1975-05-09

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will put my question to the Prime Minister. Since many of us feel we now have an unacceptable level of unemployment, would the Prime Minister clarify the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Finance that further unemployment would be massive if the consensus program is not resolved, and specifically, if there is such a serious emergency would the Prime Minister explain why the government's current documents on restraint are so half-baked after eight months of incubation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe on a supplementary.


INFLATION-INQUIRY WHETHER SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ON RESTRAINT SUBMITTED TO PROVINCES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question is again for the Prime Minister. The documents tabled yesterday with regard to the monitoring of professional fees, the role of marketing boards and the place of shelter and rent in the consensus program referred to further exploratory talks with the provinces. Has the government, which is supposed to be leading this fight against inflation, presented any specific proposals of its own to the provinces on these matters, and does the Prime Minister have any confidence that concrete proposals on these matters will be arrived at before meetings with business and labour next week?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: When the hon. member speaks of "these matters" is he referring to specific things or is he talking about inflation in general?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am referring to the specific references in the document tabled yesterday in which it was stated, with respect to the monitoring of professional fees, to the role of marketing boards, and to the place of shelter and rent in the consensus program, that further discussions have to take place with the provinces. I am asking the Prime Minister: have such discussions taken place and what confidence has the Prime Minister that these points
will be resolved before further meetings take place with business and labour next week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe discussions are taking place with the provinces at the official level today, and if it is not today then I am only out by a day or two, but I believe it is today that these discussions are taking place.
On the second part of the question my answer is, yes, I have confidence because the provinces themselves at the first ministers' conference a few weeks ago indicated that they were very concerned about the problem of inflation and that they wanted to share any initiatives with the federal government. The hon. member will recall that at the interprovincial conference last August or September they were asking the federal government to indicate to them what means might be used to fight inflation.
[DOT] (mo)


INFLATION-POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER IN DISCUSSIONS SEEKING CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In light of the fact that the Minister of Finance has apparently not done his homework and has not been able to put together a meaningful document which could have been expected to elicit a meaningful response-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please put his question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is the Prime Minister, who is supposed to be giving the program general direction, now going to get involved directly and oversee the government's planning and himself meet with business, labour and the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member had been doing his own homework, he would have realized that I have done those three things.


INFLATION-SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT STOP ITS INFLATION-GENERATING POLICIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister, and it is prompted by another increase in the consumer price index of .5 per cent for the month and the apparent failure of the government to obtain a consensus on voluntary restraint. Considering that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources supports a hefty oil price increase, higher food prices at the farm gate have been sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture, higher wages by the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance is ignoring higher import prices, all these things contributing to the inflationary spiral and the inflationary psychology of this country, can the Prime Minister tell the House if he and

May 9, 1975
Oral Questions
his government are prepared to stop these inflationgenerating policies so that this government will be imposing upon itself the same kinds of restraints it expects from business and labour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously an argument, and I do not believe the hon. member himself agrees with its premise.


INFLATION-REASON FOR EXPECTING LABOUR TO EXERCISE RESTRAINT WHEN NO GUIDELINES CONTROLLING PRICES AND PROFITS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the statistics provided by the Minister of Finance in his economic review which indicate that over the last year profits per unit of output have been rising faster than labour costs per unit of output, can the Prime Minister indicate why in the minister's recent working documents he did not outline in more detail his proposals for controlling prices and profits as a factor in the economy, and can he indicate also in which way he expects labour to exercise restraint when there does not seem to be any formula for restraint in the area of prices and profits?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, there is a formula for restraint, and the formula has been spelled out in the documents. It, is in the nature of not increasing the margin between costs and prices, and this is a formula which has been made clear.


Max Saltsman: I realize that the statement has been made, but there seems to be great doubt as to whether it is possible for that to be carried out or to be monitored. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he is prepared to ensure that unless this is carried out he will not go ahead with his restraint program on wages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that is a fair suggestion. All along the government has said that in order for its restraint program to be successful there would have to be justice as it applies to all sections of the economy, and the hon. member is really indicating that he agrees with that in saying that the program should not work if it does not work equally for all, and this is certainly our intention.


SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF PRICE DISCOUNT
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Due to the rather difficult situation facing the country at this time, the Minister of Finance launched a program of voluntary restraint a month ago. At that time, I was out west, and I stated that within three months the government would have to resort to mandatory measures. We have come to that point now. Does the Prime Minister not believe that the government is in the process of causing anarchy in this country? On the other hand, with all the expenditures caused by these numerous studies, would the Prime Minister consider seriously the possibility of issu-

ing an order for the payment of a discount of 20 to 30 per cent on retail prices in order to satisfy the Canadian consumers' fair claims in the face of inflation and the high cost of living, while maintaining peace in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must say in the first place that I do not accept the hon. member's view on the country and I am unaware of the anarchy which he mentioned. I suppose he was referring to the non-application of the Social Credit concepts, but I have never identified that with anarchy.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
The Prime Minister is not aware of any anarchy, but I see quite a lot at the present time in the Post Office Department in Toronto and Montreal, and the Creditistes are not responsible of those conditions, while the government has attempted by all possible means to solve the problem. Does the Prime Minister not agree that other extraordinary means should be taken to try to correct the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are no doubt other ways, but the hon. member knows that the steps taken by the government are being implemented and discussed. If those steps were absolutely ineffective, I would understand the hon. member's question, but according to the questions asked today and the press reports, he knows on the contrary that the means advocated by the government and the Minister of Finance are now very actively discussed by unions, by contractors and the provinces.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour with respect to the direction made by parliament 16 days ago that the dockers should go back to work. Since then there has been flagrant lawlessness among those affected who have been refusing to comply? This has had the natural result in another field of labour relations where today the head of a large union has stated that the Olympic games may have to be postponed to 1977. Can the minister tell the House why it is there have been no prosecutions when the law passed by parliament is being deliberately broken?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, officials of the Department of Justice are at work to bring together the evidence that they feel is necessary for the prosecutions to which the right hon. gentleman has referred. I would also say in regard to the application before the court that I referred to earlier this week in answer to the right hon. gentleman's question, that I have been advised that Mr. Justice Des-chenes will be handing down his decision tomorrow afternoon.
May 9, 1975


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. In view of the law passed by parliament in solemn form which is being deliberately broken, is it not reasonable to ask why prosecutions are not taking place? Why is it necessary to ask the courts to grant an injunction when parliament has passed a law? Another question arises out of this, and I am not criticizing the minister personally, Mr. Speaker, because I know he is tied by the orders of the government. Can anything be simpler than this: these wrongdoers have been advised that it is necessary that they go back to work; why does the government not act? Why this attiude of supine subservience to a group of lawbreakers which can only have the result of other lawbreakers following their example?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman will agree that I cannot substitute the government or myself for the judicial process. The allegations being made must be substantiated in the courts, and that is the process we are going through at present.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be of assistance. As one who knows something about prosecutions, I can not think of a clearer case. There is the law; it was made known to these people; they have broken it for 15 or 16 days, and the minister and the Minister of Justice say, "We are having the matter looked into." Surely, the case is so clear that even a blind man could get a conviction.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman will agree that it will take a court to make that kind of decision.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? As the law of the Sea Conference ends today in Geneva, and in view of the importance to all Canadians of the decisions that are reached at that conference, does the government intend to make a statement in the House concerning the results of the conference? If so, when can we anticipate that statement in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just now returned from the conference. He was preceded there by several ministers. I am sure he and other ministers will be happy to answer questions, if they are asked of them.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure he listened to it carefully and in the interest of saving time I will not repeat it.
Oral Questions


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have returned from the Law of the Sea Conference-


Mr. Fairweather:: When? Is that classified information?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have to be cautious. I have just returned, I should emphasize. Although I am satisfied with the general progress that has been made at the conference, and the progress made in reaching Canadian objectives, I point out that today the conference will receive the so-called unified negotiating text, from which we will see more clearly what the results have been of the work of the chairmen of the three committees. I should like to consider the possibility of making a statement after we have had the results of the tabling of the documents. This, I expect, would have taken place today at Geneva.


LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE-POSSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL ACTION TO PROTECT OFFSHORE RESOURCES IF CONFERENCE FAILS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of reports which have been made available to Canadians by news services it seems that no comprehensive agreement will be reached at the conference, will the Canadian government, therefore, act unilaterally to protect its interests, in the fisheries and other resources off the coasts of Canada? If not, what action does the government plan to take to protect the resources of our continental shelf, resources which rightfully belong to all Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I realize, as the hon. member realizes, that even though progress has been made and even if the unified text is agreeable to Canada, it is still not law. It is still only a basis for further negotiations. At present we are and will be discussing the results of the conference and will be determining as a government what future course of action should be taken. It has been made clear already that unilateral action is one of the policy options open to the government, and it certainly is a lively option at present and will be considered in the light of all factors.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State responsible for fisheries. The minister indicated at the Law of the Sea Conference that he was requesting nations to cut their quotas by 40 per cent. I wonder of the minister obtained that agreement; also can he tell the House what action he took to discuss the reduction of quotas with certain nations and if he is going to show leadership in the so-called ICNAF council and discuss this matter.
5636

May 9, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, what I said at Geneva was what will be proposed to the ICNAF meeting next June in Edinburgh, which is that foreign fleets, but not those of Canada, should reduce their effort by 40 per cent. We will go to this conference with a very clear position on this issue. I talked to some of the key delegations at Geneva about this very question and asked for their understanding. I made it very clear that if we are asked to be patient, at least ICNAF will be an area where we will see some real progress.


SUGGESTED UNILATERAL ACTION TO PROTECT FISHERIES IF LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE FAILS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the fact the Law of the Sea Conference which ends today will fail to come up with a solution to the problem of over-fishing, and in view of the fact that in the eastern part of Canada time is running out, is the minister prepared to recommend to his colleagues and the House that unilateral action be taken to protect our fisheries and our fishermen?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member must have been listening to the answer of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope very much that the assessment we are making will be a collective effort of this government and that is my intention.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I think my question should appropriately be addressed to the Prime Minister in view of the fact he recently returned from the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers and because it affects more than one department of government. Since July 20, 1974, export permits for war materials have been issued by Canada without any restriction as to the use of the material on the island of Cyprus. In view of the fact that Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth and the Turkish armed forces have continued military occupation on part of that island, will the Prime Minister either give today, or consider giving, an undertaking that no further export permits will be granted for the export of arms to Turkey until the military occupation of the territory of a fellow member of the Commonwealth is ended?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question. I am not aware of the countries to which permits for export of arms have been issued.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Perhaps I could call to the attention of the Prime Minister that on March 10 a return was put in by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Commerce setting out all the details of these export permits.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


GARRISON DIVERSION-POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On February 4 the minister stated the government had under consideration the matter as to "whether the International Joint Commission might be the appropriate body to carry out the task" of determining how the Garrison Diversion project could be remodelled to avoid any harmful effect in Canada. Will the minister please inform the House as to whether or not a decision has been reached concerning this matter and what are the results of that decision?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh my memory on the developments that have taken place since that time. We have had discussions with the government of Manitoba. I believe the situation at the present time is that we are working on a possible reference. We have not made the final decision to have that reference to the joint commission, but we are taking preparatory action in the way of working out the terms of that reference. As I say, I would like to refresh my memory and give the hon. member a more detailed answer.


NATURAL GAS-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT ON PRICE WITH PRODUCING PROVINCES-DURATION OF AGREEMENT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he has reached an agreement with the natural gas producing provinces as to price, and, if so, for how long will that price remain constant? I think he will share my view that the price of energy is one of the most aggravating causes of inflation in all countries.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: There has been no agreement with the gas producing provinces on the question of price. I had a further meeting yesterday with the Alberta ministers at which the position of the two governments was made more precise. But there has been no agreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When the minister says the positions taken by the two governments have been made more precise, does he mean that the governments concerned are not very far apart in reaching agreement to fix the price of gas for a certain period of time? How long would that period be?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not think one could necessarily draw that conclusion from what I have just said. We shall be going on to discussions with other prov-
May 9, 1975

inces, particularly the consuming provinces, in an effort to reach some general agreement on this question. I think it would be desirable if some agreement could be achieved on the phasing of natural gas prices to commodity value over the period of three years.


NATURAL GAS-APPLICATIONS FOR PIPELINES TO TRANSPORT GAS FROM ARCTIC BEING CONSIDERED BY ENERGY BOARD
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Could the minister tell us whether the National Energy Board is processing certain applications for pipelines carrying natural gas from the Arctic in the light of the disclosure that Panarctic, on Drake Island, I think it is, has produced one of the largest natural gas fields in Canada, if not in North America?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Panarctic, and some partners under the title of Polar Arctic Gas Project, is studying the possibility of a gas transmission system from the higher Arctic islands but at the moment there is no application before the National Energy Board. With respect to Mackenzie Valley and Mackenzie Delta gas, there are applications from two competing firms before the Board. Hearings will begin this summer.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the cabinet had an opportunity to complete its review of the petition by the Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards and others, submitted on February 17, 1975, asking for the disallowance of Quebec's Bill 22 and/or its reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, and has any decision been made by the cabinet with respect to that matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to refresh my memory as to the follow-up in response to the petition. On the substance of the question, however, the government is not disposed to bring this matter before the Supreme Court. I have made that clear on previous occasions.


Walter David Baker: In view of the government's intention to recognize in a financial way the bilingual capacity of some public servants, can the Prime Minister explain how at the same time he can ignore a provincial statute which seems to violate the principles for which he stands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thought it would be clear to most members that a provincial government has authority in areas within provincial jurisdiction and the federal government in areas of federal jurisdiction. The hon. member should know that the jurisdiction of the federal government
Oral Questions
applies only to areas under the authority of the federal government.


Walter David Baker: Ten o'clock.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering the many layoffs in the footwear industry in Acton Vale, Granby and other Quebec localities and the fact that this industry had to cut back its production by 60 per cent, mostly because of cheap labour imports from communist countries, is the minister looking into this matter at present and will he soon have other effective proposals to make in order to help this industry where jobs are threatened, in addition to the only remedial measure taken by this government, that is the establishment of retraining committees for workers with 25 years or more of experience in this field, whereas the cost of those committees is now supported by the employers and future or retrained unemployed?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: We have produced a program for the footwear industry in Canada. It took effect, I think about 18 months ago at the beginning of 1974. The industry has moved rather more slowly than I had hoped in availing itself of the benefits of the program but I believe there has been a significant move toward modernization of the industry. In addition, we have provided a number of grants, and assistance through such organizations as Fashion Canada to assist the design side of the footwear industry in Canada.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Since we are aware of an industrial program related to the footwear industry and of a 60 per cent cutback in production in my riding, will the minister reconsider this program in order to put forward other more effective solutions than the ones which the employers now feel are inadequate?


Alastair William Gillespie: We are always prepared to seek improvements; we are actively looking for improvements. We are working with the industry itself. The hon. member will agree that a program of this kind must have the full support of the industry or else it will not work.
29S61 13Vi

May 9, 1975
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


SUGGESTION CANADA NOT DEAL IN NUCLEAR ITEMS WITH COUNTRIES NOT SIGNATORIES TO NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the fact that within the last two or three days the chairman of the Atomic Energy Board of Canada has stated that it is impossible to apply any appropriate safeguards in dealings involving nuclear items, will the government reconsider its proposal to deal with countries which are not signatories to the non-proliferation treaty?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not seen the comments made by the gentleman to whom the hon. member has referred but I shall be happy to look at them. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, announced last December the government's policy on safeguards; we believe it to be the best that can be provided at the present time. We apply these stringent and rigid bilateral safeguards to all sales.


James McPhail Gillies: What confuses Canadians with respect to this issue is that if the government has taken a strong moral stand in connection with the spread of nuclear weapons, and, indeed, the spread of armaments of any kind, how can it justify dealing with any country which does not subscribe to the non-proliferation treaty? How can the minister reconcile dealing with and financing sales to countries which will not sign this treaty, while at the same time declaring that he supports the treaty in its entirety?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are, of course, strong adherents to the NPT. Yesterday, or the day before, at the review conference I expressed once again the position taken by the Government of Canada. In my statement I made it clear that in terms of aid we would require NPT adherence from the receiving country; in the case of export financing this would be considered as an important factor. In all transactions with other countries we shall certainly consider their membership in the NPT. The hon. member will have noticed that recently the Republic of Korea expressed its adherence to the treaty. This will certainly make it easier for the Government of Canada to undertake nuclear arrangements. In all cases we shall insist on bilateral safeguards which are as strong and as rigid as those imposed by any other supplying country.


James McPhail Gillies: Surely, it is more important for the government to show its support for the non-proliferation treaty by declaring it will not deal with any country which does not sign the treaty rather than sell a few extra reactors. My question is this. How can the government reconcile its position of saying that it supports the treaty in the strongest way but in fact still deals with countries which do not support the treaty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that is precisely the question to which the hon. member has received a response.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I put a supplementary question to the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on a different subject. In view of the apparent confusion and lack of efficiency that exists in the Toronto regional office of the Department of National Health and Welfare which has resulted in many GIS recipients not receiving their GIS cheques for the month of April, even after submitting two or three application forms, would the minister investigate the situation with dispatch in an effort to restore some degree of efficiency and better business practice and procedures to that office?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into the matter. This is the first time this has been brought to my attention, and if there are certain cases along the lines mentioned by the hon. member, I can assure you we will look after them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the joint, integrated command nature of the NORAD agreement, is it a premise of the agreement that an enemy of the United States is an enemy of Canada, and that an enemy of Canada is an enemy of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: A supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's negative answer, and in view of the statement made in answer to the same question by the Minister of National Defence, who said "In my view an enemy of the United States would be an enemy of Canada, and an enemy of Canada would be an enemy of the United States," is the Prime Minister therefore reversing government policy, or is this a new foreign policy thrust by the Prime Minister?
May 9, 1975


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, it is not a new foreign policy, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked me a specific question about NORAD and whether that entailed certain positions of policy and my answer was no. The Minister of National Defence may have been stating the general position, that we are friends with the United States and that we have a very long lasting friendship with them.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: A final supplementary question. In view of conflicting statements by members of the cabinet, including a positive response by the Minister of National Defence and a negative response by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would the Prime Minister consider making a statement in the House of Commons on the policy and philosophy of the NORAD agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the NORAD agreement was debated at some length by the parliamentary committee in recent weeks. If the hon. member would only read the minutes of the meetings he would learn a little bit about it.


NATO-POSSIBILITY OF REMOVING LAND FORCES FROM ORGANIZATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is supplementary in terms of Canada's foreign policy. While the Prime Minister was at the Commonwealth conference discussing mutual problems with the various Prime Ministers, did he consult with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and advise him that the cabinet is considering pulling back all of its land forces to Canadian territory, leaving just the air element in NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the hon. member is asking about Canadian land forces or United Kingdom land forces?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the question specifically. Is the cabinet considering withdrawing completely the land element of Canadian forces in NATO, leaving only the air element portion that is still there?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not discuss anything of that kind with the Prime Minister of Great Britain.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since we have had a rather listless day from a lazy, lackadaisical government that does not want to answer a question about anything, let me be very specific. I appreciate that I cannot find out all that the Prime Minister may have talked about with Prime Minister Wilson, if he talked with him at all, but is the cabinet seriously considering a withdrawal of land forces in NATO to this country, thus leaving only the air element to give some symbolic significance to Canada's participation in NATO, since our Prime Minister was indisputably the leader in one area in first pulling out of NATO back in the heydays of 1968?


Mr. Speaker:: Be that as it may, that is exactly the question put by the hon. member to the Prime Minister in the first place.
Oral Questions


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is diabolically clever-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: in terms of evading or parrying questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has twice asked the Prime Minister whether the cabinet is seriously considering pulling back its land forces. If the hon. member has a final supplementary he may put a different question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my basic question is this. Is the cabinet seriously considering that proposal? The Prime Minister parried my question and referred to discussions with Mr. Wilson.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That was no parry. The hon. member mentioned Mr. Wilson in his first question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You are listless, lazy and lackadaisical, the whole bunch of you.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board having to do with nurses on strike throughout the country. Since one of the major obstacles to settlement of the strike and to returning to work seems to be the failure of the government to agree to the inclusion of a cost of living clause in nurses' contracts, and since the inclusion of such a clause would go a long way, if not all the way, to getting the nurses back to work, is the government going to accede to their reasonable request for the inclusion of such a clause and bring this strike to an end?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated recently the government's position. We have accepted the conciliation report. At some stage of the conciliation, I presume this issue must have been raised and none of the 3 members has recommended it.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question that I was going to put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but since he has stepped out for a moment perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would answer my question. Since the entire nursing staff at Watson Lake,

May 9, 1975
Oral Questions
which is one nurse, is out on strike and that that community also serves the mining community of Can Tung, and since the government has seen fit to throw the only doctor in that community into jail for failure to register for medicare, can the government inform me and the citizens of those communities what steps it is taking to provide adequate medical facilities under the circumstances?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like a very interesting community, but this is a question to which I would prefer to have my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare respond.


TRANSPORT
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that perhaps the lighting should be checked. After one week I was wondering whether there was a dark spot here. My colleagues on either side of me have also been trying for a week. My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the inventory inspection of railway branch lines which is going to be conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission, will this inventory report be made public and will it also include any reduction in inventory since the last freeze was imposed in 1970?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the hon. member is referring to the inquiry which is led by the WEO conference or to the one by the CTC?


Stanley James Korchinski: The CTC.


Jean Marchand: Then, I will get in touch with them and ask.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: I am not the one who established that law.


Stanley James Korchinski: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the railways now have to open up their books to the government, may I ask the minister whether it will be possible to determine from these books the amount of the systematic reduction in inventories by the railways, particularly on those branch lines which are scheduled for abandonment such as has taken place in the last five years?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is aware that it has been announced there is an inquiry is respect of all branch lines.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am talking about the books being opened up and not about branch lines. In view of the fact that the railways now have to reveal their books to the government and not to the public, may I ask the minister

whether it will be possible for the public to determine the amount of the reduction in the inventory on those branch lines scheduled for abandonment to determine the degree to which the railway companies have conducted a systematic scuttling of those rail lines prior to any approval either by the government or the CTC of the abandonment of those lines.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated, and it has been clarified, that the railways are now compelled to supply the Ministry of Transport and the CTC with all the elements which constitute the freight rates, but I can say there is no law that says the railways must open their books. I tell you it is not being done. I asked for information last week and received a very nice answer saying that this is not going to be revealed to anybody, including the Minister of Transport. Someday I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss that here in the House.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY WHETHER WIFE OF PRESS ATTACH® OF PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA LEFT CANADA WITH HIM
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the wife of the Chinese diplomat who was asked to leave Canada, and who is herself part of the diplomatic mission, accompany her husband back to China?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check that and advise the hon. member later.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the genial and well-rested Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will cause Mr. Michael Pitfield to appear before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee when the committee considers the general estimates of the Privy Council office on Monday night next so that members may question directly the most powerful public servant in Canada as we can question the less powerful public officials?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council will be appearing before that committee on Monday.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister then suggesting to the House that he intends to hide from public view and Parliamentary questioning the most powerful public servant in the country and not even send someone of cabinet rank to answer questions about
May 9, 1975

what this man is doing to determine public policy in the country and will he tell us why he will not send Michael Pitfield to face a parliamentary committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.


INDUSTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I also direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the importance of the well-being of the lumber and wood fibres commodity group which not only employs directly and indirectly about one million Canadians but also contributes about $5 billion to our balance of payments annually, and in light of the official forestry week celebrations in Canada, can the Prime Minister advise whether it is the intention of the government to re-establish a Ministry of Forestry which would adequately deal with the many facets of not only the economic side of forest management but also matters relating to environmental concerns and forestry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


GLUE SNIFFING-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO COMBAT PRACTICE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare now that he has returned. In the last Parliament I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare what action the government was considering or taking in connection with the damaging use by very young Canadians of toxic substances such as in the practice of glue sniffing. Today I ask the minister whether he can announce any progress in combatting this practice which continues, and which can cause permanent damage to the youthful users?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same as last year.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, since the answer of last year was a non-answer, I now ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is, within the large budget of his department, hoping to embark upon a national educational program in conjunction with the provinces to warn young Canadians of the very serious dangers involved in the use of glue and other toxic substances in this manner.


Marc Lalonde: 
SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the commitment the minister has made to bring in certain amendments to the Old Age Security Act, at least some of which have been promised to be in effect by October, will the minister be introducing this legislation soon so that it can be dealt with and passed before the end of June and thus be on the statute books?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the Quebec premier recently mentioned publicly the possibility of reopening constitutional talks, and that the Prime Minister of Canada had the opportunity of meeting the Quebec Premier not long ago at a conference, is the Prime Minister in a position to tell us whether the Quebec Premier discussed this matter with him and, be that as it may, does the Prime Minister intend to invite the provinces to reopen constitutional talks and make those the subject-matter of a federal-provincial conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can say that at the present time I have no intention of convening a meeting of the provincial premiers to discuss the constitution. I may do so at a later date.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. About two months ago seven guards at the New Westminster federal penitentiary were convicted of assault against one of the prisoners. I should like to ask the Solicitor General

May 9, 1975
Oral Questions
whether he or someone in his department attempted to stop the prosecution by phoning a member of the provincial Attorney-General's department or by asking the special prosecutor to drop the charges and did the Solicitor General or someone in his department send a letter of commendation to the convicted guards?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know there was no attempt to have the Attorney General drop the charges, although we had discussions with the Attorney General while the case was under consideration concerning whether charges would be laid and the reasons and so on. In respect of the second question, I think the hon. member asked if we sent a letter of commendation to the guards. We did not do that. We sent a letter, I do not know whether it was to the guards or the institution, stating we would support the guards if they wished to bring the case to appeal. The guards decided that they would not bring it to appeal because they had been given a discharge on the sentence. I think that is the content of the letter, but I will read it again.


NEW WESTMINSTER-INQUIRY WHETHER SEVEN GUARDS CONVICTED OF ASSAULT RECEIVED PROMOTIONS OR TRANSFERS
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, did any of the seven guards receive promotions or transfers away from the correctional division of the penitentiary?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check that. I would not be involved in that kind of a promotion or transfer in any case. That would be an administrative matter under the penitentiary service, but I will find out what happened to those seven guards.


PROPOSAL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES USE RAW MATERIALS TO FORCE INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS TO GIVE THEM GREATER SHARE OF WEALTH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of a statement to the effect that the developing countries plan to use their raw materials to force the industrialized nations to give them a greater share of the world's wealth, what was the position of the Prime Minister on this view and does he plan to increase trade with developing nations and pay higher prices for their raw materials?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my position was very simply to remind the conference that more than 50 per cent of the world's raw materials come from developed countries, and this kind of a suggestion would really not have the effect the third world might desire.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister plan to contribute funds to help bring about the ouster of Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian's Smith's white minority regime? If so, how will he ensure that these funds will not be used to buy weapons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the communique speaks for itself. There is no indication in it that the Commonwealth governments as a group will buy weapons for freedom fighters. It is well known, of course, and several members of the Commonwealth indicate quite openly, that if the talks to achieve independence with majority rule are not successful, they intend to return to the guerilla tactics.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in both official languages- Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises as a result of the generalization of answers given today, as has been the case throughout the last few months, on matters particularly connected with foreign affairs. I am in no way suggesting that I agree with the viewpoint of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) who described the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as possessing a quality that I am sure he does not possess. I would call it Machiavellian casuistry.
We have had no opportunity to discuss foreign affairs. It cannot be done simply through questions asked in the House. We know nothing about what is happening in NATO, the withdrawal of forces and the answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). We know nothing about the NORAD situation and we cannot obtain information and will not unless one or two days are set apart for the discussion of foreign affairs in the House. Today it is a closed book, with the government simply hiding the facts behind the rules of parliament which prevent any elucidation of foreign affairs through questions.
I think it is unusual to have a minister giving one view concerning the withdrawal of forces from NATO, and to have another view expressed by the Prime Minister today in reference to a statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). Realizing the importance of foreign affairs, I ask the government House leader to
May 9, 1975

make arrangements so that we can discuss these matters, so that foreign affairs do not become a matter of secrecy for the government.
We know nothing about the Chinese diplomat. The government has hidden behind clouds of questionable statements on the subject. We want to know. There is only one way in which we can get the information; that is, to have the views of parliament respecting these matters. Then, possibly, the government will be able to give us some insight into its thinking on what is happening internationally.


Mr. Sharp:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure it is well known to the right hon. gentleman that there are 16 allotted days designated before the end of June, and it would be possible to call the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) before the House of Commons in committee of the whole. I know of no more democratic form than that.


John George Diefenbaker: In the British House of Commons, opportunities are given-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: The government is hiding behind subterfuge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point of order having been made and responded to; we should not get into a debate on it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of an exchange of notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America constituting an agreement to renew the agreement of May 12, 1958, as extended, concerning the organization and operation of the North American Air Defence Command-NORAD.


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: 1,365, 1,600, 1,820, 1,821, 2,049, 2,053, 2,104, 2,145, 2,151, 2,222, 2,251, 2,267, 2,364 and 2,398.
Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 1,993 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,399?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: What are (a) the names (b) job designations (c) specific duties (d) annual salaries (e) the dates hired and previous employment of all persons connected in any way whatsoever with, and specifically including, producing, editing, writing or directing CBC news programmes (i) the World at Eight (ii) the World at Six (iii) the National TV News?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows; (a) (b) (c) (d) (e), (i) (ii) and (iii): It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration.


Mr. Epp: What was the total amount given to Manitoba federal constituencies under provisions of multiculturalism for each year 1968 to 1974 and what was the amount for each such constituency?


James Hugh Faulkner: total of $301,425 in grant monies has been awarded to voluntary organizations in Manitoba federal constituencies for projects confined to the province of Manitoba under the multiculturalis program since its inception in 1971 until December, 1974. Statistics for the distribution of grant monies by federal constituency are not kept by the multiculturalism program.
Fiscal Year	Amount
1972-	73	$ 68,6151973-	74	$108,3161974-	75	$124,491
(to December 31, 1974)


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount budgeted or spent for bilingualism over each of the past six years by CNR and how many employees have been or are involved in any way with (a) French language lessons (b) English language lessons?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: the amount spent for bilingualism, i.e., translation, terminology and language training in each of the past six years is as follows:
1969	$245,000
1970	$303,000
1971	*423,000
1972	*494,000
1973	*614,000
1974	*877,000
5644

May 9, 1975
Order Paper Questions
The number of employees included in language courses:
(a)	French	(b) English1969	253	561970	292	2331971	262	1391972	309	531973	380	651974	640	113


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount budgeted or spent for bilingualism over each of the past six years by Air Canada and how many employees have been or are involved in anyway with (a) French language lessons (b) English language lessons?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1969-1973: Prior to May, 1973, language training, translation and other bilingualism costs were included with costs for other forms of training and with general administrative expenses. The numbers cannot be segregated. 1974: $1,108,000. This amount includes planning and administration, language training, translation and terminology, (a)(i) (ii) 1969-1972: Language training was included with other forms of training and numbers cannot be segregated. 1973: From 48 employees as of May to over 400 at year-end almost all French-language training. 1974:	1,197
employees-French language training, 13 employees- English language training.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Classified salaries, $47,442; 'Professional and Special Services, $1,233; Travel and removal, $1,414; Telephones, telegrams, postage, $2,471; Office stationery and supplies, $3,232; Acquisition of equipment, $775; Total, $56,567.
'Represents employees training.
Note: Above costs are direct costs only. They do not include support services costs, accommodation costs nor employer's share of superannuation costs (the latter being 6.97 per cent of total salary costs).
"The above are the operation costs of the Parliamentary Relations Division where parliamentary returns are a component of the overall responsibility.


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


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: None. There is no Parliamentary Returns Office in the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Parliamentary returns are the responsibility of several members of the deputy minister's Office.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many persons are employed in the Unemployment Insurance Commission (a) in each province (b) in Canada?
2.	What is the total office rent (a) for each province (b) for Canada?


Bill Rompkey: As of March
31, 1975:
Newfoundland:	263	Ontario:	4489Prince Edward Island	45	Manitoba:	449New Brunswick:	555	Saskatchewan:	196Nova Scotia:	267	Alberta:	393Quebec:	3299	British Colombia:	1231In Canada: total: 11,187	employees.	Province	(b) Annual Rent for the Year 1974	Newfoundland	$ 334,992.00	Nova Scotia	389,040.00	Prince Edward Island	66,504.00	New Brunswick	839,904.00	Quebec	3,618,780.00	Ontario	4,687,048.60	Manitoba	520,384.56	Saskatchewan	180,820.44	Alberta	444,987.36	British Columbia	1,430,151.00	Whitehorse, Y.T.	1,133.46	Totals for Canada	$12,513,745.42


Mr. Herbert: What was the amount of the investment of the Canadian Film Development Corporation in the film "Sweet Movie"?


James Hugh Faulkner: 
Mr. Herbert: Has the Department of the Secretary of State considered financial support for the film of the 1974 Canada-Russia series "Hockey vs Xokken", on the basis of its example as a form of Canadian culture?


James Hugh Faulkner: No.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Does CBC have a number of drama critics across the country who are specifically asked to submit their evaluation and, if so (a) how many (b) in what regions are they located?
2.	Does CBC have volunteers who submit their critiques on a regular basis and, if so (a) how many (b) in what regions are they located?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. No.
2.	CBC conducts regular surveys of audience response to its tv network programs. The information in these surveys is not, however, provided by "volunteers" but by persons selected by a process of geographically stratified probability sampling that ensures that, within acceptable limits, each survey sample represents a cross-section of all persons aged 12-plus resident in the respective coverage areas of the CBC's English and French tv networks, (a) The total number of respondents varies slightly from survey to survey but, this past season, has averaged close to 2,500 per English network survey, 1,200 per French network survey, (b) These respondents are located in all regions of the country (excluding only Yukon and the Northwest Territories) and, within each province, are distributed in cities, towns and rural areas in approximately correct numerical proportion to the actual population distribution, in these areas, of each network's potential audience aged 12-plus.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 578 and question No. 1,151, were approximately one third of the more than 4,000 returns by taxpayers with revenues exceeding $5,000,000 audited in 1973-74?
2.	Did more than half of those audited result in increased assessments?
3.	Was there no appeal or objection in three quarters of the cases where there was an increased assessment?
4.	Is the Department considering a total audit of returns of this size and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Yes. See answer to question No. 578.
2.	Yes. See answer to question No. 1,151.
3.	There was no appeal or objection in there quarters of the cases where there was an increased assessment. See answers to questions Nos. 578 and 1,151.
4.	Yes.
Order Paper Questions INCOME TAX OWING-MR. ARTHUR GRIBBEN


Mr. Reynolds: Did Mr. Arthur Gribben, now residing in Portugal, leave Canada owing a large amount of income tax and, if so, has the government considered extraditing him?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The
Department of National Revenue is prohibited by Section 241 of the Income Tax Act from divulging information relating to taxpayers' affairs.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since April 20, 1968, what is the total number of times that questions have not been answered in whole or in part on the grounds that the matter being questioned is regarded as confidential, secret, not in the national interest to reveal, or any other similar phraseology?
2.	Since April 20, 1968, has the government invoked a supposed need for secrecy, confidentiality, etc. in order to avoid answering questions that are politically embarrassing and, if so, on what date will the government cease this practice and permit full disclosure to Parliament of information requested by elected representatives of the people?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	The information requested is not readily available and could not be obtained without excessive cost.
2.	See guideline No. 45 tabled March 15, 1973 and Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 171.


Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider electrifying certain sections of the railway lines (a) Toronto-Montreal (b) Toronto-Ottawa (c) Toronto-Hamilton (d) Toronto-London-Windsor (e) Ottawa-Montreal?


Jean Marchand: The
railways are presently keeping abreast of electrification technology and, up to this time, many studies have been made on the economics of electrification. However, the capital cost of conversion, at present, on the (a) Toronto-Montreal, (b) Toronto-Ottawa, (c) Toronto-Hamilton, (d) Toronto-London-Windsor, (e) Ottawa-Montreal lines have not lead to consideration of electrification. These capital costs include the construction of the catenary and electric power distribution systems.


Mr. Dick: Did all registered national political parties file a Return of Contribution form T2092 by March 31, 1975 as required by the Income Tax Act and as specified in Information Circular 75-2 of February 3, 1975 and (a) if not, which parties failed to file (b) if they have since filed, on what date?


John Mercer Reid: A return of contributions to a registered party (form T2092) is to be filed annually by all registered agents, rather than by each party. The return is to be filed by March 31 of the following year except for the year 1974 when the return is to be filed by June 14, 1975.
29561 -14*/2

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
The regulation was authorized by P.C. 1975-922 dated April 24, 1975, to be gazetted May 14. It provides that the filing date for 1974 shall be one month after the coming into force of the section. Information circular No. 75-2 did not anticipate a delay in the authorization of regulations and did not indicate an extension of the filing date for 1974 returns. Some registered agents had not filed returns by March 31, but have until June 14 to do so.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	In contracts issued by the Department of Supply and Services for research and development for each year 1973 to date, what agreements were described therein?
2.	Will the Minister define the respective objectives and give the reason for each requirement?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House in committee of the whole to consider certain items of the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1976, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 58(9)-Mr. Penner in the chair.
Treasury Board
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $20,432,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976 (less the amount voted in interim supply) as follows:
Vote 1-Central administration of the public service-program expenditures and the grants listed in the estimates, $20,432,000.
The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the resolution?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, may I first thank the opposition for doing me the honour of finding me important enough to inaugurate the proceedings on the discussion of departmental estimates in the House of Commons. The members of our party are very happy to be able to take part in the debate, and as you can see, Mr. Chairman, many of them are here to ask questions because they know the administration of the country is in good hands.


An hon. Member:: This is debatable.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have hardly launched the debate and already the opposition is on the defensive.

Mr. Chairman, the control of government expenditures is not an easy task. Everybody is in favour of as much restraint as possible, but not a day goes by in the House without opposition members, who claim we spend too much, rising and calling for further outlays. That is why I welcome this opportunity of defending the government spending program before the House and not before a committee.
I am happy to report to the House that, true, there are internal administration problems, but the Canadian people are confident that we can solve them. The Canadian people know full well that if the Opposition were on this side of the House, it would be a disaster.
A year ago yesterday, the Opposition defeated us in the House of Commons and is still regretting it. The New Democratic Party no longer exists, it has no leader, it may have a new one soon who will perhaps devote three or four days to his responsibilities, provided he can listen to Brahms during the week-end. The Social Credit Party of Canada is faced with all kinds of problems, and the Progressive Conservatives have two or three leaders for the time being but none for the future.
So, Mr. Chairman, you can see why we are very much at ease today to defend our estimates in the House of Commons.
Over the last nine months, since I had the privilege of being appointed President of the Treasury Board, we have been faced with certain difficulties, and I would like to take a few minutes of the time of the House to deal with one problem concerning the general policy of the gouvern-ment; it is important for the Treasury Board in its expenditure policies, and for all Canadians, to realize that everyone of us, both in the House of Commons and outside, must face the facts.
Canada has been very lucky over the last 19 months since it was spared the economic recession our Southern neighbours, the United States, have been fighting over the last 18 months. Here in Canada, even though the economic expansion we wished for did not realize, we have been in a much better position than the United States, where recession has existed for 18 months now. Of course, we feel some of its effects, because we depend to a great extent on that giant neighbour by which so many of our resources are absorbed and with whom we do a great deal of trade.
Recently, Mr. Chairman, I had the pleasure to represent the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) at the special meeting of the Ministers of Finance of the OECD in Paris, and when I explained the situation in Canada, almost all my colleagues, ministers who were attending that conference, told me privately that while they admitted that we had some problems in Canada, they were all prepared, all those ministers of the OECD countries except perhaps one or two, to switch problems with us. Which means that our situation is not as difficult as it may appear to be.
Unfortunately, if we think that we have a ticket to absolute security, I feel we are simply deluding ourselves. That is why the Minister of Finance and members of the Cabinet initiated consultations throughout the country over the past months in order to encourage each and every Canadian to face the economic situation and to contribute
May 9, 1975

as much as possible to the bettering of our economic situation.
As for us, within the federal government, although things have been relatively peaceful for a long time in the field of collective agreements, we may have been experiencing more difficulties over the last few months. And we have sought to establish principles in order to clarify the situation.
That is why, for instance, we have said repeatedly over the last nine months that we intend to allow civil servants to keep the right to strike which was granted to them by Parliament in 1967, but on the other hand, we also said that in the case of all those who would defy the law and strike illegally, we would take legal action to have them abide by the law. Unfortunately, we have been forced to do so since the month of December against more than 2,000 civil servants.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If it takes as long to prosecute the longshoremen as it takes to prosecute the others, it will be a great success for the administration of justice in Canada!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I am listening with interest to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), but I am not the court. I have done my duty. I submitted the 2,000 cases to the Federal Government's Labour Relations Board, and from then on, it is up to the courts to decide. The chips are down. As far as I am concerned, I must say that the government has fulfilled its obligations. If the legislation is not sufficiently expeditious, if the machinery proves too slow, the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons studying the Finkelman report may submit recommendations. We, as members of the government, have committed ourselves to table legislation following the submission of the Finkelman report, once the hon. members and senators will have made their recommendations to the government. But considering the legislation as it now stands, I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we have done what our duty called for us to do.
During the years 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974, governmental expenses may have been considerable, I agree. Of course, in general, the Progressive Conservatives say that we spend too much. However, the New Democrats say that we do not spend enough. But the Canadian people recognize that we always have a much more balanced judgment in these situations and we do not fall into one extreme or the other.
In view of the inflationary pressures on the Canadian economy at this time, and in view of the increase of the unemployment rate in Canada, which is regrettable, but which can give us some satisfaction if we compare it to the rate in the United States since traditionally, during the winter, the United States always have 1 or 1.5 per cent less unemployed than Canada, during the last winter, despite the two metres of snow that we had, our unemployment rate was lower by nearly 2 per cent than that of the United States. However, in view of the delicate situation of our economy, we decided to control our expenses and we hope limit to 16 per cent the increase of our expenditures from 1974-75 to 1975-76. This is the policy that we have established and, since the beginning of this fiscal year, we
Business of Supply
believe that we can achieve this goal, but I must say, because it is important, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) may soon present a new budget and, if he discovers any change in the economic situation of Canada following his present analysis, I shall have to adjust this prediction on the basis of any possible change in our economic policy.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that up till now, even though we have had many problems, we have coped with them in a much better way than most other countries, and I hope that the hon. members will make positive contributions when examining these estimates because, by its nature, my department is involved in the operations of all the other departments. I would like for once to see the Progressive Conservatives stand up and say where they would like us to cut down on our expenses. They always talk in a general way.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe is very good at that.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Would the minister try to stay with the facts? The procedure we have now is not new; it is almost as old as parliament. We lost the old rules by closure imposed by this government, but the minister's memory is so short

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
that I thought I had better remind him before he got himself in trouble.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I feel very humble when I receive advice from the hon. member. I am glad he has given me the opportunity, but perhaps I should sit down if he is hurt too much.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It doesn't bother me; I just turn up my collar and let the blizzard blow.


Charles Joseph Clark: We will remember this speech on budget night.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think I will sit down now. I welcome-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I can tell the hon. member for Edmonton Centre that I will be here at five o'clock. I have the right to reply to everyone, and I will enjoy that time. I am not going into a back-room; I will hear the questions and reply to them. I hope I will be invited again, because I enjoy these occasions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I wish the President of the Treasury Board had explained, in the 20 minutes allotted to him, some of the inconsistencies in the estimates now before us, not only within his department but in other departments of which he has over-all control. Instead, we have been subjected to some type of verbal biomass.
I believe that the essence of committee of the whole procedure is to get the facts. I notice that the minister adopted the trick of the government in talking about other jurisdictions and stating that somehow there are other countries that are doing even worse than we are. This is not in accordance with the facts. I think we should get that on the record at the beginning of this debate.
I find it very interesting that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have suddenly discovered that somehow the average worker in Canada is losing his productivity in relation to the United States. They must have known this at least a year ago, but they failed to reveal it to the Canadian public. The April 19, 1975, monthly economic letter put out by the First National City Bank of New York compared the competitive position of various countries with that of the United States. I think this government has a tremendous amount to answer for. The comparison shows that in 1965 the unit labour cost of Canadian production in relation to the United States was 85 per cent, and by 1970 it was still 85 per cent. That is when the Minister of Finance and his predecessor, and the President of the Treasury Board and his predecessor, started to tamper with things.
We find that by 1973 the productivity percentage had risen, in terms of Canadian productivity to that of the United States, to 96 per cent. Did any minister at that time point out that we were losing our productivity in relation to the United States? No, Mr. Chairman. At the end of 1974 our productivity was up to 99 per cent of that of the United States. That is one of the things the government should be more candid about with the Canadian people.
Look at it another way. How often have we heard people boast that we are the second wealthiest nation in the 
world. Actually, we are no longer the second wealthiest nation, per capita: we now rank sixth, behind such countries as Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, the United States and Kuwait. The last named country jumped ahead, of course, because of its huge oil revenues. Canada has slipped, largely because there has been too much public sector interference with the private sector. There has been too much government and too much Treasury Board spending in the past.
The minister said he looks forward to answering each participant in the debate. I hope he is making notes because I want him to answer some questions. For example, why did estimates of $22.4 billion in 1973 jump to $28.7 billion in 1974? That represents a spending increase of $6.3 billion. The minister admits that this is so and suggests he will try to do better next year. By that, the minister means that our annual increase in spending will not be 25 per cent but 16 per cent. If all federal government spending in the first 77 years after Confederation, from 1867 to 1944, were added together-and bear in mind that spending in two world wars must be included-the total would be $27.8 billion, which is less than the federal government spent in 1974 alone.


Mr. Blais:: What does that mean?


James McPhail Gillies: You don't know?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How typical of a government supporter to ask what that means. At one time governments were concerned even about $1 million; now the government appears to be unconcerned about the spending of $28 billion and more.


James McPhail Gillies: It's just the taxpayers' money; that's all.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me put the figures in perspective. Federal government expenditures for 1974 were twice the size of expenditures for 1969, three times the size of 1961 expenditures, and more than 12 times the size of 1950 expenditures. If expenditures continue increasing at the rate they increased between 1973 and 1974, they will double in less than three years. I suggest that members of the House ought to be concerned because government spending is out of control.


James McPhail Gillies: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Since 1968, that unfortunate year when the Prime Minister took power, federal government expenditures have increased by 134.8 per cent, but the average weekly wage has gone up barely 100 per cent. As you know, the federal government in 1974 spent $28.7 billion. Let me bring that spending into perspective. This represents daily spending of $78.7 million, hourly spending of $3.3 million and, taking it down to the minute, $54,600 every minute. That is how fast the government spends the taxpayers' money. If you want to know why, consider the number of civil servants employed. The President of the Treasury Board has the nerve to say that he is doing a
May 9, 1975

good job containing the numbers employed in the civil service.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He said he is just learning.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I wish he would learn a little better, because despite the computer age in which we live we employ proportionately more civil servants today than ever before in our history. In the last four years the increase has been significant. There was one civil servant employed in 1970 for every 78 Canadians; in 1974 there was one civil servant for every 67 Canadians.
The great advantage of committee of the whole procedure is that it gives us the opportunity to question the minister on various aspects of his estimates. I hope government supporters will not start their sandbagging tactics, as they often do in standing committees, as I think it is in the public interest that the minister should be asked questions directly. Hopefully, he will give direct answers. The minister said that he hopes to contain spending this year to a 16 per cent increase. What are his intentions for future years? Is spending to increase next year by 14 per cent, 12 per cent, or 10 per cent? In short, will he adhere to guidelines the government is asking others in the economy to follow?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He is going to use his Ouija board.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the government is allowed to increase spending by even 16 per cent per year, cumulative government spending will increase by 110 per cent in five years. An increase of 16 per cent is extravagant. Therefore, when the government says it hopes to hold its spending to about 16 per cent more, that is totally unacceptable.


James McPhail Gillies: Especially when the gross national product goes up only 3 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the minister keeps talking about restraint, I think he should explain why it is necessary for his department to be housed in such luxurious quarters in Place Bell Canada. I think all members of the House should look at those quarters, and the conditions under which the minister and his staff are working. They will see palm trees, Australian umbrella tree-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Swimming pools.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -split-leaf philodendrons, and all the rest of it. I think they will agree that the quarters are lavish.


An hon. Member:: Beyond extravagance.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Treasury Board is operating in quarters which would do justice to a tropical botanical garden.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is a lotus land.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Take a look at it: it is a paradise.


Mr. Fleming:: But not compared with some of the homes in your riding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the standing committee I tried to obtain details as to what the department is paying for these
Business of Supply
luxurious quarters. What is the rent per square foot? What did all the tapestries, beautiful shrubs, desks and other luxurious appointments cost? This is one of the most luxurious suites one can see in Ottawa.


An hon. Member:: If not in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I was told that information would be supplied, but so far it has not been and I trust the minister will supply it without further delay.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member that information right away. Treasury Board has
220,000	square feet on five floors in Place Bell Canada. The rent was negotiated by DPW at $5.97 per square foot.


An hon. Member:: And how many palm trees and split-leaf philodendrons are there?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the point I was making. The department is renting 220,000 square feet at more than $5 per square foot. Why, that is the equivalent of almost four acres of land at more than $5 per square foot. If you add what the Department of Finance has in the same luxurious building, you find they have almost ten acres of space that they are renting at approximately $5 per square foot.


Mr. Paproski:: That is shameful.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My colleagues tell me it is almost five acres of space that they are renting. Let me put it in another context. Five dollars per square foot, times 220,000 means $1,100,000 for rental space alone.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It costs almost $100,000 a month to house the minister and his entourage-and this is the minister who has the nerve to talk to Canadians about restraint.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the minister wants to give us some information, he can tell us the price of some of the furniture in his palatial offices. What did it cost for the wall-hangings, plants and the botanical niceties he apparently feels is necessary?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The President of the Treasury Board has not bought one chair since taking over these offices for the department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Did you ever see such irresponsibility on the part of the government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member was not telling the truth.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Here we have the minister, sitting four seats away from his predecessor, and he has the nerve to suggest that whatever furnishings he is enjoying at the present time have nothing to do with him. We are talking

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
about the fact that the government has housed the Treasury Board in extremely extravagant space and then turns around and tells the civil servants, wage earners and taxpayers of this nation to use restraint. In the standing committee I asked the minister to supply us with the cost of furnishings, carpets and all the rest of it for the 220,000 square feet being rented in Place Bell Canada. What did it cost to furnish those five acres of palatial quarters?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The hon. member will be allowed to put his questions, and the minister will have an opportunity to respond. This will facilitate the procedure.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member can ask questions and I will reply. However, he cannot say that I have not given a reply. The hon. member has not done his homework. It was replied to in the House of Commons on May 7, 1973, as reported at page 3460 of Hansard. Because the hon. member has not done his homework, we will have to table it again and again.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The minister is entering into debate. In order to facilitate the proceedings in committee, the hon. member for York-Simcoe will put his questions. When the hon. member's time expires, the minister will have an opportunity to answer all or any of the questions that have been put.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Speaking about doing homework, I remind the minister that in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on April 28 of this year I put the following question to him:
Could you also give us the cost of furnishing your quarters down there?
The minister replied:
Yes. We can provide that to you. I do not know how much-
I simply ask why the minister cannot give us the information that he agreed to give us on April 28, 1975. I am not talking about 1973.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the committee I would like to reply to this question.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member asked me for a-


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The Chair has ruled on the procedure to be followed in committee of the whole. The questions will be put, and they can be answered following the time that has been allotted to the hon. member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: To be explicit, Mr. Chairman, I have -eferred to the 16 per cent target the minister feels they hope to restrain themselves to within the current year. In answering the points I have raised, I would like the minister to specifically indicate the following. First, does he believe that the 16 per cent will be attained in the current year? Second, what does he see for each of the subsequent years 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980? If this government is going

to attempt to work out a consensus arrangement with other sectors of the economy, surely they have to state at what level they are willing to restrain government spending.
The document that was tabled yesterday was very clear. As far as labour is concerned, they are spelling it out. They believe labour must systematically cut their increases to roughly 8 per cent per annum. Does the President of the Treasury Board have a similar program to ensure that government spending will fall by a certain percentage each year over the next five years, assuming that this restraint program comes into position?
We should also have an indication from the President of the Treasury Board as to the mechanics within the department while working out the spending programs of government. I understand that at the present time they are considering the 1977 estimates. Certain submissions have been made to the department. I believe the minister should outline the significance of budget A and budget B which are submitted in that process.
He should also indicate to what extent he has been overruled by his cabinet colleagues. For example, is it true that the family allowance program that was advanced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not go through Treasury Board until after it was agreed to by the cabinet? The President of the Treasury Board should indicate whether the spending program that has been announced by his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has been approved by Treasury Board; or is this, again, a proposed spending of $1 billion that has been cleared by cabinet with Treasury Board being told after the fact?
Does the minister believe that the amount in the current estimates is appropriate to cover the shortfall in the unemployment insurance fund this year? Also, to what extent do they have spot audits? To what extent do they examine the month by month spending programs within the various government departments? More important still is the need for a thorough review of some of the consulting contracts which have been let by the government. We have to know why there appear to be such inconsistencies in the contracts themselves. I should like to hear more concerning the tests applied to determine the productivity and efficiency of civil servants. This subject has been raised by some of the minister's own backbenchers. How do ministers judge whether a department is functioning efficiently or not?
Again, here is a government which is talking restraint to the labour community; talking in terms of a 12 per cent increase. What are the government's own guidelines with respect to the wage structure of its civil servants? Are settlements being reached within this range at the present time? We understand they are not. I should also like to know what percentage of the total gross national product the minister feels is a desirable percentage for the government to take. In the last ten years or so the government take, at all levels, has risen from some 30 per cent to around 40 per cent. Does the minister feel that this is an objectionable trend and one which should be reversed?
May 9, 1975

Will the minister explain why salary levels within government are dramatically higher than those of similar civil servants in the United States? I should like him to tell us what role he has played in the consensus discussions which have been taking place.
I have many questions I want to put to him.


Mr. Caccia:: You have just revealed your ignorance. Carry on.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Was that Caccia?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The great brain of the Liberal Party.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Speak up, great wise one from Toronto.


Charles L. Caccia: I don't pretend to be a financial critic, you know.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is obvious from your remark.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the hon. member would like me to continue by asking a few more questions, I will be pleased to do so.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Go ahead, because they are not that dangerous.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I should like the minister to tell us what is the current debt level in Canada. He should explain why it has been felt necessary to increase it from about $33 billion at the time the present government took office to almost $60 billion today. This is a sensational increase. The minister should tell us whether he anticipated it will continue to increase or whether the cabinet intends to ensure that the liabilities of the government shall not continue to increase at such an alarming rate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is the interest rate on that?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My hon. friend has asked, what is the cost of this debt? Not only has the debt risen by almost 100 per cent, but interest rates have risen dramatically. We should be told, too, why the government has allowed such a high proportion of this debt to get into short-term securities and Canada Savings Bonds which are cashable on demand. This lack of foresight cost the Canadian public millions of dollars in the recent conversion of Canada Savings Bonds.
The minister should also indicate why he feels it was justifiable to increase the financing of Crown corporations from about $8 billion in 1968 to more than $16 billion at the present time. The government is now proposing to incorporate a new Crown corporation, Petro-Canada. It wants to reach into the public pocket for another $1.5 billion to finance that fantasy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: More jobs for Grits.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I believe the minister should tell the Canadian public what the forecasts are for the coming years. We are not asking for anything unusual. Most democracies in the world furnish such figures as a matter of course. In the United States they even forecast the output for 1979 in the budgetary papers; they show, year by year, what they anticipate will be the spending pro-
Business of Supply
gram of the government. But this government likes to dwell in secrecy. It refuses to level with the Canadian public. It is the only government of a democratic country which will not reveal its forecasts of inflation, which will not reveal its production forecasts, which will not reveal its forecasts of unemployment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They do not know.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps that is true. The fact is, we have a government which seems to be feeling its way by touch; one which refuses to come up with a well thought-out program capable of being justified to the public. Again, I hope the minister is making a note of some of these points. I believe he should indicate what percentage of the budget is controllable at the present time. As the figures are developing, not only is the budget skyrocketing but the percentage which is becoming uncontrollable is increasing even faster.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may continue after the recess.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. The committee will continue consideration of vote No. 1 of Treasury Board. The hon. member for York-Simcoe had the floor when the committee rose for lunch, and he has three minutes remaining in his contribution.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, in summing up, may I say I hope the minister will attempt to answer some of the questions I have put to him, as soon as I have finished my remarks. We believe that we need more than a token President of the Treasury Board in this country. If you link the President of the Treasury Board with the attitude displayed by the Minister of Finance, who claims that political expediency today must take precedence over economic reality, you have a bad combination. The fact is that these two ministers, who should in any cabinet be the watchdogs of the treasury and should insist that their colleagues restrain their spending, are not performing their job. This is why we have such high spending in this country and it is the reason the Canadian public is skeptical about any talk of consensus so far as restraint and an anti-inflation program is concerned. We have a government which, due to the increase in the money supply and their own spending habits, have contributed more to inflation than any other single force in the country.
Having said that, I hope the minister can start answering some of the questions we have put. Let us hear, for example, what it has cost the Canadian taxpayer to supply the lavish surroundings that this minister and his predecessor have enjoyed in Place Bell Canada. Let that be put on the record so we can hear specifically what some of the tapestries, rugs and other fancy plants down there have cost the country.
I should also like to hear, early in his remarks, to what extent the government is committed to a more restrained

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
spending program. They have said it will be 16 per cent this year. But what about 1977 up until 1980? Can we anticipate the government dropping two or three percentage points in their spending spree in each of those years, just as they are asking other sectors of the economy to do under the consensus policy? In short, we need a few answers and I hope we will get them this afternoon.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I think I should reply to some of the questions asked by the hon. member, because if I do not do so right away, he will be inclined to say that I do not want to reply. I was ready to reply right after he had asked his questions. I have already answered him about the square footage; $5.97 is competitive with other buildings in Ottawa. We have 220,000 square feet for the whole department. The hon. member was speaking about the business of the nation and he commented on the size of the offices in our department. Does he know that members of the department are forced to work in open spaces? Some people who make up to $30,000 a year do not even have a door to close, because we cannot afford it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Are you saying they are in the street?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No; they work in open spaces. We have to make it a little more agreeable for them, so of course we have a few plants here and there. The hon. member asks about how much money we have spent, but he does not ask how much money we have saved on that sort of thing. However, I am not going into that kind of nonsense because I think the people want us to be serious around here.
It was a great spectacle this morning when the hon. member asked all those questions and referred to the kind of government we had in 1867. He was 100 years late. We are talking about modern governments today. He compared the level of expenditures in 1867 to today. It is like comparing one banana with a crop of bananas. It is not the same ball game. He should be serious.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Will you reply?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, I will reply. He asks what the expenditures increases are from year to year. We have put $1.3 billion into oil compensation for the eastern consumers- Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. He voted for that. His party voted for it. Everyone in the House agreed, and today he is sanctimonious about the cost of it. They all voted for the items.
Then we have the matter of equalization payments. This was one of the issues in Canada. A former premier of Nova Scotia, the present leader of opposition, asked for this. The hon. member is repudiating his leader. What kind of a party is it when they speak against each other like that? Of course there has been an increase in the public debt and we must pay it. With the kind of friends the hon. member has, if we do not pay our interest he will be the first to get up to complain. So we put $650 million into debt payments. What about health services? We had to put $678 million on top of the expenditures of the previous year for health services. This is to pay the nurses, for example. The members of the hon. member's party were on

their feet in the House this morning asking us to give more to the nurses.


Walter David Baker: We just want to get them back to work.


An hon. Member:: Give them equality.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Equality among nurses in the same province?


James Aloysius McGrath: No, across the country.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What about the Tory minister of finance of the province of New Brunswick, who the other day told me that I was paying the civil servants too much and that the provincial civil servants wanted to join the federal government?


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am not ashamed. The policy of the government is to be fair and to give its employees good salaries that are comparable with those of their competitors. We must have an overview of the situation. The kind of questions put to me by the hon. member for York-Simcoe are a good example of the reason the people do not vote for members of his party. They vote for something such as an increase in family allowances, but when the bill comes, they complain about the money being spent. They cannot have it both ways.
If you have any guts, you should vote against something if you do not want to pay the bill. If I vote for something, I know I must pay for it. The hon. member complains about the increase in the expenditures of the federal government. Of course there was an increase over the years, but there was a greater increase in the provincial field.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Not last year.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes. On top of this, most of the increases in our expenditures last year were in the form of support payments either to individuals within the provinces or to provincial governments. This is not money we spend for fun. We are trying to redistribute the wealth of this country. From 1969 to 1974, the increase in federal expenditures was 110 per cent. For the same five years, the increase in the provincial field in respect of expenditures has been not 110 per cent but, rather, 139 per cent, or 29 per cent more than that of the federal government. The same story is true of the good province of Ontario which has had a Tory administration since eternity.


Walter David Baker: And will continue to have.


An hon. Member:: Until the election.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will have the answer soon. They are in trouble down there.
The kind of argument the hon. member put to us is almost unbelievable. He compared the wealth of Canada, for example, with the wealth of Kuwait. This is stretching the argument a little. The situation there is very unusual. They are taking a lot of wealth from the ground and selling it in the world markets. It is an abnormal situation
May 9, 1975

because of the increase in the price of oil around the world. They became rich quickly. We are not dealing with the same kind of situation. In fact, they do not know what to do with the money they have.


An hon. Member:: Neither do you.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; if the minister wishes to deal with the subject he is now on, I should like to hear his comments on the per capita situation in Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the United States. We once were number two in the world and were trying to be number one: under this government we have slipped to number six.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is not a point of order. The President of the Treasury Board.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I think most of our expenditures have increased.


An hon. Member:: What about Switzerland?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I follow the rules of the House, and the very able Chairman said this is out of order. For example, there has been an increase in expenditures because of the increase in the old age pensions. We have indexed the old age pensions. We have increased the amount of money we give to our older people.
The people who earn $25,000 working in the Treasury Board are working in open spaces without even doors to close. They should complain to me that I do not treat them well.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What was the cost of furnishing those offices?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I gave you the price per square foot.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What did it cost to furnish the offices?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We can provide the information for the table. I cannot give it to you now. We are always faced with the same problems. The hon. member should get serious. He speaks about office furniture when he should be talking about the problems of the nation. We want the House to tell us what to do. Members opposite ask questions but never give answers. They vote for increased expenses and then complain. This is why the people do not believe them.
I think it is true that the federal government and provincial governments are spending more than before, but we have a better quality of life in Canada than in most countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, we are number six.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would prefer to have the view of the New Democratic Party.
Business of Supply


An hon. Member:: That, I can believe.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Because they are like us. As Mr. St. Laurent said, the only difference is that they are in too much of a hurry; that is the only difference. Hon. members opposite are living in the past. I want a modern society, and when you have a modern society you have family allowances, old age pensions and all the programs that the federal government has to offer. We equalize revenues across the land. But what I cannot stand and what the Canadian people cannot stand is hon. members opposite saying that they support a program and then not wanting to pay for it. When I go to a restaurant and they present me with the bill, I pay it; I do not quarrel with it. I do not want to have a free meal; I pay my way. We have decided to have a society in Canada that will be an example to the modern world, and that is why expenses are increasing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about the furniture?


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Do you call in a consultant to read the menu?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am desperate when I see the hon. member with the ambition to become leader of his party. Is it the kind of leadership the country needs today? Is it the kind of leadership that Canada must have? I am sorry, because I had hopes that some day I would have the chance to be on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would love that, but I have to be responsible. I cannot take the chance, for the good of the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: So I have to stay here. The people of Canada agree that is good.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about the furniture?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I gave the information on the furniture. You will have it, Mr. Chairman, on the table on Monday; and the hon. member for York-Simcoe will get the colour of the furniture and if it is in leather-


An hon. Member:: Or suede.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -or some other material, and he can play with all the chairs he wants for the next 20 years. However, something is certain; that after that speech the people of Canada will never give him anything else to administer but a few chairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is one of the traditions of this place that we always have a good time on Friday. Today seems to be no exception and I do not quarrel with it, but at the risk of sounding like a long-faced, serious person-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply


Walter David Baker: We would never accuse you of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I would like to make the point that we are dealing with one of the most important portfolios in the federal government. The Treasury Board is responsible for not just the $335 million listed in its own estimates; it is, in effect, responsible for the whole book because the estimates of all departments have to receive the approval of the Treasury Board.
In the process of doing its job, I suggest that the Treasury Board has an influence far beyond government itself. It has a commanding influence on the very make-up of Canadian society. I break this down, for the purpose of this short speech, to three headings: the Treasury Board is responsible for the spending policy of the federal government, it is also responsible for the wages and incomes policy of the federal government, and it is responsible for policies relating to pensions and other social benefits.
To the extent that the Treasury Board sets standards in these three areas-how we spend our money, what our incomes are, and what our pensions and other social benefits are-we are into the very heart of Canadian society itself, and I hope that for at least some of the afternoon the discussion will be on these serious matters rather than on the question of whether certain office chairs are covered with leather or suede.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I always enjoy listening to the President of the Treasury Board. I enjoyed meeting him when he first came here a dozen years ago. He was not quite the orator he is now, and, he did not know a word of English. Just listen to him now! He has come a long way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: He likes to say that the Tories across from him claim that he is spending too much money, while we down here in the NDP corner want to spend more. So he feels very comfortable being in the middle. May I point out to him that it is true that we criticize the Progressive Conservatives for having only one notion, namely, to cut down expenditure, but we do not-


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not true.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is not right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members have had all the morning and they will have the rest of the afternoon. Let me have my 20 minutes. We are not just advocating the expenditure of more money; we are advocating proper priorities in government spending. We do not want to see money wasted on frills and non-essentials. We do not want to see our society given the kind of direction that results in overcapitalization in terms of filling stations, office buildings and an undersupply of homes, health services and the other things that our people need. Therefore, I say we are deeply concerned about the activities of this department because it not only determines how government money will be spent, but it 
sets the pattern for the spending of Canadians generally; and I argue very strongly that the kind of society we will have in the years immediately ahead and in the distant future depends on the kind of priorities that this department establishes.
I urge very strongly, therefore, that the Treasury Board think in these terms and realize that there is a point to our claim that the first charges on public money should be for the health, wellbeing and housing of our people; that public money should be spent to provide the jobs and services necessary to improve the quality of life in Canada.
So I say, let us not spend all afternoon on the question of whether so many dollars were spent on a particular office here or somewhere else. Let us have some discussion about priorities in our spending, knowing that in so doing we are determining the kind of Canada that we will have in the years that lie ahead. The President of the Treasury Board, a few weeks ago in the course of one of the labour disputes that was taking place, made the remark that he did not want the federal government to be a pace-setter. I suggest to him that, whether or not he wants the government to be a pace-setter, that is precisely what it is. The percentage of people who work for the federal government or Crown agencies is much higher than it used to be. This is the direction that we have pushed for, and we welcome it. The government is involved in so many of the activities of our country that the standards the government sets determine to a very large extent the standard of life- indeed, the quality of life-in Canada. So I say the priorities the Treasury Board establishes for the total expenditures of the government give a lead to the priorities of spending in Canada as a whole; and that makes our function at this moment terribly important.
The second heading I gave a few moments ago was wages and incomes policy. The Minister of Finance does a lot of talking about what wages should be paid and he talks about restraint on everybody except, of course, ourselves. But it is the President of the Treasury Board who, in very practical terms, has the final say about the wages and incomes of many thousands of persons, those in the employ of the federal government and, in turn, Crown corporations, and so on. I welcome the fact that we have established collective bargaining; and for all the aches and pains there may be in the process, it is alive and well and I hope it is here to stay. But there is one idea the government ought to start putting on the table when it comes to collective bargaining and I hope the President of the Treasury Board will take this to heart. I suggest that one of the reasons we are having so much trouble in the wages and incomes field in Canada is the growing spread between the incomes of those in lower brackets and those in upper brackets. I suggest that one of the myths we continue to subscribe to at the bargaining table is the myth of percentage increases. It sounds fine and plausible to say we should give a 10 per cent increase, but 10 per cent of $10,000 is $1,000 and 10 per cent of $40,000 is $4,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Very good.
May 9, 1975


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends approve of my arithmetic, but I suggest that this is not a laughing matter. This is one of the things happening in our day. We are assuming that to raise wages on a percentage basis, is the thing to do but the result is that we are getting increasingly wide discrepancies and when people in the middle or lower income groups see people in the upper income groups going higher and higher into the stratosphere, they want more, too-and that is the picture we have.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the unions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am telling it to members of parliament. This House gave a lead to this country. Hon. members wanted a 50 per cent increase but toned it down to 33Vz per cent with 7 per cent escalation compounded on an annual basis. I suggest that if we want to give some leadership, it should start here. We made that decision or, rather, parliament made that decision. Some of us were strongly opposed to it, but I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that in wage talks going on with those involved in collective bargaining and in the adjustments which are made in the upper reaches of the public service, it is time to start talking increases which are in lower percentages for those in the upper brackets but not for those in the lower brackets.
I do not know what will happen in terms of salaries for those at the top level, the deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and assistants to assistant deputy ministers-those in the $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000 bracket. I believe there is some kind of study being made about them and no doubt a report will be made discussing what has happened in the private sector, and so on, and setting it all out in percentage terms, and we are likely to receive another of those recommendations. Such a recommendation will do just as much damage to the wage situation in this country as has been done in this place and over in the Senate as well.
When one talks about the cost of living having gone up and the need for people to be compensated with higher wages to meet the rise in the cost of living, I suggest that that percentage increase should apply only to that portion of one's income which is actually spent meeting the cost of living, but because persons have enough to cover the cost of living and then more for luxuries is no reason why the percentage increase should apply both to the basic part and to that which is gravy on the top.
I make this speech on this occasion because although the President of the Treasury Board may not set all the wages in Canada, he has much to do, even in the collective bargaining process, with the wage levels in the public service, those which come under collective bargaining, and perhaps even still more to do with the wages and salaries of those in higher brackets who receive more. The strong plea I make to him is that he not live for ever by the myth that percentage increases solve the problem. Percentage increases are fine for those in the lower or middle-income brackets, but the same percentage increases given to those in the upper brackets simply cause more trouble.


Mr. Jamieson:: Is the union movement agreeable to that?
Business of Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend asks a very good question. He wants to know whether the union movement is agreeable to that. There is real trouble in the union movement over that; I do not deny that for one moment. Those higher up still want to receive just the same percentage as those lower down. But someone has to give the lead somewhere. If my idea is sound, and there are many people in the union movement who agree with it, I think someone has to give a lead to it somewhere and I am hoping that the President of the Treasury Board will try to give that lead.


Mr. McRae:: Explain your split-level cost of living percentages to some and not to others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friend is asking that I set a figure, I think by doing that I would simply start an argument over such a figure, and I do not feel like doing that. I want to stick to the principles.


Paul Edmund McRae: Explain how it would work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think that if there has been an increase in the cost of living of, say, 10 per cent, wage increases should be 10 per cent of that portion or up to that level which is regarded as covering a standard, basic cost of living. For incomes above that point, the increase should be less than 10 per cent. Where incomes are way up, there should be none at all.


Mr. Railton:: About 7 per cent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend had better just sit in his seat and keep quiet. That 7 per cent we are to get is compounded on top of 33'/3 per cent, so that by the end of this parliament we will be getting an increase of 62 or 63 per cent. If my hon. friends want to continue debating the pay increase, they can take me on any day they want.


Walter David Baker: Don't get Stanley ruffled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will move to the other heading I mentioned, that of pensions and social benefits. One is aware that old age security and other benefits in that area come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for pension policy as it affects public servants, the armed forces, RCMP personnel, and a whole host of others. We will receive the list in a few days when we deal with Bill C-52. I call upon the minister to straighten out some of the anomalies in that situation, little details such as the fact that armed forces personnel have to wait until age 60 before they get their escalation, and also the fact that the escalations are always behind, as applies in some other cases as well. There is also the need to increase the percentage paid to widows. But I mention this subject now because I think the principle I have suggested regarding wages and salaries will some day also have to apply to pensions.
I take some pride in having fought for about 25 years to have retired civil service pensions escalated. I remember the thrill it was when we finally won and the present

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
Minister of Public Works stood here one Friday afternoon and announced it, but I am disturbed by the fact that in one respect we won too well. The kind of percentage increase we now have is such that when in January of this year there was a 10 per cent increase in all public service pensions, that meant that the $2,000 people received an increase of $200, but those with $25,000 pensions received a $2,500 increase. I think the principle I have just been enunciating regarding the wages and incomes of our people should apply to pensions. In other words, I am arguing for us in Canada to move more in the direction of an egalitarian society. Perhaps it will take us a while to get there, but at least we can narrow the gap. You do not narrow the gap when you use the percentage formula and keep raising those at the top salary more than those at the bottom. You narrow the gap if you exercise restraint for those higher up and bring the others closer to them.
As I said earlier, I am arguing for this not just because it applies to many thousands in the public service or retired from the public service, but because what the President of the Treasury Board said the other day is the fact: he is a pace-setter. To the extent that we establish these ways of doing things in the public service, we establish them as a whole.
I am prepared to let my case rest at that for the moment. I call upon the House to treat this department as the serious one it is. The estimates of the Treasury Board itself are a little over 1 per cent of the total estimates in the book, but the Treasury Board approves all the estimates in the book and so is largely responsible for the social direction established in this country. I hope the President of the Treasury Board will pay some attention to the ideas I have submitted this afternoon.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the two points that the hon. member has raised. I must congratulate him on the level of his participation; he is much less concerned with the quality of furniture than with people. The hon. member spoke about wages and incomes policies and the influence that the Treasury Board has. I disagree with him, however, when he says that sometimes we become the pace-setter, because I have tried to avoid that. I have said many times that when I resist some demands as President of the Treasury Board, it is not just because it would be too expensive for the federal government to implement them. Of the $32 billion estimates in front of the House today, we spend only 14 per cent on wages, so even if I overspent my budget by 10 per cent it would be only 1.4 per cent of the total expenditure, which would not destroy the whole system.
It would be a very simple solution for me to become a pace-setter and to put pressure on all other levels of public and private administration, but I do not think we should use the federal government for that purpose. We have to maintain high standards and we cannot allow problems to develop that would affect other levels of government and the private sector. Our policy is comparability. We want our people to be as well paid, but not better paid, than other people.
Some hon. members complain to me because in Canada 20 per cent of the federal civil servants are on a regional

rate, and other members from places like Vancouver, the Yukon, or Seven Islands complain about the national rates because the cost of living is higher there. We try to pay blue collar workers, who are not too mobile, a rate comparable to that paid to the same type of worker in the same town because we feel we should not put a burden on the local economy by paying higher than our competitors in the same labour pool.
With a national rate, you end up with a situation like the strike of firefighters in Vancouver. They wanted the regional rate because they earn $2,000 a year less than the city of Vancouver firefighters. We wanted to pay them the same as the city, but the national rate did not permit us to do that and the unions do not permit us to do it either. We are negotiating those things with the unions now, winning some arguments and losing some. So, Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the hon. member that we have to be the pace-setter. I think we should avoid that, but should treat our employees as well as anybody else on a comparable basis.
As far as the spread between the lower and the higher bracket is concerned, I think the hon. member has a good point. We have to avoid speaking in terms of percentage. The hon. member's arithmetic is simple and understandable-10 per cent of 10,000 is 1,000, and 10 per cent of 40,000 is 4,000. We have managed to narrow the gap to some extent in the last five years when we have given 8.7 per cent more to people in the operational, administrative, support and technical categories than for the people at the top level. That means the people who are lower than the SXs receive 8.7 per cent more than the higher echelon. It is not much of a difference, but it is a difference.
The hon. member argues that everyone should earn more or less the same salary, but I do not know any country where everyone is equal. I had a discussion with the ambassador to Canada of one of the socialist countries, and asked him the difference in pay between a minister and a plumber in his country. He said that the minister gets about five times more than the plumber. If a plumber in Canada makes $20,000, then I should be making $100,000, and I am very far away from that. Mr. Chairman, it is just a dream to think of everyone on the same level of pay. That dream has not been realized over the centuries and I do not think we are on the verge of realizing it in Canada or anywhere else.
The hon. member said that the government should intervene in society and try to correct some of the inequities. Just to show the increase in our expenditures, I should like to point out that in 1966-67 the federal government spent a little less than $2 billion on health and welfare; in 1974-75, we will spend more than $7 billion. In eight years, social and welfare expenditure has increased 314 times. Of course, all members of the House have been associated with that. When I came here in 1963 we did not have things like medicare. Old age pension payments were very low and were not indexed. We had no national hospitalization program, nor were there many of the social benefits which exist today in our society. We have quadrupled family allowances, and I am proud to have been associated with this.
May 9, 1975

That is the trend, but there is a limit. In our society, there are now fewer inequalities than existed, say, 25 years ago. Today you will see fewer people begging on the sidewalks. We do not see beggars any more and this is the result of legislation which members of this House have supported in the last 10 or 15 years. I think we should keep on this course. I know we cannot do everything in one parliament or in one generation, but I think most hon. members agree that the fabric of our society is stronger now and there is more social equality than there was 25 years ago. Of course, a lot remains to be done. We hope that if the economy grows sufficiently strong, we can do more. But we need time and more growth in our economy if we are to achieve our aims. I hope everyone will get the message and do their best to improve conditions in the land.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, when I first listened to the minister this morning I wondered where I was. I have always understood that in committee of the whole ministers make submissions and that estimates are dealt with seriously. I admit that my practical experience is limited, but I have read about this procedure and we dealt with several matters earlier in the session in committee of the whole. Frankly, I was offended by the minister's attitude earlier today.
Some hort. Members: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He has used this procedure which has been established in other parliaments and which, until 1968, was followed in this parliament for the purpose of getting his message across. The members of the committee and the public want to know, basically, how the government is managing the affairs of this country. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, this matter must be treated with seriousness and not in a partisan way.


An hon. Member:: Oh, boy!


Walter David Baker: Earlier today I heard the hon. member for York-Simcoe direct a number of questions to the minister, not one of which, so far as I can remember, has been answered. Those questions dealt with furniture, office space and other matters. They were legitimate questions put to the government on behalf of the people of Canada and they have not been answered. The government should not treat committee of the whole procedure in the way the Prime Minister treats the question period. This is not the place to parry: this is the place where the government is to be held accountable for its spending, for its objectives and for the working of its policies.


An hon. Member:: Get to the point.


Walter David Baker: I will get to it in a
minute. The President of the Treasury Board says to those in the opposition who are asking questions, "Tell us what you would do." I say to the President of the Treasury Board, "My God, you won the election"-and I don't begrudge the victory, but in that election the people of Canada placed on the shoulders of the government certain
Business of Supply
responsibilities. One of them is to account to parliament and the people, and the other is to act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And to govern.


Walter David Baker: The minister spoke about the Canadian people having long faces. You bet they have long faces. We are discussing these estimates in a strange atmosphere, an atmosphere in which unemployment is increasing, inflation is escalating, senior citizens are falling ever further behind, housing starts are down, our balance of payments situation is in trouble and our dollar, according to rumours, may be devalued. The Minister of State responsible for housing cannot meet his optimistic expectations. Further, the optimism of the Minister of Finance of five months ago has evaporated. Yesterday he put on his red tie and grey suit and finally admitted that this country is in trouble.
That is the atmosphere in which we are asking the government to account. The President of the Treasury Board has a responsibility. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said-I do not always agree with him, but I agree with him on this-the Treasury Board is the heart and soul of the government's operation; its tentacles spread to every department. It has the responsibility to account and to establish priorities. I suggest that there is little evidence of priority planning on the part of that department of government.
More than that, Treasury Board has the responsibility of overseeing government programs. It should not hide expenditures, but disclose them. It should not refuse to give forecasts on unemployment and inflation, but give them to parliament and the Canadian people. That has not happened in this country. If we are to continue in committee of the whole with the kind of charade we witnessed before lunch, I do not hold out much hope for the continuation of this kind of procedure.
I hope that some backbench members on the government side are prepared to ask the kind of questions which we on this side of the House are asking. They, too, are private members and ought to be concerned about the workings of parliament. They, too, ought to be concerned about where this country is going, at what pace and what the benefits are to be. They, too, should ask how the government is to solve this or that problem; what we are to do about housing, for example. They, too, should question the President of the Treasury Board and not try to barrack those who are trying to question the minister in committee.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Chairman-


Walter David Baker: Sit down and go back to sleep. The Treasury Board has the responsibility to oversee the financial operations of this government and to see that rules concerning the spending of money are observed. It must see to it that cabinet ministers follow those rules in their spending. I say that is not happening in this country. It has not happened recently.
I directed a series of questions to the Minister of Labour, in his capacity as minister responsible for mul-ticulturalism, about a certain matter. On December 20, 1974, I asked the minister certain questions about a con-

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
tract involving the sum of $250,000. The figure is not important; the principle is. I asked the minister why a certain contract had been awarded to Price, Rubin and Partners who are, coincidentally, the former law partners of the Minister of Labour.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order-on two points of order, actually. First, I submit the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is going beyond the scope of these particular estimates by raising a matter to do with multiculturalism. Second, as the hon. member invited backbenchers of the governing party to pronounce themselves on certain matters, I suggest to him that they have not done so because none of them has been recognized by the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Hon. members here have tried to catch the attention of the Chair.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is not a point of order. Pull in your horns.


Walter David Baker: Dealing with this matter, Mr. Chairman, that firm received three contracts without tenders during the fiscal year 1974-75. There was $170,000 provided to promote the efforts of the Department of the Secretary of State. That submission was signed by the Minister of Labour. There was $75,000 for an ethnic festival in Ottawa.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you sit down?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary North would like to take the chair and rule on this matter. I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that I raised a point of order, namely, that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is attempting to deal with the Department of the Secretary of State. I suggest he ought not be allowed to do that.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. If the hon. member will look at vote 1 of the Treasury Board, he will see that the hon. member is in fact in order.


Walter David Baker: The last one was $250,000 to publicize the aims of several departments and cultural agencies, launched in the winter of 1974. That submission was signed by the Minister of Labour on November 21, 1974.
I am not going to deal with the question of the commission that was received by that particular department because in terms of the amount I understand the commission was reasonable. However, it is a fact that under the rules of the watchdog, Treasury Board, its approval must be sought for all ad expenditures exceeding $10,000 before commitments are made. The fact is the ads in this campaign for a quarter of a million dollars appeared in the papers well before January 16, 1974. This is the information I tried to get from the Minister of Labour without success. I questioned the President of the Treasury Board

as well. Treasury Board did not give final approval until January 16, 1975. The Minister of Labour admitted that in a letter he wrote to me on April 9. He said there was a Treasury Board document to cover it dated November 21, 1974, but the fact is the money was spent on this contract well before Treasury Board approval was received. I believe, and will continue to believe unless I am advised to the contrary, that was an attempt to cover up this kind of program which has been going on for a long time.
I am also advised that Mr. Price of Price, Rubin and Partners stated that he was not aware he needed Treasury Board approval before work could proceed. I do not know how he could be unaware of that. I am not going to make any comment with regard to the connections between the Minister of Labour and Mr. Price who heads that department. I have said all I want to say. However, out of this litany of difficulty there are a few questions I want to put to the President of the Treasury Board. This is only exemplary of a number of things that the government has been doing, even if it is well intentioned.
What procedure did the Treasury Board follow when Price, Rubin and Partners, Inc. were recommended for the $250,000 contract? Would the minister explain what procedure is followed by the government which enables individuals or firms to be granted government contracts without tenders being called? Does the minister not agree that the granting of government contracts without tenders being called smacks of political patronage, and that legislation should be introduced to prohibit this from occurring in the future?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I understand that the order for today is to study votes Nos. 1, 5, 10 and 20 of the Treasury Board. I have looked at those votes. None of them covers any of the matters which have been brought to the attention of the government by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am on a question of privilege and I would like to complete my point.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. Whether it is on a point of order or a question of privilege, the Chair has ruled on the matter which disturbs the hon. member for Nipissing. To repeat, vote No. 1 concerns those matters which come under the administrative authority of the Treasury Board. This is a broad category dealing with a large number of policy matters under the jurisdiction of the government. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is quite in order in his remarks.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I will begin by repeating the question I tried to put before I was interrupted. Does the minister not agree that the granting of government contracts without tenders being called smacks of political patronage, and that legislation should be introduced to prohibit this from occurring in the future? Is that not a reasonable proposition?
Will the minister explain why Price, Rubin and Partners, Inc. proceeded with their multiculturalism campaign before the Treasury Board approved this contract? Is this standard procedure for all government contracts or just
May 9, 1975

those which are granted without tenders being called? Will the minister explain why Price, Rubin and Partners, Inc. were not informed that they must seek Treasury Board approval before their work could proceed? In light of Mr. Price's statements that he was not aware that he needed Treasury Board approval, is this House to assume that work was started on the two previous contracts before they were approved by the Treasury Board?
I think there is something to be answered for here, and this is only with regard to one minister, albeit in a relatively small monetary area of government expenditures. However, in terms of the principle of accountability and the integrity of Treasury Board, and indeed of the President of the Treasury Board, what discretion do ministers have to spend money? How is it being used? These are legitimate questions to be put to any President of the Treasury Board in the course of this kind of proceeding.
I think the hon. member for Nipissing would be well advised to sit back and listen rather than interrupt on questions of privilege. The answer may well be that there is innocence.


James McPhail Gillies: I doubt it.


Walter David Baker: There may be some who doubt that. I can forgive them if they do. However, regardless of what might be said, I think these questions are legitimate and should be answered.
There is another question I want the President of the Treasury Board to answer. Will he consider, or in fact review all government contracts which the Minister of Labour has approved for similar irregularities and, if they exist, report to this House? I think that is a legitimate request. At the same time, he might ask his brothers in the ministry to do the same. I think this is quite legitimate in view of this kind of matter occurring.
As I understand it, the purpose of committee of the whole is to deal with the whole issue of accountability in parliamentary government. The estimates must be accountable as well. They must stand up to scrutiny. I have been going into this matter. I will mention certain estimates.
It is a fact that the estimates for the official languages branch are down 48 per cent although authorized manhours, according to the same estimates, are the same. In an age when the government, following its policy, is promoting the use of two official languages, expanding schools and hiring teachers, the estimates of the official languages branch are somehow down. Do you know what this suggests to me, Mr. Chairman? It suggests that if the true cost of the program were known, however well intentioned the expenditure might be, the people of Canada would shake in their beds. I ask the President of the Treasury Board to produce the figures. They are scattered, now, through all the departments. It is important that he should produce them.
The Official Languages Act embodies a principle which was supported by all parties in the House, but there is a difference of opinion as to the manner in which it is being implemented in the public service. Surely, these items
Business of Supply
should be brought together. How much is this program costing? Are the Canadian people getting dollar value for the tremendous amount being spent?
I ask this question in the light of another revelation. Here is the document which was produced to the Director of Finance and Administration and the Director of Planning and Evaluation by the personnel adviser of a certain department of government. It said:
For the third consecutive year, the Commissioner of Official Languages has reported to cabinet that in general the public service is not meeting the requirements of the Official Languages Act.
In February of this year, the Prime Minister met with the deputy heads of all government departments and agencies and indicated that the Public Service was not making sufficiently rapid progress toward the attainment of the objective of institutional bilingualism and that the bilingualism process must be accelerated.
What have they done? They have decided that term employees who fill designated bilingual positions for six months or more must be bilingual at the time of selection. Not only is this stupid in terms of policy but it is discriminatory. In effect, it is saying that those who want to work for the government on a term basis in a position which is designated bilingual must be bilingual from the outset. Nobody quarrels with the principle of the Official Languages Act, but it is this kind of nonsense which arouses the ire of Canadians. Indeed, it is this kind of nonsense which prompts me to ask: how much is this program costing? I think this is a legitimate question for one to ask, especially in this committee where the government is supposed to account for such matters.
The minister might not be able to answer all these questions immediately and if that is the case I am prepared to see the answers tabled. Preferably, I should like to have the answers now, because if this procedure in the committee of the whole is to mean anything these are questions to which answers should be forthcoming.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I cannot reply to the questions at this moment because each time I get up to reply another member of the House is deprived of an opportunity to speak. If my speaking has the effect of depriving another hon. member from asking questions I prefer to remain in my seat.


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Laurier.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this arises from the position the minister is taking. While the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was speaking, several meetings were going on across the way. In fact, there was louder talk over there than I could hear from this side of the chamber. Now the minister says he wants to let everybody speak. Mr. Chairman, I saw the Liberal whip going around among the members of his party. They are going to talk, and we shall get no answers. This whole procedure will be a farce unless we can get information.
This morning I reminded hon. members that the opposition had enjoyed certain well established rights, ever since confederation, when it came to voting supply. I might have added that in the old days we would say to a minister, "We are not going to pass your estimates until we get answers to our questions." But under this hanky-panky compromise in which we find ourselves today the minister

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
can remain silent and hide all the facts from the people of Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I should like to reply to the hon. member on that point of order. I am sitting in my place as a Minister of the Crown, not as a member of a party, yet the time I take is counted against the party on this side. I should like to give all the answers, but it is unfair that others should lose an opportunity to take part in asking questions. The hon. member for York-Simcoe urged me to reply right away to his questions. I did so, but I realized that the Liberal party would be deprived of time, and I respect the rule of the majority.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister's suggestion, if followed, would make these proceedings absolutely worthless. We have sat through debates with the Minister of Finance, for example, when his department was involved. He answered the questions we put to him, and there was no suggestion that somehow he was taking up the time of his hon. friends on that side of the House. I should like to see the minister answer some of the questions we have raised. He said he answered the questions I raised. I put 13 questions to him and he touched on two of them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from you whether it is true that each time I speak the time allotted to members of the Liberal party is shortened accordingly?


Walter David Baker: It doesn't really matter whose time the minister uses up. What is important is that the minister answer our questions. How could he possibly say he is not here as a party man. If he is not a Liberal, I have not seen a Liberal. Of course he is here as a party man, but he is also here as a member of the government appearing before the committee of the whole, the rules governing which have been worked out by his own House leader, the House leader of the NDP, myself, and others, because we wanted to see the thing work. The only way that it will work at all is if the minister exercises the responsibility that is his, rises in his place and answers the questions that have been put to him.


Charles Joseph Clark: He has not got the guts.


John Mercer Reid: On point of order, Mr. Chairman, something has occurred this afternoon that was not contemplated when these new rules were designed and when they were discussed in committee. Some of us had always had the idea that when a minister rose to answer question put to him in these proceedings this was time that would not come out of the time allotted to the political party the minister represented, because he was answering as a Minister of the Crown. What has happened this afternoon is that members on this side of the House have not had an opportunity to speak because it has been considered by some members of the House that, in speaking, the minister has been a partisan of the Liberal party instead of speaking as a minister of the Crown.
It is clear that something has arisen which had not been contemplated. We do not dispute the right of the Chair to take the attitude it has, and we are not raising a point of

order from our side, but there will have to be discussions among the House leaders and others to decide how this procedure is to work. Mr. Speaker has made it clear, time and time again in the question period, that he is recognizing more members on this side than he has before. Therefore, if the Chair takes the attitude that the time taken by the minister is time taken from this side, then we will have to seek an accommodation to satisfy the members on this side, who are also members of parliament and have the right to participate in the proceedings of this House in the same way as any other elected member.
Perhaps the matter could be left where it is now and we will abide by the practice you have followed; but perhaps the committee would give the minister 20 minutes to sum up before the proceedings are concluded this afternoon.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The duty of the Chair is clearly that of balancing the time on both sides of the House. On the point of order that has been raised, members will recognize that time has been taken from the hon. member for Laurier who has been recognized. The hon. member for Laurier has the floor.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Chairman, twice you rendered a decision to the effect that when the estimates of the Treasury Board are examined, in view of the objectives set out in the Blue Book, almost any problem could be discussed. I do certainly not wish to-


Charles Joseph Clark: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain is rising on a point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to have clarified, for my benefit and that of other members who want to have this proceeding make some sense and serve some purpose, whether it will be the intention of the minister responsible here, the President of the Treasury Board, to answer the questions put to him by members of the House, or whether he is going to use the lame excuse he just used, as another cover for not providing information to members of parliament. Is he going to get up and answer questions asked by my colleague from Grenville-Carleton, or is he going to continue to hide out?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, this morning I was very keen to get up and reply to the questions. I will take note of the questions, and if the House gives me time at the end I will try to reply. I felt it was a proper procedure to reply now, but in doing so, the rule, as it stands now, was depriving the majority of their time, and I decided I would not get up and deprive the majority of their rights as members of parliament.


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Laurier.


Charles Joseph Clark: In other words, you won't answer. You have absolute contempt for the House.
May 9, 1975


Fernand-E. Leblanc: It seems, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition would like to muzzle the Liberals. I do not feel that this procedure is in order in a parliament, and when there is an indication that the Liberals wish to muzzle the opposition, then the members of the opposition grumble. Well I too am also going to grumble, because something had already been agreed upon almost ten minutes ago, and since then I have been interrupted.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


B. Keith Penner: Order. The hon. member for York-Simcoe on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister made reference to what he understands is some rule governing these proceedings. I should like clarification. Is there any rule such as the minister has referred to, because the committee of the whole proceeding is absolutely useless if what the minister says is true? These government members can sandbag this thing until five o'clock.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They are members of parliament too.


B. Keith Penner: There certainly is no such rule as that to which the hon. member for York-Simcoe has referred. There has been a decision from the Chair that it is standard practice in committee of the whole to balance the time on both sides of the House. That the Chair will endeavour to do. If the minister rises to respond he will, of course, be recognized. If he does not rise to respond on this side of the House, then another hon. member will be recognized, which is what has happened at the present time. The hon. member for Laurier has been recognized, and members have been eating into his time on various points of order.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the interruptions I have been submitted to since you recognized me about 15 minutes ago will not be included in the time I was given to speak on the important matter of the Treasury Board's estimates.
As I said earlier, you did make a ruling that, when- [English]


Steve Eugene Paproski: Go ahead and ask some questions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Have you anything to say? If not, sit down because we have.


An hon. Member:: If you have something to say, say it.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Chairman, I have a lot to say, but even if there are very few opposition members here this afternoon, I think the matter we are considering is an important one. There are hardly ten of them, so I believe they are not entitled to ask me if I have something to say. They do not seem to have anything to say, except destructive criticisms. The member of the House asked whether I have anything to say. I do have a lot to say and I
Business of Supply
am going to take all my time to say it. I cannot see why they should continue to interrupt me in such a disgraceful way. But it is a habit that particular member has indulged in for some time and I cannot see where it will lead him. He may believe that his attitude will lead him to the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party, but I do not think it will. I believe that more qualified people might get the job.
Mr. Chairman, I would not like to be interrupted every other minute because I surely will have many difficulties to express what I have to say this afternoon about the Treasury Board.
As I said before I was interrupted many times, a ruling was made and sustained on two or three occasions, that, when one speaks about the objectives of the Treasury Board, one can speak about many matters. I am very glad-


Charles Joseph Clark: Why don't you ask some questions?


Fernand-E. Leblanc: If you have something to say I will sit down.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have a number of questions to raise with the President of the Treasury Board. The hon. member has ceded his time to me. I am delighted to have that happen, and I am prepared to put my questions now to the President of the Treasury Board.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The hon. member for Laurier has the floor.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Chairman, it shows once more that he will surely not become the leader of the Progressive Conservatives.
As I was saying earlier, you made decisions that I consider very important as I am the chairman of a committee which is, as you know, the miscellaneous estimates committee and this, fortunately or unfortunately for the opposition, since 1968. From time to time, I had to make similar rulings as your own, Mr. Chairman, and the Liberal members of that committee often discussed my rulings on the relevance of the question put to ministers and you can be sure that I shall refer to your ruling when my own decisions will be discussed in committee.
As usual, it is not surprising, the opposition takes advantage-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I must again rise on a point of order because the hon. member referred to the fact that your ruling would be remembered by him when he chairs one of his committees. We must get this proceeding into perspective. What is supposed to be happening today is in our opposition day the estimates have been brought back from a standing committee at which point we hope to have an opportunity to re-examine the situation and receive answers from the minister. In a standing committee there is never any suggestion when a minister is under questioning that his time should come out of the time of the Liberal members on that committee. They receive their

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
relative pro rata time in the committee. To suggest that every time the minister stands up to answer a question from our side or from the government side the time should come from the Liberal side is totally wrong. I think it is an extremely alarming thing to hear from the chairman of one of the standing committees the suggestion that he will take this type of ruling back to the committee. The fact is that we should have the right to question the minister. Instead of loading the questions as I have to do by asking 13 of them I think he should be allowed to answer each question if we wish. I would ask that this would be reviewed and that we have a meaningful proceeding here. We have less than an hour and a half to go. We have questions we wish the minister to answer and at the present time it is obvious that we are going to be sandbagged up until five o'clock.


Walter David Baker: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. If it is your ruling, and we are bound by that ruling for the balance of the afternoon, then may I say with the greatest respect that I hope you will place on the record that this is at least an experimental project. We are attempting to marry the old opposition day in the traditional sense with the committee of supply day of an even longer tradition. The marrying of this situation may contain some difficulties and there may have to be some discussions. If I may say so I would hope that you would at least indicate that your decision here today ought not to in any way bind the committee forever and that if it is to stand for today, at the very worst it should stand only for today and ought not to go any further.
I say this because there has been an honest attempt-I have said this to the government House leader and have said it on previous occasions-to do something to make this a meaningful procedure. When the hon. member for York-Simcoe stated as he did a few moments ago that the members of this House ought not to be impeded in terms of their time by virtue of an interjection or an answer to a question by the minister I think it is in the mind of every one of us that it should happen in this way and I hope you, Mr. Chairman, will not bind anyone occupying the chair in the sense of giving the hon. member for Laurier any comfort in his suggestion that he could take notice of this in committee as some sort of precedent. I do not think that should be the case.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it was my point of order that initially fuelled this fire I might indicate I would join with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in his comment and hope that if there is to be some sort of consultation we would also consider my first point of order which was the subject matter and the length of the examination or debate which could take place.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council on the same point of order.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wish to support my colleague the acting House leader for the Conservative party, the Official Opposition, in saying I hope you will look upon this as an experimental day and an experimental procedure and avoid making any rulings until we have

had an opportunity to discuss these proposals. I have only one comment to make which I believe also should be borne in mind by those participating in the discussion this afternoon. The minister is placed in a rather awkward position when a member asks for answers to 13 questions and expects the minister to be able to answer them all in a very few minutes. I think this is one problem which has arisen. If this had not happened we might not have become involved in the difficulty we have this afternoon.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. Hon. members have referred to a decision from the Chair. I must say no such decision or ruling exists. The Chair simply declared that every effort would be made to apportion the time on both sides of the House. If the minister stands to be recognized, of course he will be recognized. So, there has been no ruling or decision made.
The standard practice in this committee is to apportion the time as equitably as possible. That responsibility which rests with the Chair is taken with the utmost seriousness. In the meantime the hon. member for Laurier has been recognized. He has had great difficulty in presenting his comments and time has been eaten up in this apportionment of time we are attempting to achieve.
The hon. member for Laurier.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Chairman, I was certainly not discussing your ruling and the translation may not have rendered exactly what I wished to express. Occasionally, as chairman of a very important committee of this House, the miscellaneous estimates committee, I must say that many members raise points of order concerning the relevance of questions.
I was saying that when we wish to discuss bilingualism, multiculturalism and other matters while reviewing the estimates of the Treasury Board, if members of the Opposition or Liberals are asking me similar question I might refer not necessarily to your ruling, but to the debate of this afternoon which I consider as a very valuable experience. I might occasionally refer to that debate to make a decision that might be favourable or unfavourable to the members asking the question depending on the problem raised. So, I would certainly not want in any way members of the opposition to think that I wanted to encroach upon their right to speak in committee. On the contrary, I think I am one of the committee chairmen who accept many questions that might otherwise be out of order. Then, of course, Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of experience.
I would like to come back to the problem before us this afternoon-the Treasury Board estimates.
It would seem the opposition is taking advantage of the new tentative set of rules now in the form of a nice white-cover book. It is a temporary set of rules for the House of Commons that was passed on March 24, 1975, but it would seem we will regret a lot having passed that new set of rules since the problems raised this afternoon do not seem to have been foreseen by the Committee on Procedure and Organization which drafted the new rules.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Treasury Board estimates were considered by the committee which I have had
May 9, 1975

the honour of chairing, as I said earlier, since 1968 in this House-they were considered on Monday, April 28, 1975. One can read the debates that took place on that occasion-quite interesting debates at that-in issue No. 29. Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Treasury Board were considered. On that occasion, the minister responsible felt bound to reply to all the questions of the official opposition which was represented at that time especially by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who is now away on official business, by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who, of course is present as usual, and also by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). As I said, we considered votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20.
It seemed then that the opposition was interested mostly in votes 5, 10 and 15 which I shall not read because it would take up some of my time, but they were explained by the minister, and I believe that the opposition should be satisfied with the replies given at the time by the President of the Treasury Board and his officials. However, under the new temporary rules in the House of Commons, it has been decided to discuss the Treasury Board issue further, and I understand this because, despite its comparatively low estimates compared with the total estimates, the Treasury Board is still one of the most important departments in the government, since it must select the programs and projects through which the government can achieve its goals as efficiently as possible, considering its priorities, and since it must also ensure that the departments and agencies use their manpower and equipment efficiently in implementing their programs and projects.
A while ago, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-and I understand him because this is the role of the opposition-made a rather scathing attack on the minister, but I have still to hear from the members of the opposition, of the official opposition or other opposition parties, positive suggestions and worthwhile recommendations likely to solve certain problems which now exist concerning the Treasury Board.
We all know that the hon. member for York-Simcoe makes scathing and partisan attacks, mostly unfounded, in committee, and he attempted during the study of the estimates-


An hon. Member:: It's the same thing everywhere.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: My colleague says it is the same thing everywhere. I do not know, because I am not everywhere, but in the committee I chair, he tried, as I say, to "corner" the president of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), by making comparisons with the estimates of the whole government.
On that occasion, the minister answered he was confident he would reach his objective, and he trusted there would be a moderate increase of 15 to 16 per cent, subject of course to changes in the economic situation, and also to possible changes which might be introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) with respect to some tax situations which might be amended by May 31st or June 15th. This is something the Minister of Finance hinted at
Business of Supply
in this House anyway. Of course, when I say that, I am convinced I am not revealing anything confidential.
Besides, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) tried to have both ministers, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the president of the Treasury Board, contradict each other, and he did not seem or want to understand that the increase percentage may vary in a department whose main budget item deals with personnel. The 16 per cent objective of the hon. president of the Treasury Board is an average, and when talking about averages, one can talk about extremes, of course, because before one reaches an average, one has to deal with minuses and pluses. Now, the president of the Treasury Board said: Our objective for 1975-76 is 15 to 16 per cent, and I am confident, these are his words, that I will reach that objective inasmuch of course as the tax situation is not amended by the Minister of Finance. But that 15 or 16 per cent may mean 25 to 30 per cent increases in some departments and of 5 to 10 per cent in others, which may lead to an average of approximately 15 to 16 per cent, which is his present objective.
I believe every member here does not appear to understand the exact role of-


James McPhail Gillies: A great speech!


Fernand-E. Leblanc: I thank the hon. member. It is kind of him to suggest I am making a good speech. I appreciate this remark, coming from someone of that calibre, an opposition member. I am deeply touched indeed!
A number of opposition members do not seem to understand the exact role of the Treasury Board. It might be appropriate to state for the record the aims of that department. But once again, this might take too much time. So I will simply suggest that hon. members here, potential members and the population in general look up our blue book which of course is quite impressive. On page 284, both in English and in French-


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him for participation in this debate has now expired.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I want first to congratulate you for the manner in which you have directed the proceedings, difficult as that has been.
I would like to take two seconds time in reference to the rules. As I look around the House there are a few hon. members who were in the House when we used to meet and, under the old rules, go into committee of supply. Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister and to the House leaders who may be present, I say that, although I know each leader tried to bring about a compromise which would be somewhere between the new rules, which did not work at all, and the old rules, where there seemed to be too much time used in talk, the weakness in this new suggestion is that any minister can take the position that he is not going to answer questions, that he can sit out the

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
storm of argument and questions, and therefore the opposition can never obtain any information.
I do not want to get into an argument with the minister; I simply point this out in an academic way. With the greatest of respect to everyone in the committee this afternoon, it becomes a total waste of time. The only suggestion I can think of, if we are not able to obtain answers, is to ask the House leaders to put their heads together again. I do not expect any minister to be a walking encyclopedia, because every department is large. There may be some information ministers may not be able to make available, but there should at least be an undertaking that at another time legitimate questions will be answered. There is always politics in the chamber, but ministers could come in at another time and make that information available.
Having said that I just want to say one other thing, which is of a political nature. When we went into the new rules brought about by closure, the Prime Minister had not even gone home for summer recess-I believe it was July-when I picked up the paper, and the Prime Minister was reported as saying that he had sure pulled the wool over the eyes of the opposition.
I believe that happened, but there is no use going back over old history. I see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, a senior minister, is present. I ask all hon. members in this House, particularly those who have knowledge of the committee of the whole house, to consider this and to see whether we can devise a plan where we can ask legitimate questions and receive legitimate answers.
I want to discuss two or three points in reference to the minister's job. There may be something in the suggestion made by an hon. member that we cannot expect the President of the Treasury Board to answer for all departments, but I hope the other ministers will supply those answers.
The only growth in Canada is through real production and by trading our real production. The hon. member for York-Simcoe clearly pointed out that federal expenditures have increased 134.8 per cent from 1968 to 1974, from $12,229 million to $28,715 million. While the average weekly wage went from $88.19 in 1968 to $177.52 in 1974, an increase of only 101 per cent, the expenditures of the government went up 134 per cent. These figures spell inflation. Government expenditure is not real production or growth. When we get out of line that far, are we not fanning the flames of inflation?
I do not accept the minister's statement on several occasions that parliament approves the right of people in the public service to strike. I only differ with the minister academically, this is not a question of credibility. Particularly, I do not approve of certain areas of the public service having the right to strike; I have always said that if they are going to strike, let them all strike. I wish the Department of National Revenue would strike. People would be pretty happy about that.
What I am coming to now is under the jurisdiction of the minister, and I think it is very important. For 70 long days grain handlers and other people in the public service joined with the longshoremen in Vancouver while 55 ships waited in the ports. One could not even get into the ports

with a shoehorn, and nothing was done. Finally the government acted after 70 days and put those people back to work, but when they went back to work out of the pockets of western Canadian farmers $40 to $50 million went to demurrage charges.
We have now reached the point where men and women working in those kinds of industries, which are unique to the development and growth of Canada, and which we describe as essential services, must find some method other than the bargaining process to settle economic violence between management and labour. I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister say something about that, and I can make it clear where I stand. I am prepared to stake my mandate in Calgary North or any other seat in Alberta on the belief that in the essential industries of this country the system we are using has failed, and it is feeding the fires of inflation across the nation.
I wish to point out to the minister how bad the situation is. The Minister of Justice responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board told farmers to produce more wheat in Saskatchewan and Alberta next year. Incidentally, grain is the second largest dollar producing industry in the country. Farmers are prepared to do as the minister has asked, but what happens now that quotas are going to be closed on May 15 and wheat is piled up on farms and in country elevators? Where will they store it if they do produce more grain? All of this has occurred as a result of disruption at the ports. The right hon. member for Prince Albert today pointed out that men and women are still on strike in the St. Lawrence ports. Western grain is being held up and is not going to the cattle industry, the poultry industry, and other industries important to the province of Quebec.
I want to ask the minister-and I wish I could get his ear instead of someone else talking to him-whether he does not feel that the time has come to have another system for settling this kind of economic violence. Second, has the time not come to enforce the law with regard to having men and women go back to work? If so, how is he going to do it?
Those are the two major questions, but I have one other I wish to put. This matter is not totally under the jurisdiction of his department, but it was raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, and it is in reference to the Calgary airport, which is a $40 million project. I have a wire in my hand from Darlington Haskins and Co. Ltd. and P.M. Dartnall Agencies, who point out that tenders were asked for certain jobs at that airport. These tenders were held 90 days from the time they were to be opened.
The contract was given to a company which they maintain is partly owned-I do not know whether this is correct but someone could check it out-by a former minister in the Liberal government. So they play ducks and drakes with companies in western Canada in order to break the tender rule, to give contracts to eastern Canada. I would ask them to check that. I do not think the minister can answer it today, but I hope that in the question period he will say that those jobs on the airport at Calgary will be properly tendered and there will be no hanky panky with Mr. Benson's Frontenac Company or any other Minister of the Crown.
May 9, 1975

These people maintain a Canadian company and have been in business since 1920. They say that the government architect in Calgary will confirm that their product was superior. They are a Canadian company but, due to hanky panky, a company from another part of Canada is to supply an inferior product at higher cost. That is what we are talking about, the right to tender when dealing with $40 million. The minister has the responsibility of administering the finances of all departments.
I have asked three questions, Mr. Chairman: first, about the violence on the docks; second, is the government going to pay back the farmers for their losses due to demurrage charges and third, is he going to get the men back to work on the St. Lawrence-is he going to force them back? I want to know about the contracts on the Calgary airport and the point raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.
Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman, succinct and to the point.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Saint-Michel.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if my time was to be taken out of that of the hon. member for Calgary North I will reply now, otherwise I will not reply until the end of the debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Saint-Michel.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether you were in the House when the former chairman took the chair but, as I understood his suggestion, although he did not make it a rule, this is pretty important to us and I hope you will hear me out. I am not trying to take up the time of the proceedings. I cut my time by half but I asked four important questions. The minister said he would answer me provided you did not take it out of the time of the government. I do not think we should. I think we should take it out of my time, and he has 10 or 15 minutes. I would like that exercised. You may look annoyed but, with the greatest respect, I am asking you because I did not take all my time and, secondly, I think he should answer those questions regardless of what rules you interpret again with the greatest respect to you.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Saint-Michel.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order I want your ruling and I am going to stand my ground. You can ask me to leave the House. I am a senior member. I have asked for the minister, and the minister is prepared to answer my questions out of my time. Are you ruling against me on my time?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. The hon. President of the Treasury Board has indicated- would the hon. member take his seat? The hon. President of the Treasury Board has indicated he would reply later on in the time that is allotted to the hon. member's questions. I think that is sufficient for the purpose of the questions put. The hon. member for Saint-Michel.
Business of Supply


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A question of privilege.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Calgary North on a question of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to point out, with the greatest respect, that if we have enough people talking at a quarter to five the time you speak about becomes superfluous. There will be no time and I will get no answers to my questions. What I said earlier-if that is the kind of proceedings and we are trying to work it out-and I was very gentlemanly when I dealt with the rules-if that is the ruling, then you yourself have contributed to the kind of farce we have had this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the hon. member, upon reflection, since he is an experienced member of the House, will later on perhaps want to rise and make some reference to what he has just said. In the meantime, I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Michel.


Miss Begin:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to apologize to the hon. member for Alberta-whose name I forget-for having said that his constituency represents a double or a treble minority. I am a woman. I intend to talk about female employees in the public service. I am a French-Canadian, this is quite fashionable these days. Unfortunately, I have only two and a half years of service. This means that I am a fool, an idiot according to what I understood from his comments. This being said, there was such verbal inflation this afternoon that I nearly lost the thread of the questions I had intended to put to the hon. President of Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) about the public service. These questions dealt with what I thought was the principle of a fine public service in Canada.
The public service, to me, is something that provides a service of quality and shows an awareness to the needs of the public. Secondly, it is an available organization and thirdly, it is the embodiment of the government of this country, which should be demonstrated through simple justice for every member of the public service and it is with this point that I should like to deal in particular.
I was deeply struck, Mr. Chairman, by the speech of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I feel that this is an extraordinary example of chauvinism of all kinds and I have just understood why this side won the last election. That man is part of a "winners" and "losers" culture. He is a dollar man and a square foot man. Some are more square than others. I realized while listening to him-because he had a long creed in 13 points-that all that counts in life is money, not people. Therefore it is obvious that if he were a minister-he is eager to be a minister, at least Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-he would never want to be Minister of Health and Social Welfare, because that is obviously too common.
It is certainly not chic to be a minister of people's problems. Besides it seemed to me that he would perhaps reduce the family allowances. Therefore he is interested in output, in the number of waste baskets a public servant is entitled to have in his office. As far as I could understand,

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
it is for him a measure of efficiency and productivity in the public service. I am deeply disturbed because it is in a totally different way that I visualize that public service which includes almost 400,000 people.
I should like first to ask a question about one of the first minorities which need simple justice in that public service, namely the French-speaking Canadians. Over the two and half years I have been here, I have been hearing such nonsense on the French Canadians that I am beginning to ask myself serious questions. I should like to know how many bilingual jobs were added to those of the 53 per cent employees mentioned in his November 21, 1974 release.
I will not dwell any longer on the matter of French Canadian public servants except to mention that many of my constitutents and myself consider the bilingualism program in public service as a gift for English speaking Canadians because they have the opportunity to learn the second official language of the country during their work time at the expense of all Canadians. Many French Canadians suffered culturally from an impoverishment of the economical knowledge and of the management. Many wonder whether some kind of compensatory program should not be worked out on a sort of historical correction, offering to the French Canadians not English language courses, because the vast majority of them have to learn it painfully, but a management training program in order for them to have the same opportunities as English Canadians do have and for our public service to be really representative.
I would like to turn now to the bilingualism premium. In this week's newspapers the minister is reported as having made inconsistent statements. I could remember when I was a public servant that were forced by the pressure of the labour market to implement the bilingualism premium policy for secretaries and other related groups. I would like to know what philosophy he is in favour of so as to face the problem recently developed in Montreal in particular, concerning federal public servants who are using both languages at their own expenses because they learned them by themselves, and because their wage level is not quite much higher than the secretaries, and who wonder where is the equity in that bilingualism premium policy.
I will now turn to another issue. Nothing is easier for me, because I understand from the speeches ...


Walter David Baker: What is your question?


Monique Bégin: If you understood French, I am asking questions. May I go on?


Walter David Baker: What is the question?


Monique Bégin: Listen, and you will understand what I am trying to say. Just make a little effort.


Walter David Baker: Then, why not ask
your question?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, as to the second item, I would like to say-I understand quite well that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) should be particularly concerned at this point. His question is not complicated: he wants to make a separate mental category to know how much it costs to have French Canadians in the Public Service. Basically, that is the purpose I saw in his question. So, I suggest him to add another question: how much does it cost to give simple justice to women in the Public Service? We could perhaps in a year or so, with public opinion and the experiences of the opposition, ask how much it costs to have Indians in the Public Service. And then we could cover nearly everyone like that, at random. One day we will be left with a nice minority. How much does it cost to have Progressive Conservatives in the Public Service? I would like very much to know the cost of that, Mr. Chairman. It costs very much to have Progressive Conservatives in the Public Service.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


Monique Bégin: Much too much. Progressive Conservatives in the Public Service are people who systematically prevent male and female Canadians from obtaining simple justice. They are the ones systematically sabotaging government programs, all programs that do not come under the dollar sign of the hon. member for York-Simcoe who operates on the basis of square footage and of the number of waste paper baskets in the offices of public servants.
That means that for him human beings, as he suggested, are not needed. That gentleman as well as the one I am talking to are people who work on the nineteenth century's principle of economic laissez-faire. It suits them because it is very simple. There is an expression for that- the law of the jungle, where the strongest wins. We French Canadians have indeed a very picturesque way of explaining it. It is an expression that I will not use because I am sure that the censorship will not allow it to pass.
I shall add that I consider the hon. member for York-Simcoe as a dinosaur, rather as representing dinosaurs and that he is an extraordinary prototype of the "winners" and "losers" culture. Mr. Chairman, I have been elected to care about the people who need and wish to be represented here in this House and surely not to make richer those who are already rich and one may wonder how they achieve their wealth.
With those republican words, I shall ask a few questions about a group that is not in fashion this year, the female public servants. Unfortunately, I heard the president of the Treasury Board say that we might be going backwards in that respect probably because of a few conservative minds that can still be found at certain levels of our public service. I am very concerned about it after the speeches made by the opposition today because if there is a priority presently in Canada, it is certainly to give justice to the employees. Therefore I should like to know how many women-and what percentage they represent-have been able to attend the courses recommended by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and adopted by this government, which I commend it for, designed to help them to move from the ST or CR groups to the managerial
May 9, 1975

levels. I express here the problem of the promotion of women within an institution where a contemptible conservatism is still a blot on the escutcheon of the government.
Let me explain: there are bottlenecks at two levels and because of the old structures of our economy, they prevent women from having fair opportunities of equal promotion. First, secretaries and other related clerk categories do not manage to reach the managerial level, because their job is by nature or tradition entirely reserved for women.
Strange enough, I believe that it is exactly what happened between French Canadians and English Canadians in the public service. Up to March 1974, only 212 women and 47 men had been able to take advantage of the program I referred to. Of course, I do not object to male clerks having the opportunity to attend free courses and being promoted to the junior management level, but I know very well that this program has been initially designed for women, for a large group of women and that they are not fairly represented on a percentage basis.
Secondly, very few women have been able to reach higher positions; how and how many can and will reach the SX or the DM categories? This is the real issue of equal opportunities for men and women in the public service. I think that several deputy ministers appoint their assistant deputy ministers and directors.
It is practically obvious that if this system is not reviewed and is maintained, no woman will ever be able to accede to the position of director, assistant deputy minister and, naturally, deputy minister. Of course, all I have just said is based on the principle of equal ability. I am not concerned with that problem. When women reach a certain level, in general they are twice as qualified because they had to overcome obstacles which sometimes are legal, very often psychological, but nonetheless real, as we have seen this afternoon in the House while listening to the chauvinist remarks on the other side.
Concerning both aspects I have been dealing with, I would add that I am of the opinion that it is very important for the female public servant to have an opportunity to choose her career. In conclusion, I would ask the president of the Treasury Board whether he can give me the assurance that all these equal opportunities programs for female and male public servants will always be developed in close cooperation with the Advisory Board on the status of women.


Robert Jardine McCleave: As we approach the 4:45 adjournment, perhaps I could ask for the co-operation of two members of the committee, the President of the Treasury Board and the hon. member for Yukon. Because of questions raised by the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member who has just taken her seat, possibly the President of the Treasury Board could speak until 4:30. This would give the hon. member for Yukon 15 minutes. Is this agreeable?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Chairman, with the caveat that I expect the hon. member for Yukon to ask some questions, and there is the vote at a quarter to five.


Erik Nielsen: I will give you time.
Business of Supply


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course hon. members cannot expect me to answer everything this afternoon. However, I will reply to some of the questions. As for the other questions, I will provide the answers to hon. members either through letters-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to cut off the President of the Treasury Board. I just want to point out in fairly calm indignation that members on both sides have sat here trying to get involved in this committee of the whole dealing with supply.
I am one of the members who sat here when the old rules applied. In 1968 the new rules came in with closure and time limits. This whole thing has become a little farcical.
The hon. member for Saint-Michel asked detailed questions about the place of women in the public service. The point is that most of those questions could have been placed on the order paper. The point I want to make is that this is an opposition day based on supply. That is the prerogative of the opposition, not the prerogative of the hon. member for Saint-Michel and others.
Up until now there have been three members of the opposition who have participated in this afternoon's farce. I had a subject matter that was rather topical. I have specific questions I want to direct to the President of the Treasury Board about a dredging problem. It affects many areas in Canada. Unfortunately, because of Your Honour's suggested ruling and the compliance of the President of the Treasury Board, we will not be able to get into it.
I seriously suggest to the Chair that before we continue this farce on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, which are supposed to be opposition days dealing with supply and which are supposed to be the prerogative of the opposition and not the handmaiden of all the ladies in this place to deal with their favourite subject, this matter should be looked at, otherwise we should not go ahead with it.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. For the record, I would simply state that I am deeply annoyed by the paternalistic attitude shown by the hon. member from Nova Scotia. I realize quite clearly he was following all his colleagues from the opposition, and that he systematically opposed equal opportunities for women in the public service of Canada.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: On a point of order-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have priority over a point of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. This sounds like the anvil chorus. Unfortunately the Chair happens to be the anvil. I will recognize the hon. member
5668

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
for Annapolis Valley on his question of privilege. However, I tried to make as fair an arrangement as I could, knowing there are a dozen members who want to speak.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: My point of order, Mr. Chairman-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Your Honour knows a question of privilege has priority over a point of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the hon. member resume his seat? I have recognized the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. Surely I am allowed to be as good a Chairman of the committee as possible. If I am not, hon. members can take steps to remove me. The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that I have some questions that I sincerely wanted to ask of the President of the Treasury Board. However, along with many others, I have been precluded from doing so because of the unethical tactics of the government.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Saint-Michel has started to make a hasty retreat so I will be short and simple. Obviously I am not going to challenge whatever the lady says. That is not the point. However, I listened to her. I did not interrupt when she started in the first five minutes of her contribution drawing some slander against the public servants by suggesting that the Progressive Conservatives are against women. Any number of men or women in this chamber could have challenged the lady on those rather fantastic remarks. The Conservative Party was only in power for six years. If the hon. member was serious, that was a deliberate slur and slander against people in the public service. However, I do not think she was serious. Certainly from the other remarks she made, and the last remark concerning me, I know that she could not be serious because she is so frivolous.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Chairman, as we begin this experiment under the new rules that will only last for a certain time, I cannot think of anything that will collapse this experiment more quickly than the performance of the hon. member who just sat down. He said it was the understanding that these days would be for the opposition. I sat in that committee on procedure and organization.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is a supply day.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Supply days are for all members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Patrick O'Connell: The point of order I want to make is that it was not at all the understanding of that committee on procedure and organization that the members on this side of the House would be silent on this day. We were told


James McPhail Gillies: Filibuster.


Charles Joseph Clark: You only have 15 minutes left to filibuster.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I invite the hon. member to read the proceedings of that committee. We are on an important
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave).]
point of order. If we on this side are given to understand that the perspective of the people on that side with respect to this experiment is that this belongs to the opposition, there will be no continuation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Patrick O'Connell: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley sat on this committee. He should go back and look at the record. His party begged for this experiment. They told us that they would have more chance-


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Scarborough East is deliberately trying to prevent the minister from answering questions on this subject.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. The hon. member is clearly out of order. The hon. member for Scarborough East has been recognized. Obviously two points of order cannot be spoken at the same time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member. I agree with what he is saying as to what went on in the committee. I think he is right. However, I am concerned about what has happened to that understanding. I think-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. The deputy House leader will have to make his observations after the hon. member for Scarborough East has completed his point.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I shall be brief, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to make what I consider to be an important comment and one which I consider to be fundamental to this procedure. If members wish to read the proceedings of that committee they will see that I stood almost alone against this experiment. Now we are finding that perhaps I was right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. Traditionally the debate would be wound up by a member of the opposition. Could the hon. minister make his remarks in, say, four minutes, and then the hon. member for Yukon will have a few minutes in which to speak?


Erik Nielsen: We have 12 minutes left and I suggest the minister take six.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In reply to the hon. member for York-Simcoe I have a few answers to give. He asked for the costs of furnishing Place Bell Canada. The cost was $490,000, something like $600-odd per capita. It is not that extravagant. The amount of space is 22,000 square feet, and we pay $5.97 per square foot in rental.
As for the cost of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, as usual the hon. member has not done his homework. What appears in the books this year is the cost of
May 9, 1975

the Unemployment Insurance Commission for last year; the cost this year will be found in the Blue Book of next year. So next year he will know. As far as the other questions are concerned, I shall look into them. If they are serious, and not too closely related to the furniture and so on, I will answer them. I will give all those answers by letter or by other means.
Turning to the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North, of course I would like to have a better method of settling strikes, but I would point out to him that only 2 per cent of the collective agreements in the civil service since 1967 have been concluded following strikes; 98 per cent of the collective agreements between the government and its employees have been settled either by arbitration or through conciliation. The hon. member referred to the dockers. These are not civil servants. They work in the private sector and the Treasury Board has nothing to do with these disputes. I would like to debate that question, but I cannot do so now.
As to the question of compensation to farmers for the cost of demurrage incurred at Vancouver, the answer is no. I cannot be more precise. A further question was asked concerning the airport in Calgary. Tenders were called but only one bid was offered to the government which met all requirements, and we approved it. I might add that I have received a number of strong representations on the subject from members representing constituencies in Alberta- they were made in a very professional way; they have nothing in the back of their minds, but they wanted to have an answer. I gave them the answer. This expenditure of $40 million was approved by Treasury Board the other day. It was the only bid we had. Of course we wish we could have done better but we had no taker, and it was felt by the department that the bid was acceptable.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is interested in bilingualism. He was complaining that figures as to cost are not easy to obtain. Well, the figures are in the Blue Book and I will, with the indulgence of the committee, read him some. Incidentally, the same question has been directed to me many times in the committee.
In the estimates of the Treasury Board, vote No. 1 official language branch, we find $1.3 million. Other figures are: Public Service bilingualism program, vote 15, $50 million; Department of the Secretary of State, bilingualism development branch, votes 5 and 10, $107.7 million; translation program, vote 30, $31.7 million; official languages minority group citizens program, votes 35 and 40 of those estimates, $3.6 million; under training, Public Service Commission, part of vote 115, $31 million; Urban Affairs, $300,000. The total is $225.5 million. There are some other items I cannot give to the House because I cannot go and count all the signs on all the doors of the toilets and the elevators and so on. Perhaps there were some costs involved there, but unfortunately I cannot give the figure. It would cost more to give the answer than the cost of putting on the signs.
The hon. member asked about bilingualism guidelines and about an incident which occurred this morning. I will have to give some thought to it-I am not in a position to give an explanation; these are term employees hired for four months only and we cannot send a man on a course for 12 months if he is to work for only four months.
Business of Supply
Six minutes is not very long in which to answer all these questions, but I am doing my best. The hon. member for Calgary North asked me another question-


Robert Jardine McCleave: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but the time as allotted to him by agreement between the hon. members has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, my questions will be very brief. Perhaps the minister will have more time in which to answer further questions when I am through.
Before I get to the matter which is closest to my heart, the subject of the federal nurses, I might be allowed to say a word with respect to the procedure presently being followed. There are not many members here who are familiar with the procedure followed when we dealt with estimates in the committee of the whole House. When that happened it was a day of accountability for Ministers of the Crown and members on the government side-and I know, because I have sat on that side and I remember how the whips applied the pressure-kept us quiet because they realized the minister concerned wanted to get his estimates through the committee. It developed into an opposition day; it was the opposition which was inquiring into the estimates, not members on the government side.
Try to transpose that system into the rules we are now following, under which the system is being used for the purpose of an allotted day. It won't work. If we are going to use the old system as a method of dealing with estimates, and call it an allotted day, new rules will have to be developed. The whole concept of an allotted day dealing with estimates loses all purpose if time is taken up by members of the House other than members of the opposition, whose duty it is to call the government to account.
I turn now to the further discharges this morning-I call them discharges even though they are not so called by the minister. I do not have my notes here now but my understanding is that out of 24 nurses at the National Defence hospital here in Ottawa, 17 have been told to go home because there was no work for them. They said to the hospital authorities, "Give us a certificate stating we have been laid off so we can apply for unemployment insurance." The hospital officials said no, they were not going to do that. They said, "You are on off duty status". The nurses maintain-and it seems logical to me-that there is no such thing. In effect it has every appearance of being a method to break down the nurses and to break the strike.
If the nurses are going to be laid off they should be told in order that they can have the same right as any other unemployed person to apply for unemployment insurance benefits. It is no excuse for adopting this tactic to say that there are not enough patients in the hospital and therefore their services are not required. My information, which could very well be inaccurate, is that this is being done by Treasury Board officials. Indeed, the name of Mr. Fother-gill has been mentioned in this connection. He is not here to answer for himself, but the minister is. I raise this because it is a very serious matter if the muscle of Treasury Board is being used in this fashion to break the strike.
29561-15VS

May 9, 1975
Business of Supply
This morning I again raised the question of a COLA clause in the nurses' agreement. I know the conciliation board has recommended an increase, I think of 20 per cent, in the nurses' salaries, which just brings them level, for instance, with nurses in British Columbia. I understand the latter are already on the threshold of negotiating a new agreement, so that if the federal nurses accept the conciliation board report they will be behind again almost immediately, because the B.C. nurses are negotiating a better deal. I urgently suggest to the minister that he consider granting the nurses' request with respect to the inclusion of a COLA clause. If he does not, I think he will be a long way away from settling the strike. The minister has a minute left so I yield the floor to him.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the National Defence Medical Centre, those people were sent home because there was no work for them. We have done the same thing in other cases; for example, the postal workers in Toronto. We are not under an obligation to keep people on the payroll if there is no work for them.
With regard to the COLA clause, although the nurses in British Columbia may be negotiating a new contract we have to live with the facts of today. We do use comparability. It was debated and there was a unanimous report. There was no discussion of a COLA clause, and probably because of the nature of the increase the conciliation board did not feel it should include a COLA clause.

As far as the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) is concerned, I am not in a position to give answers. She raised very valid questions on bilingualism and the status of women in the Public Service. Both these problems stand high in our priorities. Hopefully, we will be able to make significant progress in the years to come, and I expect that, as the situation of women within the Public Service, we will not be forced to give the same kind of answers as on the issue of bilingualism.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, before you see the clock, would the minister deal with the other serious aspect of the question that I raised regarding the muscle of Treasury Board being used deliberately for the purpose of breaking the strike of the nurses-that is to say, sending them home from work and not laying them off?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, the Treasury Board is an employer and it does these things in conjunction with the department. We are exercising the right of an employer as laid down in the legislation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, without looking at the clock may I say I realize the minister did not have a chance of answering the first set of questions I put respecting the contract for advertising. I want to tell him that if he does not have time now he can write me.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I should like to write the hon. member on that. I should like to make one specific comment, and that is that if someone starts to work on a contract that has not been approved by Treasury Board he does so at his own risk. I have seen cases where people took that chance and received no compensation at all.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. It being 4.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section (9) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings. Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Walter David Baker: On division.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Carried on division. Shall vote No. 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Walter David Baker: On division.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Carried on division. Shall vote No. 10 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Walter David Baker: On division.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Carried on division. Shall vote No. 15 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Walter David Baker: On division.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Carried on division. Shall vote No. 20 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Walter David Baker: On division.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Carried on division. Shall I report the resolutions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in Committee of the Whole this day reported and concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Shall I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being five o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until two p.m. on Monday next.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 12, 1975