants listed in the Estimates and contributions-$18,484,200
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Chairman, contrary to what my hon. friends opposite may think, I am rather pleased to take part this afternoon in the examination of my estimates. I have just been told that it is the first time in over 12 years that a prime minister is called upon to justify his estimates, and I am very glad to have this opportunity to make a few remarks and reply to the questions from the opposition.
I think the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was the last prime minister to be granted this favour, and I expect that there will be this afternoon a very interesting and important exchange of views.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) seems worried-


An hon. Member:: He is not even here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -which is understandable, because I am supposed to make a speech tonight in a riding next to his, and I am under the impression that he is afraid of the opportunity the people in this area will have to see what a real parliamentarian is, compared to the hon. member for Leeds-
The truth of the matter Mr. Chairman, is that, regretfully, I cannot stay here all day.


Gerald William Baldwin: There will be other days.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I knew only yesterday that my presence here today was desired. I had for a long time accepted obligations, not only here in Ottawa, but also in other places in Ontario and Quebec. Unfortunately, I must keep up to these obligations.
The hon. member for Riviere-a-la-Paix is saying that there will be other days-


An hon. Member:: Peace River!
May 22, 1975


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Riviere-a-la-Paix is saying that there will be other days; no doubt there will be some, and I hope the hon. member will have other opportunities to question me. However, I must say that as far as this series of estimates is concerned, it was a matter of being here today or never, because as the House is no doubt aware, there are some questions of international importance which must be discussed relating to the precarious state of the world economy as well as matters related to defense which compel me to be in Brussels next week for those discussions. I must also spend a few hours in Denmark to discuss the problems related to contractual ties and a few hours also for discussions in Luxembourg.
Unfortunately, and I apologize to the House, it was necessary for me to be here today, at least for some time. I can assure the hon. members opposite that the Acting Prime Minister, the House leader, will be present. The officials needed to provide information will be here too.
I also seize opportunity to thank my hon. friend, the House Leader, for having gone to bat for me on many instances, while he was responsible of two very important departments.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you send him, and stick around yourself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat curious to know what exactly opposition members want to discuss today. I offered to let them launch the debate, thinking that would perhaps give me the opportunity of replying to some of their accusations before leaving later in the day, but they waived that privilege and asked me to open the debate, which I am pleased to do.
However I am a little bit in the dark as to the subjects that I should tackle. In any event, I shall at least touch on three or four, on some of the aspects of the Privy Council administration that seem to worry them. First, I shall deal with the presence of the Prime Minister in the House and in committees. Second, I shall discuss the matter of secrecy, since it seems to have concerned hon. members opposite a good deal. And third, I should like to talk about the expenditures, their size and, what I consider more important, the reason why such expenses appear in the estimates.

First, on the presence of the leader of the government in parliament, I repeat that when parliament asks one of its members to be present it is his duty to be present in so far as it is possible for him to make himself available, and I have done my utmost today to free as much time as possible in view of the very short notice I had, under these experimental rules, that I would be called upon to appear today. I think that traditionally parliament has been rather gracious in its use of the privilege of asking the Prime Minister to appear before it. As I was saying, the practice goes back more than a dozen years that the Prime Minister has had to appear before parliament with regard to his estimates. Certainly, that is the top priority and I am happy to be here to answer whatever questions I will have time to answer.
Business of Supply
However, I want to remind the committee that I am in the House every day during the question period and I answer questions on the order paper. I have learned that since the beginning of this session some 714 months ago, I have signed more than 100 replies to questions on the order paper; I have attempted to answer 524 oral questions in the House during the question period; and I have been here whenever questions or debates of national importance have arisen, when they have not conflicted with other important engagements, of which the House was always made aware.
The matter of my appearance before a standing committee is another matter. I am informed that it has never happened in modern times, certainly in more than a quarter of a century-I have not gone further back than that- that a prime minister has been forced to appear before a standing committee of parliament. Indeed, last year my colleague the hon. member for Sarnia, a member of my own party, asked me to appear before a standing committee and I answered him by letter, which was made public, in which I gave the reasons I did not want to break that long-standing tradition.
Certainly, members of parliament are absolutely justified in wanting to ask questions about spending in the PCO or the PMO. I have followed the practice of making available to the committee officials who could give all the facts, and indeed have given all the facts that have been asked of them. Parliamentarians, either the House leader or his excellent parliamentary secretary, have followed the practice of standing in for the Prime Minister. I repeat that this has been the practice throughout this modern period in parliament. As I said the other day, apart from being a traditionalist on this, I see no good reason to break that tradition, if only for the reason that answers can be given and have been given, apart-I repeat-from the very detailed answers that I give to written questions, a procedure whereby members of the House and the public can learn of every fine detail such as the price of every kitchen utensil or ashtray that was purchased for 24 Sussex Drive or for my office here.
Therefore, it cannot be a question of getting to know the facts: members can know the facts. If there is more that they want to know, the House leader will be here this afternoon, and so will officials, to answer questions and we will make sure that the questions that are asked by any member of the House will be properly answered. Questions of policy are obviously another matter, and it is quite clear that government officials should not be asked to answer policy questions. As long as we have a parliamentary system with responsible government, we on this side of the House will not permit officials to stand in for ministers just to satisfy the curiosity of some hon. members opposite, so far as I am able.
This matter deals with a question of factual information which the House would want to know as a result of my estimates. I would merely, now, deal briefly with the question of secrecy. This is perhaps not the time to speak at any length on that. I just want to remind the House that in an attempt to circumscribe the concern of the government about the need for certain working documents to be kept secret and not made public, a few years ago we

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply
established a series of guidelines. They were presented to this House under the title "Guidelines for Notices of Motions for Production of Papers", but they applied to the general question of secrecy. These guidelines were originally tabled by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was then the House leader, on March 15, 1973-more than two years ago. They are appendix B to the debates of March 15, 1973.
Two weeks later, the guidelines were referred to the Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, and I must say that no action was ever taken by that committee to come to grips with these guidelines, to show possibly how they could be improved and made compatible with as open a government as possible. But once again, in a system of parliamentary responsibility, the guidelines were tabled in this parliament in December and on the same day they were referred to the same joint committee. There have already been a few witnesses appear before that committee. I want to say that this government is anxiously awaiting the results of the report of that standing committee, because it is possible that it would be able to improve the guidelines without deterring from the very basic need of the parliamentary system, of having officials in the position where they can advise their ministers without the danger of that advice becoming completely public-a situation which experience has proved only results in the officials being extremely cautious and perhaps less than candid in tendering advice. We want the best possible advice from the officials, and in order to receive it they must be protected from public ' scrutiny of their every opinion.
The next point I would like to deal with-I realize I should not go into great detail here because the committee will want to have some time to ask questions-is the size of my estimates, the amount of spending generally by the Prime Minister and his office, and in the Privy Council. There would be two categories of questions under this heading. The first, I suppose, comes under the category of chandeliers and ashtrays.


An hon. Member:: And swimming pools. Tell us about that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And swimming pools. I do not think it is a matter of policy. It is perhaps a matter of debate and curiosity, but the facts are known. Judgments can be made. I will deal with it very briefly and I hope some time will be left for the most fundamental question, that of these expenditures and what functions they are intended to permit the operation of. I would not even bother if merely the hon. member for Leeds or perhaps the hon. member for Rocky Mountain were curious about this; but I was somewhat disappointed that the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert made it the subject matter of a speech he made on April 30, after his long absence, when he returned to the House and naturally had many things to say. He used part of his speech to comment on what I call the "chandelier" category of spending. The right hon. member for Prince Albert was predicting what my salary will be in ten years at the present rate of inflation. I thank him for the confidence he has shown in me-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and particularly for shedding some light on the opinion he holds of the present leader and future leaders of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, it is only a question of time, but I realize that time is running into May and running out on the Prime Minister. I do not want to cut him off under the 15-minute rule, but particularly since his time in the committee will be limited I hope he will be as brief as he can.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for drawing the time to my attention, but I did point out at the outset that I had offered to speak after a member of his party so that I would know exactly to what subject I was expected to address myself. They deferred and asked me to speak first, for which reason I am trying to cover a variety of subjects, and naturally that takes a bit more time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure it is just by accident that the Leader of the Opposition rose at the precise moment I was going to quote from the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I will go back to that and read from Hansard of April 30 at page 5344;
Let me go back to the days when I was Prime Minister. We had to pay $5,000 a year rent for 24 Sussex Drive; that is to say, Mr. St. Laurent did, I did when I followed him, and Mr. Pearson did after me. This rental payment has been done away with.
I suggest that is a rather unfair comment. Perhaps he forgot, but the right hon. gentleman certainly knows that this rental payment was abolished by an act of the twenty-eighth parliament-two parliaments ago-in a bill which I introduced regarding the official residences, the Official Residences Act. I made sure that this abolition of rent would only be applicable in the next parliament; in other words, it was not applicable to me. I, like Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Pearson and Mr. Diefenbaker, had to pay rent. It was only after the next election when the people chose, by a rather slim margin, the same prime minister that the new law took effect. The Leader of the Opposition, with his usual fairness, will recollect that that was the aspect of the bill.
He will also recollect that the same bill, which turned Stornoway into public property and the residence of Mr. Speaker, the farm, into public property, was made effective immediately because hon. members know that we had some concern about the previous arrangement whereby the leader of the opposition and Mr. Speaker were receiving benefits under the Crown, the NCC was working on their property, and so on. They could have been disqualified under the act of parliament.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: What about the swimming pool?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We, not having the same kind of petty mind as the hon. member for Leeds, did not want to exploit that situation; that is why we made the act effective immediately in the case of Stornoway and the farm, and effective after the next election in the case of the residence of the prime minister. I find it unfortunate that
May 22, 1975

the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert found it convenient to forget that.
When I am talking of Stornoway I am interrupted by concern for the swimming pool. Let me remind the Committee that there is a pretty good parallel between the two situations. Stornoway was put at the disposal of the leader of the opposition by a private group of people whose names have never been made public. He occupied it without our ever suspecting him of having been influenced by the Mafia who might have given it to him. This thought never entered our minds, nor should it. I believe the gentlemen and ladies who put this house at the disposal of the leader of the opposition were acting out of a sense of public duty because they believed it was an honourable gesture. I am prepared to wager that probably people from many parties helped ensure this trust through which the property of Stornoway was put at the disposal of the leader of the opposition.
When the government took over the property of Stornoway, for the reasons I gave earlier nobody on this side wanted to know the names of the donors. We did not suspect the leader of the opposition, past, present or future, of having been influenced by private builders. This is exactly the situation with the swimming pool.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is a complete difference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are various ways for the federal government to obtain properties which are for the benefit of the people of Canada and present and future holders, whether they be the leader of the opposition, the prime minister or the Speaker. This, it seemed to me, was a perfectly correct way, to have private donors whose names were known to no one-certainly not to myself-make a gift of property to the prime minister's residence just as they have with the residence of the leader of the official opposition, remaining the property of the government for all time. I think this is how various public properties are given into the hands of the government. It is the way the museum is often enriched. It is certain that this is a question of being damned whatever I do. Of course, had I drawn upon the public purse there would have been a great number of accusations.
On a lighter note, Mr. Chairman, I was absolutely certain, when I chose the course of accepting from anonymous donors the gift of a swimming pool, that there would be editorials saying that this was not the way to proceed and that the pool should have been paid for out of public funds. It is certain that in a situation like this one can never be right in the eyes of people who are determined to see evil in everything. It is worth repeating that the parallel between Stornoway and the swimming pool is identical, and neither the Leader of the Opposition nor I know, nor presumably will know, through whose generosity we benefit from these amenities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Wasting a lot of time to say nothing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, I know this is a waste of time and I regret that the concern of so many people on
Business of Supply
the other side has been with this very subject. They have forced me to address myself to this subject, precisely because even during the time I was speaking hon. members opposite asked questions about the swimming pool. Now that I have given them information, they are confounded and have found it a waste of time.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Peace River on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Prime Minister wants to be fair with the committee. He has indicated and we accept the fact, that he cannot be here all the time, much as we would love him to be and I am sure as he would be delighted to be. The reason no earlier notice was given is because of an incident which took place only on Tuesday night which we construed to be unparliamentary and despotic action. As a result, we felt it was necessary to ask the Prime Minister to appear in this House before the committee.
If he has to leave, I am sure the questions we will be asking him, including the Leader of the Opposition, will touch upon many of the subjects he is dealing with and he will have his opportunity to answer them. I think if he is sincere-and I hope he is-with regard to this being a suitable opportunity for questioning, he will provide the opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition and members of the other parties, in connection with his estimates and the right of the House of Commons on behalf of the people of Canada, to air grievances before supply is voted. This is the principle on which we are proceeding, and I trust the Prime Minister will arrange that those questions will be answered.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the hon. member, and he has stated well the dilemma in which I find myself. I would remind him, however, that the dilemma is not of my making. It is the members of his party who repeatedly have been asking these questions of me through written questions, who have been raising these questions in committee, who have been interjecting every time I stand to answer any question, who have been indicating their concern about the very subjects I am dealing with. I find it quite unreasonable for the hon. member to show his disappointment for the time I am taking to deal with the questions that his own party has brought up. I can see no other course but for me to follow my present disposition of dealing with some of these accusations, I repeat, made by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, a former prime minister of this country and therefore-


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Leeds on a point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that anyone in this House should sit and listen to the Prime Minister say he is taking up his time because we have exercised our right to ask questions on the order paper and orally in this House. I think it is time that we heard something sensible or that he sat down. He is using us as an excuse for not answering, and hiding things from the Canadian people-

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. member that he rose on a point of order and I am here to rule on it. I have to refer him to Standing Order 55 which indicates that there is no limitation of time on the presentation of the Prime Minister. If hon. members have made other agreements not within the knowledge of the chairman of the committee, there is no way I can rule other than to have the right hon. Prime Minister speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the chairman well knows, we have been operating on a 15-minute basis. There was discussion today about whether we wanted to speak first or whether the Prime Minister would speak first. We want the opportunity to have a discussion, not a monologue, Mr. Chairman. I leave it to the Prime Minister's personal judgment, but I would remind him that we have been operating on a 15-minute basis. He has taken about 35 minutes. In view of the fact that he cannot stay long-and I understand why he cannot-I would ask him to bear this in mind.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I understand very well the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The 15-minute time limit which was agreed upon last week was for the two days' examination of the estimates of the Department of Transport. No agreement about today's proceeding has reached the chairman of the committee. At one time or another I expect the House leader will bring forward some proposal, but it was brought to my attention that the period until 4.30 would be preceded by a statement by the Prime Minister. Nobody mentioned that it would be limited as to time. It was to be followed by a question period. I am ready to accept any agreement that can be made within the committee or by hon. members, but I cannot impose rules that do not exist.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that these are not important questions. Unfortunately, the questions which have been raised consistently by hon. members opposite are those which make the headlines. Since we are on spending, I intend to take a few more minutes on this subject. That seems to be an unimportant part, but it seems to be the position of hon. members opposite.
In the very next phrase, the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert said, "Neither did we have any armoured dreadnoughts." I will not go into the explanation which has already been given by the Solicitor General to do with the armoured car which the RCMP put at my disposal, and at the Queen's disposal when she comes here. I just remember, when the right hon. gentleman suggests that possession of this car shows signs of paranoia on my part, that it was he who, at substantial public expense, had the bomb-shelter built at 24 Sussex Drive. Perhaps he was looking ahead to the time at the Chateau Laurier when his party would be kicking at him. The point is that he had that bomb-shelter built at substantial public expense. He had built a whole series of government facilities out at Carp in which to house himself and the government if any violence should overtake him. I think it was a bit petty of

him to refer to the armoured car when he, himself, was a particularly visible case of paranoia.
In the same speech, the right hon. gentleman talked about Harrington Lake. I think that was another unfortunate reference, because I suppose he made the largest land grab when he was in office that was ever made by any private citizen of Canada. He did so when he decided that Harrington Lake and the buildings on it should be the country residence of the prime minister. I do not think anybody then sitting on my party's side of the House criticized that decision. He was adding thousands of acres of land for his private enjoyment. I think it was a justifiable gesture, one from which I personally have benefited. In the same way I hope the next prime minister will benefit from the swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive. There is a difference: I do not intend to stock the swimming pool with fish, not even sharks, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: What about stocking it with the government's dirty laundry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert liked fishing and had Harrington Lake stocked at public expense with fish for his enjoyment.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That was a shameful incident. It is, I repeat, a petty point; unfortunately it was brought out in the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I am sure he will find other occasions to answer me, but the facts are as I have stated them, Mr. Chairman.
I now come to the more basic question to do with the size of the Prime Minister's office and of the Privy Council office. Here, again, I want to make two points. First, one must make sure facts are accurate. It is necessary, when looking at statistics, to compare things which are comparable. Second, I hope to show in my speech why the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office have grown to their present size.
Let us look at the Prime Minister's residence. In 1960-61, seven man-years were utilized. This was in the time of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The figure remained the same for almost 15 years. Expenditures for 1974-75 were still for seven man-years. The cost, of course, had gone up considerably, from $26,000 to $84,000, which means that the same number of men and women who were hired at 24 Sussex Drive had had their salaries increased threefold in 15 years. I do not set salaries there, but I think it is important to keep in mind the number of man-years utilized at the prime minister's residence.
Comparisons as between the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office are much more difficult to make, for the simple reason that the two were not separated until the 1971-72 estimates. The number of man-years and costs allocated related to the combined offices, although they then performed a very different function and were covered by estimates of a very different quality. I will give some examples of what I mean; I cannot give them all.
Back in 1962-63, when the Conservatives still were clinging to power, the Prime Minister's office and Privy Council office were allocated 99 man-years at a cost of $611,000-odd. I have seen hon. members opposite and mem-
May 22, 1975

bers of the media compare that figure with a figure, say, of some ten years later, of $1,400,000, more or less, which represents a twofold increase for the PMO and $8 million for the Privy Council office. But the difference is this: in these estimates, the Privy Council estimates cover $1,260,000-odd for the Institute for Research on Public Policy, and $230,000-odd for the National Committee on Human Rights and Treaties, and so on. So you can look at each year's figures and see that quite a number of activities were brought under these estimates which previously had not been brought under the Prime Minister's office or the Privy Council office.
Actually, when I was working in one of the offices as a civil servant back in 1949, it was the custom of the PCO and the PMO to borrow civil servants, who remained on the budgets of other departments. Therefore, if people want to make a scientific analysis of this, they should ask for exact facts and compare similar things. I repeat, my office and the Privy Council office are always ready to make such facts available to those who want to make an honest comparison and not just hit the headlines.
Another example of escalation is that of the office of the leader of the opposition. It is important to note the change there. The office of the leader of the opposition on June 1, 1968, had allocated to it 13 positions. At present it has 27 positions, so that its size has more than doubled. To speak of salaries, in my case and over a longer period they have been multiplied, I believe, by a factor of three. The salaries paid for positions in the leader of the opposition's office went from $129,000-odd in 1968 to $517,000 in the present day, which is more than a fourfold increase. The same is true of the office of the leader of the New Democratic Party and of the leader of the Social Credit party. Expenditures for their offices have increased about fourfold.
Therefore, I do not think people should get too excited when I say that expenditures for my office have also increased for that period. I might say that the figures given do not include the budgets of party research bureaux. I remind the committee, with some immodesty, that it was my government in 1968 which innovated in this regard. We believed in the importance of the opposition having research staffs which would permit them to discharge their functions. Those functions are to do with the analysing of policy, of legislation and the asking of pertinent questions in the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: There has not been much result from the spending of all that money.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree.


John Napier Turner: It doesn't seem to have helped the opposition.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The budget of the research bureau of the Progressive Conservative Party went from zero in 1968 to $250,000 in 1975, which represents an infinitely large increase. Even if we start in 1969, we get $125,000 in 1969 and $251,000 in 1971; that is slightly more than double. In the case of the New Democratic Party it has more than doubled. In the case of the Social Credit party it has not quite doubled.
Business of Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman,
I realize the Prime Minister is trying to save time, but twice now he has given the actual figures for the official opposition. In the case of the other two parties he just gives the ratio of the increase. He might give those figures as well.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In the case of the office of the NDP leader, in January of 1970-and this is two years later than in the case of the official opposition- total salaries were $36,600. At present, not only have positions doubled but the salaries have increased to $147,900.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the case of the Social Credit party, in January of 1970 the figure was $28,600; at present it is $104,700.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I combine these two tables and put the salaries of the staff of the Leader of the Opposition with those of the official opposition research bureau, we go from a figure, in 1968, of $129,000 to a figure, in 1975, of $769,000.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is an increase of more than six times. It is worth while noting that this does not include the salaries of the assistants of the opposition House leader- who would probably need more but he is getting this at the present time-assistants to the former prime minister and assistants to the chief opposition whip. If you add these expenditures, you get into some sizeable amounts.


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure each member of this House has his own views of what is the truth. What I am pointing out is that the hon. member for Leeds is making fraudulent use of statistics. I hope it is not intentional.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I have been accused by the Prime Minister of making "fraudulent" use, I believe that was his word, of statistics. I consider that to be told that anything I have done in this House is fraudulent is a reflection of my character, which I am not prepared to accept. The Prime Minister this afternoon is stretching things out, not answering legitimate questions from the opposition because he wants to use up time, and making remarks about the character of members of the opposition. That is an affront to this House. A lot of members of this House are getting mighty tired sitting here listening to a man-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It is time he accounted to the Canadian people for the expenses of his office, and quickly.

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, I now come to perhaps the only important part of my long statement. It is only a question of the substance of the costs. I believe there have been general phrases put in different ways, but the accusation seems to be that in some way I am subverting the parliamentary system and turning it into a presidential one. There is curiosity about the use I seem to be making of officials. At times we hear that the officials are wielding too much power and they should be summoned before the House. I recall members opposite urging the government to fire the former deputy minister of finance who was wielding too much power. However, when the same man resigned a few years later, members opposite expressed great concern that the man had been forced to leave by an intolerant government which was not giving him any power. I am not quite sure on what leg they will dance on this particular issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will try to make some general statements on the changing role of the Privy Council office. That is the title of a publication by Mr. Gordon Robertson who was secretary to the cabinet until very recently. There is nothing secret about it. It was a paper presented to the twenty-third annual meeting of the Institute of Public Administrators, in Regina, on September 8, 1971.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I have consulted several more learned authorities on parliamentary procedure than myself on this subject.


An hon. Member:: They are all more learned than you.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I have had it confirmed that the Prime Minister used unparliamentary language in referring to me and my questions in the House as fraudulent. I therefore ask that this remark by the Prime Minister be withdrawn. I think I am within my rights to ask Your Honour to so rule.


Gérald Laniel: I must say I have also been concerned about the remark of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister accused the hon. member of making fraudulent use of statistics. I find it difficult to make a decision as to whether the remark of the Prime Minister really affects the character of the hon. member for Leeds. I have looked at references in Beauchene's to see whether I should ask the Prime Minister to at least modify his assertion. I feel this might be a borderline case, and possibly the Prime Minister could help the Chair and the committee and make a nuance in his assertion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, I think I can help you. Perhaps the words were lost, but I am sure they will have been recorded by Hansard. I said the hon. member had made a fraudulent use of statistics, but I hoped not intentionally. I think that would cover the difficulty you are facing. I thought perhaps the hon. member-


Mr. Grafftey:: How clever!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, it is not very clever, I said it quite earnestly.


I would think it unfortunate if the statistics were intentionally dishonoured in this way by anyone. It is my presumption that the hon. member is acting more out of ignorance than out of ill-will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to be presumptuous enough to lecture the Prime Minister on his responsibilities in the House, but I do suggest he has some responsibility not to aggravate-


An hon. Member:: Are you angry?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, I am angry all right, but I will have an opportunity to speak in a while; I am sorry the Prime Minister will not be present to hear me, but he can read it all. On this point, though, I suggest the Prime Minister might be gracious enough to say that he did not intend to accuse the hon. member for Leeds of intentional fraudulent behaviour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition seems to suggest that I say words which are the very ones I used. It is for the hon. gentleman to decide whether his members are stupid or dishonest; that is not my task.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: The point which has been raised, Mr. Chairman, is a very simple issue. The word "fraudulent" has one connotation, and no matter what the Prime Minister might say to skirt around it, he did make that charge against the hon. member for Leeds. The word "fraudulent" has a meaning which we understand. Either the Prime Minister stays with it, and is thereby exposed to Your Honour's ruling, or he changes that word. That is the option open to him. I might just as easily talk about fraudulent conduct in attempting to avoid questions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You often have.


Gerald William Baldwin: That would be improper and I would not say it. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman he should take this opportunity to see that proceedings in this chamber are conducted on a reasonable plane, and one way to do this would be to change the word that has been used.


Gérald Laniel: I want to be fair to the hon. member for Leeds. I quite understand the point which has been raised by the hon. member for Peace River and by the Leader of the Opposition, but I have to make a ruling on the basis of the Standing Order and the precedents which have been followed.
Citation 154 of Beauchesne's, paragraph (5), says it is not unparliamentary to say that a statement is untrue, but that it is unparliamentary to say it is untrue to the knowledge of the hon. member addressing the House.
From this I move to the explanation given by the Prime Minister. Although he stated that the hon. member for Leeds might have made a fraudulent use of the statistics,
May 22, 1975

he added that he hoped this was not done of his own knowledge, or wilfully. To my mind, this meets the requirement of the citation to which I have referred. Unless hon. members wish to carry the matter further and cite further references for my guidance, I may say that right now I am satisfied with the explanation given by the Prime Minister.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Chairman, may I state briefly that so far I cannot see how one can be satisfied with the statement made by the Prime Minister in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: He made the admission that he had used the word "fraudulently". He admits that but he adds, "However, I assume not intentionally". Mr. Chairman, "fraudulent" implies intent in every sense of the word; "fraudulent" implies crookedness; "fraudulent" implies dishonesty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I used statistics which he himself had supplied from his own office. If those statistics are fraudulent, they are fraudulent because he supplied them.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member had a chance to make his case. His arguments were well supported by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Peace River. The Chair has made a decision. The only alternative at the hon. member's disposal is to appeal the ruling of the Chair.


An hon. Member:: He might as well; it is a completely wasted afternoon.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was coming to my point. I was saying that the changing role of the Privy Council office has been the subject of great interest and learned papers by more than one person. Mr. Robertson's paper is well worth reading and I would refer anyone who wishes to understand the increasing complexity of the Privy Council office to this particular publication.
For my part, I believe that the most basic issue which has been raised by these various questions on my estimates probably has to do with the whole system of parliamentary government and the collective responsibility. Here, I speak as one with some experience because not so long ago the government previous to this one was defeated in the House of Commons on a very basic issue. Certainly, we have learned from direct experience of the responsibility of the executive to the House of Commons.
Perhaps I do not have too many things in common with the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, but at least in this we have similar experience: we were both leaders of a government which suffered defeat in the House of Commons; confidence having been withdrawn, we had to go to a general election. Surely, this is the basic principle. Mine was worse, perhaps, in the sense that our government was the first in this country which had ever been defeated on a budget.


Gerald William Baldwin: The country never had a worse budget.
Business of Supply


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The principle was the same, though, and no system under which this happens can be mistaken for a presidential system. Nor should we give way to the demands of the opposition to have officials appear before committees of parliament, because this would only be giving force and credence to the notion that it is the officials who make the policy and who are responsible for it, rather than members of the cabinet who, as a general rule, have to be elected by the people. So let me just indicate some ways in which changing times have called for an increase in the staff of my office.
Going back to 1968 when I became Prime Minister, I thought it was necessary to look at the functions of the Privy Council office and the function of the cabinet in the context of that particular time. Because of changing circumstances, not just in Canada but in other countries, government generally had entered a new phase of significantly larger involvement in the public sector. The demands on it for responding to the people were massive, but the decision-making process as it existed at that time had not kept pace with those demands in any meaningful way. If ministerial responsibility were to be meaningful, something had to be done.
After considerable and intense study with my colleagues and the officials who had to provide the support operation to the cabinet, we decided to change the system, to allow cabinet committees chaired by ministers to do the assessments and make the subsequent judgments which formerly had all been done in full cabinet. This would allow cabinet to focus on the final alternatives, knowing that the basic work and discussion had already taken place.
To change a system involving large numbers of people and ingrained methods is not easy and takes a bit of time, but there were valid reasons for trying. First, we wanted more decisions to be taken at the ministerial level. Second, we wanted to ensure that ministers had soundly researched alternatives from which to choose. Third, we wanted to aid ministers to make a conscious choice of priorities in the full knowledge of the real pressures which were being placed on their colleagues. Fourth, we wanted to extend dialogue between the ministers and officials, and not just officials from their own department. What we wanted was to let departmental concerns cross the borders of one department, with officials from other departments in these committees being subject to questions and participating in the discussions with ministers of other departments.
I have no hesitation in saying this approach has resulted in an increase in the staff of the Privy Council office, particularly in areas of planning and federal-provincial relations. It is not an abuse of growth, and in terms relative to the general annual growth in the public service it is around the norm. In fact, it has been of an order that no one could realistically suggest the Privy Council office, even combined with the Prime Minister's office, could be capable of controlling the government. I gave the figures a little earlier, Mr. Chairman.

I do not quite see why the Privy Council office is now being looked upon as something sinister by the hon. mem-

Business of Supply
bers of the opposition, at least by some of them. This seems rather strange to me since the operation and the role of the Privy Council have been made the subject-matter of studies or reports printed and distributed to the hon. members as well as to other citizens. Their authors, very distinguished men and free of any partisanship, never lose sight of the fact that in accordance with an old rule, even the highest officials must abstain from interfering with the orders or wishes of ministers. Such a rule has always prescribed that the Privy Council must be non-partisan in nature though it must be politically considerate of the government's intentions, whatever may be the government who is enjoying the confidence of the Canadian electors. The same applies in the case of any group of officers within any department.
Despite charges from the opposition, charges to which the Watergate traumatism might find some credit among the people, the government has tried to lessen the restraints imposed in the past.
Since the Cabinet was appointed eight years ago, great care has also been taken to ensure that officers do not interfere with the ministers' responsibilities. It must be admitted that the Privy Council office manages the government machinery, but its officers are not responsible for the decision making process, as some believe. They perform administrative and coordinating duties from one department to another but they do not define any policy. [English]
There is another very fundamental point I would like to make; that is, there is a very basic difference between the services given to the Prime Minister by the Privy Council office and that offered by his own staff. All too often, critics, either deliberately or without knowledge, blur the distinctions between two quite different operations. At one point in time a number of persons from the civil service, as I said earlier, were seconded to the prime minister from various departments to serve his staff. From the beginning of my government I have had such persons identified clearly as my political staff and put on my budget.
The operations of the Privy Council office, like the rest of the public service of Canada, are not based on partisan politics. They are certainly sensitive to public issues but they are committed to serve a government elected by Canadians, and indeed are necessary to it.
In accordance with well established prerogatives of the prime minister, I have recently nominated a new secretary to the cabinet and clerk of the Privy Council. He has been in the public service for more than 16 years, two of them as deputy minister. It is a fact that when I first came to public office he was already an assistant secretary to the cabinet. It is a fact that he is young and that I have got to know him well since I came to Ottawa. I had met him a few times previous to that, when I believe he was working for one of the ministers in Mr. Diefenbaker's government; but I have really got to know him well since coming to Ottawa and seeing him acting as assistant secretary to the cabinet. I do not see cause to discriminate against him for either of those reasons. The simple fact that he is a highly skilled civil servant should suffice to overwhelm the arguments of either his youth or of his acquaintance with me.


An hon. Member:: Is he better than all the rest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks if he is better than all the rest. Since I have been Prime Minister, I believe I have had occasion to change every deputy minister of every department, and I have had perhaps the pleasure and privilege of presiding over a change of generation in the civil service. I think it would be difficult to say whether he is better than all the others, because the deputy ministers who are serving in the federal civil service are very competent men and women and I would be hard pressed to know by what standards the hon. member asks the question about being better. Certainly, some are more fitted for one type of job than others. I repeat that, in the case of the secretary to the cabinet, he had been an assistant secretary to the cabinet and was obviously very competent in that aspect of his job.
Having dealt with the Privy Council office, I must now deal with my own staff in the Prime Minister's office. As a preface, let me remind the committee that the Privy Council office is totally non-partisan. Its employees are the same as any employees of the public service. My dealings with them seems to indicate to me that I am fortunate to have such knowledgeable advisers. Their assignment is to produce the expertise for any government which happens to gain power.
The Prime Minister's staff, on the other hand, is admittedly a different operation. Naturally, it is completely partisan and, I hope, intelligent. I fear it has been greatly misunderstood in terms of numbers and alleged power. Almost half of the staff for whom I have answered either in the House or in order paper questions deals exclusively with my correspondence. I am talking about, in a slow year, 112,000 letters. That is more than 300 letters a day; and I believe that, if not all of them, the overwhelming majority are dealt with and dealt with well. That is half the reason for the size of the Prime Minister's office. I believe that in the days of previous prime ministers, correspondence was considerably below that and the habit of communication between citizens and their prime minister had not developed to the same extent. I believe that all who work for me produce a service of which any prime minister would be proud. I would challenge any political leader in this country to produce a staff that would have the determination to be as objective and, quite frankly, as critical as mine.
Again, I do not want to belabour the point, but as the individual man-hours of my own staff have escalated in the past few years, the amount of assistance given to all opposition parties has also escalated, as I reminded the House a few minutes ago when I quoted the figures. If the opposition is perturbed about the Prime Minister's office, perhaps it can gain some comfort in looking at the escalation of its own budget and its own responsibilities. [Translation]
I want to make sure that all members understand exactly what I mean. That is why I repeat that, in the administration area, which includes government decision-making centres, our objective is to ensure that the responsibility of decision making is totally discharged by the cabinet, with the support, in the House, of a well informed caucus, of which I am proud, Mr. Speaker.
May 22, 1975

However, once the study of the problems and the discussions are over, the ministers in Cabinet alone can discuss them and the responsible minister alone must make the final decision. Afterwards, in the House as in the country, each minister, in his area of responsibility, and the members of the caucus assume the collective responsibility of the decision, and are responsible for it to the population at election time. Such is the foundation of our system: the daily ministerial responsibility of making decisions before Parliament and the people. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am in this House every day to explain and defend the decisions we make, and to answer the countless questions put to us by the opposition all year long.
I think that the system of ministerial responsibility is the best for the Canadian people. It prevents one group from assuming power and leaves it to those who were elected to exercise it. We have made considerable effort to improve and defend that system.
The opposition talk about the executive authority in our system being unknown or hidden away in the personage of non-elected officials. This is nonsense and they must know it. The executive in the Canadian system is, and has always been, the ministry and that ministry is present and accountable to parliament.
It is with perplexity and a degree of sadness that I see some members of the Conservative Party in this House try to establish an argument that our system and the United States presidential system are similar in decision-making processes. The two systems are so different. In the United States, the executive is the President and he is supported by ministers and officials of his own choosing. In Canada it is the ministry who are elected by their constituencies and collectively represent the executive. In the United States, the executive is not responsible to Congress; it is a parallel authority set up in a competitive checks and balances process. In Canada, the ministry is responsible to parliament and must defend itself there every day. As I have said, this government is in a position to be more sensitive to this than most, on the basis of the experience I quoted earlier.
As I understand it, some members of the Conservative Party seek to substantially alter our system of ministerial responsibility to parliament. Some do not appear to accept the responsibility of ministers to defend themselves in the House in the question period, on estimates or at committees of the House. Some Conservatives say that officials who are not elected and represent no one should be callable. It is one thing for officials to appear; but when they are speaking for themselves and not for the government, who is accountable? A minister, in this type of Conservative system, could say that the official's opinion is his own, not that of the minister. Our policy, Mr. Chairman, has been to improve and defend the system we have enjoyed in Canada for over 100 years and which has had a great role to play in preserving our democracy by making the elected member paramount in the decision-making process and accountable for his actions when he is a member of the ministry.
Business of Supply
I do not know whether certain members of the opposition have grasped the essential lessons that have led to the confidence which Canadians have in their political process. But at the same time, I ask others to think very seriously about trying to introduce procedures which have no bearing on the Canadian parliamentary system. They may make fine political headlines, but I am not at all interested in the introduction of the process of a presidential form of government. I rather suspect that those who insist I am moving Canada in that direction are doing so for whatever political reason they feel will foster their own political motives.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is perhaps all I wish to say at this point.


An hon. Member:: You have another five minutes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will give the further five minutes to the opposition. I will be pleased to answer whatever questions they may want to ask in that time.


Mr. Alexander:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I can understand that the Prime Minister, of necessity, found it necessary to make a statement, and I also understand that he has to leave at 4.30. I have no quibble in respect of what he has done. I think he knows what I am saying. However, knowing his appreciation for justice, fair play and equity, and knowing that the agreement, as I understand it, was that the Prime Minister would make a statement and that questions could be asked as a result of that statement, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would keep in mind the words I used, "justice, equity and fair play", for which he is so famous and reconsider the situation.
I understand that my House leader asked whether the Prime Minister would subject himself to questions at a later date. We understand that because of the pressures of his position he cannot be tied down and cannot give us a definite answer, but would he at least, in view of the statement and the agreement, agree that we are entitled to ask questions and that he will make himself available after discussion with the respective House leaders? Surely, Mr. Prime Minister, knowing how fair you can be, you will give us an answer right now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, in the same spirit in which the hon. member asks the question, I will certainly stay another 35 minutes and deal with whatever questions can be asked in that time. I will explain to the people whom I am supposed to meet that I have been delayed for reasons of very great importance. I would assure the hon. member that after I have left, the House leader and the officials will be here to continue to answer questions that I may not have been able to field or perhaps did not have time to receive, and then perhaps at the end of the day the opposition can make a judgment concerning whether they have more questions to ask which only I and no one else can answer; and if that should be the case I will reconsider the suggestion made by the hon. member.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, may I say we will have an opportunity to examine the Prime Minister on his estimates for less than half an hour. He tells us that we will have the views of the

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply
President of the Privy Council. I should like to say that when the President of the Privy Council appeared before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates he made the following statement:
I should explain that as President of the Privy Council I do not have responsibility for the Privy Council secretariat. I have a very small staff which attaches to me in my functions as President of the Privy Council which do not include the supervision of the Privy Council office-
In other words, the minister made it very clear when he appeared before the committee that he was there merely to satisfy our desire to have a minister for the estimates, when he in fact has no administrative responsibility whatsoever for these estimates.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that, Mr. Chairman; but surely the essence of the question is, can the opposition get answers to the questions it wants to ask? So far I know of no questions which have been asked, of a pressing nature, which have not been answered. I repeat that if there are some questions which are so private and so secret that only I would know the answer to them, I will reconsider the request made by the hon. member for Hamilton West. However, I do not believe this is the case.
I believe the consideration of estimates is an occasion when the opposition wants to ask questions about spending figures. I am sure that should be the test. Whether it be myself, the leader of the House, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader or some other minister deputizing for me, the essence of the matter is, is the opposition getting the answers to which it is entitled? Beyond that, I repeat what I said at the outset of my speech: traditionally, parliament has been very indulgent in realizing that the prime minister has many executive functions, and that particularly under the temporary system of rules we have now adopted it is impossible to plan in advance, with any degree of certainty, whether or not a minister will be called.
I think the committee should understand that, and I repeat that it should base its judgment on the simple fact of whether or not the questions it is asking are being answered. The hon. member knows that I, myself, even if I were here until doomsday or for another ten years, as the hon. gentleman from Prince Albert seems to predict, will not know the answers in respect of some detailed estimate and I will ask my officials what particular set of figures corresponds to it. This is the practice of every minister of every government in appearing before this House. That is why I need the officials; the officials can help me, and certainly can help the House leader of our party.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Prime Minister will forgive me for making some comments before I ask him any questions, because I know that if I ask him questions he will take off in another half an hour.
I said a few moments ago, in response to some comment across the way, that I was angry. I was angry with myself. I felt I had been imprudent in so far as my colleagues are concerned, because when I was consulted this morning as to whether the Prime Minister should commence first with some remarks, or whether we wanted to speak first, I thought it was a matter of courtesy that when the Prime
[Mr. McGrath.)
Minister comes into the House he should have the opportunity of leading off the discussion.
We had operated on the basis of 15-minute shots, so to speak, back and forth. I am sure the leader of the House, the President of the Privy Council, clearly understood this. I do not think it ever occurred to him-and I give him the benefit of the doubt-when he was talking to us that the Prime Minister would go on, not for 25 minutes but for virtually an hour and 25 minutes.


An hon. Member:: Abuse of the agreement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I felt I had let my side down by thinking I was dealing with gentlemen and suggesting that as a matter of courtesy, since the Prime Minister was coming to the House he should start off; but I realized a couple of minutes after he started that it would not have made any difference anyway, because regardless of whether he started off the discussion he would have chewed off the rest of the time anyway, as he came obviously prepared to do. Of course, we will have an opportunity in the evening to put some of these matters to a vote of confidence.
I want to say one or two things to the Prime Minister that I have not said before. He is here and this gives me an opportunity to do it. Others have dealt with the matter. The Prime Minister this afternoon has dealt with Stornoway and with the swimming pool. I want to say, with regard to the swimming pool and the comparison with the bomb-shelter, that I think the Prime Minister operates under two standards when he speaks about restraint. I say to him very bluntly across the floor of the House, although I have never felt it necessary to say this sort of thing to him before, that I do not think he can justify to the House, whether it be to members of this committee or to the people of Canada, the scale to which the swimming pool is being built, particularly in the condition in which this country finds itself now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Secondly, with respect to the swimming pool, I say to the Prime Minister-and I am even more serious about this point on which he touched himself- that he cannot justify the lack of disclosure of donors. He referred to the way in which Stornoway was acquired. To be frank about it-as I understand it, the NDP were not included but that is by the way-Stornoway is to be either for the leader of the Conservative Party or of the Liberal Party in opposition-the leader of the official opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will provide our own shack.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is true that the names of donors was not disclosed, and it is true that that was an acceptable practice in those days. I am sure that those who made a donation never expected to receive any benefit from it. But I say quite bluntly-and I intended to say this before the Prime Minister raised the question today-that the procedure would not be satisfactory today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It would not be acceptable to the Canadian people, particularly in view of the requirements for
May 22, 1975

disclosure with regard to election contributions. I say to the right hon. gentleman that generally we on this side of the House, and I suspect many hon. members on his side of the House, do not accept the fact that these contributions are being received from undisclosed sources. The Prime Minister should reverse himself. As I say, I think the swimming pool is of an unjustifiable scale, and I have never heard the Prime Minister attempt to justify it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Could you explain why things have changed with respect to Stornoway?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Many things have changed since Stornoway with regard to contributions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Tell us what.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The general attitude of the Canadian people toward contributions to political parties.


An hon. Member:: The elections act.


An hon. Member:: Dredging.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister had an hour and 25 minutes in which to talk. I should like to make a point or two as bluntly and as fairly as I can to him. I say to him that the procedure followed with respect to Stornoway would not be acceptable today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because it applies to you, and this one to me.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There you go. I am not afraid to say what I have to say, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, that is the attitude of the Prime Minister of this country today. He applies two standards in terms of expenditures. I say to him in all bluntness-he can argue any way he likes-the procedure followed with respect to Stornoway would not be acceptable today, and certainly the procedure being followed by him or whoever is in charge of the swimming pool operation is not acceptable to this committee and to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As to the expenditures associated with the office of the leader of the opposition and with the research budget, I simply want to say this and nothing more relating to the establishment of positions or the expenditures relating to the office of leader of the opposition: that they were approved by Mr. Speaker. I know that the Prime Minister did not intend to apply any criticism of Mr. Speaker with regard to that.
Second, I would point out to him that in terms of anything approaching the fighting of political battles on even terms, the scale is heavily weighted in favour of the government, in spite of these changes. For example, any travelling by the staff of the leader of the opposition is not paid for by the government. The prime minister can take all his staff with him wherever he wants to go. Next, with regard to research, I appreciate the fact that the research budget exists, but there is no way in which the official opposition-let alone the NDP-can compete with the government on anything like even terms so far as research is concerned. The prime minister has his personal establish-
Business of Supply
ment and the whole civil service. I say, quite bluntly, all we can attempt to do with this kind of research budget is to meet parliamentary needs for which the grant was intended. In terms of day to day and week to week preparations, and in terms of any research in depth on economic matters such as is necessary in connection with budgets, tax reform and that sort of thing, for research we have to go outside and get help on a voluntary basis.
With regard to the dissatisfaction of the opposition with some of the practices being followed by the government, I simply wish to say that the opposition accepts that members of the civil service should not come before committees to answer questions relating to confidential matters or to policy. However, we assert that committees of the House have the right to question members of the civil service with regard to the manner in which they are spending, for example, funds voted by the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We contest the right of the Prime Minister, let alone the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to say which of his officials may come before a committee if the committee wishes to question those officials. We contest the authority of a minister to decide which of his officials should come before the committee, although we willingly agree that officials ought not to be expected to answer questions relating to matters of confidentiality or policy.
One of the reasons we wanted this day was to put this point very clearly before the Prime Minister. I suggest to him it is nonsense to suggest that this is a departure from responsible government. Certainly the ministers are responsible to this House. Certainly the ministers and the cabinet collectively are responsible for policy and the development of policy; but equally, committees of this House are entitled to question people in the government service as to how moneys are being spent. That is a right we assert, will continue to assert and which in our judgment the members of the government have no right to deny.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I intend to stay within the 15 minute rule in an attempt to set an example in that respect. There is also an area of the government which does not seem to be answerable to committees at all, the area in which the Privy Council and the office of the Prime Minister operate. As the hon. member for St. John's East indicated, the President of the Privy Council appeared before a committee and said that he had no administrative responsibility for the Privy Council. I want to insist, again, that we are not asking that any official in the Privy Council office should come before a committee and discuss anything of a confidential nature, but it is very clear that no minister is able to go before a committee and discuss with any degree of competence or authority what is taking place.


Mr. Beatty:: It is like Edgar Bergen leaving Charlie McCarthy behind to answer questions.

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The House leader himself admitted that he did not have competence, that things did not come under his authority and that he would have to seek the answer from someone else and get it second-hand.


Mitchell William Sharp: That's right; just like the Prime Minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What possible reason is there for the committee not to hear from the officials rather than through some filtered version brought in, in his own inimitable way, by the government House leader?


Mitchell William Sharp: Because we are responsible, not the officials.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Ministers are responsible to the House for policy, and members of the opposition have a responsibility to the people of Canada to make inquiries relating to expenditures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are entitled to that information and I suggest that gobbledygook, talk about responsible government and distorting the concept and the principle of responsible government is no answer at all. This has become a large area of government operations. I am not suggesting that committees should be able to receive answers as to matters of policy within the office of the Prime Minister, but if a committee of the House wants to question the principal assistant to the Prime Minister on certain matters relating to administration and certain matters relating to expenditures, I do not know why there is anything improper about that and why that does not come within the terms of reference of parliament generally as to what is appropriate to inquire into.
Policy matters in the office of the Prime Minister are clearly no business of ours. I wish to make the point that ministers are exercising a prerogative of determining which of their officials may appear before committees regardless of the wishes of the committees, and the government on the whole is blocking off a large section of the government service, making it immune from questioning by government committees and attempting to justify this in terms of responsible government. I simply say that that is a complete distortion of responsible government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Before the Prime Minister made his long-winded speech which was clearly an abuse of the committee, I did not intend to say very much and I am not going to say anything more at this time. I am not going to interfere with the questioning or statements by my colleagues down the line here. But I hope that after the Prime Minister leaves the government House leader will give some justification for the failure to disclose contributions relating to the swimming pool, besides the precedent alleged in connection with Stornoway; that the government House leader will give some justification for the scope of the expenditure, and that he will agree that it is appropriate for committees to hear evidence, ask questions and receive answers from members of the public service provided that these are not in the area of confidentiality or policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr Beatty.)


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, this should have been, and could have been, a very important debate. We should be debating how the democratic system of government works in an age as complex as the 1970s. Instead, we have dealt with what may be much more interesting to the gossip columnists in regard to how much the swimming pool costs and who paid for it, which is irrelevant to the running and effective operation of government in this day and age.
We backbenchers know the pressure of work for the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and other important government officials, and if it is felt that for the well-being of the Prime Minister a swimming pool or stocking fish at his summer home is needed, I do not think the people of Canada will object. I think they would be and are prepared to pay for these things directly, without having anonymous contributors paying for them. But to me, those are not the important questions. What is important is how the system is working. Do we have an open system? Does the public know what is going on? Does the public receive the facts on which it can come to intelligent conclusions about the important questions which have to be dealt with by government? That is what is important, and not only is it impossible for members of the opposition to receive the information they need but it is impossible for the general public to receive the basic information it requires.
It is not just the Privy Council office which has grown in size; every department of government has. I have discussed this on other occasions. The number of senior executive officers grew from 381 in 1968 to 895 in 1973, the last year for which I have figures. It may have been necessary to increase the size of the senior civil service by that number, but neither the Prime Minister nor any other minister has given an adequate explanation of why it was necessary. At the time that increase was taking place the government was hiring hundreds of consultants to do studies on separate questions. Tens of millions of dollars are paid out in fees, and what happens to the studies? They become the property of the government of Canada. The research they do and the conclusions they come to are locked away in files and are not available to members of parliament, to journalists or to the general public. How can the public decide on important questions in these circumstances?
A few days ago a senior journalist of the Globe and Mail wrote a long article about development in northern Canada. He related the continuous conflict between senior officials of Environment Canada who are concerned, as they should be, about the deterioration of the environment there as we begin to use the resources, and the economic development officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I do not know, neither does any other member of the House except perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which side of the conflict holds the correct opinion. How can I know when the information on which each side comes to its conclusion is hidden from everybody?
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is the question we should be discussing, rather than the question of who paid for the swimming pool or for stocking the lake at the
May 22, 1975

summer home of the prime minister. Members of parliament on both sides of the House-that is, backbench members on the government side-do not have the same information as a serious journalist in the press gallery in Ottawa. I talked to one journalist today who told me that in the course of a year, without looking for it, he is offered the opportunity to interview at least 50 senior officials at the deputy minister or assistant deputy minister level to discuss for an hour or two the programs and policies of their departments. He can ask all the questions he wants and can use the detailed answers he gets, unless he attributes them to any particular official. Members of parliament do not have that right.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the people of Canada elect us to come here to see that the government runs the country as it should. But I say, with regret, that members of parliament have less opportunity to get the information on which to base their decisions than any good journalist in the press gallery in Ottawa-and I say that is a disgrace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: In his remarks, the Prime Minister said that we have open government. Mr. Chairman, every member of this parliament who sits on committees knows that is nonsense. At any committee dealing with the estimates of a department, which may meet perhaps ten times, the minister will appear once or twice and after that no more. If you ask an embarrassing question, the deputy minister will say-I go back to the kind of thing the Prime Minister was talking about, the so-called theory of responsible government-that the question is on a matter of policy which only the minister can answer.
Let us look at how decisions are made. There was the tax reform which we had after the Carter commission report. The business interests, the mining companies, the oil companies stood to lose a great deal if tax policies in regard to resource industries were changed. But when did they come before the government? Did they come to committee and get ten minutes for their presentation? No. They met, not just with the ministers but with deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers. They made their representations where it counted. The Carter commission said a buck was a buck no matter where it came from, and it should be taxed accordingly.
Then there was a white paper which watered down the Carter Commission recommendations. Finally, there was the tax bill which had virtually nothing in it of what Mr. Carter suggested. That is an illustration of how government really operates in this country.
Let us look at tariffs. In the last few weeks a couple of constituents have written to me because a tariff has suddenly changed. I asked a question today which two ministers said they could not answer. There are large-scale lay-offs at a rubber plant in Whitby which the union says have occurred because there has been a sharp reduction-


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: There he goes, sneaking out.


David Orlikow: -in tariffs and an increase of half a million to 3 'A million tires per year coming in from the
Business of Supply
United States. Mr. Chairman, you can be sure the people interested in making cars and tires had their say with the senior officials in the Department of National Revenue long before members of parliament ever got to them.
Let us take the discussions going on between the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour, and I do not know who else, about the so-called consensus that is sought with business, industry and labour unions. Businessmen, manufacturers, retailers and labour leaders all know a hell of a lot more about what the Minister of Finance is trying to do than does any member of parliament. Talk about downgrading parliament! That is the way it is done.
Let us take another illustration of the way the real decisions are made; that is, federal-provincial relationships. I am not talking about just the two or three meetings, well publicized, which the ministers have every year. Almost every weekend when I am on my way home I meet some senior civil servant from Manitoba who is returning to Winnipeg. I am sure hon. members from other provinces find the same thing. These senior people have been meeting with their federal counterparts in Ottawa discussing in detail some joint or shared program for perhaps health or welfare or post-secondary education or anything else you can think of. By the time these questions come to parliament, the bill has been discussed, signed, sealed and delivered and we are faced with a fait accompli. If this is a democratic system, then I do now know what a democratic system is.
That is the way the real government of Canada is going more and more-to federal-provincial conferences. I am not saying the provinces should not be consulted. I am not saying that in our federal system, with a constitution which defines the responsibilities of federal and provincial jurisdictions, that does not have to take place; I am saying that when the Prime Minister talks about open, responsible government he is talking about some never-never land; he is not talking about Canada in 1975.
I can say to the Prime Minister and the government House leader that I have learned a great deal more about what the federal government is proposing to do in many fields by talking to the contacts I have in provincial governments, both elected and civil servants, than I have ever learned as a member of parliament. It is an accident that I know these people. Most members of parliament probably do not have access to such contacts. Nevertheless, that is the situation.
The basic question which we ought to be discussing today and are not discussing is whether we believe in open government. That has nothing to do with members of parliament being slighted or downgraded, which is the case now. We ought to address ourselves, as I said, to the question of open government. I submit that unless the government is open, our society cannot be considered as being truly democratic. Yes, we have all the trappings, all the facade of democracy. But the system is not run by the prime minister or cabinet ministers; increasingly, it is run by faceless bureaucrats. They make the hundreds and thousands of decisions which must be made every day, every week.
6020

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply
I know my time is limited; therefore let me make this point. I suggest that hon. members who are interested in this question should look at the recent issue of the London Sunday Times which has printed extensive excerpts from the diary of Richard Crossman, one of the most competent and knowledgeable leaders in two of the last three Labour governments of Great Britain. They will see what he says about the importance of senior civil servants; that it is they who can make or break a program. They can rewrite a speech. Not only can they rewrite speech, but they do. Sometimes the speech a minister makes does not support his own housing policy but supports the policy of the former government.
My point is not that we do not need senior civil servants, not that we do not need government intervention in the lives of Canadians. In this complex day and age it is increasingly important for the government to become involved. My point is that we ought to, and must, have control of the system. I say the system is out of control; that the increase in the number of bureaucrats or senior civil servants is not justified; that this government has not found a way to control such growth; and that the growth of the bureaucracy is continuing and accelerating. I say that members of parliament and the public have a right to know. Instead of adopting the sort of guidelines the Prime Minister spoke about and which were adopted a couple of years ago, which simply legitimize, so to speak, the government's policy of not making public important information, I say we should look closely at the Swedish system in which every document, every state paper, every study is made public immediately unless there are special reasons why this should not be done. Those are the kinds of questions we ought to have debated today. I am sorry to note that we have not even touched on them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Chairman, I regret that because of the excessive time taken by the Prime Minister in speaking, he is not now in the chamber to answer questions which I and other members on my side of the House wish to put to him. That, unfortunately, is a typical performance by the Prime Minister who talks so much about being in the House and being responsible to members of parliament who have questions to put to him. The only time he stays in the House to receive questions is during the question period when the rules and his own particular style of not answering protect him from questions, however effective, put by members on my side of the House.
The contemptuous display by the Prime Minister today is in violation-I say this with some anger because I was involved in the discussions that I thought set the ground rules for the discussion today-of the understanding that we on this side had when we agreed to extend to the Prime Minister the courtesy of leading off. We were given to understand that he would use that courtesy, make a short address outlining some of the functions of the office which reports only to him, and answer questions. His abusing that courtesy and speaking for three times as long as he stayed to answer questions in the House shows that he is a Prime Minister who holds this House and his responsibilities to it in very low regard.


Mr. Cullen:: That is absolute nonsense, and you know it.


An hon. Member:: That was an American style
filibuster.


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to make one quick reference to the question of responsible government which was dwelt upon by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister suggested that he and his colleagues in cabinet are responsible to the House of Commons because once, on a rare occasion, he was defeated on a budget motion and an election was called. But the fact remains, and it is clear to the Prime Minister and anybody else in the House who will admit it, that there is no kind of day to day control by members of the House over the government. In a majority position they are going to do what they like until there is an election.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The government is always responsible.


Charles Joseph Clark: There is responsibility when elections occur, but that is responsibility to an electorate. I suggest that is a system which appears to have much more in common with the traditions of the United States presidential system than with the traditional system of responsible government which we have known.
I want to deal with some of the functions of those highly mysterious offices, the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office. It is noteworthy that the Prime Minister, who came here presumably to filibuster instead of to answer questions, did not even spend most of his filibuster dealing with the operation of the PCO and PMO. He spent most of his filibuster trying to answer the right hon. member for Prince Albert, even though the right hon. gentleman was not in the House, and others.


Mr. Boulanger:: He was answering questions; you know that.


Charles Joseph Clark: He put his answers on record in the right hon. gentleman's absence. But I am interested in the organization of the Privy Council office. I regret to have to come back to the minister who holds no responsibility in this. We have discussed the matter previously in the standing committee. I have read the document written by Mr. Robertson. I have read whatever else has been published on the subject and written, however carefully, about the functions of that office. I certainly understand the importance and validity of change. As times change, as needs change there is a necessity for change in the way government responds.
I recognize the need for an office performing a coordinating function at the centre of government. It seems to me, and I put this to the acting prime minister, that as the system is now arranged the Privy Council office is designed to bring in everyone but parliament. Privy Council officers come from and go back to various line departments. Ministers sit on specialist cabinet committees, but parliament has to fight to get a minister to defend the estimates. Then we get a minister before the committee who starts off by saying, as my leader and other colleagues indicated earlier, that he does not have responsibility for the estimates we are considering.
We cannot bring before us the deputy minister who does have that responsibility, and we are able to get the respon-
May 22, 1975

sible minister before us only by the extraordinary procedure of bringing on this sort of debate: he came before the committee and, in a filibuster, talked for about IV2 hours, then ran away after some lead-off remarks had been made by representatives on the opposition side. He ran away. So I say there seems to have been an attempt under the system in the past to bring in everyone but parliament. It is clear that the Privy Council office is no longer a secretariat. Mr. Robertson said, on page 18 of the English version of "The Changing Role of the Privy Council Office":
As a department provides its ministers with analysis, advice and recommendations on the objectives of the department, so the Privy Council office gives the Prime Minister information, analysis and advice on the totality of policies.
So it is not just a secretariat; it is a department like others, but has considerably more power than other departments. Following the lines and the logic of Mr. Robertson, it should be subject to regular review in the same way as other departments. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, if he has been briefed by Mr. Pitfield or whoever briefs him, how he proposes to have that kind of review on a regular basis without having to resort to this extraordinary situation where the Prime Minister comes in for a monologue and flees. How does he propose to have parliament review what is going on in the Privy Council office with at least the same regularity and scrutiny as is done with the Post Office?
I would like to serve notice of my understanding. I am very careful about this. We had an understanding that the speech by the Prime Minister would be short and that I had 15 minutes in which to place questions and receive answers. Is that correct? If not, I will list some questions.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member is seeking the advice of the Chair. The hon. member has 20 minutes. We are not operating under any special order, but the Standing Orders. I refer the hon. member to Standing Order 55(3) which allows him 20 minutes.


Charles Joseph Clark: I wonder if it would be agreeable to the committee to follow the same procedure as when the Department of Transport estimates were before the House, which allowed each member 15 minutes. I must say I was under the impression that was the case. Is that agreeable to the committee? I see heads nodding. My understanding is I will have 15 minutes, and by sitting down now to hear the acting prime minister respond I am not prevented from carrying on.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I certainly have no objection to reverting to the kinds of procedures that were agreed to when the Minister of Transport was before the committee. As I understood those rules, there were various alternatives. An hon. member can take 15 minutes and make a speech without expecting any reply. He can make a shorter speech and have the minister reply for the rest of the 15 minutes. He could use the 15 minutes for a question and answer period, with the minister's reply being part of the 15 minutes. I am certainly prepared to go along with that.
Business of Supply


Charles Joseph Clark: I hope the Acting Prime Minister will not follow in the shadow too closely of the man he is replacing and will answer briefly so I will have a chance for one or two more questions.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain that the rules that were applied when the Minister of Transport was before the committee be adopted for the remainder of the sitting of this committee. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, as I understood the question put by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, it was, what procedure should there be for a regular review of the operations of the Privy Council office? I thought that was what we were engaged upon today, and were engaged upon when the estimates were before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I have some difficulty because for the most part in our discussions so far there have been general statements and not specific questions. If the hon. member has some specific questions he would like to put to me, I have some officials in front of me who are members of the staff of the Privy Council office and they can assist me in answering.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Chairman, I thought I was putting a specific question. At least for members on this side of the House this arrangement is completely unsatisfactory because in the standing committee we cannot get the responsible minister, since that is the Prime Minister. When we take the extraordinary step of coming into the House of Commons, we have a situation where the Prime Minister talks for a long time and then leaves. I think what is going on in the Privy Council and in the Prime Minister's office, according to the testimony of Mr. Gordon Robertson and others, is sufficiently important that it should be subject to at least the kind of regular review as the estimates of the Post Office.
Let me ask the acting prime minister this: As his parliamentary secretary at least will be aware, I proposed, and it came up for debate on December 9, a private member's resolution in the following language:
That, in the opinion of this House, a committee should be selected to consider the powers, prerogatives and privileges attaching to the office of Prime Minister and to report what safeguards are desirable or necessary to secure the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the supremacy of the law.
I would be quite happy to extend that to include the Privy Council office. In light of the problem that is certainly seen from the point of view of the opposition, if there is in fact a system of responsible government, there should be some concern for the point of view of the opposition. Will the Acting Prime Minister consider establishing that kind of committee, or taking some other steps to ensure there is provision whereby parliament can regularly deal with a responsible minister on policy questions relating to the Privy Council offices without having to resort to the extraordinary procedures we have had in this case?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I do not think these are extraordinary procedures. I know the hon. member has not been in the House very long. Perhaps I might review how
29561-37%

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply
the estimates of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's office were handled in the past. When we had the old rules in the Pearson administration, the estimates were handled by my predecessors in office, the presidents of the privy council.
Mr. Lamontagne, now Senator Lamontagne, handled them in December, 1963. Mr. Mcllraith handled them in April, 1964. Mr. Favreau handled them in February, 1966, and in June, 1966. In 1967, it was the president of the treasury board who handled the estimates. Therefore, there is nothing extraordinary about this procedure. Indeed, I sometimes wonder why the issue is being raised now when it was not raised in 1968 when my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, was president of the privy council and handled the estimates.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We knew there was no use asking him anything.


Charles Joseph Clark: I take it from that recitation of past history that the acting prime minister does not intend to change this situation where we cannot get a minister before the committee and we cannot get a deputy minister before the committee. When the Prime Minister shows up, he talks for most of his time, usually irrelevantly, and then leaves. Is that the only kind of supervision the House of Commons is going to have, what the Acting Prime Minister delights in calling a responsible system, over the estimates and activities of a group which by definition co-ordinates the policy of the Government of Canada? Am I correct in understanding there is to be no change in that situation of secrecy and impossibility of direct access?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I am still waiting for the questions. I have been sitting here patiently and I have listened to arguments that we are not responsible. I am sitting here prepared to take the responsibility. I would like to have the questions put to me.


Charles Joseph Clark: My only response is that I am waiting for an answer to a question I have put three times in quite specific terms. My impression is that the answer is there will be no change in the hiding away of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's office relevant to questions about policy, and there will be no change in the situation where no responsible minister appears. I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Privy Council office is now preparing any proposals on parliamentary reform. Where are those proposals? What are they? What kinds of reform do they anticipate? What is the procedure to bring them to this House of Commons before they come here in the form of a bill, or is that being left entirely to a group of civil servants who operate some distance from this House whose rules will be effected, without any ready access by this House to them?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should remind the hon. member that as President of the Privy Council and chairman of the House committee on procedure and organization, in so far as the rules of the House are concerned I do have some responsibility which I plan to discharge. I have received excellent advice from parliament, the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and my parliamentary secretary-very

experienced men. I doubt very much whether officials of the Privy Council office have as much experience as we have, and certainly none of us would want them to bring in the reform of parliament.
It is true that from time to time I do consult with some of the people who have some responsibility to me, for example the secretary of the committee on legislation and House planning, which is one of the committees I happen to chair in the cabinet. I ask his advice. He is an experienced man who has been around for a long time. He is a distinguished lawyer and I find his advice extremely helpful. But I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that as President of the Privy Council I take responsibility in matters concerning the reform of parliament.


B. Keith Penner: I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired. Before calling upon the hon. member for St. Paul's, I should like to announce the subjects of the adjournment debate this evening: the hon. member for Vancouver South-Supply and Services; the hon. member for Northwest Territories-Indian Affairs; the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte- Transport.


Mr. Roberts:: Mr. Chairman, I have been somewhat puzzled by the debate so far, and a little disappointed.


An hon. Member:: My heart bleeds for you.


John (Moody) Roberts: Hon. members on the other side are often disappointing, and I am disappointed with their performance today. I am disappointed because I have been reading some of the articles which have been published by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. I believe, like him, that there are important questions which should be discussed in some detail concerning the role of the Prime Minister's office and of the Privy Council office. It is important that the House should understand the function of these offices in the governmental process and their relation to this House.
I was surprised, therefore, when the hon. member went off on a tangent. He complained, for example, that the Prime Minister was only here for an hour every day for questioning. Only an hour! If one goes to Great Britain one finds that the members of the British House are extraordinarily pleased when the prime minister comes into the chamber to answer questions twice a week for about 15 minutes. If one talks to U.S. congressmen or senators, as I had the pleasure of doing a few weeks ago, one finds they are astonished that the leader of the government should come into the House of Commons for an hour a day to respond to questions of which he has been given no notice. They find this difficult to believe. When they see it in operation they are even inclined to think that it is a show staged for their benefit. Nowhere in the world has a legislature more opportunity to question a leader of government than is the case here in Canada.
I was surprised, again, when the hon. member complained about the length of the Prime Minister's statement today. If the Prime Minister had come in with a statement lasting five minutes, or ten minutes, the very same member would be complaining that the Prime Minister
May 22, 1975

had not taken the trouble to prepare a serious speech for the benefit of the committee. If he had made a short speech, members opposite would have complained he had not taken sufficient time to explain the situation.


An hon. Member:: You are pettyfogging now.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member says I am pettyfogging. He is being merely petty.
There remains the question, why has there been an expansion in the role of the Prime Minister's office and an increase in the number of its staff? The same question applies to the Privy Council office. The answer is the same as the one which explains the growth which has taken place in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. The same answer accounts for the growth of, for instancfe, the office of the Premier of Ontario. It applies to virtually every government in the past ten years.
There are two reasons for the growth which has taken place. The first is the pressure of detail in government, and the second is the pressure of time. How are contemporary governments to deal effectively with the mass of detail which demands their attention and the pressures on time when proposing legislation, when proposing expenditure, when proposing budgetary policy, in societies as complex as those of today? Again, how are governments to find the amount of time required, including time for consultation with opposition parties, between ministries, with government members, with outside interests? How can the executive be organized effectively in such a way as to allocate correctly the time available for necessary discussion before coming to a decision? These are the factors which in our system lead to the necessity of providing help-


An hon. Member:: I think Parkinson understood the process better than you do.


John (Moody) Roberts: If the hon. member wants to refer to Parkinson, it is interesting that there should have been a faster rate of expansion in the staff of the Leader of the Opposition than there has been in that of the Prime Minister. Perhaps he needs a lot more help, for reasons which I think are obvious to members of the House.
There is a need for assistance. There is a need for a fusion of political and governmental responsibility at cabinet level, and at the level of the Prime Minister. We may not like this. We may feel it would be preferable to adopt the American system. But in a parliamentary system, this is where the fusion takes place, the fusion of government and political authority.
We have two instruments to assist the cabinet. One is basically political though not particularly partisan-the Prime Minister's office. It is not simply a service provided for the Prime Minister, but it is intended to assist the cabinet in its political function. The other is the Privy Council office, where expansion has also taken place, to assist the cabinet in the performance of its governmental functions.
I had hoped that the hon. member for Rocky Mountain would discuss today his theory that this expansion is leading to the presidentalization of Canadian politics. In my view, the arguments he has presented in an effort to
Business of Supply
substantiate this point, in newspapers and elsewhere, misconstrue the fundamental nature of the system which has been established. The basic difference between the operations of the PMO and the PCO and a presidential office is this-that those of the PMO and PCO are essentially staff functions; they are not executive functions but an advisory role undertaken in relation to the cabinet. To repeat, the PMO and the PCO are not executive arms.
Why is their advisory role necessary? Members may recall the words of President Kennedy when he was trying to explain how he became involved in the Bay of Pigs operation. He said: I should have learned long ago that I ought not to rely only on the experts. Any leader of government who relies upon advice from only one source will inevitably end up in trouble. The function of the PCO and PMO is to provide alternative sources of advice. The Privy Council office provides views alternative to those furnished to the cabinet through the ordinary departmental mechanism of the civil service. The Prime Minister's office provides the Prime Minister and the cabinet with a source of advice in relation to political issues alternative to that provided by the House, by caucus and by other means. The objective is to ensure that the range of options open to the cabinet is as wide as possible.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain asked why parliament is not involved in this privy council activity. The answer is that there is a distinction between the executive and parliament-between the government and parliament.
Parliament is not an executive arm. It is, if you like, the inquest of the nation. It has a right to assess what the government has done; it assesses a budget before passing on it; it assesses legislation before passing on it; it assesses expenditure-rather badly, I think-before passing on it. Parliament is, I repeat, the inquest of the nation, it is the forum for grievances and it is the method of judging the performance of the government-but it is not the government itself. That is why there is not an integral participation by members of parliament, or of parliament, in the Prime Ministerial office or the Privy Council office. They are part of the organs and structure of government. They play an advisory role in decision taking. Parliament plays its role not in decision making, but in scrutinizing and control.
What does that imply, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked for the necessity, or the difficulty, of establishing open government in Canada?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: It closes the door.


John (Moody) Roberts: I suggest to the hon: member that it does not close the door. He might find it interesting to have a look at a book by George Reedy, President Johnson's press secretary, called "The Twilight of a Presidency". Mr. Reedy discusses the problems that are inherent-


An hon. Member:: That is exactly what we mean.


Walter David Baker: It not only closes the door, it locks it.


John (Moody) Roberts: If hon. gentlemen will contain their impatience for a moment I will make the point better than they ever could, and then answer the point as they never could.

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply
Reedy points out that there are difficulties in establishing any institutional set of information arrangements around a president. These arrangements have a tendency to become themselves clogged channels, and hold the president off from the necessary range of information that he needs to come to effective decision making in relation to the problems that are before him. There is a danger, in other words, given the pressures of time and the pressure of detail-there is a danger of isolating the executive office from the political context.
Fortunately in a parliamentary system we have arranged methods of communication which side step that difficulty-which avoid a political isolation of decision making. They are relatively simple but they are extraordinarily important to the operation of a parliamentary system. The first is one which the hon. member for Rocky Mountain touched upon, and that is the question period.
Unlike an American president, the Canadian Prime Minister every day in parliament comes down to the House to listen to questions, to answer questions, to be here for an hour to respond to points which are made, without notice, by members of the opposition. Even if he wanted to it would be impossible for him to insulate himself from the currents of opinion, welcome or unwelcome, which are presented to him in the Commons.
Secondly, he has each day of each week-


Mr. Lefebvre:: It would not be so bad if they were at least good questions.


John (Moody) Roberts: Well, it is very difficult to get good questions from the opposition, but I think we should be charitable and admit that once in a while they come up with one.
The opportunity is there-and the impossibility of insulating himself from public opinion, and the impossibility of insulating himself from contact with the opposition arguments, force a Prime Minister, unlike the presidential system, to come down and open himself to the attack of the opposition on the floor of the House every day that parliament is sitting.
The second device we have, which is very important to a parliamentary system, is that of the caucus meeting. Every week, once a week, for between two and three hours the Prime Minister must open himself up to the confidential but very effective scrutiny, comments, criticism, advice and exhortations of party members. He is plunged into the middle of a team process, a political team process which makes him necessarily sensitive to the currents of opinion in the country.


An hon. Member:: That would be alright if you had a good team.


John (Moody) Roberts: Well, the Canadian electorate at the last election decided we had a much better team than that team which sits over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: The third aspect, which is of enormous importance, is the very institution of Cabinet government. It says that the Prime Minister cannot rely simply upon those throughout the nation he would wish to appoint to be his servants as the executive. He allies himself with a

group of politicians, with their interests, with their careers, and with their political sensitivity. He is the leader, the first minister of the party, but he is not a dictator in Cabinet. He operates basically in a consensus forum, and he must carry with him that group of politicians with whom he is associated.
It is simply not possible for a Canadian Prime Minister to isolate himself from the currents of political opinion, as so unfortunately has been seen to have happened in the United States under the presidential system.
I would argue that the growth of the Prime Ministerial office and the Privy Council office, to which members of the opposition have objected, is not in conflict with the responsibilities of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, but indeed enhances the latter. For the blunt fact of the matter is that one man, a Prime Minister, or even a group of men in Cabinet, are not going to be able to control sufficiently a mass of civil servants with the complexity of the problems with which Cabinet must deal, and in the detail with which those civil servants must deal with them, unless they have advisory help.
It is the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, not civil servants, who must come down to the House of Commons and persuade members in the House. They count upon the support of the House of Commons, but in turn they are the agents of the House of Commons, agents who control civil servants.
You can, if you wish, deprive them of staff and support, deprive them of the people who give them assistance, and deprive them of the advisory expertise and knowledge they require to dominate the civil service and make sure the civil service follows political direction. What you will have done is not increase the responsiblity of the government to the opposition, what you will have done is create irresponsible government. It will be irresponsible because you will have placed civil servants beyond the effective control of the Cabinet and, therefore, beyond the effective control of the House of Commons itself.
If you really believe in the responsibility of government and administration to political leadership, and if you believe in the responsibility of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister to the House of Commons, and thus to the people, then give the Prime Minister and give the Cabinet the kind of staff they need to make that responsibility effective in dealing with the civil service structure. If you deprive them of staff, assistance, and the expertise they need, you will cut them off at the knees; you will indeed make them weaker in dealing with the administration of the government, but you will not have enhanced the power of the House of Commons to control the destiny of this country.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Privy Council in a reply to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain tried to make a case for the fact that his presence here today in connection with the passage of these estimates is merely following the accepted practice of the House. He raised the question as to why this matter is even now being raised as an issue.
It is an issue because the question involves accountability, as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, and the

right of parliament through its committees to hold government departments and public servants accountable for expenditures of public funds.
Why then do we depart from the procedure that has been followed in connection with the estimates of the Privy Council office and the Prime Minister's office? It is because of the growth in size and power of the office of the Prime Minister since the present incumbent was sworn into office.
The Prime Minister has talked about a presidential system. I submit that we are being denied the right, in the context of a new rule of the Prime Minister's office and the office of the Clerk of the Privy Council, to examine the spending estimates of what is in fact now a fully fledged department of government. In being so denied, the government has set up, ipso facto, parallel power. We have arrived in fact at almost the point where we have a presidential system in this country.
We have seen the role of Cabinet ministers being diminished concomitant with the increase in the power of the office of the Prime Minister and the office of the Clerk of the Privy Council. At the same time we now have growth, in importance and in frequency, of the federal-provincial conferences of ministers-meetings of first ministers. All of these things erode parliament and the power of parliament to hold the government accountable. The government denies us the right to examine in committee the estimates of this new department of government, which was so described by the former Clerk of the Privy Council when he said, or referred to it as a department which provides its minister with analyses, advice and recommendations on the objectives of the department. So the Privy Council does give the Prime Minister information, analyses and advice on the totality of policy, and it has clearly emerged as a department of government.
That brings us to the question of why we are following this procedure today. Before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee of this House, we were denied the right to examine the Clerk of the Privy Council. We were denied the right to examine a man who is in effect, deputy minister of a department. We have the evidence of the President of the Privy Council who appeared before the committee and admitted that he had no administrative responsibility for these estimates. So we have taken the only route open to us, that of taking an opposition day for the purpose of bringing these estimates to the House and for the purpose of giving some credence to the argument put forward by the President of the Privy Council that, to say the least, it is unusual for a Prime Minister to be called before a parliamentary committee. So we arranged to have his estimates brought before the Committee of the Whole House.
In doing so we did it on the understanding that the Prime Minister would be in the House not only to explain the substantial increase in his spending estimates, and not only to explain the change in the role of the office of the Prime Minister and the office of the Privy Council but also to answer questions in relation thereto.
What happened? We had the Prime Minister here for less than two hours. A good part of that time, an hour and
Business of Supply
25 minutes, was taken up by the Prime Minister himself even though there was a clear understanding that we would be operating under the same procedure that applied to the estimates of the Department of Transport which were before the House last week. That was the understanding to which we agreed. As my leader said, we allowed the Prime Minister to lead off because the estimates are his and it is only right that he should defend his estimates, and also in recognition of the importance of the office of the Prime Minister, not realizing for a moment that he would come before the House, use up his time, and take off for parts unknown.	.
The Prime Minister should have been in the House for the continuation of this debate. He could have delegated the President of the Privy Council to represent him wherever it is he must be tonight, or he could have delegated the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council, because there is nothing as important as the function of this parliament in that every minister, whether or not it be the Prime Minister, must be accountable to parliament for the spending of estimates.
It is rather interesting that one can trace the growth in the expenditures and power of the office of the Prime Minister to the new rules adopted by the House when parliament in 1968 gave up the right to withhold supply, when we gave up committee of supply and our traditional rights under the British parliamentary practice. At that moment we lost control of the public purse, and at that moment we had the growth begin in the size and expenditures of the Prime Minister's office and the office of the Privy Council.
Then following that we had the regional desks. What happened to them? We know what happened to the roster system whereby ministers were denied the opportunity to go to the House daily to be accountable during the question period. We also had the economic advisory committee or the finance advisory committee that was set up with ultimate and parallel power to that of the Department of Finance. All these things concern us. This is the reason why we wanted to have the Prime Minister in the House today.
We do not want to talk about chandeliers and ash trays but rather the real gut issue, which is the fact that the Prime Minister and his office now wield power while accountable to no one. Under the present system the Prime Minister has power and authority and is accountable to no one. Clearly we have the emergence in Canada of a separation of the executive from the parliamentary system. We now have the Prime Minister's office wielding power at federal-provincial conferences. We have the emergence of the federal-provincial secretariat. Hardly a month goes by when there is not a federal-provincial conference of some kind, and of course we have the annual conferences of first ministers. All of this is in keeping with the emergence of the Prime Minister's office and the fact that the office is no longer accountable to parliament.


John Mercer Reid: No longer?


James Aloysius McGrath: No longer accountable to parliament. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will explain why the Prime Minister is not in the House today to answer questions on his estimates?

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, I think the short answer to that is that the government told the House of Commons a year ago-


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary will have ample time to speak on his estimates and perhaps he will explain to us how it is that the estimates of the Prime Minister's office have increased over 40 times in the past ten years. Perhaps he can also explain to us the growing practice of the government to hire outside consultants, a practice which has even found its way into the office of the Prime Minister and the office of the President of the Privy Council. There is an item in the estimates of $1 billion this year for consultants.
I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council a question concerning security. We are now told by the former President of the Treasury Board, the present Minister of Public Works, that every department of the government now has within its estimates funds dealing with security. Perhaps he will explain the role and function of the officer for security planning, and what kind of budget he has.
He might tell us what the relationship is between this function and the communications branch, for example, of the Department of National Defence. Perhaps he will explain the relationship of this security planning officer to the RCMP. To whom does he report? Exactly what are his functions vis-a-vis these other security services I have mentioned. Also at the same time the President of the Privy Council might tell the committee exactly how much of the funds within the estimates are allocated for security purposes about which this House has no knowledge.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should begin by giving a rather general description of the functions of the Privy Council office and quote from the document that has been referred to with such admiration by various spokesmen for the other party, that is, the paper on the changing role of the Privy Council by Gordon Robertson, who at that time was Secretary to the Cabinet. He said some interesting things about the role of the office of the Privy Council which refer to security as well as to other matters, and I will deal with that after I have dealt with the general principles.
Mr. Robertson at page 19 of this paper said this:
The Privy Council Office operates no programs and administers no projects except those which are related to its own housekeeping. Administration and action are with the departments. It is the minister who is responsible and his department that acts. The Privy Council Office remains aware and is frequently informed or consulted, but enters the game only if inter-agency operation is required where a 'neutral' can provide a co-ordinating service or where there is a requirement for counsel and assistance that can only be provided by those with a general view.


Charles Joseph Clark: Quote from page 15.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I could quote some others, but this is sufficient to illustrate the role of the Privy Council within the government. In the case of security that is its function. It is a co-ordinating function. It provides a secretariat to the cabinet committee, and when necessary it takes a co-ordinating role in seeing that the various activities in this field are co-ordinated, and of course if the matter gets to the cabinet committee it acts in the secretariat capacity.
[Mr. McGrath.)
It never takes the lead. It is a co-ordinator, just as are other members of the staff of the Privy Council office.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Privy Council has just described virtually to the letter the function and the role of the co-ordinating security planning committee of the Department of the Solicitor General. How can he explain the duplication?


Mitchell William Sharp: Quite simply, because there are various departments that play a role in security, the Department of the Solicitor General, the RCMP, the Department of National Defence, and various other departments. The hon. member must remember that all departments have a security function with respect to their own papers and to their internal security. That applies to the Privy Council Office as well as to all departments.


James Aloysius McGrath: The President of the Privy Council has told the committee that the security division of the Privy Council Office is primarily a co-ordinating function relating to all departments of the government. This has been the explanation given to the House by the Solicitor General of the role of the security planning group within that department. Now we find we have two co-ordinating security planning groups. Perhaps the President of the Privy Council will answer the part of my question dealing with the cost of the so called security co-ordinating planning division within the Privy Council Office.


Mitchell William Sharp: I repeat what I have said, that the Department of the Solicitor General has the responsibility for the co-ordination of security in so far as police are concerned; it does not have responsibility for the security of the Department of National Defence or of the Department of External Affairs. These are very special problems. There are occasions when it is necessary to co-ordinate all the security activities of the government, which is the function of both the committee and of the supporting staff of the Privy Council Office.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I would now like to deal with another phase of the responsibilities of the PCO and PMO, particularly as they affect parliament. I am speaking now of the role and the emergence of the federal-provincial conference as an intricate, permanent structure in our governmental system which was never provided for in the constitution. I will say that it is to the credit of the President of the Privy Council that he has expressed concern over the erosion of the power of parliament vis-avis the estimates of the government, but I would like to ask him if he can tell the committee whether there are any plans to involve parliament in the federal-provincial process which has now become a separate and alternate function of government. If so, perhaps he will tell us who is responsible for the liaison between the functions of these federal-provincial conferences and parliament, and how far parliament will be involved in that aspect.


Mitchell William Sharp: When the estimates of the Privy Council Office were before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates there was some discussion of the role of one of the functionaries within the Privy Council Office, namely, the secretary responsible for the organization of
May 22, 1975

federal-provincial conferences. At that time it was explained that he had nothing to do with the policy side, that he was concerned with the physical arrangements, with the calling of the meetings in response to decisions made by the various provincial and federal ministers, for the secretariat, for the translation facilities, and for hospitality. There is, however, as the House is well aware, a secretary now, Mr. Gordon Robertson, who has assumed a new function of secretary for federal-provincial relations. This illustrates how important this aspect of the work of the government has become.
In so far as the control of parliament is concerned, it is exercised over these activities just it is exercised over activities that do not involve agreements between the provinces and the federal government. Perhaps I could illustrate one way in which parliament controls, that is, through the approval of legislation. For example, on the Order Paper there is a bill which will alter the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. That bill will come before parliament, and the financial arrangements between the provinces and the federal goverment will be discussed in parliament and approved before we can enter into an agreement to amend the agreement which underpins the revenues of those provinces that have less than the national average income.
There are agreements such as the informal arrangement that has been made regarding the price of oil. These matters were debated in the House v/hen we had a discussion on the Petroleum Administration Act. There are agreements relating to health and welfare. They are concretized, I might say, in the various expenditures to pay part of the cost of hospitalization or medicare. These are approved by parliament when the estimates of the department which enable the Minister of National Health and Welfare to carry out these undertakings are approved by parliament.
So it seems to me that parliament does exercise the same control over federal provincial arrangements as it exercises over any other activity of the federal government, whether such activity results in an agreement with a foreign country or with a province, or whether it is something that is undertaken unilaterally by the federal government itself. I do agree with the hon. member that these arrangements are of growing importance.
There is no doubt that there has been a considerable revolution in the last generation in the relations between federal and provincial governments. I can look back in my career to a time when arrangements with respect to the finances of the provinces being supported by Ottawa were undertaken in relation to the emergency of the war. These have been transformed into extremely large expenditures by the federal government to underpin the revenue of those provinces which happen to have less than the national average income. I do submit, however, that I do not think any additional scrutiny is requred. When I look at the federal-provincial arrangements that are made it seems to me that all of them have been made pursuant to the approval by parliament either of the expenditures or of the underlying legislation.	.


James Aloysius McGrath: Before you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the minister did not answer
Business of Supply
a very important part of my question in which I asked how many departments have hidden within their estimates votes dealing with security. Perhaps later on when we resume the session he might be inclined to identify these departments.


B. Keith Penner: May I remind the hon. member for St. John's East that the time allotted to him has expired.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this evening.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Fox:: Mr. Chairman, since 3.15 p.m. this afternoon, we are going through a so-called allotted day. As it is its right, the opposition has decided to discuss the estimates of the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office. Had little Alice been here today she might have thought she was back in wonderland where things seem to be what they are not, where grotesque borders on ridiculous, where reality hides behind myths, which are in turn passed for realities when realities are passed for myths.
The purpose of this allotted day is to discuss the estimates of the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office for this year. Listening to the learned opposition spokesmen, we find that they have in turns shouted very loudly to say that they have a basic right to ask detailed questions in order to apply a tight control on public expenditures. But this having been said, what are the fundamental questions which may be put? Frangois Villon used to say, in his old refrain:
But where are the snows of yesteryear?
One might wonder, this debate having started as it did: But where are the questions of yesteryear? Yes, there is a clamor that the privilege of putting questions is being repressed. But the fact remains that all questions must be put if the opposition so wishes. But when it comes to putting specific questions our Don Quixotes opposite seem to transform themselves into whispering "dons". We have heard much rhetoric but few pertinent questions.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) surpassed himself when he said the Opposition exercises no control over the daily activities of the government in this House. That would constitute a terrible if not terrifying admission of weakness on the part of the Opposition. I suspect, however, that the hon. member's words went beyond his thoughts. In fact, the situation is entirely different. The Opposition knows to what extent it can delay implementation of a government legislative program through dilatory tactics. One need only look at the facts: For how long has the Opposition delayed the creation establishment of a national petroleum corporation? For how long will it continue to do so before the committee of the House considering this bill? We do not know. For how long will the Opposition continue to block the passage of
29561 - 38

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply
the antitrust act, to prevent conglomerate exploitation of Canada's consumer markets? When I hear the Opposition say things like that, I really think I am in wonderland, where white means black and no means yes.
Mr. Chairman, the basic error of the Opposition is to consider that they are Parliament. This is a false equation. Parliament is all of us, on both sides of the House. And when an act is passed by a majority of members of Parliament, that means the Canadian people in its wisdom wanted it to be so.
De Tocqueville said in his famous book Democracy in America:
Governments must govern.
And it is precisely what the population of this country expects. Of course, the Opposition must be strong, intelligent, efficient, and play its role fully. However, it is time for modernization in this honourable chamber, so that governments, whatever their political stripe, might present legislative programs which would really meet the wishes of the people, and have them accepted. I fully endorse the idea that debates should be limited, that once the Opposition has had the opportunity to express its views, the matter should be settled democratically, without delay, by a vote. I always wonder what is the use of hearing 30, 40 or even 50 speeches on practically the same subject. The parliamentary system in England has made much progress in that respect. Why should we refuse to avail ourselves of as modern a parliamentary system as the English have? Some seem to consider it an honour to make the House of Commons as little efficient as possible.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain asked a question to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). He asked in particular whether the Privy Council Office was preparing draft reforms of the parliamentary system. The form of the question seems to imply that were it so, such work would be fatal and condemnable. For my part, I deeply wish many people, both inside and outside the government, were interested in the matter. I would be particularly disappointed if the matter of parliamentary reform were one the Prime Minister did not care about. However, the Opposition seems to say that it would be disappointed to know that such is the case.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) launched a serious attack, a so-called serious attack, against the Prime Minister's Office. He believes that the Prime Minister's Office is used for the setting up of a parallel power structure which would turn the parliamentary system into a presidential system. The prime minister himself dealt with that question in the House earlier today. It is enough to know that the prime minister was here this afternoon, that he was willing to answer questions during more than half an hour, even though no question has been addressed to him, to conclude the contrary.
One is not a good observer . . .


James Aloysius McGrath: The Prime Minister did not give us the chance to ask any question!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He did not answer any question, he left the House!


Francis Fox: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is saying that the prime minister did not answer questions at that time, and he is right because the members of his party refused in a way to ask him any question during that period.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I dislike interrupting a very dull speech but I think for the record it should be noted that what I indicated is that the Prime Minister did not stay around to answer questions. He took an hour and a half to give another dull speech and then departed on the pretence of having to go some place- I think he really had to go some place but it was a planned effort on his part to see to it that no questions were asked of the government House leader.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With the connivance of the government House leader. His credibility is zero.


Francis Fox: Mr. Chairman, of course the hon. member failed to note certain facts, for example, that it was at the request of the Opposition that the prime minister proceeded that way, and he could have been here to answer the questions and, indeed, he was here during half an hour. But there is no need to continue the discussion on that matter because in my opinion the facts are clearly on the record and particularly in today's Hansard.
Mr. Chairman, to return to what I said before that interruption which might not be irrelevant but surely is not relevant, the hon. member for St. John's East stated that he believed that the Prime Minister's Office was used to set up a parallel powers structure which would turn the parliamentary system into a presidential system.
But one does not have to be a very keen observer to note that the main feature of the Trudeau government has been to set up machinery and structures which would allow the men elected by the people to govern for a period of four years, to really control the huge federal bureaucracy instead of being controlled by the system.
When one considers objectively the cabinet committee system described by the Clerk of the Privy Council which the hon. member for Rocky Mountain referred to this afternoon, when one considers the funds made available to all federal parties for research purposes, when one considers the funds made available to members in order to help them do a better job, one can only conclude that there is a real effort to ensure that members of parliament, and that includes the government, can fulfill their task better.
Listening to the opposition, one rather has the impression that they seek a weakening of the Canadian executive. Would that really be in the interest of this country? For my part, I do not I think so. We need a strong executive to face the problems of contemporary society. And I think there is no incompatibility at that level. In our system, it is a challenge to be met so as to have both a strong executive and a House of Commons that can still fulfill its task.
The hon. member for Saint John's East also talked about the roster system.
May 22, 1975

Here again I must differ in opinion with the hon. member. Sometimes I wonder what is the point in having all federal ministers in the House every afternoon of the week when several are never asked any question during the oral question period.
We certainly wish to have a Cabinet composed of ministers able to assume their duties. We should once more rationalize our procedures at that level and make sure that when those ministers will be in this House we shall have questions to ask them. As I said, we certainly have some lessons to learn from the question periods in the British legislature. Every member of the Procedure and organization committee who visited Westminster in January could realize that the questions asked were becoming more and more relevant and knowledgeable as during an oral question period, the questions were put only to one or two ministers. And in fact, the system seemed to function very well there even though their population is much larger than ours and obviously their problems are quantitatively if not qualitatively more numerous than ours.
This afternoon we also discussed the federal-provincial relations and in that respect, I think that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) raised a very important point in our system. And this is one of the reasons why I am so pleased to see in the estimates that the government tries to improve the whole situation concerning the federal-provincial relations. For some parties in this House, those relations consists only of presenting in this House the views of the provinces. Some do not stop asking the government why it does not agree to the view of such or such provincial minister. And eventually we forget the role of Canada's Parliament, the role of the national parties, we forget that national interest must override local interest.
This is why I am so pleased to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) give so much importance to the whole area of federal-provincial relations particularly by appointing a senior official who is held in high respect by everyone in our country to take charge of the Secretariat for federal-provincial relationship of the Private Council Office.
Mr. Chairman, this more or less sums up what I wanted to say tonight. I would like to conclude by asking the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) a question relating to one of the items of the estimates of the Privy Council Office and to the management, or rather to the funds which were made available to the Public Research Institute established by the government during the last Parliament.
Hon. members will remember that this organization was set up following studies undertaken at the request of the government and carried out by a man who later became the adviser of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and it is definitely an organization from which a lot is expected. I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council could tell us when we can expect that institute to really start its operations and start issuing the kind of reports and work which are expected from it, and which the government had in mind when they accepted the implementation of the Ritchie report.
Business of Supply


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I understand the question relates to the Institute for Research on Public Policy. This institute had as its first director Mr. Ritchie, who is now in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. It is getting under way now. It has recruited some staff and its headquarters are in Montreal. It is hoped it will get under way with some project in the field of research and public policy in the next few months. I should perhaps remind the House that the institute now has fairly large sums of money at its disposal as a result of contributions from various companies, and also from the governments of Ontario and Quebec. It has had a total fund available from non-federal sources of $1,245,000. The government has undertaken to match the contributions that are made over the next seven years up to a total of $10 million.
I think the short answer is that this institution, which we think will make a useful contribution in advice to all of us in parliament, including the government, will shortly be producing some papers and some studies.


Gerald William Baldwin: I understand that Mr. Ritchie did not have a strong enough stomach to stay that close to the Privy Council office.
'


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Chairman, briefly because of the time constraint due to the Prime Minister's penchant for filibustering his own estimates I wish to direct questions about the office and duties of the Prime Minister's principal secretary to the government House leader. I remind him that the office is powerful and prestigous. One of the predecessors of the principal secretary-I mean the present Minister of National Health and Welfare-said on page 27 of a lengthy paper he presented on September 8, 1971, entitled, "The Changing Role of the Prime Minister's Office":
The principal secretary is the Prime Minister's chief of staff and main personal political adviser... he provides the Prime Minister with advice on a variety of policy matters and fulfils any assignment that the Prime Minister decides to give him.
He went on to say:
.. . with the approval of the Prime Minister, he may attend any cabinet committee meeting.
That approval, I suggest, gives him a unique opportunity to gain access to confidential and important information, and gives him powers and prerogatives equal to and sometimes greater than those enjoyed by cabinet ministers.
I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister some questions. If he cannot answer tonight, perhaps he will take them as notice and answer another time. First I wish to ask a question concerning the guidelines concerning conflict of interest as set out by the Prime Minister, I believe on December 18, 1973.
What attempts did the Prime Minister make to ascertain whether Mr. Austin met the criteria set out in the statement of guidelines for public servants who are order in council appointees? Was any investigation carried out by the Prime Minister or anyone on his behalf? If so, by whom was this done? Also, did the Prime Minister cause his principal secretary to take an oath under the Oaths of Allegiance Act, or any other statute or regulation, which
29S61-38'/2

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply
would require the principal secretary to cease any solicitor-client relationship which might exist by virtue of his outside legal practice?
As I said a moment ago, it appears that Mr. Austin has access to most delicate information which, if he were to carry on any sort of solicitor-client relationship, as he ostensibly must have done when practising law, could involve or appear to involve him in a conflict of interest. I am not suggesting that it does, but I should be happy to hear some elucidation of this point.
Also, did the Prime Minister require his principal secretary to cease absolutely any outside business activity related to the practice of law or otherwise, and devote his full-time duties to the Prime Minister's office? Those duties should be extensive.
I interject at this point, because it is topical, a reference taken from the Montreal Gazette of today's date. Mr. George Radwanski, a noted columnist, has written an article under the headline, "PM painfully vague on questions vital to Canada."
I ask the Acting Prime Minister to take as notice and answer now or later, the question raised by Mr. Radwanski about the Prime Minister's vagueness: can he assure us that the PMO and PCO have been doing the type of job in providing policy input which would justify the extreme expense of these offices to the taxpayers of Canada? Although I wish to ask three or four other questions, perhaps the Acting Prime Minister can answer the questions I have already asked.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, some aspects of the hon. member's questions I cannot answer tonight. I will certainly see that they are brought to the Prime Minister's attention, because only the Prime Minister may be in a position to answer some of them. I remind the hon. member that Mr. Austin had been a deputy minister. He took all necessary oaths. He made all arrangements about conflict of interest that are required of deputy ministers. It is my understanding that this, of course, continued when he became the principal secretary to the Prime Minister. I cannot answer some of the other questions unless I converse with the Prime Minister, but I will take them as notice. May I suggest to the hon. gentleman, who already has some questions on the Order Paper with respect to Mr. Austin, that the questions he has asked are the kinds of questions which also should be put on the Order Paper.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, perhaps because of my own lack of careful preparation, I have been experiencing difficulty getting some of these questions put on the Order Paper. I will have to be more circumspect. I hope that the questions I have asked, placed on the Order Paper, and others I intend to put on the Order Paper in future will be answered promptly, and I hope the hon. gentleman will expedite the answers also to the questions I have raised tonight.
May I ask the Acting Prime Minister some more questions? Will he take up with the Prime Minister the question as to whether the Prime Minister is aware of some correspondence emanating from the Prime Minister's office. That correspondence contains the telephone number and address of the Prime Minister's office, and the

name "J. Austin Q.C," appearing as a letterhead. There is, for example, a letter dealing with Hearne Coppermine Explorations Limited and related matters, involving a dispute with the Department of National Revenue. If the Prime Minister is aware of this, does he feel that Mr. Austin has been following the proper course of action? Has he given sanction for his principal secretary to act as his own tax counsel and lend the prestige of the Prime Minister's office to this sort of activity?
I ask this because, as the letter appears to indicate, there is a substantial dispute involving the Department of National Revenue, and Mr. Austin appears to give the Prime Minister's telephone number and his office address, which indicates that Mr. Austin is in a very special position indeed, in dealing with any dispute with the Department of National Revenue, the sort of position in which many other taxpayers of Canada would like to be.
I do not want to be too hard on Mr. Austin. In view of Mr. Austin's obviously high opinion of himself, as reflected in his public statement that he received his Q.C. for merit as a lawyer, and in view of the glowing report attributed to the Prime Minister by Mr. Austin in an article in the Financial Times of Canada dated May 20, 1974, to the effect that the Prime Minister, "had a high opinion of my judgment and enjoyed the work that I had done with him in the energy situation," can the Acting Prime Minister assure the committee unequivocally, either now or in future, that the Prime Minister is completely satisfied that the principal secretary falls squarely within the guidelines which he and the late Prime Minister Pearson set out for public servants, and that the secretary enjoys the same confidence and esteem in the Prime Minister's mind as be obviously does in his own?
It would be better if he were to make that profession regarding confidence and esteem of his own volition instead of having Mr. Austin do it on his behalf. It would reassure us and the people of Canada to be told that the secretary, who enjoys extraordinary prerogatives, is completely and utterly devoted to his public duties, that he does not have any outside interests, and that he is not continuing to practise law or do anything which would detract from his substantial responsibilities as the Prime Minister's principal secretary.
Talking about the Prime Minister's painful vagueness on questions vital to Canada, Mr. Radwanski, in the Montreal Gazette article previously alluded to, said:
In short, the government has given the impression of regarding consensus on any issue as something that exists or doesn't exist, rather than something to be actively created and shaped.
In view of the observations of that knowledgeable columnist I hope the Acting Prime Minister can assure us that men like Mr. Austin, who enjoy extraordinary prerogatives, remuneration, and prestige, are making an active contribution which will justify the type of responsibility they have been given.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I have now received information which I am sure will satisfy my hon. friend. I am assured that Mr. Austin is subject to exactly the same conflict of interest guidelines as ministers, and has fully
May 22, 1975

complied with them. These require us to be completely free of conflict of interest. The same guidelines apply to Mr. Austin and he has complied with them. On the other question the hon. member has put, I am not quite sure whether it is in order to ask questions that are already on the Order Paper. However, this question about the correspondence paper and about the telephone will be answered in due course.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question, if I have the time. Is Mr. Austin the individual or one of the individuals who drafted, assisted in drafting, or otherwise participated in the creation of the government guidelines to be observed by public servants concerning the conflict of interest situation? Did he have any input? Did he make any contribution toward the formulation of those guidelines?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I am sure quite a number of people were consulted. I do not know whether Mr. Austin was one of them. However, I can assure the hon. member that it was the ministers who worked on this problem for many hours over many days in an attempt to work out conflict of interest guidelines for themselves. They also participated in the preparation of the green paper which is now before the standing committee and which, I understand, is receiving a good deal more support now than before, when it was not understood.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued earlier to hear the assertions by the government spokesman that it is unfair for us on this side to refer to the mutations which are taking place at the level of the Privy Council office and the Prime Minister's office and to refer to the evolution of a presidential system in Canada. Frankly I find myself somewhat in support of the government's position.
One need only look at the relevant differences between what is happening in Canada today and what is happening in the United States to recognize that the two situations are not comparable. In fact in the United States the position of the president vis-a-vis congress is substantially different from that of the present position of the Prime Minister of Canada vis-cl-vis the House of Commons.
In the House of Commons we do not have any of the checks and balances written into the American constitution. In the United States the congress has the right and responsibility to confirm the appointment of officials chosen for high government positions. In Canada the government refuses to permit appointees to appear before committees before they go on the payroll. We had a case recently where we wished to interview the proposed vicepresident of the CBC who, in time, will become president. The government refused. There was the invocation of executive privilege, or something similar to that. There was a refusal to allow the Clerk of the Privy Council to appear before the committee. That is one distinction between the Canadian and American system.
There is a difference in budgeting. Everyone who watches the United States knows that congress vetoes the budget proposed by President Ford. In Canada, when it comes time to stand up and be counted, the Liberal majority puts down any attempt to substantially modify the budget proposed by the executive. The same applies to the legislative program of the government. In the United
Business of Supply
States the president's legislative program is subject to change by congress. Such is not the case in Canada. Time after time when it comes down to the crunch, the Liberal majority will stand up and support, however disagreeable it may be, whatever it is the government had proposed.
I cannot cite any higher or better authority with regard to the attitude of the Liberal government concerning the role of parliament than that which was written by an obscure Quebec writer in February, 1963, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who said:
I would have to point out in the strongest terms the autocracy of the Liberal structure and the cowardice of its members.
Such is certainly the case when it comes to the legislative program of this government.
We have seen the difference between the United States and Canada with regard to legislative oversight in security and intelligence gathering institutions in the two countries. In the United States at the present time there are three different commissions or committees looking into the subject of intelligence gathering and security in the United States. In Canada we have discovered that the government deliberately presented to parliament estimates in which security items are hidden and which are misleading when people look at them to try to determine the substance of the items. To date the government has refused to let us know what items in the estimates are honest items and what items are not.
Then, of course, there is the behaviour of the Prime Minister today. One after another members opposite have gotten up to talk about how the Prime Minister has a responsibility to answer questions in this House. We saw a pretty good example today of the Prime Minister's contempt for parliament.
The Liberal members told us about the need for the Prime Minister to be here for question period. The Prime Minister was not here for the question period. He was busy writing speech notes which would take an hour and a half of House time which would have been available for parliament to scrutinize his estimates. He then proceeded to read his monologue into the record. He then took off, refusing to allow parliament to scrutinize his estimates.
The differences between the two systems are quite acute. What concerns me is that the position of the member of parliament in Canada, with this arrogant and overwhelming majority that there is at the present time, is considerably less than the position of a congressman in the United States. As a consequence the rights of the Canadian people are less than those of their counterparts in the United States.
I wish to ask a number of short questions of the minister. Perhaps it will be possible for the minister to give short answers as well. First, is the minister prepared to make available to members of the House of Commons a list of those items which do not have security items hidden within them so that we know which estimates are honest estimates and we will know on which ones, when we are voting on a non-security item, we are also voting money for security items?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, when the estimates of the Privy Council office were before the miscellaneous esti-

Business of Supply
mates committee this question was raised. I had a little discussion with some of the opposition members on that committee. I undertook to raise this question with my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, who had previously offered to give some material on a confidential basis. The response I received from the minister was that he would like to talk to me further about it. I undertook to the committee, and I again undertake, to try to work out some procedure whereby the information can be given without revealing any secrets which would harm the national security. However, I can give one assurance-


Gerald William Baldwin: Here he is.


Mitchell William Sharp: The minister is now coming in. However, may I say there is nothing in the estimates we are now considering that is hidden in any way which relates to matters of security.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Perhaps the minister can explain what is the budget for this year in terms of the cost of two groups within the Privy Council office. The first one is the assistant secretary to the cabinet for security and intelligence for his group. What are the details of the budget? Also, what are the details of the budget earmarked for the assistant secretary to the cabinet for emergency planning?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, in the office of the secretary who is concerned with the cabinet committee on security and intelligence, there are four bodies.


An hon. Member:: Bodies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Four officials. That is the extent of the expenditure.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The minister says there is nothing hidden in the Privy Council estimates. How much money is allowed for this fiscal year for those two groups? If he gave an honest answer to the committee, he can certainly answer the amount of money allocated for those two groups.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could go on to some other questions and this will be worked out. There is nothing secret about it. It means having to get their up-to-date salaries and working out for the hon. member how much that amounts to in total.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister what are the responsibilities of the assistant secretary to the cabinet for security and intelligence and the assistant secretary to the cabinet for emergency planning with respect to monitoring-and I am choosing my words very carefully-either directly or indirectly the peacetime activity of groups or individuals the government feels could become involved in future civil disorder? As background, I would bring to the attention of the minister the fact that following the FLQ crisis Lieutenant-General Dare was asked to prepare a study on the enhancement of crisis handling capability within the federal government structure, which recommended setting up part of this machinery. One of the responsibilities was to anticipate possible civil disorder and make contingency plans accordingly. I wonder if I might have the answer now.


Mitchell William Sharp: There are no such activities within the Privy Council office. There is nobody who acts in a capacity such as outlined by the hon. member.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Has the hon. gentleman read the report which was prepared, and is he aware of the section in it which suggests it would be valuable to set up procedures whereby social disturbances in Canada can be anticipated? One of the statements in the report reads as follows:
In Canada, the systematic use of indicators is not being fully exploited, nor is there much evidence to suggest that indicators are being employed systematically in other countries. On the other hand, at least some of the relevant factors are considered informally in the process of ongoing social research and analysis.
A survey of current research on the prediction of social conflict using quantitative methods revealed that none of the methods studied could as yet produce reliable predictions. However, it is considered a promising area of research and it is concluded that studies should be pursued within the Canadian context.
What has been done in respect of this recommendation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I wish to assure the hon. member that this is not one of the functions of the Privy Council office. My understanding is that this is a responsibility specifically assigned to the Solicitor General.


Henry Perrin Beatty: With respect to the transfer of activities of the CBNRC to the Department of National Defence, what is the nature of the activities of CBNRC? Is the information gained related essentially to defence matters, or is it related primarily to the Department of External Affairs and the responsibility of the Solicitor General with respect to security?


Mitchell William Sharp: There are some questions which I believe it would be inadvisable to discuss in open session, and security is one of them. I have spoken to my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, who is seatfed beside me and he agrees it might be advisable to give certain information to some members of the House who could treat the matter in confidence so that it would be clear that the government is not engaging in nefarious activities or anything of that kind. But I hesitate to discuss security matters in committee of the whole.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, this matter was first raised fully two months ago and an undertaking was given at that time. Mr. Speaker suggested we might leave the matter until we returned after the Easter recess to see what had developed. Why has the government not consulted with the various House leaders in the course of the last few months in an effort to provide for a parliamentary oversight of security and intelligence organizations in Canada? Why was the minister personally one of those who refused to give unanimous consent to a motion under Standing Order 43 proposed by my hon. friend from Rocky Mountain and seconded by myself, which would have made provision for parliamentary oversight?
I have a further question to ask. It relates to whether the Prime Minister or the Minister of State for Science and Technology was giving correct information to the House of January 10, 1974. The Prime Minister was asked about the existence of a four-party intelligence treaty
May 22, 1975

between the United States, Britain, France and Australia. Hansard reported him as saying:
If the hon. member is referring to the specific treaty called UKUSA, the answer is that we are not party to such a treaty.
On March 24, in the committee on miscellaneous estimates, I asked the Minister of State for Science and Technology the following question-the committee report reads as follows:
Is there to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Minister, an agreement referred to as the UK-USA agreement which would affect the activities of the CBNRC.
MR. Drury: There is an agreement, a security agreement, involving a number of countries including Canada and the U.S.A., but it is not a bilateral agreement solely.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Would it include the United Kingdom as well? Is that what the U.K. in UK-USA is from?


Mr. Drury:: You are correct.
And now I should like to ask the hon. gentleman this question: does Canada participate in an agreement with other countries with respect to the former CBNRC, which has been referred to as the UK-USA treaty? I am asking whether we are party to such an agreement.


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a matter which does not refer to the activities of the Privy Council office. Perhaps it is a question which could be addressed to a minister who does have some responsibility. I did not come prepared, and I have no officials here who would have this information.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I would remind the minister that it was the Prime Minister who was asked the question respecting UK-USA and who gave an answer. Was it the Prime Minister or the Minister of Science and Technology who gave the correct answer? I hardly need point out to the Acting Prime Minister that ultimately as far as national defence is concerned the buck stops at the desk of the Prime Minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: I must agree that the Prime Minister does bear general responsibility as the head of the government. Nevertheless we are now dealing with the estimates of the Privy Council office, and the hon. member's question does not relate to his responsibilities as being in charge of that office. If the hon. member is addressing a question to me as Acting Prime Minister, as one who for the time being is head of the government, that is a different matter. I have to take the question as notice. I am advised by my colleague who sits beside me that both answers given are correct-that they are not mutually inconsistent. There is perhaps some confusion in the mind of the hon. member. But the question here is one which might well be put on the Order Paper and answered fully and accurately, and not on the spur of the moment during an occasion such as this.


Henry Perrin Beatty: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he or the Prime Minister would be prepared to make available a list of figures showing in percentage terms the growth or decline, on an annual basis, of Canada's security budget since the Prime Minister took office? I am not asking that the figures be disclosed.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take that request as notice. I think I would need a somewhat better definition of security. After all there are officials concerned with security in each of
Business of Supply
the departments-they look after the security of their documents, of their personnel and so on. If the hon. member can give me a clear definition of the information he is seeking to obtain I would be happy to try to get it for him.
May I take this opportunity to answer a question which was asked a little earlier as to the costs of certain activities in the Privy Council office. The cost for this year in respect of officers in the security and intelligence secretariat is $135,000, and for the emergency planning secretariat the cost is $91,000.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity tonight of taking a few moments of the committee's time during this debate. Like many others I was greatly impressed by the Prime Minister's contribution this afternoon. Day after day we sit in this House and listen to the inane submissions of hon. members such as those of the hon. member for Leeds, with his persistent questioning of the facilities of the Prime Minister's residence.
The Prime Minister came to the House today and openly, at a justifiable length of time, gave a resume of the facilities placed at his disposal by the taxpayers, along with some of the improvements he has been making, many of them as a result of the generosity of Canadians who are anxious to honour him and future Prime Ministers with the gift of a swimming pool.


An hon. Member:: They want to join him in the pool.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: We hear some loud interjections, Mr. Chairman, but on balance I think everyone on this side agrees that seldom has Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition put up a more lame response than we heard this afternoon after the Prime Minister sat down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The Prime Minister was accused earlier of not daring to come to the House and submit himself to questioning, and that he did not dare answer any of the questions. After he had made a fulsome speech, one that almost everyone was interested in hearing, he listened to the leaders of the opposition parties, as per his undertaking, and then left the House only to have the hon. member for Rocky Mountain say he had fled the Chamber. Anyone who knows the Prime Minister will know that it would take a better man than the hon. member for Rocky Mountain to make him flee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: It is important to recognize that the Prime Minister gave a resume of the areas that were necessary in order that he could deal with several comments by the hon. member for Leeds. Unfortunately he felt compelled to give that resume, partly because of that hon. member's persistent interventions, but mainly and quite rightly in order to deal with that famous speech of not so long ago by the right hon. member for Prince Albert in which he took

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply
grave exception to some of the expenditures made on behalf of the Prime Minister's residence.
The Prime Minister was able during his speech to give both an appropriate explanation for some of the points raised, and an accurate response. He reminded the right hon. gentleman, though he was not here, of some of the alleged extravagances that could more appropriately be laid at that right hon. gentleman's door. He referred specifically to the acquisition of a number of acres of land for his personal recreation, the stocking of lakes, and the building of a bunker in the backyard of 24 Sussex Street, all of which were creations of that right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.
I realize, of course, that hon. members opposite were more concerned with those aspects of the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert that dealt somewhat savagely with their own leader. In any event the Prime Minister came to the House with a response in areas that were of minor relevance as compared to the heavy burden he carries. We would all agree that the Prime Minister gave a very adequate, dignified, and appropriate response. I was gratified when the hon. member for Winnipeg North stated he felt like most Canadians, that this convenience of amenities for our Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition were entirely appropriate and in keeping with the dignity and size of this country. I join in that sentiment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not want to be put in the same category as the Prime Minister in terms of facilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I think the Prime Minister submitted more adequate and factual evidence to show that the extravagances of the Leader of the Opposition's office were somewhat greater in proportion than those of the Prime Minister's office or the office of the Privy Council.


Mr. Andre:: Wrong.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: "Wrong", says the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who was not in the House.


Harvie Andre: Yes I was, and your figures are wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: At least we presented good figures.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I hear the interjections of, I suspect, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. When I think of that hon. member I am reminded of the time I lived in Calgary and the chinook breezes of hot air that blow in from the coast through the Rocky Mountains to warm Calgarians, and I often feel we have a transplant of that in this House here.


Gerald William Baldwin: How many years did you spend in Calgary?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: There are some facts about the Prime Minister's workload that should be pointed out to those who are so ready to criticize him for having a large, active, and

hardworking staff. One must realize that the Prime Minister receives some 115,000 letters a year, or approximately 100 a day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He should, and we know why.


An hon. Member:: And he reads them all, too.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: He reads a lot of them. One must remember that, almost unique among democratic leaders in the world, he sits in this House daily and is asked, to this date, in this session over 500 oral questions, most of them from my limited experience of very marginal value.


Walter David Baker: Your experience is limited, you were right the first time.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: If I have had one experience in this House-


An hon. Member:: We have heard this speech before.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: You may have heard it before and you are going to hear it again. The series of repetitious and inane speeches that come from members on the opposite side come in large part from the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. Notwithstanding the fact that the expenses of the Prime Minister are proportionately less than those of the Leader of the Opposition, he carries a heavy burden acting as head of the government party, head of the executive, and leader of the parliamentary party. I do not think any member of this House would begrudge the Prime Minister an adequate staff to carry out this heavy workload.


An hon. Member:: He is not carrying it out, and that's the point.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Those of us who have served even for a limited time in this House realize the heavy burden carried by the Prime Minister of this country. I would say in fairness that the Leader of the Opposition also carries a heavy burden, but the largest part of his burden comes from carrying those hon. members who sit behind him. The fact is that his party has been graced by a substantial sum of money for research purposes. Like most of my colleagues I was stupefied by this sum of money for research, particularly when I related it to the kind of ill-informed questions directed from across the aisle. I hope and expect in the future that the Leader of the Opposition will recognize the largeness of this sum and see that some of the product of this research is conveyed to hon. members opposite in order that their questions might have some relevance or some content in the future.
I should like to say one or two words about the problems which relate to the consideration of these estimates, and I am thinking of the rules of parliament and parliament's effectiveness. I think many Canadians feel there is a need for improvement in the performance of this House. I think many of the rules which some hon. members have been travelling abroad to learn about should be introduced at an early stage.
It is true to say that many departments of government today are loathe to submit needed legislative reforms
May 22, 1975

because of the delays that would result at the hands of members of parliament and parliament itself. I do not think that this is necessarily the result of a lack of will, either on the part of parliament or individual members, to improve the performance of the House. However, I believe there is an essential need to prove to Canadians that parliament is a relevant and dynamic body which, if it does not pass laws like a sausage machine, which it is not supposed to do, at least gives valued consideration of the judgments made by the government, and in due course passes into law or rejects all relevant items.
I think a pretty good example of the problem faced can be demonstrated by the work being performed now in the Committee on National Resources and Public Works. Those of us who are on that committee have been subjected to a wearisome filibuster that is in main caused by a haranguing opposition of the committee. It is a deliberate attempt to prevent parliament from dealing with the issue. After having spent some eight sessions on clause 2 of Bill C-32, it was a matter of great surprise and chagrin to hear one of the members of the committee, I believe the hon. member for York-Simcoe, whine to the committee that we were unable to deal with the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources because of the constant preoccupation with the Petro-Can bill.
We have not yet passed clause 2 of this bill. Every conceivable attempt at an intervention has been made. Every shade of doubt possessed by hon. members opposite on this committee has been expressed. Despite the recognition of that fact they have persisted in taking up the time of this committee by a filibuster which is doing nothing for the people of Canada, and particularly the people of western Canada who are waiting for this legislation and the establishment of a national petroleum company. The fact is that it is this kind of display of shabby cynicism on the part of opposition members on these committees which creates a doubt in the minds of the Canadian people about the validity and viability of the parliamentary institution.
Rather than spend time chastising the Prime Minister for taking an hour to explain his estimates, and rather than whine about the fact that committees are not able to study the estimates, I suggest that hon. members opposite look into their own hearts and see whether many of the defects they see in the parliamentary process today are caused by their own obstinancy and their own unwillingness to recognize that we have a job to do, and that it will not be answered by the kind of performance we have had today, yesterday, and the day before on the Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will simply say again that I urge the Leader of the Opposition to release some of the data which his highly priced research staff is grinding out, and to spread it among his colleagues so that we may receive a more enlightened performance from them in days to come.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I first want to take the committee into my confidence and advise it that I have tabled with the Chair, and have given to my hon. friend the government House leader, and my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, notice of an amendment which would have the effect of precipitating a vote at the expiration of the allotted time.
Business of Supply
We are asking that the Privy Council estimates, Vote 1 in the amount of $18,484,200, be reduced to $17,600,000. That represents in round figures the equivalent of an increase of 12 per cent over the same estimates for 1974-75.
I hope the significance of that will not have escaped members on the government side because it gives them a chance to put into practice the voluntary restraint of 12 per cent that the Minister of Finance has been talking about.
Without in any way derogating from the capacity and ability of many members of the Privy Council staff, if the confusion, the mess and the problems we see coming out of the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office today are an indication of the result of the huge expenditures made, we think it would be a great thing for this country if the estimates were reduced by this amount.
It is not without significance that the people the government has put up so far to debate this matter, with one exception, the hon. member for Mississauga, are hon. members who have been spawned out of the civil service at one time or another. I refer to the government House leader, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, the hon. member for St. Paul's, and one other. Oh yes! How could I have forgotten the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister admitted he had played around the periphery of the public service. He was there just long enough to have gained some of their ingrown defects but not their virtues. The defence put up has been a professional defence by government professionals. I detect a trace, on the part of the government House leader, of a desire to escape from the coils of the civil service which encased him for so long and, if God gives him enough years and if he lectures enough times in this House, he might yet become a reasonably adequate parliamentarian.
Before I get on to asking some questions, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that much was made by the Prime Minister, during the time he graciously vouchsafed to give us, about the amount of research staff provided to the opposition parties, and I include other opposition parties. However, the Prime Minister conveniently forgot to say that the Liberal caucus receives a grant of $260,000, and that the departmental expenditures, including the Prime Minister's staff, for salaries and wages total $3.6 billion. That is what those people over there get.
I say through you Mr. Chairman, to the members of the committee, that that is what they get for doing the kind of work they should be doing in connection with their duties in this House of Commons and elsewhere. Yet the Prime Minister comes in here and whines and whimpers about the amount of money being allowed the opposition parties for research staff. I must say that at first I was a little concerned about the way in which the Prime Minister conducted himself today, after having what I thought was an understanding that he would make a reasonably short statement such as to permit adequate questioning in this House on his estimates. The Prime Minister deliberately took a long time, and showed his contempt for members of this House and parliament. He spoke for an hour and 25 minutes. He did this deliberately so that we would not have an opportunity to question him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was almost fraudulent.

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I think this shows the kind of man the Prime Minister is. Clothed in the imperial purple he has condescended to come down and talk to hon. members, not to answer questions. No one is allowed to question him; he is above that. I know hon. members will say he comes to the House for 40 or 50 minutes and answers questions, but no 10 per cent of the questions asked are answered honestly and in a straightforward way. That is how he conducts himself in response to these questions.
The second point I want to make is that significantly the Prime Minister started off his speech this afternoon by saying he would not get into the petty details of the candelabra, the ashtrays, and all these things. Yet he spent most of the time on the defensive with regard to these matters. It is the Prime Minister who opened up the attack on the swimming pool today, and it is the Prime Minister who spoke about the speech made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. This shows he is very sensitive and very much on the defensive with regard to these issues. I suggest to members of the committee that when they come to read the speech of the right hon. gentleman tomorrow, they will find that it shows a guilty conscience, and that is the reason he made that speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: My leader asked the President of the Privy Council a question with regard to examining witnesses. I would like to repeat that question and have it answered straightforwardly and squarely. Is it the view of the government, is it the view of the Acting Prime Minister, does he support the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in their position that civil servants are not competent and cannot be compelled to be witnesses, that unless they receive permission from their ministers they cannot appear before a committee, and that if they do appear before a committee with the consent of the responsible minister they can only answer such questions as the minister or the Prime Minister allows them? That is an issue of the very important jurisdiction of parliament. Here is parliament, the highest court of this land. We rank above all other courts. The right to summon witnesses, the right to question those witnesses, is paramount to the exercise of our jurisdiction.
Does the government take the position that we can summon ordinary citizens, we can call people off the streets, we can call presidents of unions and presidents of corporations, but civil servants are sacred and cannot be summoned unless with the consent of the minister? That is a question that I put to the minister in the hope that he can reply to it later.
My second question regards the matter of secrecy. I hesitate to say this, but it must be said that in many ways this House has become the House of lies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, there are a lot of "oh's" on the other side. I am not saying they are deliberate lies but a distortion and an exaggeration of facts, a suppression of the truth so that private members, not only members of the

opposition but members on the government side, have lost the capacity to challenge the government on issues of the day, to question government members and receive honest, sincere and complete answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources talk about responsible government. They have a distorted idea of responsible government. Responsible government to me, to my colleagues, and to most members of the House I think, means a government that is answerable to parliament, to the people. It does not mean that if a government is elected and happens to have a majority, as this government does, it is answerable to nobody. I suggest that if that is the kind of rule, then we might as well wrap this House up and forget about it between elections because it is meaningless, useless.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am the first to recognize that we cannot expect the government to answer questions about everything. I have admitted that in the House, and in the committee which is seized of the private member's public bill which I have put forward and which also deals with the question of guidelines. There are areas of confidentiality dealing with security, with criminal investigations, and with matters on which information is given to the government, such as under the Income Tax Act, which should not be made publicly available. I am the first to accept that. But what do we have today?
We have a set of guidelines which are all embracing. I challenge the government to point out any loophole whereby it would be possible for a question to be asked and for the government not to find security in hiding behind those guidelines. They are wide and comprehensive enough so that the government can say it does not need to answer the questions because of this or that particular guideline. Not only that, but who sets the standard, the yardstick?
What is the criterion as to whether or not a question comes within those guidelines? It is for the government to say, and it has used this over and over again. It says, "In our opinion this question contravenes the guidelines which we set, and therefore we will not answer it". That is not good enough. As I say, I have a private member's public bill which is before the Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments Committee where we are dealing with these guidelines.
I should like to put the following questions to the President of the Privy Council. Have the Prime Minister and the government laid down instructions that under no circumstances will members of the Privy Council office or the Prime Minister's office be allowed to have access to members of the press and have interviews or answer questions?
Second, given the statements some years ago by the Prime Minister and the present Minister of Finance, then minister of justice, as to freedom of information, will the government say that it is not categorically opposed to and will give favourable consideration to the introduction of a
May 22, 1975

bill which will define with some degree of accuracy what information can be given and what information is to be forbidden? That is the only way in which there can be a satisfactory conclusion to this issue.
Third, does the government intend to be the sole arbiter of what the public, parliament and the press can be trusted with in the line of facts, or will it leave that to legislation which this House will pass?
Will the government House leader answer the first question I raised, whether it is the categorical assertion of the government that civil servants can be forbidden the right to appear before a parliamentary committee at the whim and discretion of a cabinet minister or of the Prime Minister?


B. Keith Penner: Just before recognizing the President of the Privy Council I wish to draw to the attention of members of the committee that the rules that we have adopted for this committee call for a summing up by the minister and by a spokesman for the opposition. I wish to seek the guidance of the committee as to whether this part of the rules which was adopted earlier is to be waived, or whether the committee wishes to abide by it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, on the particular question you have asked let me say that in view of the fact that the Prime Minister made a statement at the opening, which was not provided when we had the Minister of Transport before us, I would certainly not ask for the right to sum up at the end, but I would like to answer the questions that have been put to me.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I say I agree with the President of the Privy Council, but for another reason. The day we were dealing with the transport estimates we made an interim House order regarding the length of speeches which were to be in units of 15 minutes. Another issue was the right to sum up. When today my friend, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, dealt with this he left completely out of the proposal the question of summing up. That was not intended and is not part of the arrangements made, and I think the President of the Privy Council confirms that.


B. Keith Penner: For earlier proceedings these were the rules adopted. Is it agreed that this part of the rules be waived?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to deal briefly with some of the questions put by the hon. House leader of the official opposition. First I would like to say a word about the speech given by the Prime Minister at the outset today. Listening to him I felt that this was finally an opportunity for the Prime Minister to deal with the issues which had been raised on so many occasions across the floor of the House by the hon. member for Leeds and the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, and to which the Prime Minister never had a previous opportunity to reply.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Business of Supply


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought he used the time to excellent advantage, and if there were complaints about it I suggest to hon. members opposite that if they are interested in the office of the Prime Minister, and not in the trivia of the chandeliers and ashtrays, they should not ask so many bloody questions about them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Who raised it first?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Your credibility is zero.


An hon. Member:: That speech was a direct contradiction to the understanding, and you know it.


Mitchell William Sharp: When there are trivia in questions I think it does the opposition good to see how much time they wasted and how much time the Prime Minister had to waste today in answering these silly questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: If that is your attitude, you've had it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You are through.


Walter David Baker: We've played games with you long enough.


Charles Joseph Clark: Does your word mean anything?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: The question of officials is a major one which certainly is worth a little consideration. There are different ways of looking at this question. We on the government side feel that the ministers have responsibility both for policy generally and for the administration of affairs. Therefore in asking officials to come before committees for cross-examination, the question arises as to who is responsible. Is it the official, or is it the minister? We have taken the view, and it has certainly been pressed upon us, that when officials do things or do not do things, it is the minister who takes responsibility, not the officials. It is possible to separate these matters, but if officials can be brought before the House and cross-examined, of course one must relieve the minister of the responsibility for their actions.


Walter David Baker: Tommyrot.


Mitchell William Sharp: Members of the opposition must make up their minds which way they want the argument to run. Do they want ministers to be responsible for administration and policy, or do they want to relieve us of part of the administrative responsibility? This is the argument going on in the United Kingdom today.


Gerald William Baldwin: Charles I lost his head over that.


Mr. Muir:: You are going to lose yours, Mitch.


An hon. Member:: To the Senate, Mitch.


Mitchell William Sharp: There is a separate question which has been raised by the House leader of the official opposition, and

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply
that relates to the summoning of officials. I have never in my experience seen a committee which did summon an official to appear before it, and that does raise a question whether, if a minister objected and the committee then required his attendance, that would raise issues with which I am not quite sure how to deal.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, I was chairman of a committee back in 1962 which summoned the then secretary of the Privy Council to appear before it.


Mitchell William Sharp: If the minister did not object to the official appearing, that is perfectly all right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: The only question which arises is whether a committee may summon an official contrary to the wishes of his minister who is taking responsibility for his actions, and in these circumstances, since I have never seen a situation like this, I treat it as a hypothetical question. I remember on one occasion one of my predecessors in office, Jack Pickersgill, saying when that question was put to him, "I think the minister would have to resign." Perhaps that is the answer, but at any rate it does illustrate the point-


Gerald William Baldwin: It's worth considering.


Mitchell William Sharp: -that it is the responsibility of the ministry for administration as well as for policy.
In regard to the first of the questions put by the hon. member for Peace River, perhaps I could read from a memorandum to the Privy Council staff on press interviews. This was the procedure to be followed:
"Press Interviews" here mean the type of interview at which the employee is identified personally, in the same sense that an article signed by him or a public statement would identify him. No member of the PMO-PCO will give such interviews on matters relating to their work, unless with the specific authority of the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet and/or the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Those are the instructions, and I think they are wise because I think civil servants should be anonymous and should act within the authority of the government, and since the ministers take responsibility they must be able to guide them in their relations with the press.
As to the questions about secrecy and information, the hon. member for Peace River and I have had some exchanges on this subject. In general I think we are both trying to move in the same direction. He has given me credit for believing that it is important to this parliament in order to discharge its responsibility to have as much information as possible. That is the principle this government is following.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member for Peace River has put his finger on the difficult question of how to determine when the government is giving all the information which can safely be given. I have examined that question, and my hon. friend has, too. I am not quite sure that we came to the same conclusion. My difficulty arises in trying to place upon somebody else, a judge or some "irresponsible" per-

son-and I put that word in quotes-who does not have to be responsible for the consequences of the action-how do you place a responsibility on an irresponsible person for the consequences of the revelation of information which the government considers should be treated confidentially?
That question is very difficult to answer.


Gerald William Baldwin: You give judges the right to try people for their lives and to try cases involving millions of dollars.


Mitchell William Sharp: I suggest that is a different question. The question for a government is what kind of information can be safely revealed without hurting innocent people or damaging national security? We have to take responsibility for the consequences. I do not see how we can pass that responsibility on to an irresponsible person.


An hon. Member:: Are members of parliament
irresponsible?


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope we are working in the same direction in trying to give as much information as possible to parliament.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Chairman, this has been an interesting debate. I regret that I had to leave the House at 3.30 to go into a committee, but it is an interesting debate because one gets a concept of how members view their work, and how they view the Prime Minister and whether he is God or whether he is answerable to this House.
At three o'clock this afternoon the Prime Minister came to the House to make his speech. He appeared to be a petulant, spoiled boy after having done some dirty tricks, coming to his mother, speaking in quiet tones with his hands quietly clasped in front of him, as he pleaded with his mother that he had really done no wrong, he had not really meant to hurt anyone, to do any dirty tricks, to throw sand at some little girl, or do something like that. That is the way it appeared to me, just a petulant, spoiled little boy appearing before his mother hoping he would not be scolded too harshly.
He did not feel that he should be answerable in any way for this place. In fact in the time that I stayed to listen to him he deliberately tried to distort some of the figures furnished by the research offices of this party and his own party as to the amount allowed for expenditure on parliament.
It is interesting to listen to government back benchers discuss their concept of parliament. When the Prime Minister set up the regional desks there was a great rumbling from the back benchers of the Liberal Party. They complained that the regional desks were usurping their role in parliament and if they wanted to find out something they had to consult the regional desks because they could not find anything out from the departments. They have got over that, and now accept their role as trained seals.
There was not a member of the NDP in the House all evening until just now when the member for Winnipeg South Centre came in. It is nice to see that the defenders
May 22, 1975

of democracy and the sanctity of this place grace it with one member-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, I was not sure which one should rise first, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre or myself. I am the member for Winnipeg North Centre who happens to have been in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs arguing about pensions.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was in the House. That party has led people to believe that it is the protector of democracy and protects the sanctity of this House, but it has only put up one speaker in this debate and its attendance has been poor.
In his speech this afternoon the Prime Minister went to great lengths to point out that in the past 12 years no other prime minister has had to do what he had to do today and that he thought a prime minister should not be called to task for his expenditures. It is well known throughout the country, Madam Chairman, that this Prime Minister is the greatest traveller we have ever had-


Mr. Coates:: Since Marco Polo!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But he had the gall to complain that his expenditures were going to be examined. He complained about the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert about his expenditures. Some 15 years ago when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was prime minister he took a trip around the world. He took his brother and his wife on the trip, but he paid his brother's expenses. That was thoroughly examined by the House of Commons at the time, however, as it was felt to be the sin of all sins for the prime minister to travel around the world and the sin of all sins to take his brother along.
The present Prime Minister would go to the moon if he thought there was somebody there he could talk to, or if he could do a little skiing. There are plastic skis now and you can ski on sand, so perhaps he could ski on the moon and do as well as in some of his world travels. According to some of the writers who were on the two week junket to Europe, the Prime Minister spent 20 hours talking to people and the rest of the time skiing. It is well known that the Prime Minister has enjoyed the role of world traveller-


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, having been with the Prime Minister on that trip I would tell the hon. member for Crowfoot that if he wants to accompany the Prime Minister on the next trip I will attempt to arrange it so that he will see there are more than 20 hours-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would be glad to accompany the Prime Minister but I am not very good at scuba diving although I am in pretty good physical shape, and it is a long time since I did any skiing.


An hon. Member:: You could ride an elephant.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the Prime Minister wants to try other occupations which can be just as much fun, that is fine. I
Business of Supply
have taken up golf since coming to Ottawa and I would gladly go on a trip with him with that in mind. If he wanted to go into the game of calf roping that ranchers play I would gladly go on a trip and show him how it is done, but I suggest that he should be a little careful there. He might not be in good enough shape to do that.
I want to speak now about parliament, Madam Chairman. The hon. member for Mississauga gave his ideas of what parliament should be doing when he spoke earlier. He said that parliament should not grind out legislation, but he felt we should pass it a lot quicker than we are doing at present. It is well known that parliament has been working on legislation. The hon. member spoke about Petro-Can. Bill C-32 was submitted to the House. The next thing was that the minister announced he had 24 amendments, and before we finished with the bill he added I do not know how many more. The hon. member took some part in the debate on Bill C-2 and I do not know how many batches of amendments the minister glued into that bill. It would be a sin if parliament were to pass legislation without examining it, especially if the government has not even drafted it carefully.
This afternoon in the Standing Committee on Agriculture we passed a bill-after the department and the minister had introduced three or four amendments to it. That was the minister saying, "This is what I meant to say; we should put this amendment in". The opposition felt the amendments were improvements to the bill. We quite often assist in bringing forward amendments; this is our role and our duty, and is not foreign to parliament.
There has been a great deal of talk about the waste of time in this House. Parliament is not here to grind out legislation, Madam Chairman; the function of parliament is to exchange ideas and develop thought. How much time has this House wasted on the economy of the country? Very, very little. Most of the legislation on the Order Paper does not deal with the economy. The Minister of Finance has appeared on nearly every platform across Canada telling the people that we are in dire straits; he is worried about the balance of payments problem, about inflation, and is trying to reach some kind of consensus. Why has parliament not dealt with this matter in past months?
The government has not been concerned with the economic well-being of the country although it has been concerned with nearly everything else. The Prime Minister views Canada as some kind of a stopping off place where he can check in once in a while before flying off to some other spot in the world. That is the way he views Canada. He is not worried about the economy of Canada and never has been; he is worried about some of the social concepts in Canada.
The Montreal Gazette ran a full page article a couple of days ago on an interview with the Prime Minister. He was reported as saying "Let's get away from the mechanics of running the country". He does not even want to worry about the mechanics of running the country, Madam Chairman. He has the printing presses printing money.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River is exactly on point. Let us lower the expenditures of the Prime Minister's office to an increase of only 12 per

May 22, 1975
Business of Supply
cent over last year. That would be an example to all governments in Canada.
Total government expenditures in Canada increased by 48 per cent this year, as compared with last year. It is small wonder there is inflation, given that kind of government expenditure. To me, neither the government nor parliament have been concerned enough about the economy. If it were the business of the opposition to initiate legislation, we should have talked much more in this House about the economy of the country. But our role is not that of initiating legislation. That is the government's role. We try to change legislation, improve it, or interpret it in such a way that the legislation will meet conditions existing in the country.
The government is busy setting up all sorts of little authorities or bodies which are to be active inside or outside parliament. For example Bill C-2 is to set up another commission, Bill C-32 another board, and Bill C-50 another council. In addition the government now has appointed four Whips. Recently the fourth Whip was appointed in the government party. I noted an announcement in a western Canadian newspaper saying that the hon. member for Assiniboia is now the fourth Whip. To me that would be a degrading position. I would not bother writing home and telling my constituents I rank as number four.
This afternoon in committee, the hon. member for Mississauga moved a motion which he was good enough to refer to the steering committee. He proposed that a member should be allowed to speak once, for ten minutes only in committee.


An hon. Member:: A good idea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If that is the concept of responsible government-


John Napier Turner: You have one more minute to kill, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And I don't need any help from you. If that is the concept of responsible government, it is pretty shady. Surely that is not the concept we have adhered to in the past 100 years. Why, it would not be worth a member's while to walk into a committee if he could speak only ten minutes. He could not even earn his pay in ten minutes. How can you examine legislation in such a short time?
The Prime Minister spoke about the research bureau of the Conservative Party and suggested he is worried about the quality of questions. I wonder what the government party does with its $260,000 in research funds? In committee all I hear government members say is, "Pass it, agreed, shall clause 1 carry, shall clause 2 carry, pass it."


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 9(a) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings.

The hon. member for Peace River gave notice of his intention to propose an amendment to Vote 1 of the Privy Council estimates. His time expired before he could formally propose his amendment to the committee. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 58, subsection 9(b), it is my duty at this time forthwith to put the amendment to the committee. Accordingly, the hon. member for Peace River moves:
That Vote 1 of the Privy Council estimates be reduced from $18,484,200 to $17,600,000.
The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) negatived: Yeas, 71; nays, 91.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall Privy Council-Vote 1 carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.
Privy Council-Vote 1 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in, on division.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT-SUGGESTION AMENDING BILL INCLUDE PROVISION FOR SINGLE PERSONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), we now have a short grievance period before us. When I staked out a claim the last time to raise a grievance the next time around, so to speak, I did not realize that the basis for raising a grievance would occur this very day. I say to the government House leader that I will not use all of the time available, in the hope that I may be given a favourable reply. This afternoon, when we were-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Maybe we should proceed in the same way as the last time, which was by consent, to make sure the requirements are met. There has been no real change in our procedure. Although this grievance procedure was accepted the last time, it was by unanimous consent. I think we should pursue this approach until a decision is made by the House to modify the Standing Orders. Is it agreed that we proceed with the grievance procedure as we did the last time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, to those who are trying to say no, may I remind them that if they tried to call it ten o'clock, some of us might say no. Some business has to be done during these ten minutes, so it might as well be my grievance.
This afternoon when we were dealing with the future business of the House I asked the government House leader how soon we could look for the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act, which has been promised for some time. The government House leader replied, I think using
May 22, 1975

the word "immediately". I took it the bill would be tabled today or tomorrow.
The government House leader has since sent word to me that the bill has not been finally drafted and, therefore, it will be a few days before it is presented. I am not complaining about that. In fact I welcome the fact that there are those few days. I hope that in those few days the government will consider a point some of us have made a number of times.
I understand that the proposed bill is to include what was promised in the Speech from the Throne, namely, a pension under the Old Age Security Act for a person between the ages of 60 and 65, if that person is the spouse of a person who is already 65 or over and hence receiving the pension, the whole arrangement to be subject to an income test. However, it is quite clear from what has been indicated to us thus far that the only persons between 60 and 65 who will be able to get a pension under this proposed amendment are those who are spouses.
I plead once again the case of single persons, spinsters or bachelors. Likewise, I plead the case of widows and widowers. To offer to pay a pension to persons between 60 and 65 who happen to have a spouse, but not to pay that pension to a person in that same age bracket who does not have a spouse is a case of unfair discrimination. It will lead to endless trouble and difficulty. There will be women or men of a certain age getting a pension. Others of the same age who are out of the labour market and who are in need will not get it.
My grievance is that thus far the government does not appear to have paid attention to our pleas in this connection. I urgently plead with the government. I am glad to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) here at this time. He is back from the same committee I was attending earlier. I plead that, between now and the filing of that bill, it be made a pension at age 60 for all those out of the labour market, not just for those few who happen to be spouses of pensioners.
I hope, too, that the question of an income test will be reconsidered. In other words, in the two or three days that are yet to elapse before the bill is introduced, I hope it will be improved along the lines that some of us have been arguing for a long time.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member once more returns to a theme he has already dealt with a number of times previously. This government went to the electorate a year ago and made commitments to the electorate. One of these commitments is specific: we will help spouses in cases where both pensioners would be forced to live on one pension. We said we would solve the problem; we were committed in the Speech from the throne to introduce a bill effective October 1st 1975. That bill will be introduced during the coming days and I hope, with the cooperation of this House, that it will be in force on October 1st 1975.
I repeat that we have a commitment to the electorate. This government was reelected, it honors its commitment to the electorate, and the bill to be introduced will meet that commitment.
As regards "the few" referred to by the hon. member, may I remind him that they number approximately 83,000
Adjournment Debate
in Canada. May I state once more that with this legislation, we wish to help couples where one of the spouses is over 65 and both have to live on one pension. The aim is not to solve the problems of widows or single people. That is another problem altogether. I said previously it should be solved through an overall guaranteed income program, and not through pension plan extensions. Because the problem of widows aged 60 to 65, although serious, is no more so generally than that of widows aged 55 to 60. The latter also need help.
As regards allegations of discrimination referred to by the hon. member, this argument is only intended to confuse matters and repeat the hon. member's old stories on this issue. Many people over 65 who do not receive, for various reasons, and particularly for reasons of residency, neither the old age security pension nor the guaranteed income supplement. There are now people over 65 who do not receive the old age pension. Therefore, when this bill is passed, there will be people between 60 and 65 who will not receive the special benefits provided for spouses. This bill aims at solving a specific, serious and grave problem which, as I said earlier, affects over 80,000 Canadian citizens; but we do not pretend to be able to solve all the problems at once. Other problems mentioned by the hon. member will be solved generally through a guaranteed income program.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the bill which will be introduced in the House will be in accordance with the commitment of this government, and this government will continue to meet its commitments to the voters.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, as recorded at page 5908 of Hansard I addressed a question to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) with respect to a contract for survey work on the west coast of British Columbia.
After the question had been asked-and the minister obviously had no knowledge of the particular contract I had in mind-I notified the minister of the contract number. Tonight, for the purposes of the House I can say the contract concerns a second order triangulation trilat-eration survey over the Queen Charlotte Islands, west coast of B.C., south to the northern end of Vancouver Island. As far as I know this is the first contract for a survey of this type which has been awarded by the federal government in 30 years.

May 22, 1975
Adjournment Debate
Three British Columbia firms operating out of Vancouver bid for the contract. They were McElhanney and Associates, David H. Burnett and Associates, and Underhill and Underhill. All bid on this contract. For some reason which astounded people in British Columbia the contract was given to the Toronto firm of Marshall Mac-klin Monaghan.
One of the prerequisites of doing this type of work successfully is an intimate knowledge of the coastal area in which the survey is to be made. All the British Columbia firms I have mentioned have been working actively in British Columbia and in this area for nearly a quarter of a century. Underhill and Underhill were established in British Columbia in 1913. It is almost impossible to believe that a firm operating out of Toronto would have the appropriate knowledge and intimate understanding of the weather, the tides, and the topography of the area concerned to be able to take on this sizeable job and do it better than firms well established in the province and operating in the area.
On Tuesday I asked the minister:
Is it the policy of the department to award contracts whenever possible to firms operating on a regular basis in the regions where the work is required?
His reply was as follows:
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, whenever it is possible.
The decision in this case seems to have flown in the teeth of the department's own policy. Then again, there are disturbing factors surrounding the contract and the bidding. As I understand it, the three B.C. firms came in at approximately the same cost. I know that one of them bid $277,000. The Toronto firm, strangely enough, came in at $161,418. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, having agreed to accept that bid, then increased the value of the contract to $200,000 because that was the size of its budget appropriation for this contract.
There are serious questions to be asked. The first is: how many other eastern firms bid on this contract, if any? Second, why was bidding open nationally rather than regionally? Third, why did the department raise the ante to its limit of $200,000, thus in effect giving the Toronto firm the difference between its bid and the budget available to the department? Another question is: did the bid from the eastern firm include the cost of a ship or ships necessary for the job? There is no reason to believe that the Vancouver firms were turned down because they do not support the government party.
Marshall, Mack!in Monaghan Ltd.
Don Mills, Ontario
Burnett Resource Surveys Ltd. Burnaby, B.C.
Canadian Engineering Survey Co. Ltd. Edmonton, Alta.
J.A. Smith $ Associates Calgary, Alta.
In a letter from a representative of Underhill and Underhill to a minister of the Crown-this is from someone who has been a strong supporter of the Liberal party for many years-the following words appear:
We are unable to understand why the federal government has awarded this contract to an Ontario firm and not utilized one of the three firms that have had survey experience in the area in question, and a direct knowledge of the weather and coastal conditions.
Something is seriously wrong here. There is no excuse for giving this contract to a firm 3,000 miles away, one which does not understand the difficulties and which seemed to come in with a bid which is incredibly low before the government itself, to make sure they had enough funds to do the job, added nearly $40,000 to the contract price. If they came in with a bid of $161,000 they should be held to that because that is what they said they could do the job for, and to have the government give this firm another nearly $40,000 is just cause for worry. I could quote further from the letter that they have not taken into account the fact that they may not have as many good days as possible. To me this is really an extraordinary thing, and I hope the parliamentary secretary will answer that question.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to give my answer I wonder if I could obtain permission to have inserted in Hansard as though they were read, the bids by six companies, subdivided into area A, area A and B, and area A, B and C.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This can only be done by unanimous consent.


John Allen Fraser: Of course, Madam Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is referring to Contract No. 05GR.23244-5-4213 which resulted from a request by the Department of Supply and Services for proposals from various possible suppliers. The request for proposals clearly stated that the proposals would be evaluated on three factors; that is the proposal itself, the firm's relevant experience, and the cost estimate. It further noted that the project authority in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources wished to have as much of the survey work done as possible within existing financial restrictions. There were 14 firms invited, and six proposals were received.
It is at this point that I would like to have the table inserted, Madam Speaker.
[Editor's Note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
Area A	Area A & B	Area A, B &91,641.00	130,615.00	151,418.00178,120.00	258,950.00	307,944.00111,350.00	187,059.00	328,931.00224,765.70	320,388.90	388,630.50

May 22, 1975

Adjournment Debate
Area A Area A & B Area A, B & C
McElhannay Surveying &	91,205.00	324,031.00	352,555.00
Engineering Ltd.
Vancouver, B.C.
Underhill & Underhill Vancouver, B.C.
For the benefit of hon. members I will read the figures out for the six firms for area A, B and C: Marshall, Macklin Monaghan Ltd., $161,418; Burnett Resources Surveys Ltd.,-


John Allen Fraser: Where is that firm?


John Mercer Reid: The first was Don Mills, Ontario, and the second is Burnett Resource Surveys Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., $307,944; Canadian Engineering Survey Co. Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, $328,931; J. A. Smith & Associates, Calgary, Alberta, $388,630.50; McElhanney Surveying & Engineering Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., $352,556; and Underhill & Underhill, Vancouver, B.C., $273,698.
Each proposal was evaluated by a team of officers from the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Supply and Services, using a weighted point rating system. The proposal selected was considered technically acceptable, and was also the lowest in cost.
While it was clearly indicated that submissions were to be based on ideal weather conditions, the Crown recognized that it would have to absorb the downtime costs associated with poor weather conditions. This contingency has been set at $38,582 to raise the value of the contract to the maximum financial limitations provided for the project by the customer department, which will have an on-site project inspector.
With regard to the purchasing policy of the Department of Supply and Services, it should be stated at this time that when the final point of use for a product is in the western or in the Atlantic provinces, purchases will be made from suppliers in those regions provided that-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but his allotted time has expired.


John Mercer Reid: Perhaps there might be consent to my finishing the sentence.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I would ask hon. members to agree, as this is an important matter to the west coast.


John Mercer Reid: May I just go back and start it again. Purchases will be made from suppliers in these regions provided that total PROC cost, that is product, resource, operating and contingent cost to the government cannot be reduced by using alternative Canadian sources.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF CIRCULARS CONTAINING GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNTIL NATIVE LEADERS CONSULTED
Walter (Wally) Firth: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to note that the Minister of Indian
143,169.00	221 ,164.05	273,698.00
Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) is not here this evening during the time I intend to pursue a question of policy of his department which is of extreme importance to all native people in Canada.
I have asked for this time to address the House and to put some further questions to the ministry, but in this case I suppose it will be to whomever it is that is representing this department. I do so because I feel that by implementing the program circulars the minister's department is taking a giant step backwards in its relationship with Indian people. Because of the time limitation I will only be able to touch on a very few of the questions that arise from the implementation of these circulars. I say this so that you, Madam Speaker, and the other members of this House will understand that, when I limit my remarks to those circulars dealing with local government, I am not sanctioning the rest.
The circulars dealing with local government are labelled D-l to D-5. As the minister indicated in the House yesterday, they outline accounting practices which the bands must use as part of their administration of public money. The circulars add a few new terms to the language of Indian self-government, and they are "local government authority" and "district councils". These two terms are defined in such a way as to include traditional band councils, but they also allow for the creation of other units separate from the councils.
Local government authorities are to be incorporated as legal entities for the purpose of signing contracts and entering into agreements. Band councils, as they are now, do not have this legal status, and it would require a great deal of change in the law for them to acquire it. This has frightening implications for the Indian people and for their elected representatives, the chiefs and band councils, on the reserves and in the villages in the north.
The first step is to have the local governmental authorities incorporated. The next step is to transfer or delegate the traditional power of the chiefs and councils to the local government authority. The minister has a number of tools at his disposal which he can use to make sure the councils transfer their duties to other administrative units. By withholding all program dollars until the chiefs accept the circulars, the minister is now using one of the most effective of those tools. Some call it financial coercion; others call it extortion.
Once the chiefs and band councils are out of the way the minister will have a new level of bureaucracy which will be that much easier to deal with because there will be no need to go through the niceties of elections. He will have taken control of programs and will have brought them closer to the inner circle of his department, thus making it

May 22, 1975
Adjournment Debate
easier to accomplish what appears to be the main goal of this arm of his department, administer the hell out of the Indians.
With some regret I will now leave the topic of the ultimate effects of these circulars. I say "regret" because there is much more that could be said about the issue of consulting the Indian people in respect of the implementation of these circulars. Yesterday in the House the minister told us:
... there has been consultation on this matter. We feel that the guidelines responded in many ways to the requests of the native people who said they wanted to know what the rules were under which they have to deal with program funding coming from this department.
I would like to know the minister's definition of the word "consultation". Did it take the form of one of his regional directors walking down the street, meeting an Indian, and saying, "Hi, how's the wife?" By the way there will be some new rules next week". I would also like to know what the minister meant when he said "we". It could not have included the elected representatives of the Indian people. They do not feel that the guidelines respond in many ways to the requests of the native people.
I should like to quote a portion of a telex dated April 16 sent to the minister. It states:
The Prince Albert District Chiefs consider the development of circulars D-l through D-5 as completely unacceptable.
This was signed by seven chiefs of the Prince Albert District and one other man who was acting as the chief's representative. Were these people consulted? I doubt very much that they were. From the chiefs of the Saskatoon district comes this resolution:
Whereas the circular's intent is to enact policies of the white paper policy of 1969 and therefore a serious approach to revise the Indian Act, to abrogate treaty responsibility and to disregard the constitutional responsibility of the federal government for Indians and Indian lands.
Be it resolved that the circulars will not be implemented in the Saskatoon district, and that the Department of Indian Affairs provide program dollars to the bands according to the needs of the bands.
Again I seriously doubt that the eight chiefs who signed this resolution were consulted.
I have a number of other remarks I would like to make, but at this time I would simply like to ask one question. It is an important question. Will the minister put the program circulars in the garbage where they belong, and give the Indian leaders a chance to propose an accounting system which is acceptable not only to the department but to the Indian people?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) has asked me to acknowledge that the reaction from provincial and national Indian leaders to our local government guidelines for Indian bands and Innuit settlements has been, to say the least, surprising.
Fears have been expressed that through these guidelines, the minister's department has devised a way to enable it to weaken the authority of Indian chiefs and councillors, amend the Indian Act without consultation, or resurrect the 1969 white paper. These allegations are totally erroneous. Band autonomy and integrity are held to be inviolate by the department. At the same time, however,

the department must be satisfied that local band government is carried out on the basis of general acceptable business management principles.
In 1965 the department introduced the contributions to the bands funding program which enabled band councils to operate specific programs. Currently more than 500 of the 567 bands across Canada are administering various programs, and over $100 million will go directly to band councils this year to administer programs for their members-programs such as housing, education, social services, etc.
Because of the positive response of bands and the expanding nature of the program, a departmental task force was formed in late 1972 to chart the course for the future. Councils, associations, conferences and individuals submitted briefs and position papers. Most, if not all, of the general recommendations of the Indian people were accepted. In other words, the task force report made the objectives clear-all programs that could be managed at the local level should, be. The department's obligations, on the other hand, required its involvement to ensure adequate levels of service and the guarantee of appropriate levels of funds.
The task force's recommendations also made clear that there must be general guidelines or regulations for band operations for the benefit of both chiefs and councils and departmental staff. We are therefore now at the stage of introducing guidelines and regulations.
The basic principles of the guidelines underlying local government are what is important. For example, circular D-l guideline is mostly of a financial nature and provides for the accounting of funds. It also suggests procedures which should be set up by band councils to ensure that band members know when their band councils are taking responsibility for community programs. It makes it very clear that band chiefs and councils are responsible for planning, estimating, and negotiating for the total funds of their community. Circular D-2, for example, permits bands to form district councils for the delivery of programs. Such district councils, however, are only formed as the result of bands agreeing to combine their funds and resources. It is totally voluntary and there is not influence or pressure whatsoever for bands to form district councils.
In summary then I must reiterate that the several allegations made that the guidelines undermine or subjugate the Indian Act, that they take away the authority of the chiefs and councils, that they represent an attempt to revive the 1969 white paper, are totally erroneous. In fact the opposite is true, they provide for local government of Indian and Innuit communities by their chiefs and councillors.


TRANSPORT-TRANSFERENCE OF FISHING WHARVES TO FISHERIES MINISTRY-REASON FISHERMEN CHARGED WHARFAGE FEES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: The initial problem arose because of the fact that there was no minister of fisheries, all harbours were under the authority of the Department of Transport, and there was very little knowledge of the basic operation of a fishing port vested in any of the individuals in that department.
It was agreed some time ago that the ports which fishermen used would be transferred to the Department of the Environment. At that time there was some complaint that the fishermen were being charged wharfage fees at the wharves on a rather discriminatory basis. Perhaps the reason for the discrimination may be found, first, in the fashion in which the wharfingers are appointed, which is by political appointment, and second, in the fashion in which they are paid.
I should like to quote from Hansard of May 23, 1973, at page 4008, which gives the scale of pay received by wharfingers:
Wharfingers receive annual remuneration for their services on a commission or percentage basis. They are paid a portion of the wharfage tolls and dues collected for the use of the wharf at the following rates: 100 per cent of the first $100 collected; 90 per cent of the next $300 collected; 50 per cent of the next $300 collected; 25 per cent of the next $1,800 collected; 15 per cent of the next $13,500 collected and 5 per cent of any remainder.
It becomes very obvious that there is an element of incentive for a wharfinger to collect up to a point and up to a point only, but this would seem to lead to the fact that the charges laid by the fishermen are that some boats are charged wharfage at a particular wharf while others are not. It seems to be on a rather selective basis. It seems that when the ports were transferred to the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) this matter would be taken into proper consideration and the habit would stop, but only last week I was called by fishermen who said that their boats were now impounded, that customs and immigration were ordered by some official in Ottawa not to grant permission for these boats to make calls at American ports. It so happens that their livelihood depends upon their calls to the American ports. These fishermen have been rather obstinate about this charge because it is not charged to all, or charged equally to any.
This is not the first time this subject has been raised. It was raised on April 5, 1973, when a group of fishermen made calls on the minister and on his officials in Ottawa. They were invited to appear before the committee of the environment. The subject of wharfage was mentioned there, and the fishermen presented themselves through their president, Mr. Savage who said:
While you are on the subject of breakwaters, the subject of wharfage should be mentioned. They have put a wharfage tax on us which was picked up, I understand, from the west coast and they took from that something they thought they should force on us without considering what it would amount to in our particular area, but it is there and you have to have it and you have to live with it.
The complaint is not so much that there is a wharfage charge but that it is charged in a discriminatory fashion. There are certain areas of the coast of Canada where fishermen have never heard of wharfage charges. There are other areas where a fisherman cannot dock without a wharfage charge. The inconsistency is not fair to the fishermen of either area.
Adjournment Debate
The transfer of these harbours has been a long and tortuous subject. For instance the subject was first brought up in February of 1973 when the then parliamentary secretary said that it was going to happen right away, that there had been 2,163 harbours recommended for transfer to the Department of the Environment. The matter was later raised by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), and when he asked the question on July 24, 1973, he was told there would be an answer given next week. "There will be an answer next week," said the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment, "as to when they will be transferred." A statement came out stating that they had been transferred on August 1, 1973. That was quite a long week.
The matter of wharfage is still not settled. It is still not being checked on an over-all basis. It is still being checked on a discriminatory and selective basis, and fishermen are now denied their livelihoods by virtue of the fact that they cannot pass freely on waters which they have fished for years.
I have a list of harbours which have been transferred in the province of New Brunswick, which includes Carleton-Charlotte, my constituency. Among those which have remained-and I say remained in the hands of the Department of Transport-are several harbours here, one of which is used as a fishermen's harbour. It also contains a ferry wharf which is perhaps properly now in the hands of MOT, but the fishermen's wharf is still under the MOT and also subject to wharfage, according to the list.
My plea is that the word of the then minister of the environment, that this matter would be resolved, should be kept by this government. He is now no longer in the House, but he spoke to those fishermen who visited here and said if he could possibly arrange matters it would be waived, and a new policy would later be announced and be brought into effect. When does that new policy come? When will the collection of wharfage be waived? When will they let the fishermen go free?


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) has asked me to reply and to indicate his appreciation to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) for his concern. Wharfage fees are being assessed and applied as required by law under the Government Harbours and Piers Act in respect to wharves administered by both the Department of Transport and the Minister of State for Fisheries in those locations where wharfingers are appointed.
The former minister of fisheries, recognizing the deficiencies of the current legislation to cope adequately with the many problems faced by the fishermen, received approval to prepare new legislation which would provide for improved harbour services and a more equitable fee structure.
Extensive discussions have been held during the past year in all regions across the country to obtain the views of fishermen and provincial governments and other interested parties. As a result the proposed legislation is now in an advanced stage of drafting and should be available shortly for introduction to the House. The new legislation will afford the Minister of State in charge of Fisheries the

May 22, 1975
Adjournment Debate necessary authority for the development of fishing harbours and the introduction of modern management procedures. The act will also cater nationally and regionally for the long term planning of harbour facilities required to support adequately our commercial fishing industry in the future.	The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin): Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.
\

Friday, May 23, 1975