1976-06-22

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-88, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw) moved:: That Bill C-88, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2), be amended in Clause 1 by
(a)	striking out lines 10 to 12 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"bers who shall be actual producers having the qualifications prescribed by any regulations made pursuant to section 10.5".
(b)	striking out the words "members of the Advisory Committee and of" in lines 20 and 21 at page 3.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the amendment will be brief, but in spite of that fact I think they are very important.
Bill C-88 provides in section 10.5 (3): as follows The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the conduct of an election of members of the Advisory Committee and in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations
(c)	prescribing the qualifications of members of the Advisory Committee and of actual producers for the purposes of section 10;
The purpose of my amendment is to spell out in the Act that members of the Advisory Committee shall be actual producers. It is important that this be spelled out in the Act in order that producers in the Wheat Board area will know what the ground rules are. If it is not spelled out in the Act but is left to the Governor in Council to make regulations, these regulations can be changed from time to time without the knowledge of the producers, so they could suddenly find themselves faced with a change in qualifications. On the other hand, if it is enshrined in legislation, it would be necessary before any change is made that a bill be brought into this House and passed through the usual stages of first and second readings, the report stage and third reading. When a bill is presented to the House a debate takes place and members of the public, in this case the producers in particular, would know what was happening and would have plenty of opportunity to make representations to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board as well as to their individual MP's who in turn could make their wishes known.
The Canadian Wheat Board is charged with the sale of grain primarily for export purposes. Its function is of prime importance to the producer. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to ensure that the producer has input into the decisions of the Board. I am sure officials of the grain trade have plenty of opportunity to have input from time to time. Therefore, in my opinion, it is very important that members of this Advisory Committee be actual producers.
We held some agriculture committee hearings in connection with this bill, and on May 12 last Mr. Vogel, chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, appeared before the committee. In giving evidence he said this, and I quote from page 87.6 of issue No. 87 of the evidence before the committee:
One of the hardest jobs for the Board is two-way communication, communicating back to the 160,000-odd farmers whom we represent, and in turn receiving their views back. There has as yet been no perfect way discovered to do this, and it is a very hard thing. I think we have made progress generally as a board in our information work that we are doing and I think the election of an advisory committee was a step in that direction.
Later on at the same meeting, and I quote from page 87.10, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board had this to
say:
It is a question really of having people that are farmers and, I think, clear sight of the Wheat Board being in touch directly with some farmers about problems that concern them. We all know how easy it is to forget the obvious if you are not dealing with the problem daily as the farmer is.
Later on he said:
I am sure the Wheat Board consults with many others as well as the Advisory Committee.
I think the key words are in the first sentence I quoted, namely, "having people that are farmers". The intent of my motion is that the members of the advisory committee be actual producers or, in other words, farmers. Since presenting this amendment I have spoken to members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association as well as individual farmers who have no connection with any particular agricultural organization. Without exception these farmers told me that they support the tenor of my motion, namely that members of the advisory committee shall be actual producers. As a matter of fact, the minister in commenting upon my motion before the committee on Tuesday May 18 as recorded at page 89:31 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture said:
[DOT] (mo)
Mr. Chairman, I had indicated at the last meeting that I could not argue in substance with Mr. Neil's basic proposition, that I would only make a general argument about leaving it flexible for possible inclusions of people that desire to be included by the producers themselves. I would not stick on that because if there were any great movement requiring that there be a change in that, I am sure we could quickly put
95570 - 32)4

June 22, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
an amendment through the House to do that. And so I would be inclined, in the spirit of the day, to go along with that particular change.
Unfortunately, on that date 12 government members attended the committee meeting. Not one of those 12 members from the government side represented a constituency in the Canadian Wheat Board area. With all due respect, I suggest that the members who were there and who do not represent a constituency in the Canadian Wheat Board area do not understand the function and the purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Marchand) in speaking on my amendment, as recorded at page 89:33 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of Tuesday May 18 had this to say:
Another concern that I have is that on a number of these gc vernment boards, producer boards and so on, I think there is a real place for consumers.
Then, he went on to say:
I think that on these government boards, producer boards, there should be a consumer interest in there or a consumer point of view, and I feel very strongly about that.
As I mentioned earlier the sole function of the Canadian Wheat Board is to sell grain on the export market. There is no place on the advisory committee for consumer representation. The consumers of Canada have been taken care of by a bill passed about a year or two ago which had to do with the two-price system for wheat. That was a government bill which now is law. It is separate and apart from any of the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is interesting to note that in committee, notwithstanding the comments of the minister to the effect that he would accept the amendment, the 12 government members chose to vote against the amendment. As I said not one of those 12 government members represented a constituency in the Canadian Wheat Board area.
It is interesting to note, on the other hand, that there were 10 members of the Conservative Party present as members of the committee. Of those 10 members eight represented the Canadian Wheat Board area. They represented constituencies within the area. Two others who were outside the Canadian Wheat Board area were farmers. Of the eight members who represented constituencies in the Canadian Wheat Board area every one was the holder of a permit book from the Canadian Wheat Board, either under suffix A or suffix B.
A few minutes ago I quoted the minister as saying in committee that he would accept the amendment. I think it is unfortunate there was a misunderstanding on the part of the government members who were sitting on that committee and who voted against the wishes of the minister. This is an important amendment. It is important to the producers in western Canada. I would ask, under the circumstances, that the members on the other side of the House reconsider their position and vote in favour of this amendment today.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to support the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) in respect of his amendment. I think he put forward excellent arguments concerning why we should support this amendment and why we should consider that only actual farmers be allowed to represent their constituencies in western Canada on the Canadian Wheat Board.

To start with, I think there is no better way to find support for the amendment than to read the words of the minister who in a sense totally supported this amendment when he stated in the committee as recorded at page 87:10 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence:
It is a question really of having people that are farmers and, I think, clear sight of the Wheat Board being in touch directly with some farmers about problems that concern them. We all know how easy it is to forget the obvious if you are not dealing with the problem daily as the farmer is. In that sense, having practical men and women who are chosen by the farmers to be there and to draw their attention to how the farmers will be affected by something the Wheat Board is doing, I think, is just very, very useful.
I agree entirely with that statement. I think it is necessary that only producers of actual grains in the Canadian Wheat Board area be allowed to sit on this board. There are some problems at present because men or women who are members of farm organizations, and who spend their entire time as leaders of these organizations, now are eligible for election to this board. In the last election some of them were elected. While these people do an excellent job in their positions-I have no doubt of this-it would seem to me that they also are very busy in their principal occupation of being the leader of a farm organization. Although at the present time the advisory board meets 3, 4 or 5 times a year, or perhaps more often, I think in the future the Wheat Board intends to ask for its advice more often.
The Canadian Wheat Board and the Governor in Council are prepared to give these people some money in order that they may go to the areas from which they were elected and set up meetings at which they can ask the farmers, their constituents, how they feel and what advice they can give which might be passed on to the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Vogel of the Canadian Wheat Board stated his intention to have this advisory board meet more often. He mentioned 10 or 12 times a year. It seems to me it would be a very good idea if these people were not leaders of farm organizations but rather actual producers who are involved in the day-to-day workings of the farm in the production of grains. We could take the example of a member of parliament who really is not a professional in certain fields but when elected is asked by his constituents to become knowledgeable in a number of areas. We sit on committees and the experts in the various departments come forward to give us various examples of how legislation should be changed and why it should be changed. We as laymen, sit on the committees and attempt to pick out from this mass of information the logical things that we think would be of use to our constituents and should be in the legislation. Therefore, it seems to me that a producer would be able to do the same for his constituents or for the farmers in his area if he sat on the advisory board advising the Wheat Board commissioners on how they should sell grain or give advice to farmers in the production areas.
An example was brought forward to me recently which I think points out the necessity of having producers on the advisory board. The Wheat Board has encouraged the farmers in western Canada to produce hard spring wheat year after year, yet it is well known by the farmers that there is a market for some of the soft wheats and that our hard spring wheats are bought by other countries and mixed with lesser quality wheats to produce a form of
June 22, 1976

flour. Researchers in Canada are working with their limited budgets and limited time on the advice of some of the Wheat Board staff to produce some soft, white wheats; they spend a great deal of time on this. The producers are encouraged by this because these varieties of wheat have a larger yield than the hard spring wheats. They are easier to produce and if allowed to be grown, the result may be an increased income for these farmers.
It seems to me that this is an ideal example of a situation in which the advisory board, if it were composed of producers, could advise the Wheat Board that the farmers in their area would like to produce this type of wheat. Of course, farmers are always interested in maximizing their incomes, and it would be to their advantage to have as their advisor a producer in the area who can go to the Wheat Board and recommend that they encourage the research staff in our country to continue research into these extra varieties and encourage the Department of Agriculture to give researchers the necessary funds to continue this research.
These are just a few examples which explain why I feel the hon. member for Moose Jaw has brought forward an excellent amendment which I feel the minister himself has agreed on a number of occasions would improve this bill. I think, as a member representing a great number of grain farmers in the Wheat Board area, that these farmers would support this amendment wholeheartedly. Therefore, I commend it to all members of the House.


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the comments that have been made will be very brief. First of all, I want to say that all hon. members who sit on the agriculture committee, even if they are not from a region affected by the act, are still very much interested by the proceedings of the committee and try to keep informed as well as possible of the work that is being done there and to make the most objective contribution possible.
Concerning the amendment proposed and discussed in committee, the comments made both by the members of the committee and by the minister during his appearances before the committee were in favour of not limiting the eligibility for membership. That was the basic argument put forward and I think it did not create any opposition or misunderstanding among the Liberal members of the committee. The answer given by witnesses and the purpose of the amendment were well understood. However, it was thought that by limiting the range of candidates, the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board would be deprived of candidates who would have been very useful because of their experience and their knowledge in the field. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, those were the only comments I had to make.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on the amendment of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). On the surface, it looks like an excellent amendment, almost like motherhood. I know the hon. member for Moose Jaw is moving this amendment with the best of motives and intentions, and I accept that. However, I want to suggest that this kind of
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) amendment suits very well the people who support and believe in the private grain trade, the so-called open market. The amendment will allow them to accomplish what they could not do in a democratic election, that is to get rid of people like Mr. E. K. Turner, the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and Mr. Roy Atkins, the president of the Farmers' National Union, who were elected by the producers in their respective districts in a democratic vote. So, I am a little suspicious of what this amendment is trying to accomplish.
Another objection I have is that this amendment would prevent a retired farmer from running for the advisory commission and it would prevent farmers' wives from running for the advisory commission. If a group of farmers in any district decided to pick a lawyer in the local town and nominate him as their candidate, it would prevent them from doing so.
If farmers want nothing but producers on the advisory board, they can vote only for producers. It is for them to decide, not for the hon. member for Moose Jaw, for me or the government. I think the qualifications for candidates who may be elected to the advisory committee should be broad enough so that the grain producers can nominate and vote for whomever they darn well wish; I see no point in trying to restrict the eligibility of people for election to the board. I think the producers themselves will make the decision regarding who they want to nominate and for whom they want to vote. I do not think we should prohibit anyone from running. Why prevent farmers from nominating a prominent, respected retired farmer in whom they all have great confidence? He is retired, he no longer holds a class A permit book. He might have a special delivery book to clean out a number of bills after he has retired, and that is it. If he happens to be the one whom they want to elect, it seems to me that grain producers in a region should have the right to do so.
So I think the hon. member's amendment does not really accomplish what he wants. In fact, it places more restrictions than I think he realizes. So I urge the House to defeat the amendment.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) would entertain a question. If he wishes to see qualifications broad enough to include retired farmers and others, would he be agreeable to permitting landlords who, say, are holders of suffix B permit books, to vote for these people, or would he restrict the eligibility strictly to producers?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think I made that clear. I said that actual producers should have the right to nominate whom they wish to run for an election to the advisory commission, whether it is a suffix B permit holder, a retired farmer, the town lawyer or the town drunk-that is there business. It is up to them to decide for whom they are going to vote. I do not see any point in saying that only certain people can be nominated. What kind of democracy is that?

June 22, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, just a few words to say that we are in favour of the motion before the House because, to my mind, it is the very essence of logic that farmers should be represented on their board, the Canadian Wheat Board. A while ago, the speaker who preceded me said that the producers could sit on the advisory committee. Even if all the members of that committee were farmers, they would not have enough influence or power to get their wishes implemented. The farmers must be represented above all on the board of administration.
On the Canadian Dairy Commission, for instance, we should have no one but dairy producers, not only civil servants who have never seen a cow. I think we would then have far more fairness. Today, the same problem seems to exist out west with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. There are not enough wheat producers, real farmers, interested in the Board to guide the orientation of the government policy. We should get back to basics, give everyone his responsibilities, especially those who are interested in the industry, that is farming, whether it be in dairy production or grain farming. I feel we would then have much more fairness, and a much better agricultural policy in Canada. I suggest we rely far too much on experts. A while ago, I heard the representative of the NDP say that we need experts. When we need lawyers, we will get them-and this will surprise him-from farming circles because, yes, some farmers have sons who are lawyers. There are good lawyers, capable of sticking up for the farmers, without having to get them from the ranks of city dwellers who know nothing about farming the land.
I believe that is the idea the mover had in mind, and I can assure him that we are in favour of his motion. Indeed, we are in favour of all motions that will give back to the farmers the power in their respective fields of endeavour, and put a stop to the administration of that specific field by strangers.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, when I first entered the House I was somewhat hesitant to participate in this debate because I felt that the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) would adequately represent the point of view I hold on this matter. However, after reflecting on what went on in the committee and after listening to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), I feel that I must raise a few points.
First, let me deal with what went on in the committee. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board during the presentation of this particular amendment by the hon. member for Moose Jaw spoke very highly in favour of the suggestion; he thought it was a very valid suggestion. However, it seems that he instructed his supporters in the committee to vote against it. I understand why many of them would not support a motion like this; they do not know very much about the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board because many of them are not representatives from western Canada.
Perhaps the hon. members from eastern Canada should be excused, but I certainly cannot excuse the hon. member 
for Regina-Lake Centre, who apparently represents a western constituency. I can understand why he would not want to have a producer advising the Canadian Wheat Board because he himself is not a producer. He does not know what it is like to be represented by some so-called expert from out of town. It seems that once you are from out of town, you become an expert, and you can tell everyone how to run his business. Personally, I have experience in operating a farm. I also know what it is like to be away from the operation. There is no better way to obtain knowledge than by practical on-the-spot experience.
The hon. member argues in favour of people like Mr. Turner, capable as he may be, but he already has a forum. There is the wheat pool. There is already a paper in which producers can put forward their points of view. Mr. Atkinson, the head of the farm union, already has a forum in which to speak. Why do we want someone who we know holds a particular point of view to become a member of a board and advise the Canadian Wheat Board?
I was very much surprised by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. I can remember the time when the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board made an appointment to that board, and that person was from Ottawa. Without mentioning the name, I think anyone who knows the operation of the Wheat Board knows whom I am talking about. However, I know the criticism the hon. member levelled at that time. He said that was a political appointment and that it was not an appointment which was in the best interests of farmers.
Remembering all those things and having just listened to the hon. member, I was somewhat provoked into participating in this debate, in order to point out the hypocrisy of some of the comments which come from that quarter, for no other reason than it seems they may have' somebody in mind themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: I can understand that they may want a particular point of view expressed. I know that the hon. member has had leanings toward the farm union, and in many instances the farm union does represent a particular point of view. It has divorced itself from the operation of, say, the agrabusiness. There we have two farm organizations taking opposing points of view.
I know that many times in politics we find ourselves in a position where we are perhaps not strongly in favour of a proposal, but because it is a caucus decision, we go along with it. It is obvious that anyone who belongs to any organization and anyone who is not a practical farmer is going to hold the view of that organization unless and until such a time as his organization points out to him that he can take a different point of view.
There is great merit in the recommendation put forward by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, and I rose only because I know what happened in committee. The minister wanted to be on both sides. He argued on one side of the question, that is, in favour of the suggestion, but then he turned around and instructed his supporters to vote in opposition. Here we have an hon. member who in the past strongly advocated proper representation. Now, he has an opportunity to demonstrate his feelings and put his money where his mouth is, and he talks against this measure.
June 22, 1976


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a motherhood type of amendment. I am sure that everyone agrees that those who are involved directly should be represented. I think that is a fair position and one which everyone supports. However, there are other boards, for instance the board which was mentioned in another context by one of my colleagues from the province of Quebec. He indicated that producers have to be represented on these boards. I remember some of the representatives who were on the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, for example, who were retired farmers or retired milk producers. They sat on that board for a number of years with great distinction, and it seems to me that it is not really necessary for a representative to be an A class permit holder, but he must be someone who has the subject as his primary interest. I think even the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) would agree that most farmers would not vote for someone just because the government wants him or just because some other entity, such as the Caghill Grain Company, wants him, but that person is going to be elected because he will be able to do a good job.
It is a fact that there were elections for the advisory board, but those elections did not turn out exactly as planned. In fact, there were a number of people elected who were not anticipated to be members of the advisory board, and it may be that the Palliser grain growers did not really get the kind of representation they wanted. However, farmers are going to elect to that board those whom they think will do the best job for them. It may be some woman and she may be very involved and have a special knowledge of farming, although she may not hold the permit. Her husband could hold the permit, but I think if everyone in the community agreed that they wanted her to represent them it should be possible for her to do so. Many farmers are smart enough to know that the day comes when the farm should be turned over to the children. I think that will happen to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). He has been a farmer for a long time and is familiar with all the problems. If he decides one of these days to turn all the A class permits of his operation over to his sons, then there really would not be much more for him to do and he might make an excellent representative on the advisory committee. He might make that representation in a better way as a retired farmer than he would as a farmer in the actual production.


An hon. Member:: Or as a member of parliament!


William Arnold Peters: My colleague says, maybe more than as a member of parliament. That may be true, but I think he would then have time to devote to the operation.
While this a motherhood motion and I am inclined to support it on that basis, I do believe that we are really talking about allowing the largest number of competent people to be on the list from which the farmers will make their choice. I have faith in the farmers to choose those representatives for the advisory committee who are going to make representation on their behalf in the best way possible. In my opinion, it may be that retired farmers are suitable.
Let us not kid ourselves, Mr. Speaker; there are honest people and partly dishonest people. It is a matter of degree.
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
But there is no question that most of the people we would like to get rid of turned over their A class permits when they could have held them on one section, and have met the requirements of a bona fide farmer or bona fide permit holder. That they saw fit, because they are in effect out of the operation, to surrender their permits does not mean they have given up their expertise, their ability or their knowledge of the subject and that they might not be the best representatives of the farmers on the advisory committee. I think there is considerable merit in letting the farmer make the choice himself.


Douglas Charles Neil: It is the cabinet that makes the decision.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it is said that the cabinet makes the decision. The cabinet always did make the decision. There were party hacks on the advisory committee, there is no doubt about that but I do not think that was true in the last election. I think the cabinet was as surprised as anybody else at some of those who were chosen.
If the farmers have faith in the ability of the advisory committee to advise the Wheat Board, then they will choose people who are going to represent them. It is a fact that they will be representing regions and representing various points of view. I am sure the Palliser Wheat Growers, who are very close to the minister, may not be a very good representative for many of the wheat producers in other areas, but in those areas representatives will be chosen to represent their point of view. That is the purpose of the advisory committee.
While I agree with the idea that producers must be involved, this amendment limits it to producers today, to people who have an A class permit. There are many producers who have retired and who have not lost their ability to provide representation. Indeed, in some cases they may have gained a much wider experience which could be of use to the producers. This could be so if we increase the number of people who can seek election.
So far as the House of Commons is concerned, anyone who meets the very basic requirement of age and certain moral standing can run for election. The public makes the decision in its own interests when it elects people to this House. I think that is the principle that could be extended to the advisory committee. The farmer is a very sophisticated voter and will make the selection in his own interests.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak for a few moments in support of the amendment I have to poke a few holes in the statements made by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). As usual, he does not seem to have his facts straight.
He stated that a farmer's wife could not have a permit book. Mr. Speaker, that is not true. A farmer's wife can have a permit book and many of them do. It is a matter of whether they wish to have one or not and whether they own the land, whether they are renting it or leasing it or owning and operating it and making the decisions on it. There is, therefore, nothing to limit the individual who wishes to become a grain producer. All he needs are three basic fundamentals-either land which is leased, property which he owns or property which he operates. It is as simple as that, and certainly has nothing to do with the

June 22, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) size of the property and nothing to do with the amount of produce delivered.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre said that Roy Atkinson, president of the National Farmers' Union, would not be allowed to operate in this capacity. We all know that Roy Atkinson is a farmer so he probably has a permit book and would be eligible for election as a producer. Many of those who are interested in becoming a member of the advisory committee could just as well be producers.
There are a few things that I think we should consider. One is the fact that the stabilization bill, as brought in by this government, is open only to actual producers. We have to consider that therefore there is an intermingling of ideas, suggestions and words of wisdom for the benefit of the grain industry of Canada.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) suggested that consumers should be considered for this committee. This is one of the things that I think we must be careful about and see that there is no misconception whatever that benefits the grain producers in western Canada receive will create a hardship for the consumer. Such is not the case. In the Agriculture Committee on May 18, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo said:
I think that on these government boards, producer boards, there should be a consumer interest in there or a consumer point of view, and I feel very strongly about that.
Mr. Speaker, the consumer is protected under the two-price wheat legislation whereby grain is purchased for home consumption at $3.25 per bushel and that cannot be changed until that Act expires in another three or four years. Therefore, this bill is not going to create any problem whatsoever for the consumer.
We have to consider that the grain industry in Canada is of fundamental importance to our economic well-being because it contributes between $3 billion and $4 billion to our balance of trade. This should not be overlooked. Just imagine what our deficit would be if that amount were not included. Instead of being $5 billion it would be up toward $9 billion. In view of the fact that producers are seeking whatever they can get on the world market for their product, they should have the opportunity of making an input into the marketing and saying how it should be handled.
The present minister in charge of the Wheat Board is creating more difficulties for western grain producers who come under the Canadian Wheat Board than he is solving. Lack of adequate transportation hinders the movement of grain. Boxcars are vitally important to move other kinds of grain besides wheat. Clearly, the proposed advisory group will need to have greater input, greater say with regard to Canadian Wheat Board policies, than has been the case in the past.
As the new advisory group, if the amendment passes, is to be elected, it is clear that people well known to producers and farm organizations stand a better chance of election than those who are unknown. We have heard the names of several politicians mentioned as possible candidates for the proposed advisory group. These politicians, as I say, stand a better chance of running successfully, because they are well known. At present there is no mech-

anism whereby the names of people unknown but willing to run can be put before producers. As well, we must consider that it takes a great deal of money to cover the Wheat Board country comprising Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace River district of British Columbia. No matter how well qualified an individual may be to advise the Canadian Wheat Board, he, or she, probably cannot afford to travel around the area and become known. Therefore the unknown candidate is at a disadvantage, whereas people like Roy Atkinson, for instance, or Mr. Turner, the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, enjoy a great advantage, in that they are relatively well known and can advise the Canadian Wheat Board. As the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) suggested, we should broaden the base and enable more people to become involved in the advisory process.
We are considering a question of fundamental importance. I think that producers and consumers in future will want to rely less on bureaucrats for guidance. I hope the House will accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), and enable more producers to be involved in the governing and advisory process.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment the House is considering is simple, but an important principle is at stake. During the last 40 years almost every democratic country has turned even more decision-making power over to experts. In the case of wheat, in 1935, over 40 years ago, the farmers of the west turned certain decision-making powers over to a board appointed by the federal government, known as the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board has been an unique and useful institution for stabilizing the price to farmers and helping Canada to expand wheat sales on world markets. But no board set up by man is perfect. In the past the power to decide with regard to the sale of certain farm products was handled by the group of experts who represented some 200,000-odd producers. The amendment seeks to set up an advisory board or committee, which would wield some of the power formerly wielded dictatorially by the group of experts; and, what is more, the proposed group is to be established on an elected basis.
From my experience as a minister I can say, confidently, that the views I was given by the Wheat Board and the advisory committee of my day did not necessarily reflect the views of producers. It soon became clear to me, as I said in the second reading debate, that the advisory committee I had appointed consisted of representatives of giant corporations whose interest was to maximize the profits and efficiency of their corporations. Therefore their advice was largely the advice of vested interests. Those reprentatives were concerned about how best to serve those interests. They could represent either private companies or co-operatives. But the result was the same: they wanted to do the best job they could for their particular organizations. Therefore, no matter how well intentioned such people may be in giving advice, they do not represent the voice of farmers. The farmer has become suspicious; he thinks that perhaps his views do not always get first consideration.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) is simple and shows how we can turn the
June 22, 1976

clock back a little. In the past we took the power of decision-making away from the owner of the product and gave that power to a board of experts. We could allow the owner of the product some little say in the decision-making process; therefore, I support any decision for making the advisory board an elected one. The recommendation of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, namely, that members of the proposed advisory group should be elected from producers, is sound.
Let me make one thing clear. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board said in committee that the proposed amendment is good; but something strange happened on the way to the forum, so to speak. All the Liberal members on the committee who knew nothing about wheat and nothing about western Canada decided to vote against the amendment; that is why the matter has been raised in the House today. We are attempting to correct the injustice which occurred in that committee. Surely all members know that the Wheat Board would like to get advice from producers, that the bulk of farmers want some say in the decision-making process and that the Palliser group, which has been in the news for the last few years, is in favour of this move. Further, I suggest that people who love their country, who want to see the owners of a product maintain some sort of control over that product, would also support the amendment. Really, this amendment says to farmers, "You have the right to have producers on the advisory board."
As several others have mentioned in the debate, this country is run by the bureaucracy. Really, the cabinet has little power; it listens to its advisers. Our population is dissatisfied with this and expresses dissatisfaction in many ways. In the dairy industry, wheat industry and poultry industry, to name but some segments of our economy, experts are trying to run the whole show and give no say to the producer. This is happening at both the federal and provincial levels in Canada. If we continue on this road by 1990, 90 per cent of the people of this country will be working for some government institution. That is the course we have charted ourselves. I appeal to the House to support this simple amendment. Without doubt, the professional politician or bureaucrat who runs our big organizations must move over and give the producer or owner some chance to have a say in matters which affect him. That is what the amendment says.
I shall close with a well considered example. The world is hungry and needs food. In our dry farm lands of the west, by using our knowledge and expertise which has resulted in new types of grain in the last 20 years, we can produce more grain. Does this House and country know that our experts in the Canadian Wheat Board and experts in the farm corporations have opposed bringing of these new types of grain into the marketing system of our country? At least a dozen new varieties have passed every scientific test there is, yet are suppressed from farm use.
There are new types of grain which produce many more bushels per acre, at the same cost. They would feed many more million people. However, the experts say they cannot accept these new grains because there would be trouble in the grading system. One particular grain, has 3 per cent or 4 per cent of small kernels. Even though this grain would
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) produce 30 or 40 more bushels per acre, it is turned down because the experts say it would be hard to market, with 3 per cent or 4 per cent of small kernels. I am not the one to judge that. However, with a hungry world on one side, and farmers who want more income on the other, I think the farmers should have this brought to their attention so they can study it with the producers with regard to any problems of growing. The farmers should decide on the types of grain we have to sell.
I know that the Canadian Wheat Board are well inten-tioned. They have an efficient-running system with the present grades. They do not want to change that efficient system. It is the very nature of bureaucracy that once you get it running, you do not change it. The farm organizations which make money out of storage do not want it changed. It would mean having new grades to handle in their elevators. The vested interests who own the elevators, and the people who are bureaucrats by profession, oppose this type of question being brought to public attention. This matter has been before those of us who have been responsible for decisions for the past 20 years. It has not come to public debate because no one who advises the Wheat Board or sits on the Wheat Board wants to bring it to public debate. I believe there are eight or ten producers on that advisory board who would be able to enter a public debate on this issue, and they who have the right to decide would make the decision.
This question has moral issues as well as economic ones. The curse of this and other countries today is that we have turned the responsibility of governing the nation at the national, provincial and corporate levels over to experts. I was not surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). He knows, as well as I do, that in the management of our companies and unions we have turned over their running to the experts. Experts keep the fight going as long as they can between labour and management, because that is the only way they can get paid.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let the farmer decide.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right: let the farmer also decide whether he wants bureaucrats to represent him, or his own people. I simply say that if you put a weasel in a hen-house, the weasel represents the weasel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If you
put in a man that represents a corporation which makes its money out of storage, all he will think about is storage.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What if the hens elect the weasel?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the
hens elect the weasel, you know what will happen to the hens. I think I have made my point. Let me give one little warning to the government side. The farmers know the significance of this amendment. By the eastern members on that committee voting down what the minister recommended was a good idea, they have put the Liberal members in the farm areas in jeopardy because farmers have had it up to the neck with regard to being run by bureau-

June 22, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
crats. I do not necessarily want to see all Liberals eliminated from Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not
even want to see the NDP eliminated. However, if ever they want to commit suicide, this is the way to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I will take just a very few minutes of the time of the House to speak to some points that have been raised on the other side about members from non-wheat growing areas on the committee not knowing what they are doing. I take some exception to that. I think other members from eastern Canada do, as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Ross Milne: Members from all parties on this committee were concerned enough to agree that the committee should travel to western Canada in order to have a better insight into the wheat and grain growing problems of this country. I think that all members share the view that, when they came here, the committee process was one of the most important things. They take their responsibilities seriously and do not automatically vote amendments pro or con as might be indicated. We have our own caucus meetings on this. We have discussions, good arguments and come to some agreement as to the best disposition. We follow that principle.
I take some exception to members opposite saying we do not take our responsibilities seriously and, just because we do not come from a wheat-growing area, we do not have any right to sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and discuss wheat matters. That is a wrong impression and it is one that members opposite might want to take off the record.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the discussion on the proposed amendment to Bill C-88. We have had an interesting and worth-while discussion on the idea proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and the arguments on both sides of this particular issue. Although I do not agree with the substance of the amendment proposed in the House this morning, I want to thank the hon. member for presenting this idea to the House for consideration.
We have had a rather interesting and useful analysis of the issues that are involved here in what may appear, on the surface, to be a very simple, straightforward and thoroughly desirable change. However, that is not entirely without complication. It is important to bear in mind what those complications and considerations could be. As the minister indicated during the committee hearings on Bill C-88, there are arguments pro and con on the substance of this amendment. On the one hand, as many members have pointed out, it is fundamentally important that this advisory committee should have the choice and be representative of prairie grain producers. There is no disagreement on that point. That is the reason why, a year or more ago, the minister initiated the experiment of seeing whether, in

fact, it would be desirable to devise an electoral procedure for the selection of the advisory committee members. That experiment was conducted last year and members were elected.
According to the legislation as it is written, the minister specifically appointed the successful candidates in that election to the advisory committee. Following that experiment of a year ago, the minister made the commitment that we would come back to the House of Commons to formalize that electoral procedure in legislation. That, of course, is what Bill C-88, among other things, is designed to do.
The point, clearly, is that there can be no disagreement on the fundamental issue about the desirability of this advisory committee being the choice of farmers and being representative of farmers. I do not believe anyone, on either side of the House, is arguing that point. The ultimate safeguard in this respect is to be found in the fact that the electoral process itself is squarely in the hands of producers. They are the ones who will exercise their franchise and will make the ultimate decision as to their choice of who should represent them on the advisory committee.
On the other side of the question, the argument in opposition to the amendment is based simply upon the desirability of maintaining flexibility and allowing producers a broad spectrum of possible candidates for election. As I say, the franchise rests with the producers. Bearing this in mind, should we, by legislation, restrict the opportunity of some to come forward? Should we limit the range of options? Ought we to restrict the class of persons eligible to sit on the advisory committee? For the time being, at least, my response would be "No." That is my view, at least until we have had further experience with this electoral process.
I remind hon. members that it is a very new one. It has been tried once and, of course, the next election a few years down the road it will be the first to be held under the terms of the legislation. Until we see some evidence that there is a problem which must be dealt with-and, surely, such evidence would have to indicate clearly that there was an impairment of the interests of producers because of the broad range of choice-the amendment ought not, in my opinion, to be accepted. Instead, I believe we should opt for flexibility and for maintaining a broad range of choice. Again, I emphasize that the choice will remain in the hands of producers. All we are talking about in the amendment is limiting the number of options. Surely it is advisable at the outset to make the choice as broad as possible. I have a great deal of personal confidence in the capacity of producers to make their decision in their own best interests. I do not believe they need the kind of artificial protection which is being proposed. Nevertheless, if safeguards are required in future, changes can be implemented either by statute or by regulation.
I should like to turn now to some of the remarks which were made in the House today having to do with what took place in the standing committee when this amendment was presented-the argument that government members of the committee that day happened to number 12 from regions outside the Canadian Wheat Board area, and that, somehow, the fact that they did not come from constituencies in
June 22, 1976

the west impaired their ability to listen to the arguments being made, to assess the evidence and to form a reasonable judgment on the basis of what was before them. Like another member who spoke earlier in the debate, I take exception to this argument. It is one which does no credit to the House of Commons, to the standing committee or to the individuals putting it forward. I do not believe it carries any weight at all.
It is an extremely divisive position for a member to take. As a westerner, I initially came forward for election from a constituency in Saskatchewan with a fundamental belief in the basic reasonableness of Canadians in all parts of this country. We in the west have had what is called, in some circles-perhaps too grandly-a feeling of alienation, a feeling that somehow our interests are not taken fully into consideration; that somehow we are left out of the decision-making process. It was my belief, when I stood for election, that this feeling of western alienation, real as it might be, was not completely justified in the sense that there were a great many initiatives being taken by the present government to relieve the concerns of westerners. I believed great progress was being made to identify and eliminate the root causes of the malaise we call western alienation.
At the root of my confidence, that we could overcome this feeling of alienation was my belief that all Canadians are basically fair-minded people whether they are asked to deal, for example, with a simple amendment to the Wheat Board Act, or the question of amending the freight rate structure as a whole. I was convinced that Canadians from other parts of the country would be prepared to listen to argument and hear the evidence, and that once they did so they would be willing and anxious to respond in a positive manner to the arguments we were making.
Surely this is a more positive approach to confederation and to the legislative process-an optimistic approach as we look forward, in a realistic way, to making the kind of changes which will work to the proper advantage of western Canada. I have confidence in Canadians and believe that through them this goal can be achieved. I have confidence in members on both sides of the House and, again, I believe that with their help our objectives can be reached. In the particular context of my remarks today, I have confidence that those who were present when this matter was being discussed before the standing committee listened to the arguments that were put toward and made a good judgment on the evidence before them, not in a biased or hasty fashion which could work to the detriment of the farmers of western Canada. I take exception to the point which was made, attacking the credibility and integrity of members on this side who serve on the committee and who do a tremendous job for all farmers both from the east and from the west.
To sum up, in the circumstances before us I think it is desirable to opt for flexibility and maintain a broad range of choice. As I say, if we determine that there is a problem, and that the interests of producers are being impaired, we could take corrective action either by legislation or by regulation. The first advisory board chosen on the basis of election is now established, and I have no evidence that there has been any impairment of the interests of the farmers as a result of the system used. The farmers them-
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) selves are the electors; they have the franchise in their own hands, and I am satisfied they will make the ultimate decision in their own best interests.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a few words to the amendment in the name of my hon. friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) with respect to the selection of the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board.
I listened to the last speaker during this debate, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale). I must say that I have always respected his ability to research a matter, but I am disturbed that he should be concerned that there is something wrong with insisting that producing farmers should provide the nucleus of this advisory committee. We are not talking about the Wheat Board, of course; we are talking about the advisory committee to the Wheat Board. Surely, that in itself should suggest that producers should only be members of this type of board.
I have in mind a man from my own area. He has tremendous responsibility in that he represents that area consisting of over half of the southern part of Alberta. He is a very aggressive producer in that area and is a member of the advisory committee. His name is Orville Reber, of Burdett, southern Alberta. This is the type of producing farmer who can tell the story, on behalf of the farmers he represents, in a very convincing way. I am sure he has made some members of the Wheat Board and of the grain trades a little annoyed because of his persistence. But he gets the story across and the message is there.
For the hon. member for Assiniboia to suggest it is premature to call for total farmer representation on this advisory committee is unfair and unjust. He suggested that perhaps, when the need becomes apparent, we should consider this question. I say the need is now, because the government, in its wisdom, has already agreed there should be an advisory committee; and that advisory committee, in its wisdom, must advise about grain producers' problems. For that reason there is great need to support this motion all the way down the line.
There is another reason for supporting the amendment. The producer who represents the grain growers, or the farmers, is much more knowledgeable about another pressing matter in western Canada, and that is the conflict of interest between producers of domestic feed grain and the customers, the feeders of hogs and cattle. For far too long we have only had one side of the argument presented at the Wheat Board level. Surely, with producers on the advisory committee, all of them farmers, they will be much more knowledgeable in that two-sided argument as to how we should use domestic feed grain in western Canada in order that the feeding industry will survive. Let me leave it at that for now, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make one point, and it seems that perhaps it can only be done by repetition. Those who are to be electing the members of the advisory committee are all going to be producers. Surely the election should be left to them. If you look at Bill C-88, you will find that the regulations which have been stipu-

June 22, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
lated or set down relating to the conduct of elections are clear in this respect, and surely it is a breach of faith in the producers for hon. members opposite to suggest they cannot choose the best members of that advisory committee.
Those regulations specify that the list of producers is to be prepared prior to any election, and only those producers will be voting. Surely, the producers or farmers of whom the hon. members have such a high opinion and of whom I have such a high opinion, will be able to select and elect the members of that particular committee based on the criteria that the members have enumerated, and I suggest that the amendment ought not-


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I would very much like the hon. member who has the floor to speak more slowly, not only for himself so that it will be possible to hear the simultaneous interpretation. Actually, he speaks for the gallery. I do not know why, but there is no interpretation at this time.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, all I said was that the opposition members who moved the amendment have stated that indeed only farmers and producers, necessarily western producers, should sit on the committee. All I say is that the only ones who will be able to vote for the election of council members will be farmers and producers. If they are unable to judge by themselves the quality of the people who should advise the Canadian Wheat Board, I would not know who could chose them. That is the purpose of my intervention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among House leaders to the effect that it would be undesirable to have another vote at this time, since we are scheduled to have a vote on Bill C-84 in a minute or so. I suggest, therefore, that the timing of the vote should be left to consultations among the House leaders. Probably the vote would take place tomorrow.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Léonel Beaudoin: D'accord.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard the suggestion of the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), the debate having been concluded and the yeas and nays having been called, the recorded division as required by the Standing Orders will be deferred to a time to be agreed upon by the House leaders and to be announced perhaps later this day.
It being 12.30 p.m., pursuant to an agreement of Thursday, June 17, 1976, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings in order that the House may proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 17, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having regard to the special nature of this vote, I have examined precedents on similar votes in the past and have consulted the House leaders. There is agreement that I should establish the procedure, without discussion, and in an effort to ensure accuracy and reflect the departure from the usual party voting, I will proceed as follows.

Having regard to the special nature of this vote, I have examined precedents on similar votes in the past and have consulted the House leaders. There is agreement that I should establish the procedure without discussion, and in an effort to ensure accuracy and reflect the departure from the usual party voting, I will proceed as follows.
As is customary, hon. members in favour of the motion will be asked to indicate their position first, followed by hon. members who are opposed. I will ask all members in the first row to my right who are in favour of the motion to rise together, whereupon their names will be called by the
June 22, 1976

Clerk Assistant beginning with the hon. member for Mer-cier (Mr. Boulanger) who is seated closest to the Chair. When the name of a member in the row has been called and recorded, that member will resume his seat.
When the taking of names of hon. members in the first row to my right has been completed, I will ask members in the second, third, fourth and fifth rows on my right to proceed in a similar manner. I will then ask members in the first row to my left who are in favour of the motion to rise and remain standing until their names have been called and will carry on similarly with the other rows on my left.
Once the votes of hon. members supporting the motion have been completed in this manner, I will then invite hon. members in the first row to my right who are opposed to the motion to rise. I will proceed similarly through the remaining rows on my right, and then follow the same procedure for hon. members to my left.
It bears repetition that the taking of names of hon. members in every row will begin with the hon. member seated closest to the Chair and continue consecutively along to the far end of the row. This will be so to my right regardless of rank and it will so to my left regardless of rank or party affiliation.

As is customary, hon. members in favour of the motion will be asked to indicate their position, first, followed by hon. members who are opposed.
I will ask all members in the first row to my right who are in favour of the motion to rise together, whereupon their names will be called by the Clerk Assistant beginning with the hon. member seated closest to the Chair. When the name of a member in the row has been called and recorded, that member will resume his seat.
When the taking of names of hon. members in the first row to my right has been completed, I will ask members in the second, third, fourth and fifth rows on my right to proceed in a similar manner.
I will then ask members in the first row to my left who are in favour of the motion to rise and remain standing until their names have been called, and will carry on similarly with the other rows on my left.
Once the votes of hon. members supporting the motion have been completed in this manner, I will then invite hon. members in the first row to my right who are opposed to the motion to rise. I will proceed similarly through the remaining rows on my right, and then follow the same procedure for hon. members to my left.
It bears repetition that the taking of names of hon. members in every row will begin with the hon. member seated closest to the Chair and will continue consecutively along to the far end of the row. This will be so to my right, regardless of rank and it will so to my left, regardless of rank or party affiliation.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.03 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: In view of the fact that in August of 1975, the Canadian Pacific Railway abandoned the rail barge service on Kootenay Lake, in view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has ignored a three year contract with the owners of the tugboat Melinda Jane after only one year of operation and occasioned them great financial difficulty, and in view of the fact that to date, despite the submission of briefs by myself, the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec, as well as several local chambers of commerce, the Canadian Transport Commission has yet to conduct a hearing into its jurisdiction over rail barge service as well as address itself to the constitutional issues it creates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That the Minister of Transport urge the Hon. Mr. Benson, president of the Canadian Transport Commission, to provide greater locomotion to his gluteus maximus and minimus muscles and address himself to this long overdue and urgent matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can only be presented to the House with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and as a Canadian M.P., member of the parliamentary group Canada-Senegal Friendship, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move an important motion.
In view of the visit today in Ottawa of His Excellency Leopold Sedar Senghor, President of the Republic of Senegal, who is in Canada as the honorary president of the World Federation of Twinned Cities, an international non governmental organization endeavouring to draw together the various nations of the world; since tomorrow, at the official opening of the Olympic village in Montreal, His Excellency, who is a keen champion and promoter of a universal brotherly civilization, will proceed with the symbolic twinning of the Olympic village with the cities of the world, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Caron);
That the House convey to His Excellency Leopold Sedar Senghor the pleasure caused by his visit and say to him that Canadian government members join with him in his intense desire to see real bonds of friendship and cooperation develop between the peoples of the world and finally, on the occasion of the symbolic twinning of the Olympic village with the cities of the world, that the House earnestly press His Excellency to transmit to all nations the message of friendship of Canada, which really demonstrated in the past a sincere desire to establish friendly international cooperation and which endorses the various positive ways of bringing people together, including the creation of bonds between municipalities.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.
June 22, 1976


U410)   FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION PROPOSED ADOPTION OF MEASURES TO INCREASE LEVEL OF INCOME OF FISHERMEN-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the announcement that the prices for freshwater fish are to be at the same depressed level as in 1973, in view of the minister's failure to comply with a request for representation on the board in line with production in certain areas, in view of the failure of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to provide adequate markets-to the point at which very low and in some cases no prices are quoted for certain species-resulting in many lifelong fishermen having to resort to welfare, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the M'nister of State (Fisheries) be immediately seized with this problem, to propose effective measures to maintain levels of disposable income for freshwater fishermen at an increased level which would take into account increased costs of production.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion can be presented to the House only by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier):
That the House recognize and support the merits of the principle of decentralizing the public service towards underdeveloped areas in the country facing a historically high and chronic unemployment rate due mainly to the lack of jobs, and that the House recognize the emergency of speeding up the process in an orderly and balanced way so that all Canadians wherever they may live be provided with equal opportunity to have access to the Canadian public service, in order to reduce the inequalities and distortions already existing within these areas.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is unanimous consent of the House, I shall move the motion. Seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) moved:
Oral Questions
That the House recognize and support the merits of the principle of decentralizing the public service towards underdevelopped areas in the country facing a historically high and chronic unemployment rate due mainly to the lack of jobs, and the the House ...
Order, please. Is the hon. member for Abitibi rising on a point of order?


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, there was not unanimous consent on this last motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 43.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport to whom we extend sincere condolences. At 5.30 yesterday afternoon an official in the hon. gentleman's ministry stated that air traffic control operations were back to normal at all airports across the country. I am advised that this is the situation which prevails as of now. Can the minister confirm that this is the case and, in the light of the position taken by CALPA can he tell us what assurances, if any, have been given to the airline pilots so that the services can be normalized?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Again today we have indications that the air traffic controllers are working throughout the country. Conditions, therefore, are normal for the flight of aircraft. There seems to be no reason whatever for pilots not to fly. International flights are, indeed, flying through Canadian airspace and using Canadian airports. It is my hope that other pilots in Canada will do the same and that the inconvenience to the travelling public will end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF INQUIRY INTO SAFETY OF BILINGUAL TRAFFIC CONTROL
Donald W. Munro: In view of the misgivings felt, apparently, by many pilots about what the commissioner, or commissioners, once appointed, will be asked to do, may I inquire whether the terms of the reference to the commission have been drawn up and, if so, whether the minister would be prepared to table them?


Otto Emil Lang: I will certainly be glad to table them as soon as they are put in place. We drew up certain terms of reference which were later worked upon. We are now at the final stages of selecting the commissioners, and at that point we will

June 22, 1976
Oral Questions
appoint them with terms of reference. I will certainly make them available to the House at the first opportunity.


SUGGESTED EMPHASIS ON SAFETY OF BILINGUAL AIR
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question. In light of the minister's answers, I was wondering whether there were discussions with CALPA and the controllers as to the terms of reference, and in particular that the commissioner or commissioners be directed to place priority on the question of safety? In addition, when can the minister receive the views of this House and its members and the representations of the public of Canada on a question in respect of which the public of Canada is very interested as well?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the very purpose of the commission is to assure the Canadian public that safety has been put foremost. That has been consistently our position. I believe it to be fair to say that it is the likely position of all parties in this House to put safety first, but also be prepared to proceed with some bilingual air traffic control in the province of Quebec where that can be done consistent with safety, and where this has been demontrated at certain airports where it has taken place. I say I believe that to be the position of all parties in the House, and I would appreciate specific approval in that regard from all parties so it can be known by the public in this country that this is a very limited course of action we have taken, and that the suggestion which seems to be carried abroad from time to time that somehow there is a threat to safety because French is flying fast and free over Winnipeg and Calgary is simply not the case, and that those who are concerned about making it sound as though that is the case are in fact engaging in some unfortunate blackmail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSULTATIONS WITH CONTROLLERS ON APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER TO INVESTIGATE SAFETY OF BILINGUAL TRAFFIC CONTROL
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I simply remind the minister that we on this side of the House have directed our questions to the question of safety and safety alone. Arising out of an answer the parliamentary secretary gave the House yesterday to the effect that there had been rather regular communication with all parties interested in the decision which is to be taken regarding the naming of a commissioner, I would ask the Minister of Transport whether he can clarify this statement, in light of the fact that the President of CATCA, Mr. Livingston, stated that his only contact with the Ministry of Transport occurred on June 8 in respect of naming a replacement for Mr. Keenan, and again last Friday, at which time he had informal discussions with the deputy minister of personnel, and during which there were no references to the appointment of a new commissioner?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the discussions between the officials of the Ministry of
Transport and the various groups involved, the pilots and controllers, are going on from time to time, and practically continuously. Obviously the question of commissioners is very much foremost, so I do not understand if there is supposed to be some hesitancy on the part of the controllers and pilots to bring forward comments on the question of the commission and commissioners. We did in fact ask them for suggestions, but we have received very limited help in that regard. Indeed, the latest word I have is that there is some lack of interest in the commission because they seem to be taking the position that the only thing they will be satisfied with is a move away from the position which we have taken, when we have always said that safety comes first with bilingualism in certain areas within the province of Quebec when possible. Notwithstanding that, I have to take the position with them that backing down from this reasonable position is something we cannot do. As I say, I believe we have the support of reasonable members of all parties in this House in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the appointment of a new commissioner seems to be the central issue involved in this dispute, and in view of the fact there have not been any formalized meetings with officials of the Department of Transport and CATCA, I would ask the minister whether he would undertake to convene a meeting with Mr. Livingston and his officials in order that their advice might be sought so that a suitable replacement might be named to head the commission of inquiry which would hopefully avert continued disruption of air traffic in this country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, needless to say if I felt there was anything to be gained from a particular form of meeting I would see that it was held immediately. I am indeed always available, my door is always open.
The hon. member is quite wrong in repeating his statement that there had not been any formal consultations. There have been. I have indicated to the hon. member that we asked for lists. We ended up with a list containing one name which is a strange form of helpfulness in the way of suggestions. We asked for further names. We then got an expression of now perhaps some lack of interest in the commission because of a lack of interest in anything which may allow the policy we have set forth to progress. I say to hon. members, and I say it most earnestly, I wish they would take the opportunity of their supplementaries to indicate that they do in fact support the basic policy I have enunciated here.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO EXTENSION OF BILINGUAL TRAFFIC CONTROL IF SAFETY JEOPARDIZED
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. Since neither his statements in the House today in respect of questions-and I was listening with care-nor his statement of May 12 on the question of bilingualism being introduced to air traffic control procedures in Quebec, nor

June 22, 1976

indeed the Order in Council that was passed on May 13, in the first preamble paragraph, make clear where the government stands on this issue, I should like to ask the minister, in order to remove all uncertainty on the issue, whether he will assure the House that safety on this issue will remain paramount and that if it is found that safety would be jeopardized by any extension of bilingualism in respect of air traffic control in Quebec it will not be undertaken.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to express my appreciation to the hon. member for inviting me to again state most definitely what is the case, which is that safety is foremost. If safety were in any way jeopardized by any procedures suggested in the use of bilingualism in air traffic control in Canada we would not implement those procedures because safety is foremost and that is a fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker,
I most sincerely thank the minister for that unequivocal and clear answer. I should like now to turn to the President of the Treasury Board. Since one of the basic principles of effective labour relations is to maintain civil relations between the two groups in conflict, and since the Prime Minister in the House yesterday expressed a desire that both parties to the current air dispute "cool it", I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board to tell us why the government's immediate response to the Winnipeg walkout was to apply the full and literal force of the law to the people involved, instead of sending an emissary to negotiate a speedy resolution of the conflict?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we had no choice at all because the law of the land has to be respected. In fact Mr. Justice Addy, if the hon. member would read the judgment, made it a condition that he would render a judgment in injunctions if the government were ready to take its responsibility to make sure that the injunction would be respected and this is exactly what we have done.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well-certainly his colleague the Minister of Labour knows-that the full and vigorous application of the letter of the law can cause more harm than good if the hope is to get a settlement. I should like to ask the minister whether it is the government's position on this particular dispute that it should remain with a hands-off attitude and simply let the situation be resolved in terms of the law as it now exists.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have a contract with the air traffic controllers and we have asked them to respect it. We went in front of the court. The court said we had a contract and ordered the air traffic controllers to go back
Oral Questions
to work. It is the policy of the government to make sure that no one in this land is above the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Following the last subsidy received by the Quebec milk producers, many of these have lost considerable revenue because of the new government dairy policy which penalizes those who have worked. Also, the President of the Treasury Board was visited last weekend by some milk producers and according to newspaper reports the minister assured them he would discuss this question with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. In view of these facts, could the minister tell the House whether discussions did take place with the Minister of Agriculture in this respect, and whether this policy can be changed in the near future to prevent many Quebec dairy farms from going under?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to talk briefly with the Minister of Agriculture about this, and I believe that meetings are now taking place between representatives of the union of Quebec milk producers and spokesmen from the Department of Agriculture to try and find a solution. The Minister of Agriculture has already announced that in the case of those who have farm mortgages granted by the Farm Credit Corporation, the latter will not demand payments as a measure to help farmers.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
As the solution proposed by the Minister of Agriculture-and endorsed, I suppose, by the President of the Treasury Board, whereby payments due by the farmers would be postponed-is not in fact a solution since the debts will remain and income will be lost, could the minister recommend to his cabinet colleague a solution that could really solve the acute problem that now exists and threatens the very existence of many dairy farms in Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of some difficulties. However, we hope to find administrative solutions to those problems. The hon. member should recognize that the problem faced today by the farmers is the result of overproduction last year, and they in turn should also recognize that they must reduce their production.
As for administrative steps, I know the Minister of Agriculture is trying to find a solution in consultation with the interested parties. In addition, if my information is correct, some time this week he will be meeting some of

June 22, 1976
Oral Questions
the provincial ministers of agriculture to discuss this subject.


SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN IMPORTATION OF DAIRY PRODUCTS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Considering that this matter is very important and that it has been alleged that there are surpluses and the dairy producers ought to be penalized, could the minister assure the House that the import policy of dairy products which could be produced at home will involve a reduction of these products, thus helping solve this problem so that in the coming months we will not run the risk of having, as it happened two years ago, to import tremendous amounts to the detriment of Canadian farmers and, in particular, of Quebec dairy producers.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that the government has decided this year to limit cheese imports to 50 million pounds while we had made commitments to import much more, and that we take a close look at the situation to try to reduce imports, as the Minister of Agriculture has often pointed out in this House.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO DAIRY FARMERS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the problem of dairy farmers in Ontario, and it is also for the President of the Treasury Board. In the light of the fact that dairy farmers across Ontario have now received their subsidy cheques for May and that these cheques have been cut substantially-one of my constituents who not only did not receive payment for the $3,100 worth of milk he shipped but also received a bill for $170-what assistance is the government prepared to make available to dairy farmers to save them from imminent bankruptcy? They have to pay their bills.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of that situation. In fact, I received a certain number of farmers in my office on Saturday who explained the problem to me. We are looking into that, and I think the Minister of Agriculture is supposed to meet with some provincial ministers of agriculture to try to find a way out. However, I am not the Minister of Agriculture; I am just doing my best to answer the hon. member.


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN FORMULA FOR ALLOCATING QUOTAS FOR INDUSTRIAL MILK
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture perhaps I could address the following question to the Acting Prime Minister. In the light of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board pointed out that the present formula for allocating quotas between the prov-

inces actually encourages over production, what recommendations, if any, is the federal government making to reform this formula to remove the disincentives from producing within the provincial quota?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when he was answering similar questions the other day the Minister of Agriculture explained in the House that the most important problem relates to the internal allocation of quotas. He stated, for example, that in Manitoba there is no problem of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: Oh yes there is.


Mr. Clark:: Send Jim Richardson home.


Mitchell William Sharp: The problem is one which involves co-operation between the provinces and the federal government. The Minister of Agriculture will be making some proposals which will fulfill our part of the bargain, and I hope the provinces will act with similar goodwill.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister completed his inquiries into the question raised on June 7 about the alleged supplying by his department to a United States mailing list company, the names of people in receipt of old age pensions?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: That is Mr. Diefenbak-er's question.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You don't seem interested; don't you want the answer?


Marc Lalonde: This allegation was promptly investigated. I checked with the officials of my department, who checked with all government sources. There is no indication that the list provided to a United States company came from any government. As a matter of fact, on the basis of the content of the list with which I was provided, it appears that it could not have come from government sources for a number of technical reasons, such as zip codes and so on.
We have checked with the United States company, and the president of the company has clearly stated that the information came from public records. Moreover, the president of the company has volunteered to put in future a disclaimer on all such forms to the effect that they are not
June 22, 1976

coming from social security, medicare or other government sources.


LENGTH OF TIME MINISTER HAD INFORMATION CONCERNING
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same minister a supplementary question. How long has he had that information? My understanding was that he gave an undertaking in the House that as soon as the information was available, without any prompting from his own backbenchers, he would make it available to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton will confirm, I have had that information for several days, but I was waiting for the hon. member for Prince Albert to raise the question. I had a discussion with the hon. member for Prince Albert on the telephone yesterday morning and told him that I would be in the House yesterday, but the hon. member chose not to ask the question. He chose to ask another question, so I am not surprised-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -that if the hon. member's colleagues do not do their homework, our members have to do it.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement just made by the minister, who is famous for his contributions and dialling judges-


Some hon. Members:: Ask your question.


John George Diefenbaker: I very much appreciate that he held up the answer until my return. I was absent because of my wife.
Yesterday the minister telephoned me and said that he was going to bring this matter up. I waited; he was silent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am not here to correct the hon. gentleman, but I point out that his continual reference to me as "the hon. member"-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please, I do not know that we can solve this disagreement in the question period. I know the right hon. member for Prince Albert was seeking the floor. Perhaps he has a question on another matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think it is right for me to bring up the fact that the hon. gentleman invariably refers to me as "the hon. member". I am the only right hon. member who is a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with widespread opposition across the country to the establishment of a Crown corporation lottery. In view of the fact that lotteries come within the jurisdiction of the provinces, have the provinces been consulted, and have they accepted something they strongly objected to in the past, namely, a national lottery which will take income from the provinces which should remain in the provinces?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the right hon. gentleman's previous interjection did not indicate that he needed an adjective to show that he is honourable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: You are just a dirty Basford. You will be growing hair when he gets finished with you.


Stanley Ronald Basford: With regard to the question, it is clearly established under the Criminal Code that lotteries may be permitted by the governor in council or by lieutenant governors in council. With regard to the second part of the question as to the degree of consultation, I will ask my friend the President of the Treasury Board to answer that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the right hon. member for Prince Albert that there were extensive consultations among all the provinces on that subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Did they accept?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There was no agreement between the provinces, and that is why we have decided to step in. I would like to inform the right hon. member that we had a vote in committee, and the count was eleven to one; all the members of his party supported Loto Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REJECTION OF WAGE AWARD TO AIRCRAFT SAFETY INSPECTORS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the light of the fact that the aircraft safety inspectors group of the Ministry of Transport, who review and renew airplane pilots's licences, will be going on strike this coming Friday, what action does the minister propose to take with regard to the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to reject the binding award of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall in the recent aircraft operations group dispute? The reason for the strike

June 22, 1976
Oral Questions
is the Anti-Inflation Board's rejection of Mr. Justice Hall's wage proposal to the group.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the House passed a law which gives the board the authority to make decisions of that kind, and I intend to respect that law.


AIR TRANSPORT
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the fact that the aircraft safety inspectors group will be going on strike this coming Friday, what action does the minister intend to take to guarantee that no pilots will fly with invalid licences after Friday?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows from a specific experience Wednesday, there is a limited amount we can do, in the end, to assure that reviewing of pilots' licences, but other testing goes on satisfactorily in a strike or slowdown situation. We try to take what steps we can, and we try to assure safety, of course, but we cannot avoid inconvenience to many individuals.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. I think it concerns more than one department. The Wall Street Journal of last Friday-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am trying to keep abreast of the facts from wherever they may come. The article quotes the chairman of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation as saying that a final proposal was submitted Tuesday to the Canadian government for the $1 billion sale of 18 PC-3 Orion aircraft and that negotiators are discussing fine tuning-whatever that may mean-and that Lockheed would need a definite answer by the end of June when the Canadian parliament recesses. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government received such an offer? Will it make an announcement of any decision to the House before parliament recesses?


Walter David Baker: Fine-tuned or otherwise.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I really do admire the catholicity of the hon. member's reading. I never expected to hear him quote the Wall Street Journal. To answer the question, we have received an offer which is being evaluated. I am not quite certain when a decision will be made. If a decision is made before we recess of course it will be announced here.


An hon. Member:: Is it in writing?


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. Has the government satisfied itself that the Lockheed Corporation indeed is in a financial position that would make it reasonable to anticipate that the contract as entered into with Lockheed would be carried out?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if we had any doubts on that score we would not enter into such a contract.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister probably knows a bill has been introduced in the United States Senate calling for the evaluation of various pipeline proposals by the FBA to be done by February 1; it would then allow for the President of the United States to respond within 90 days. There is the implication that this timing has been undertaken by the United States government because of discussions with the Canadian government as*to when Canada may arrive at a decision with respect to pipelines. Can the minister confirm whether such discussions have taken place and if there is an understanding that a decision would be made about a pipeline in Canada-I am talking about moving northern gas-within this time frame?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm to the hon. member the harmony that he suggests may exist between Canadian policy and United States policy. I do know that there have been discussions between the two governments on a continuing basis about this question. I will investigate whether this question of synchronization of activities has been brought up and report later.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). The three-week annual meeting of the 18 member countries belonging to ICNAF is scheduled to end tomorrow without agreement reached on quotas for some stocks or on the future role of ICNAF. The United States government has announced their intention to withdraw from
June 22, 1976

ICNAF. In the light of the extended fisheries jurisdiction of Canada and the United States early next year and the ownership problems surrounding Georges Bank as well as St. Pierre and Miquelon, is it the minister's intention to inform the House of the outcome of the ICNAF talks and whether any of the foreign countries presently fishing on our continental shelf have refused to accept the new reduced quotas?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the conference still has a full 24 hours to run. I contacted the delegation this morning, and we have attained most of the objectives with which we entered the conference. Some issues remain and possibly one or two have been delayed but there is a further meeting later this year. It really is too early to assess the general outcome of the conference. I would suggest that, generally, we are very satisfied with the progress that has been indicated and the allocation to Canada as a coastal state of a good share of the quota which we feel we needed with the advisers involved in these discussions.


EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES FROM ICNAF
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House what will be the effect of the withdrawal of the United States from ICNAF and is Canada assessing her own position in light of our announced intention to control the fisheries some 200 miles off our coast?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the United States delegation gave notice at the beginning of the conference, as we did, that they would consider withdrawing. They felt that those quotas and regulations adopted for 1977 were not acceptable. We have said very clearly that if they were not consistent with coastal state jurisdiction we would withdraw. This is a legal matter and you have to give notice before June 30. We made it clear that we might not exercise that option to withdraw if the conference moved sufficiently in the direction we thought it should move. I should point out to the hon. member that when the full results of this meeting are known he will see that some stocks outside the 200-mile limit zone have been considered and in fact Canada did obtain quite a number of concessions for stocks beyond the 200-mile zone.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
Roméo LeBlanc: While I am on my feet and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the hon. member for McKenzie in respect of a request that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation may increase the price of one type of fish, the cutter or whitefish. This matter has been referred by the corporation to the Prices Support Board and a recommendation will be coming through in a matter of days.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASING LOCKHEED PC-3 AND EQUIPPING WITH ELECTRONIC GEAR MADE IN CANADA
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It has been reported that Lockheed has put a new LRPA proposal to the Department of National Defence which would extend the delivery date of the planes by one year to 1981, and which deletes some of the more sophisticated electronic gear. As this proposal seems to have retained the most serious disadvantage of the previous Lockheed plan, large payments before any plane is produced, would the minister inform the House if he is still considering the option of purchasing an off-the-shelf PC-3 and equipping it with a largely "made in Canada" avionics package?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are at the present time studying the proposal that has been made by Lockheed. Until the cabinet has made a decision on that proposal we will not be studying seriously other possibilities.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to ask if it is a verbal offer or not. May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services? Could the minister advise the House if any payments called for in April in the signed contract tabled in the House have been made to Lockheed? If the answer is yes, how much and if not, why are we not paying up and are we liable to interest charges on these now overdue accounts?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of April we had paid $10 million and $808,000 on May 7. We have paid those amounts in time, which means that we did not have to pay interest on amounts owing.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and it is in the interest of the taxpayer by saving money through not moving the Canadian Airborne Division out of Edmonton. Would the minister at least wait until after the 1978 election so that we may deal with this problem?

June 22, 1976
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH FRANCE ON EXTENSION OF FISHING ZONE AND RELATIONSHIP TO ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I should like to welcome him back from his visit to France. Could he report to the House if any discussions took place while he was in France with regard to St. Pierre and Miquelon as related to the extension by France of its 200 mile limit and the difficulties that could be experienced?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not raise the question of St. Pierre and Miquelon. We had consultations on this subject in the past with the French and as the hon. member knows we will have to have further discussions. I made extended reference to this point when we announced our extended jurisdiction on June 4. I assure the hon. member that this matter is of great importance to Canada and we intend to protect Canadian interests.


POSSIBLE RENEGOTIATION OF TREATY CEDING ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON TO FRANCE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Is the Treaty of Utrecht which ceded St. Pierre to France and gave France certain fishing rights within Canadian jurisdiction off the coast of Newfoundland, to be renegotiated in the context of our intention to declare a 200 mile economic zone?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not raised that in the negotiations. I will check to see whether it is involved in the resolution of these difficulties or problems which arise as a result of our extended jurisdiction and the jurisdiction claimed by France.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister launch an immediate investigation and report on any conflict of interest which might be present in the situation of Mr. A. J. Perrier, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Public Works, who is involved in the leasing of facilities and who was, until 1973, vice president of Cam-peau Corporation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Perrier was selected for the vacancy of assistant deputy minister of the Department of Public Works by the Public Service Commission, a body reporting to parliament. At the time of his appointment he severed all connections, financial and otherwise, with Campeau Corpora-

tion. He has, since then, complied completely with guidelines regarding conflicts of interest laid down for civil servants and we have every confidence in his intention and ability to avoid a conflict of interest. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that it does not help much to act on the supposition, because of certain circumstances, of suspected wrongdoing, rather than the reverse.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House of the extent to which Mr. Perrier was involved in the negotiations and arrangements for leases totalling almost $10 million per annum with Campeau Corporation, and the extent to which he has been involved in the negotiation of the $490 million lease package for the three towers in Hull, Quebec?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the bulk of the leases to which the hon. gentleman referred were entered into with Campeau Corporation before Mr. Perrier joined the government. Since then he has not had charge of direct negotiations of any description with Campeau Corporation. These were conducted by the National Capital Region, of which Mr. McFarland is the manager.


TRANSPORT
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since, apparently, the Canadian Transport Commission has no jurisdiction over rail-barge service on Kootenay Lake, it follows that it has no jurisdiction over rail-barge service between Portes aux Basques, Newfoundland, and North Sydney, Nova Scotia. This authority would then revert to the cabinet. Is the minister prepared to accept this responsibility, or will he use his good offices to stimulate the Canadian Transport Commission into taking some action?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept as a legal conclusion that because one thing is a certain way, the other is as well. However, I will look into the matter.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's response, I ask, is he prepared to intercede on behalf of the owners of the rail-barge tug Melinda Jane whose three year contract with the CPR was unilaterally cancelled after one year and who were advised by the CPR to "sue us?"


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member suggested, other remedies are available to the complaining party. I think those remedies should be pursued first.
June 22, 1976


FINANCE
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance arises out of the recent release concerning first quarter gross national product information by Statistics Canada. On May 26, the day after the presentation of the budget, the leader of my party, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: -asked the Minister of Finance why he had not brought in a budget which would stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment. The reply of the minister was that final domestic demand in Canada is and has remained at a very strong level for the past 12 to 18 months; therefore the further stimulus of consumer demand in Canada will not take up the slack in current production.
In light of statistics released since the introduction of the budget by Statistics Canada and in light of their conclusion that the first quarter was characterized by very weak personal expenditure on goods, can the minister say whether he is now prepared to revise his arguments made at the time of the budget, namely, that we are in no need of more economic stimulation than was shown in his budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. gentleman that the first quarter figures of 2.7 per cent indicate an annual rate of about 11 per cent, most of which was concentrated in the domestic sector of Canada. I think if he will read the release again, he will see that both the government sector and private spending have contributed substantially to the situation in Canada; but, as I observed in the budget speech, the export side has been the weaker.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since most of the increase has occurred in inventory buildup, which means that there is a danger, once inventories are built up and consumer demand remains low, of our heading for a recession, is the minister prepared to revise his estimates on the need for stimulus in the economy and bring in additional stimulus, by cutting taxes for those at the lower end of the income scale?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the inventory build-up is founded on the assumption of business that consumer demand will be high and that it will be necessary to have extra inventory.


John Edward Broadbent: That's absurd.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN STANDING ORDERS TO PREVENT
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the President of the Privy
Oral questions
Council. Could the minister tell the House if during the summer recess he intends to proceed with an amendment to the parliamentary procedure to be presented when we will resume work next fall and which would enable us to change the standing orders, something like this:
That the House cannot bring down the government otherwise than by a non confidence vote, which would make it possible, each time we have a free vote as we did this morning, to show to the people of Canada that this House is an example of living democracy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon subcommittees of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization are submitting reports which will propose very substantial amendments to the rules of the House. I hope those reports will commend themselves to the House; but when the committee itself reports we have no intention, on our side, of making changes of the kind proposed by the hon. member. I think our rules with regard to confidence motions are well established and traditional, and we should continue to adhere to them.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport with a view to eliciting as much factual information as is available with reference to the Canadian Airlines Pilots Association and CATCA? Would the minister make available to the House and country the aviation safety investigations conducted by the Ministry of Transport prior to the issuance of NOTAM 1274, in July, 1974, since I believe the minister specifically referred to this document, or to this study, in an address delivered on March 2, this year, at Ottawa, to the special international air safety symposium. Will the minister make this information available to the House and country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I gathered from the beginning of the question that the hon. member was referring to investigations relating to incidents in the air. I will be glad to look at the relevant practices and procedures. I have no reason to think that the basic information should not be available; however, I will look into it.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the minister, replying to my question, advised the House that the U.S. National Academy of Science concluded that there

June 22, 1976
Anti-Dumping Tribunal
was no proof showing that the use of aerosol sprays can cause a deterioration of the atmosphere's ozone layer and bring about an increase in the incidence of skin cancer. Can the minister say whether his information from the academy came by way of an academy report, or by way of his conversations with academy officials?


An hon. Member:: By way of academy award. [Translation]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if the translation or the words I used implied that the aerosol sprays have no effect on the ozone layer, that is not what I meant because they do have an effect which is, however, not important enough to jeopardize public health at the present time. It is a report which I got from my department and I am going to check its source.


William Herbert Jarvis: In fairness to that very distinguished group of scientists, will the minister correct his answer of yesterday wherein he told me that the United States Academy of Science made a study and had come to the conclusion that nothing proved that the use of aerosol sprays affected the ozone layer because as late as this morning, the academy categorically denied that they had reached any conclusion or made any reporting indicating a conclusion about the effect of aerosol sprays?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to change anything before I check with the department that gave me this information.


Marc Lalonde: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of National Health and Welfare on a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I referred to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) as the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton. I want to make a correction to Hansard on that point and I would like to refer to the hon. member by his proper title.
Furthermore, I would like to make clear that during my conversation yesterday with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I returned his call; I never committed myself to take the initiative to answer the question. It was agreed that I would be in the House at two o'clock yesterday and that I would be pleased to use this opportunity to answer his question on that matter.


Walter David Baker: On the point of order raised by the minister, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for that correction. Ottawa-Carleton is a vacancy which we on this side of the House hope to fill the next time around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cullen:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that those opposite are whistling in the dark. It is going to be held by the Grits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, questions have arisen both inside and outside the House with regard to the conduct of the chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. From inquiries that have been undertaken, and from information made available, I have concluded that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Gauthier had a pecuniary interest or was associated with anyone who had a pecuniary interest in any matter before the Anti-Dumping Tribunal.
I wish to make it clear that there is nothing in the information which has been made available to me which indicates that Mr. Gauthier has conducted himself in any manner conflicting with the due performance of his duties. I have discussed this matter extensively with Mr. Gauthier and he has given me his assurance that there was no conflict of interest involved in his activities, and I have no reason to believe the contrary.
A question has been raised as to whether, pursuant to section 21(7) of the Anti-Dumping Act, the chairman has devoted the whole of his time to the performance of his duties under this act. From the information supplied, it is clear that both before the chairman's reappointment on January 1, 1976, and since, in contemplation of retirement, he has been involved in a variety of private interests during the course of his employment as chairman. While, clearly, in the normal course, any government employee may feel compelled from time to time to deal with private interests during the working day, the number and variety of matters referred to, in my view, go beyond the normal course as contemplated by section 21(7).
In view of the situation that has now arisen, and the strong feeling of Mr. Gauthier that his position on the tribunal has been impaired, I have discussed with him the question of his continued tenure on the tribunal until the end of his term. Mr. Gauthier has submitted to me his resignation as chairman and a member of the tribunal with effect from today's date, and on behalf of the government I have accepted that resignation. Mr. Gauthier has had a long and distinguished career in the Canadian armed forces and public service and has been a strong and effective member and chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal.
Questions have also been asked concerning the involvement of Mr. A. L. Bissonnette in private business ventures while he was a member of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. I have questioned Mr. Bissonnette about his involvement, and he revealed that he had a financial interest in certain
June 22, 1976

companies. He also said that he was a director and/or officer of these companies. He assured me that the activities of the companies in no manner conflicted with the activities of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal.
I have asked Mr. Bissonnette to resign from positions in any private company which would require a positive obligation at law, such as that of director or officer. This, in itself, would avoid the risk of being required to sit as a director or officer at the same time as he was a member of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. I have asked Mr. Bissonnette to consider whether these investments are in conformity with the conflict of interest guidelines which were sent to him and acknowledged by him on June 4, 1974. I have pointed out to him that if any investments he does retain put him in conflict with any matter before the tribunal, he would be required to disqualify himself from such matter.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the minister, in the statement he just read to the House, has demonstrated once again that this administration is a most permissive one. I would point out the background on this matter. In 1964, the then prime minister, Mr. Pearson, made very clear what the obligations were with regard to public servants. I read from page 3 the submission to his cabinet colleagues of that day where the then prime minister stated:
Equally, a staff member, like a minister, must not have a pecuniary interest that could even remotely conflict with the discharge of his public duty.
It has been assumed, certainly on this side of the House, that that was the high standard of duty that would be required of every public servant. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) says that he has now reviewed the circumstances and there does not. appear to be any evidence of confict of interest-but on the other hand, considering the circumstances, he has asked the chairman to resign. Bear in mind that this is an eight-day resignation and the term runs out at the end of this month. That shows how far this government has strayed from the high principles once held by administrations in Canada.
On December 18 there were two significant references to the duties involving public servants which were laid down at that time as guidelines. Item 4 reads:
Public servants should exercise care in the management of their private affairs so as not to benefit, or appear to benefit from the use of information acquired during the course of their official duties,-
Item 6 reads:
All public servants are expected to disclose to their superiors, in a manner to be notified, all business, commercial or financial interests where such interests might conceivably be construed as being in actual or potential conflict with their official duties.
The Minister of Finance owes an explantion to this House. Were these involvements in fact conveyed to him? Did Mr. Gauthier at any time indicate that he did have these pecuniary interests as laid down in item 6 of the guidelines to which I have referred? Specifically, I believe the evidence the minister has referred to is sufficient to justify an inquiry into this matter. It is not enough for the minister to come here and say he has had a chat with the chairman and that he believes there was no conflict of interest, based on the chairman's statements. Surely we are entitled to an inquiry, or at least a reference to a standing committee of this House to go through the travel itinerary
Anti-Dumping Tribunal
of Mr. Gauthier. Who did he meet? When did he meet them? We should be able to look at the dockets to decide for ourselves whether there was a possible conflict of interest involved as far as the chairman's obligations are concerned.
The minister carefully avoided any suggestion of asking for an accounting as to the travel expenses paid for by the taxpayers of Canada with regard to these extensive private dealings to which he referred. In short, I believe we certainly have prima facie evidence to justify a full investigation into exactly what did transpire in the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, not only with respect to the chairman but also to a member of the tribunal, Mr. Bissonnette.
As far as Mr. Bissonnette is concerned, it is not enough to say that he has been asked to divest himself of private company interests-and I draw the attention of hon. members to this wording, "which would require a positive obligation at law such as those of director or officer." By implication, the minister is indicating that it is quite acceptable to have a certain amount of private business dealings, to have an interest in private concerns, but "do not go too far, and do not get caught." That is not good enough for a standard to be followed by public servants in this country. We need an inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his courtesy in letting us have in advance a copy of the statement he has just made. As for the decision he has taken with respect to Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Bissonnette, that, of course, is his responsibility as Minister of Finance.
Having looked at the rules and at the guidelines in the short time available to me, I suspect the minister has done all he could. I am not sure that what is needed now is an inquiry into how Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Bissonnette have behaved. I suggest there is a much broader issue before us, and one which must not be allowed to lapse.
The real difficulty is that the guidelines applying to public servants are unclear and uncertain. The minister said today, with respect to both these gentlemen, that they have given him certain assurances: they have assured him that what they were doing was not in conflict with their duty to the public. The unfortunate thing is this: as I read the rules, that is all they are required to do. I see the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) looking at me; he had something to say on this point, and I shall come to that in a moment.
What is called for is not an after-the-fact inquiry into the activities of those two persons. What is called for is a revamping of the guidelines which affect public servants as far as conflicts of interest are concerned. I want to quote briefly from two authorities-I am one of them, and my leader is another.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Which is the more
important?
95S70-33

June 22, 1976
Anti-Dumping Tribunal *


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quoting myself first, simply on the basis of chronology. In December, 1973, when we had before us a statement on this matter by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I pointed out the shortcomings in the guidelines which were put forward. I complained in particular about the onus which was placed on public servants to report to their superiors as to whether or not they were in a conflict of interest situation.
I said:
I join with the Leader of the Opposition-
That is the gentleman whom we now designate as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield).

in expressing concern over the extent to which in the Prime Minister's statement as well as in the so-called guidelines everything seems to be left to the individual public servant. I think this is unfair to the public and also unfair to the public servant. I note this sentence in the paragraph in the Prime Minister's statement having to do with disclosure: "Only those matters which the public servant believes are in actual or potential conflict of interest will require disclosure."
I ask, frankly, of what earthly use is that kind of guideline when, in the final analysis, it is left to every individual public servant to decide whether the interests he has are such that he should disclose them. As the Leader of the Opposition said, surely the poorest judge of one's own conduct is the person himself, yet that is the way this has been drawn up.
That is a quotation from Hansard of December 18, 1973, at page 8840. Later, in the same citation, I called for what we believed was required, namely, full public disclosure, especially by those who are involved in what could be called decision-making-by those close to the making of government policy or its administration at a high level. Subsequently, on December 10, 1974, as reported at page 2118 of Hansard, my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), outlined in two or three very succinct paragraphs four points which are extremely important. I mention two of them because they are relevant to the situation before us.
Second, there is no requirement for public disclosure.
Third, too much discretion is vested in the public servant. The onus is on him to disclose to the minister those matters which he believes to be in actual or potential conflict.
One note on the second point. This is the situation in which we now find ourselves. Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Bis-sonnette were not required to disclose their other interests. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has already read into the record one of the sentences in that connection. I believe the trouble is right there. Our former leader, Mr. David Lewis, also had something to say on this point. We have pointed out what is really required-not just voluntary disclosure by public servants of what they believe may be wrong, but full disclosure of financial and business interests by all public servants at the upper level.
Mr. Gauthier has gone, losing eight days of his term, and Mr. Bissonnette has been told to drop some of his associations. Rather than spending too much time going over the past, the point has been reached at which we should revise these rules. This should be done for the protection of the public as well as for the protection of public servants. Senior personnel should not be left in the position where they are asked to determine what is right and what is not right. The line has to be drawn somewhere. We should not make a requirement that will not hurt those on the cleaning staff, while in the process letting those at the upper levels get off scot free. Those in the lower ranks will

perhaps not be called upon to make any disclosure at all, but certainly those in the middle and upper brackets should not be left free to decide whether they should report to their superiors or not. There should be full public disclosure, and in my view this is what should come out of this latest experience.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has just made important statements concerning the integrity of some government officials.
One of them concerns the chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, Mr. J. P. C. Gauthier. In his statement, the Minister admits there has been some conflict of interest, but he plays with the situation. In the first paragraph, he says:
I wish to make it clear that there is nothing in the action which has been made available to me which indicates that Mr. Gauthier has conducted himself in any manner conflicting with the due performance of his duties.
In the second paragraph, the same Minister of Finance says:
.. . the number and variety of matters referred to, in my view, go beyond the normal course as contemplated by Section 21(7).
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore an indication of two things: first there are a certain number of cases concerning the former chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal which could be a breach of Standing Order 21(7) to the extent that the Minister of Finance would have to accept the resignation of the chairman.
The second part of the minister's statement deals with another official who is a member of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. In that case, the minister himself is both judge and tried, the judge of his official and tried by the House of Commons. The minister said: "I have questioned Mr. Bissonnette and he assured me . . ."
The Minister told him: "I will send you a short letter on June 4, and will explain to you the guidelines on the conflicts of interest. If you think, my dear Mr. Bisonnette, that it could give rise to conflicts of interest, you will not be accepted for such and such a case.
In the case of Mr. Bissonnette, the minister imitates Pontius Pilate, he backs out, he simply goes to see him, talks to him, sends him a letter and says: If you ever consider you are in a situation of conflict of interest, just offer your resignation and we will settle the problem; you will get rid of all your registered capital in such and such company.
So much for Mr. Bissonnette. Everything considered, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to boast about in the statement of the Minister of Finance. As regards Mr. Bissonnette, he simply disclaims all responsibility. The minister tells Mr. Bissonnette to judge by himself whether or not he is in a conflict of interest situation. That is all.
In the case of the president of the labour court, the minister accepts his resignation, but he announces today no positive and immediate measure, in the short or intermediate run, to prevent that kind of situation. Mr. Speaker, if a similar problem had been raised five or six years ago, there would have been a general outcry in the country and the government would have been charged with corruption.
June 22, 1976

This has become usual practice nowadays. Recently the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) got rid of a problem by shifting blame on an official who in turn is counter-attacking the minister, and this gets into the headlines and prompts legal actions which have no sense and never end. Mr. Speaker, we are always on the alert. I suggest that the credibility of the Minister of Supply and Services as well as the credibility of this minister have been affected in this situation. We have therefore two victims; public opinion is still not fully satisfied because more light has not been shed on the truth and the solution is still to come.
The matter discussed today is serious. I would like the minister to go a step further, since he pretends to be an administrator. In view of the fact that for some time the chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal and one of its members have had to examine, build up and administer files about dumping complaints submitted by some plaintiffs, Mr. Speaker, and since the minister is acknowledging today that in the case of the chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal there has been actual conflicts of interest, I am wondering how we can trust the results of the inquiries made following the complaints raised when those conflict of interest situations arose. I would like to know who the plaintiffs were. What were the complaints raised when those conflict of interest situations arose in the case of Mr. Gauthier, since the minister himself has acknowledged the existence of such situation to the point where he had to accept the chairman's resignation. It is therefore evident that during that period complaints have been examined, files have been built up and decisions have been taken.
If that man was found a victim or a cause of that conflict of interest, that leads me to question the validity of either the judgements or the studies made when these complaints were lodged and when conflicts of interest were existing.
How many complaints were there? Who were the witnesses? On what issues? Was it on textile? Was it on steel, or on any other issue? Is the minister then prepared to allow the plaintiff-who might not be satisfied with the ruling since it has been admitted today that there was a conflict of interest, so much so that the resignation of that president was accepted-is the Minister of Finance, with his intellectual honesty and as an administrator of the government finances, prepared to contact the plaintiffs so they may again file their grievances, obtain common law justice and firmly believe in the validity of th.e review of these files and the decision-making process with respect to these files during the conflicts of interest.
Mr. Speaker, the question is fundamental. If today we feel quite satisfied with merely congratulating the Minister of Finance, with accepting those resignations and simply turning over a new leaf, without giving any guarantee that positive steps will be taken to avoid that type of conflicts of interest in the future, to protect those who were judged at the time when those conflicts of interest were pointed out, then, Mr. Speaker, we are just playing ostrich this afternoon.
I should like to close by saying that in Canada we have
need of an efficient and, above all, humane public service.
As a member of the Social Credit Party of Canada, Mr. Anti-Dumping Tribunal
Speaker, no one need lecture us in this House on the services we render our constituents with regard to the administration in general. We need not necessarily shout out against the civil service but many incidents prove that it takes liberties with powers it does not have, that it takes decisions unilaterally that discriminate against defenceless citizens. Please allow me to express the very humble wish, this afternoon, that the public service in general will learn its lesson from what is happening to Mr. Gauthier and may happen to Mr. Bissonnette eventually, if the Minister of Finance decides to reach a decision rather than leave it to Mr. Bissonnette. The civil service must, in its decisions with the Canadian people, with the claimant in unemployment insurance matters, in matters of old age security or income tax, be as understanding, as broadminded, as humane, as welcoming in its judgment as those two officials were in dealing with their own business.
Mr. Speaker, come the day when the civil service considers the people it wants to serve with as much broadmindedness and humanity as it serves itself when its own protection and interests are involved, then, Mr. Speaker, we can trust our civil service. But, at this time, I doubt very much that we can.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put some questions to the minister. Would he first of all reply to the point I raised in my reply to his statement in respect of item No. 6 of the guidelines tabled on December 18 which provided for public servants disclosing to their superiors, in a manner to be notified, of business, commercial or financial interest where such interest might conceivably be construed as being in an actual or potential conflict with their official duties? Would the minister indicate whether, in fact, the chairman, Mr. Bissonnette did at any time disclose to the minister the business dealings to which the minister is now referring in his two statements?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, after these guidelines were issued, and indeed were sent to autonomous tribunals such as the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, the question was raised-I am not sure of the source of the question-with the government and with the Privy Council office as to whether it was appropriate to apply these guidelines to members of a self-ruling body such as the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. While the question has been under consideration, for that reason my understanding is that at least most of the members of tribunals of this kind have not reported on the guidelines. I might indicate that copies of these, as was indicated in my statement, were sent to Mr. Bissonnette. I understand it has been the general policy not to press on with that inquiry until the matter is resolved.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the guideline to which I have referred was really annexed to the statement of the Prime Minister on December 18, in which he stated very clearly that Crown Corporations and agencies will be urged to develop further standards and procedures within their own organizations in respect of this general question of conflict of interest, will the minister indicate whether in fact there are any guidelines established within the tribunal at the present time and, if not, why not?
95570-33%

June 22, 1976
Anti-Dumping Tribunal


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the strict application of these to tribunals has currently been a matter of some discussion between tribunals in general and the Privy Council office. My understanding is that the matter has not come to a conclusion, and it is for that reason there is no definitive position on it at this point.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again to the minister, who has indicated he is satisfied there is no conflict of interest involved in the chairman's activities. To become satisfied, would the minister indicate whether, for example, he reviewed the possible Swedish steel dumping cases which have been before the AntiDumping Tribunal for some time? If he did review these, how did he satisfy himself that in fact there was no conflict of interest involved, bearing in mind the involvement the chairman appears to have had with various Swedish business concerns, or at least in one instance a connection with the steel business; and did he specifically invite the steel representatives to indicate if they were satisfied with the tribunal's decision in respect of that matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have certainly reviewed some of the correspondence in this regard, and I would remind the hon. gentleman that the result of the tribunal's decision was a substantial withdrawal of Swedish steel from Canadian markets. Indeed, Atlas Steel indicated its satisfaction with the outcome of this matter. There was no indication in either the material made available, or as a result of questioning, of any connection between the persons involved and Mr. Gauthier's individual dealings or the principals or officers of the Swedish steel company.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister three brief questions. Is the matter entirely closed at this point, or is the minister still making some inquiries? Second, will the hon. gentleman, make any recommendations to his cabinet colleagues for any modification or some of the existing guidelines for public servants? Third, had any previous investigation taken place in respect of any aspect of Mr. Gauthier's activities as alleged by CTV?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Mr. Bissonnette, as the hon. member will note, I have indicated my wish that he should take further action with regard to his position as either a director or officer of certain private companies. The matter, therefore, is not closed. It is a matter which, obviously, I will have to pursue.
With regard to Mr. Gauthier it seems to me the matter is closed. I also made inquiries, in respect of the point of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, concerning whether any charges were made to the tribunal in respect of the travels of Mr. Gauthier or the use of the tribunal's facilities. I do not have a final report. The preliminary report contains no indication of abuse of funds or substantial use of facilities for these particular transactions. What was the second question?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Previous investigation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There apparently was an investigation at the time the dispute arose with regard to the previous chairmanship of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. There has been an investigation. I have inquired of the Mounted Police in this regard. At the moment of speaking I do not have a report in that regard. Mr. Gauthier indicated to me that the transactions at that time were the subject of investigation, but there were no further proceedings from that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, actually the question I wanted to put to the minister is the second question asked by my friend from Central Nova. Since the minister did not answer the question, I can ask it now. In light of this experience, is the minister recommending to the Prime Minister or to his cabinet colleagues a tightening up of the guidelines so that this kind of experience will not happen again? I have in mind the loopholes in the situation, because the onus is on the public servant to report only the things that he might think would be matters in conflict.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty with the position taken by the hon. gentleman is that it appears to be a position that would require the continuous surveillance of senior public servants by the government. I have some doubt concerning whether employees in whose judgment trust is placed should be treated in that way by being under continual surveillance. The question has been raised of the required time in which to declare their interest in all personal matters which could conflict with their duties.
My understanding of the matter is that public servants, strictly speaking-and in this case we are talking about an autonomous tribunal-have now been required to declare interests which might possibly conflict with their duties. So the declaration is there in that case. The matter has not been finalized in relation to the tribunals because the question of the independence of a court of record, for example, is raised by the existence of such a tribunal. Very obviously, we will have to have further discussion about this problem. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal says that is an even stronger reason to subject to scrutiny people who are in a quasi-judicial position. I think one would want to consider whether someone who has been put in a quasi-judicial position should be subject to that kind of surveillance by the administration.


Mr. Speaker:: I propose to finalize the questioning by recognizing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for one supplementary, the hon. member for Lotbiniere, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, and the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have just one more question. May I ask the minister if it would not be more fair to all public servants to require full disclosure by all those above a certain level?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it-and I sought to confirm this with the President of the Privy Council-that is indeed the case with regard to senior public servants who are in the structure of the ministries, strictly speaking. There has, however, been a question with regard to the position of members, among
June 22, 1976

others, of quasi-judicial tribunals, and this question has not yet been brought to resolution. Obviously, I can say that it would have been very much simpler in this case if it had been brought to resolution. I have an incentive to try to do this.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) stated the following this afternoon about the chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, as recorded at the last but one paragraph, at page 1 of the English version, quote:

While clearly in the normal course any government employee may feel compelled from time to time to deal with private interests during the working day, the number and variety of matters referred to, in my view, go beyond the normal course as contemplated by section 21(7).
Can the minister tell the House how many matters he is talking about and can he say when they took place? What conclusions did he draw from this period, when for example he is talking of the number and variety of the matters referred to? So, what is the number?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the precise number, but according to my estimation I think there may be six or seven transactions, distinct cases in which the chairman of the tribunal was involved. Some press reports are somewhat different. There are six or seven distinct cases.


André-Gilles Fortin: Since the minister knows approximately the number of cases in which he established that there was a situation of conflict of interest, will he tell the House, in such cases, what claims had been filed with the AntiDumping Tribunal and what were the result of these claims? Was it in favour of the plaintiffs or of companies involved, since there is a situation of conflict of interest? The minister will now conclude that-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that this is not really a situation of conflict of interest, strictly speaking.
As I stated in the first paragraph, there is no evidence of a conflict between a sub judice matter and the private interests of the chairman or other member of that tribunal. There was a second criterion, namely that the chairman devoted the whole of his time to the performance of his official duties, and in this regard there was, in my opinion, a failure to comply with the provisions of the anti-dumping legislation. There is no conflict whatsoever between his private interests and a sub judice matter, and it is because he was attending to other matters when he was chairman. That is the conclusion I came to. It is in this perspective that I referred to the number of situations. It is not a sub judice matter, but his personal activities were involved.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance tell us, given the conflict of interest as regards time, whether the reason why this public servant acted in this way might be that his salary was too low? Therefore, what was the public servant's salary?
Anti-Dumping Tribunal


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not think so. I believe he had a high salary. I cannot answer that question, but I believe his salary was adequate.


André-Gilles Fortin: But that was it?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will reconsider his judgment that the position of a member of a board or commission might be in any way different in the sense of his having a diminished sense of responsibility in terms of conflict of interest. Having said that, may I ask the minister whether he would be prepared to put the matter before a committee of the House, not only for an examination of the facts in this particular case but also to look toward the future in these kinds of matters which I am sure cause embarrassment to the government and embarrassment to the public servant who does not have an opportunity to put his side of the case forward except through the words of the minister.
I think it would assist members of the House in understanding the purport of the guidelines, and would also assist the public servant and the public service generally in terms of their responsibilities. The hon. member for York-Simcoe raised that possibility, and I do not think anyone has asked the minister about that. I wonder if the minister would consider such an inquiry in view of the circumstances and looking to the future, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did, indeed, consider that situation. I point out to the hon. gentleman that parliament has specifically provided a procedure for dealing with this kind of complaint against members of tribunals by providing for a reference in this kind of matter to the Canadian Judicial Council as a preliminary step to those that might be taken for their removal. In the case of members of this kind of quasi-judicial board-the situation is analogous to that of judges-the assumption was made by parliament at that time that parliament itself should not inquire into their conduct, but it was appropriate that the Canadian Judicial Council should do so.
The next question which I am sure is on the hon. member's mind is, why did we not do that in this case? Quite frankly, that would have been my preferred course of action. The difficulty was the time factor involved. The chairman was going to remain in his position for another ten to twelve days. The opinion which I received on the application of the law was that the Canadian Judicial Council might well refuse to hear a matter for the removal of someone who already had ceased to be a member of the tribunal by reason of the passage of time. It might be said, in that particular case, that through the accident of time it was not possible to follow the procedure which parliament had proposed. I would think it would be preferable not to submit to the scrutiny of the legislature the conduct of individual members of quasi-judicial tribunals such as this one. I would have to acknowledge that, for reasons of time, there is a lacuna in this instance, but reference to the Canadian Judicial Council is preferable.


Walter David Baker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I gather from the minister's statement that Mr. Bissonnette's time as a member of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal has not run out. We do not have a

June 22, 1976
Anti-Dumping Tribunal
problem with respect to him as he is continuing in his post. However, the minister did not make it clear whether he had answered the guidelines at the time he was to answer them. Having regard to the situation in which Mr. Bisson-nette must find himself, and his desire, I am sure, as well as that of the government, to avoid any suspicion of wrongdoing on his part, has the minister considered putting his case to the Canadian Judicial Council? I understand his reason with respect to Mr. Gauthier.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In the case of Mr. Bisson-nette, both from documentary evidence that was available, and from his personal declaration, it was clear that he had not been a participant with Mr. Gauthier in the rather extensive conferences, exchanges of telexes and other transactions which had occurred in the past eight months. The interest of Mr. Bissonnette was as an investor in one company which was involved in these transactions in which he has the position of director. His other interest dated back to the time when he was in private law practice and when he remained on the board of a number of private companies in which he retained no pecuniary interest.
It seemed to me, on the facts of that case, that there was no evidence of conflict of interest, strictly speaking, and that there was no multiplicity of transactions to indicate that he had been failing in his duties as a member of the tribunal. Evidence would indicate that there was a potential conflict because he is director or officer of a company, but there was no evidence of an actual conflict. It would seem to me to be unfair, under the circumstances, because of that relationship, to refer the situation to the Canadian Judicial Council. Naturally, if other evidence came to light I would have to consider the suggestion of the hon. member, and that would then be the appropriate course of action.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for the attempts he has made to give us as full replies as possible to our questions. I listened with a great deal of interest to the reply he gave to my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova. I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but if I understood him correctly, he said that there was no substantial use of government facilities by Mr. Gauthier for his private business purposes. Could the minister indicate to the House what he meant by "no substantial use of government facilities for personal business", and also could he detail to the House what evidence he has, if any, of Mr. Gauthier's use of government facilities for private business purposes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It did become clear that Mr. Gauthier had had a number of meetings in his office with people who were there, not about tribunal business but in relation to transactions about which we were speaking. Indeed, some of the correspondence that was on file might well have been typed by the staff of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal.
One of the questions upon which we focused was whether, in the course of the rather extensive travels in which the chairman was involved as a member of the board, he had charged the government for what was essentially a trip on private business. We could find no evidence of that, although it was clear in one case that while he was in Sweden on business of the tribunal on a pending c^se he

had taken some days off, part of which time was devoted to meeting the principals involved in one of these transactions. It is in that sense that I used the words "not substantial use of facilities"-in particular, not charging for any extensive travel.


Henry Perrin Beatty: In elaborating on the answer which the minister gave, has the minister been able to find any information which would suggest that, for example, Mr. Gauthier's travels abroad were timed deliberately to coincide with his desire to travel abroad on business purposes? Also, the minister indicated previously that Mr. Gauthier took some time off while in Sweden to conduct personal business. Could the minister indicate whether, when Mr. Gauthier was conducting private business during the time when he would customarily be employed by the government, he reimbursed the public treasury for his salary for those days? Also, could the minister indicate whether there was any reimbursement of the public purse for any transportation costs which were carried by the government if Mr. Gauthier was able to conduct his private business during a trip which was paid for by the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I said, if the chairman in that particular case was in Sweden for the purpose of the business of the tribunal, in that sense the expense to the Crown was no greater than it would have been if that was all he had done. As to payments back, I cannot specifically respond to that. I can inquire further. I would have been inclined, from the inquiries, to have said that this is not the appropriate subject for civil action for an accounting and payment back to the government. However, I think it would be appropriate to make some inquiries in this regard to see whether further proceedings of that kind might be taken. I have not passed judgment on that question at this point.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-441, to amend the Combines Investigation
Act (ex relatione class actions).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide Canadians from one end of the country to the other with the right to class actions in the Federal Court of Canada, a right which they do not presently have.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is not the time that there can be formal introduction of the appropriation bills, but

perhaps I should inform the House that these bills are ready for distribution. I believe this will help in handling the business later in the day.


Mr. Speaker:: The practice adopted by the House on recent occasions during which it has had to consider and finalize the process of supply has certainly been improved by the early introduction of supply bills, and again, although the Standing Orders do not provide for the introduction of those bills at this particular time of the day, it certainly is gratifying to know that those bills are ready for distribution. I presume hon. members would want to have them distributed in advance, even though the understanding must be that they cannot be introduced until later in the day.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the government House leader for his accommodation. I think Your Honour properly put the point, and I hope that the minister, or perhaps his parliamentary secretary, will make the appropriate arrangements to have that distribution take place. Nonetheless, we are very grateful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is a good idea, and we welcome it.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 5,345, 5,432, 5,438, 5,501, 5,503, 5,508, 5,510, 5,713 and 5,737.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Did the Director General, Quebec Region, Department of the Environment, order on March 30, 1976, that all French texts recently issued by Information Services on the Atlantic seal hunt and accompanying 1976 policy be destroyed and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How much waste is represented by such action in terms of time, money, paper, etc.?
3.	Has any action been taken to ensure that this type of incident does not recur?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fisheries)):: 1. The Director-General, Quebec Region, Fisheries and Marine Service, Department of the Environment requested that all French texts of an information leaflet on the Atlantic Seal Hunt, "La Chasse aux phoques dans l'Atlantique", be destroyed because of errors in the French text. These errors were due to inadequate editing and proofreading, and the fact that the text was a translation of a preliminary draft.
2.	$284 for typesetting and printing of replacement copies for the 2,500 discarded leaflets. Errors were corrected and reprinting was completed within one week.
Order Paper Questions
3.	Staffing of vacant editing positions within the Fisheries and Marine Information Branch has been authorized, and closer supervision of editing and printing procedures has been implemented.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the total cost of the National Harbours Board Atlantic Region Office in Saint John during 1975?
2.	How many staff members are employed in the NHB Atlantic Region Office?


Ralph Goodale: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. $125,458.74.
2. The Board member and two employees.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	By province, for each of the past five years, how much has been provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare under the Welfare Grants Programme?
2.	Are all projects, in the Province of Quebec, in the social welfare field given prior approval by the Government of Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: 1. See reply to Parliamentary Enquiry No. 5,404, tabled on June 11, 1976.
2. No. Projects are forwarded to the Department of Social Affairs for comments and reactions prior to final consideration by the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Forrestall: What percentage of National Harbours Board owned sheds at the port of Montreal were leased during the years (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 on (i) an annual (ii) a monthly (iii) a weekly (iv) a daily basis?


Ralph Goodale: The National Harbours Board advises that permits of occupancy for shedded terminals were issued on the following basis:
(i)	(ii)	(iii)	(iv)Annual	Monthly	Weekly	Dailyper cent	per cent	per cent	per cent(a) 1974	74.4	3.7	Nil	6(b) 1975	80.9	2.6	Nil	5(c) 1976	83.3	1	Nil	-


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 5.503-Mr. Forrestall:
1.	How much of the total estimated cost of the Jacques Cartier Terminal at the Port of Montreal is attributable to the take-over of general cargo facilities being incorporated in the Terminal?
2.	How was this amount determined?
[Stage Direction]
June 22, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Ralph Goodale: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. $390,128.
2. Original cost of the sheds on the Jacques Cartier Terminal as they were used for break-bulk handling less accumulated depreciation.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many man-years were spent by the National Harbours Board in the administration of the shed rental programme during 1974 and 1975 and how many are anticipated in 1976 at the Port of Montreal?
2.	What is the estimated cost for each year?


Ralph Goodale: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. 0.29 man-years were spent in the administration of the marine terminal programme during 1974 and 1975, and it is anticipated that the same time will be spent during 1976.
2. Cost for 1974, $4,810; Cost for 1975, $5,290; Estimated cost for 1976, $5,690.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Do (a) fishermen require eight insured weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, yet only get .83 of a week's benefits for each insured week worked (b) labourers and other workers require eight insured weeks to start a claim and are they then entitled to between 18 and 44 weeks of benefits and, if so, for what reason is there discrimination?
2.	Do the present UIC regulations take into consideration factors such as years when fish are not plentiful and when fishermen are subject to weather conditions not suitable for fishing, and which prevent them working?
3.	Can the majority of fishermen qualify for benefits any time prior to the week in which December 1 occurs?
4.	Are the Minister and Chairman of UIC aware that ice and weather conditions discriminate against fishermen in qualifying for UIC benefits?
5.	Is the government considering changes to UIC regulations in an effort to overcome the problems of Canadian fishermen and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. (a) A distinction must be made between self-employed fishermen and fishermen who are regular employees working under a contract of employment. The latter group have the same rights under the unemployment insurance legislation as all other employees. Self-employed fishermen, the only selfemployed workers covered by unemployment insurance generally may qualify for benefit only during the period December 1 to May 15. This is a period of approximately 24 weeks, which is usually the non-fishing period for most self-employed fishermen. Their benefit duration is .83 benefit weeks for each week of qualifying insurable employment. However, if a self-employed fisherman has at least eight weeks of regular insured employment, this can be combined with his insured weeks from fishing selfemployment to establish a regular claim for benefits; (b)

Labourers and other workers require eight weeks of insurable employment in the qualifying period and they may qualify for benefit at any time of the year for up to 44 weeks. Providing benefit during the usual non-fishing period only is not discriminatory in that they enjoy a benefit not available to other self-employed workers. Furthermore, they can normally resume full scale fishing after May 15.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Both the Minister and the Chairman are aware that weather conditions can and do affect the unemployment insurance benefit entitlement of fishermen. This fact has been recognized by the Department of Environment in the last few years by additional financial support programs for such fishermen.
5.	Not in respect to unemployment insurance for selfemployed fishermen as the Department of Environment is developing programs to replace unemployment insurance for this group.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What is the total amount of public funds paid to the present Minister of the Environment for a car allowance since he became a member of the Cabinet (b) has the Minister always used his own car during this period of time in the Ottawa area and/or has he ever made use of government owned transportation?
2.	(a) Is the government officially aware if the Minister's driver's licence was under suspension during any time over the past year and, if so, was the usual car allowance paid to the Minister during this period of time (b) how much was paid (c) has the amount been refunded and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, will the government request such a refund?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. (a) The number of years the hon. member for Langelier has been a Minister of the Crown times the amount provided for in paragraph 43(2)(a) of the Senate and House of Commons Act, Chapter S-8 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970. (See also the reply to question 4,126, Hansard 321, page 14415); (b) Both.
2. (a) No, the question of permits to operate motor vehicles being a matter falling within provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Alexander: 1.	In each month, for the years (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 to date, how many claimants were registered for unemployment insurance benefits?
2.	In each case, what was the level of unemployment by (a) percentage (b) numbers?


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. (a), (b) and (c) See Statistics Canada Publication 73-001 entitled "Statistical Report on the Operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act."
2. (a) and (b) See Statistics Canada Publication 71-001 entitled "The Labour Force".
June 22, 1976

Order Paper Questions
TABLE 1. Summary Data December 1975
Item
Benefit payments
Gross amount	
Net amount111	
Weeks of benefit	
Average weekly benefit
Claims received	
Beneficiaries	
Claimants at month-end121
Benefit payments
Gross amount	
Net amount111	
Weeks of benefit	
Average weekly benefit
Claims received	
Beneficiaries	
Claimants at month-end131
Current	Number	Percentage change from	Previous	Year	Previous	Yearmonth	month	ago	month	ago281,832,666p	209,853,021	165,202,526	34	71.$	280,391,035p	209,182,954	164,448,626	34	713,166,823	2,384,357	2,093,785	33	5189.00p	88.01	78.90	1	13334,761	258,703	332,058	29	1703,136p	615,322p	14	1,065,509	924,628'	910,103	15	17Year-to-date	Current	Previous	Percentage	year	year	change	-$	3,159,279,881	2,131,410,625	48	.$	3,146,136,978	2,119,212,741'	48	$	37,326,671	28,460,714	31	.$	84.64	74.89	13	2,857,227	2,410,367	19	1,048,984	827,740	27	
111 After cancellation of warrants and collection of overpayments.
<21 These figures are overstated in terms of active files. If claimants do not report that they became re-employed, a period of five weeks claims are transferred to the inactive file.
is allowed to elapse before their
<3>
Monthly average.
Both sexes
Actual
1975 December November
1974	December November
1973	December November
Seasonally adjusted
1975	December November October September August July
Annual average
1974
1972
Men
Actual
1975 December November 1974 December November 1973 December November
Table 1. Summary Labour Force characteristics by Sex, Canada
Employed	(b)
Purchases of workers	Paid workers
Partici- pation	Labour	Agri-	Non-agri-	Non-agrirates per cent	force	Total	culture	culture thousands	Total	culture57.6 A	. 9,923 A	9,226 A	420 D	8,806 A	8,237 A	8,15058.0	9,972	9,332	460	8,872	8,308	8,20857.9	9,715	9,118	409	8,709	8,121	8,04757.8	9,682	9,189	431	8,758	8,180	8,10157.0	9,298	8,786	391	8,395	7,833	7,76057.1	9,297	8,829	416	8,413	7,875	7,79558.5	10,080	9,367	493	8,878	8,327	8,21358.8	10,122	9,388	505	8,890	8,329	8,21058.8	10,098	9,373	481	8,899	8,532	8,23559.1	10,127	9,395	492	8,918	8,366	8,24958.7	10,034	9,298	482	8,838	8,301	8,18258.7	10,040	9,316	476	8,848	8,294	8,19158.8	10,015	9,308	479	8,828	8,272	9,16258.3	9,662	9,137	473	8,664	8,105	8,00657.5	9,279	8,759	467	8,292	7,757	7,66156.5	8,891	8,329	481	7,848	7,310	7,21175.4 A	6,417 A	5,921 A	360 D	5,561 A	5,127 A	5,05575.9	6,450	6,041	389	5,652	5,222	5,14276.1	6,320	5,889	354	5,535	5,095	5,03576.3	6,323	5,996	369	5,628	5,190	5,12575.6	6,100	5,726	344	5,382	4,963	4,90175.7	6,097	5,776	364	5,412	5,007	4,943
(a)
unem-	unem- ployment
ployed	rates
	per cent
697 D	7.0 D
640	6.4
597	6.1
493	5.1
512	5.5
468	5.0
713	7.1
734	7.3
725	7.2
732	7.2
736	7.3
724	7.2
707	7.1
525	5.4
520	5.6
562	6.3
496 D	7.7 D
409	6.3
431	6.8
327	5.2
374	6.1
321	5.3
14762

June 22, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Table 1. Summary Labour Force characteristics by Sex, Canada
Employed	(b)	(a)
Purchases of workers	Paid workers
Partici- pation	Labour	Agri-	Non-agri-	Non-agri-	unem-	unem- ploymentrates per cent	force	Total	culture	culture thousands	Total	culture	ployed	rates per centSeasonally adjusted	1975 December	76.9	6,537	6,053	407	5,660	5,234	5,142	484	7.4November	77.2	6,559	6,075	418	5,672	5,246	5,151	484	7.4October	77.2	6,554	6,053	402	5,668	5,247	5,152	496	7.6September	77.1	6,545	6,044	402	5,656	5,241	5,151	501	7.7August	76.8	6,511	6,010	398	5,629	5,209	5,123	501	7.7July	77.1	6,512	6,022	292	5,636	5,214	5,128	490	7.5Annual average	1975	77.2	6,499	6,016	398	5,618	5,194	5,107	483	7.41974	77.3	6,338	5,976	397	5,579	5,160	5,079	361	5.71973	76.8	6,127	5,767	397	5,371	4,972	4,896	360	5.91972	76.2	5,938	5,533	406	5,127	4,730	4,650	405	6.8Women Actual	1975 December	40.3 B	3,505 B	3,305 B	60 E	3,245 B	3,110 B	3,095 B	201 D	5.7 DNovember	40.5	3,522	3,291	71	3,219	3,087	3,066	232	6.61974 December	40.0	3,395	3,229	54	3,174	3,026	3,012	166	4.9November	39.7	3,359	3,193	62	3,130	2,990	2,975	166	4.91973 December	38.8	3,198	3,060	47	3,013	2,870	2,858	138	4.3November	38.9	3,200	3,053	52	3,001	2,867	2,852	147	4.6Seasonally adjusted	1975 December	40.7	3,541	3,313	86	3,220	3,092	3.071	228	6.4November	40.9	3,558	3,313	88	3,221	3,086	3,062	245	6.9October	40.8	3,541	3,315	81	3,238	3,109	3,086	226	6.4September	41.3	3,567	3,338	87	3,256	3,120	3,093	229	6.4August	41.0	3,519	3,287	82	3,208	3,081	3,057	232	6.6July	40.8	3,524	3,293	82	3,210	3,082	3,053	231	6.6Annual average	1975	40.9	3,515	3,291	81	3,210	3,078	3,055	224	6.41974	39.7	3,324	3,161	76	3,085	2,945	2,927	163	4.91973	38.7	3,152	2,992	70	2,921	2,784	2,765	160	5.11972	37.1	2,953	2,796	75	2,721	2,580	2,561	157	5.3


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 5,249 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Marshall: What are the fish species which Canada imported, by dollar value, for the years 1970 to 1975?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Walter David Baker: That this House, finding unacceptable the performance of the government, particularly its penchant for shifting blame, reaffirms its belief in the importance of the convention of ministerial responsibility and expresses its lack of confidence in the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, when I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) shout "Agreed," I was gratified and I was looking for a similar form of acknowledgement from the other side. It would have been an acknowledgement of what has become apparent in the minds of most Canadians, that is, that as we draw to the close of the longest session in Canadian parliamentary history-and I suspect we may be close to the end of it-the government has gradually, steadfastly and inexorably lost control of affairs. While this motion is expressed in terms of a matter of confidence by this House, whether it passes or not I am
June 22, 1976

satisfied it expresses the view of the Canadian public with respect to the performance of this government.
We are drawing near the end of a session. What a session it has been, as we look back over it. The paradox which has become apparent to us day after day was first brought to light by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, having condemned the policy of controls during an election campaign, finally marched before the television cameras and announced what can only be described as a deathbed repentance and adopted controls for himself.
In terms of agricultural policies, we have seen in the last few days the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) blame everybody. His policies have managed to do something which no minister of agriculture, as far as I am aware, in Canadian history-perhaps I will be corrected with respect to that-has been able to do, and that is to skewer both the producer and the consumer at the same time.
We sat in this House on the dramatic budget night a few days ago and heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) advance a budget which will do nothing for inflation or for unemployment, which managed to blame the Americans or somebody else for the failings of this government on the one hand, but which hitched its future to the United States on the other.
As Canadians look at this government, they see a rather sorry performance. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) recently in this House, outside the House and even outside the country, said to the people of the Atlantic provinces that they are really to blame for the high price of energy there, and he advanced an energy strategy which is no more that a pricing strategy.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) came into the House not too long ago and decided, at long last, to cast the blame on India for the results of his policy respecting nuclear proliferation. When we consider that policy, we realize that all along it has been the carpetbagging approach of this government in the important matter of nuclear proliferation to place the question of sales beyond and above the question of public morality.
Those are the failures, and as honestly and objectively as I usually look at these things, I have tried to find what this government can really show for over 300 days of parliamentary work, in terms of real accomplishments or changes for the better, for the lifestyle of Canadians and in terms of what Canadians can expect by way of leadership from the government and, quite frankly, I am hard put to come upon anything of that nature.
The government has blamed their failings on everyone but themselves. When it was convenient, they castigated labour. When it was convenient in another way, they blamed management. From time to time the farmer came in for a share of the blame. The workingman gathered his share of the blame for the policies of the government, and if they were stuck, as they were from time to time, for being scapegoats, so that they could sleep at nights-and I imagine it was an uneasy sleep-they blamed the provinces and the opposition, and they even came down once in a while to blaming the weather. Mr. Speaker, this is the litany of failure; it is also the litany of the denial of
Ministerial Responsibility
responsibility by the government to account to the people of Canada, through this House, which it has not done.
I do not want to sell this government short, Mr. Speaker. Even a government dedicated to making a mess can sometimes outdo itself-in the dredging affair, the Sky Shops affair, the judges' affair-and if all these were not enough, let us not forget the "Orion" crash, the $16 million disaster. This most unusual game they play in the House would have been comical had it not been a serious matter-the game of seeing the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) blame the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), on the one hand, and the next day on the volley-ball courts the Minister of Supply and Services casting the blame on the Minister of National Defence, and the Prime Minister straining himself to find some common ground between these two ministers who are the epitome and essence of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. That showed itself to the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, someone will deal later with the details of that matter.
The country has two answers to the Galaxy of Goofs that I have described. I should like to refer to an article by Richard Gwyn. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) asks where I found that. I found it in this article. To this Galaxy of Goofs, the latest goof is now being run out, excuses are being made, people are being blamed and answers are not being given. In his column in the Montreal Star of June 10, Mr. Gwyn said:
To tabulate the price taxpayers wili pay for this Galaxy of Goofs is easy: $16 million in penalties to Lockheed; several million in wasted defence department plans; a year's delay in the delivery of new anti-sub planes and anything up to $50 million in inflationary costs that will have to be added to the new contract. About $100 million in all which, if burnt as $1 bills to heat a house would, quite literally, have been better spent.
Undecided is the price that will be paid by one minister ... and by senior civil servants in three departments. Excepting Stopforth, who has been reassigned to spend a year on French, I will bet anyone one hundred million to one that the answer will be nothing.
Mr. Speaker, who stars in this saga? The Minister of National Defence, and the Minister of Supply and Services. One is exactly the same star who was involved in the saga of the overpriced oil not too long ago. What does he do? Does he come into the House and say he is sorry? Does he come into this House and account? Not likely. But he does have an answer for all that has gone on. He sums up his courage, rises in his place and blames it on a public servant. The public servant, Mr. Larry Stopforth-whom I do not know-denies the charge, threatens to sue the minister for libel if he does not retract, and the minister wraps himself in the swaddling clothes of parliamentary immunity and refuses to retract.
The Prime Minister, who ought to be an arbitrator in this dispute, did not even try to examine it. He did not come to the rescue of the public servant, nor did the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) who had a hand in that Lockheed deal with the handwritten memorandum and who also has some responsibility to the public service of this country. Nor, may I note, did the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who was formerly a public servant and was president of the Professional Institute of Public Servants of Canada at one time. None of them came to the rescue.
95570-341/2

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility
I asked in this House that the public servant at least be given the right to come before a committee of parliament and give his side of the question. Another former public servant, the President of the Treasury Board, said "no" and cast him on the tender mercies of a grievance procedure which would take the public servant to the very person who ordered his removal; or, in the alternative, he put the public servant to the tender mercies of the courts. All of us who have practised in the courts know the delays incurred. All of us who have served in this parliament know how fruitless and futile that remedy is. Mr. Speaker, we have $16 million down the drain; that is for sure. We have no aircraft for the military; we know that. Out of it all, instead of taking his responsibilities seriously, the minister points his finger at a public servant. I think in this long session of parliament, not having been here very long, that particular action-I see the Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) is involved, and I hope he would not do that to his public servants.
The Minister of Supply and Services has really carried this matter of ministerial responsibility to a new low. It is an interesting matter to the public service of Canada. They are much the same as any other group of Canadians in wanting to do a particular job and to do it well. If a minister is prepared to encourage his public servants, protect them when necessary, take responsibility when necessary, then the public service of this country is prepared to put out for the minister and for the government.
The things I have heard on the street, the things that are relayed to me by letter and telephone, show me that public servants are shocked by what has happened. The public service of this country will not tolerate incompetence. I do not think a government ought to tolerate incompetence, but I do not think it is fair for a government to make an accusation of incompetence and shift the blame for its own irresponsible acts to a person who has no opportunity to defend himself. That is what happened in this case.
Let me ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would enter into any transaction that would cost you the amount of money that this transaction has cost the people of Canada, without putting it in writing? You would not buy a rowboat under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker. Yet this government embarked upon a defence policy with a company whose record is at least questionable in the eyes of the rest of the world, without even a jot in writing with respect to one of the important aspects thereof.
That same minister, and indeed the ministry-because the Prime Minister was drawn into this, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp)-does not have the guts to stand up and take its responsibilities and its lumps with respect to this transaction.
I do not want you to think, Mr. Speaker, that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is not important. James Eayrs, professor of international relations at the University of Toronto, in a newspaper column entitled "Minister must take blame for Lockheed" said in part:
At stake is the charge by Jean-Pierre Goyer, Minister of Supply and Services, that L. H. Stopworth, Goyer's representative on the interdepartmental committee supervising the acquisition of 18 Orion patrol planes from the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, failed to keep him properly informed.

At stake is more than the careers of the two men concerned, more than the $16 million that we, the taxpayers, must cough up in cancellation charges now that the deal has fallen through.
At stake is a cornerstone of our structure of parliamentary democra-cry-the way we run our country. At stake is the constitutional principle known as "ministerial responsibility."
The doctrine of ministerial responsibility prescribes that a member of the cabinet is answerable to parliament for what goes on in his department. It is not for him to point the finger. It is not for him to pass the buck. If he speaks at all about the public servants in his charge, it should be to protect and defend them-never to accuse and attack them.
Ministerial responsibility's most attractive feature is its sense of fair play. After all, it's the minister who is quick to claim the credit and grab the glory when his department does well by him. Why shouldn't the manfully shoulder the blame when there are goofs? Since he gets the praise, he should take the rap. This is what ministerial responsibility requires him to do.
Next I shall read something written by Professor McGregor Dawson. In his book he mentions changes which have occurred in the public service, but he makes the point that the minister takes the responsibility and should not place blame elsewhere. Speaking of what has happened in the public service, he said in his book;
None of these changes, all of which helped produce a massive reorganization of the executive and the public service of Canada, altered the fundamental fact that executive and public service in Canada have always in one respect discharged a common function, the enforcement, application, and development of the national policies. But the distinction between the two is never in any doubt: the executive is a political body; the public service is non-political, and consists of the growing number of employees of the state who work in either a department of government, or a Crown corporation or other agency engaged in administering some particular law or laws.
There are those who say times have changed, that governments have grown more complex. That is true. To an ever greater extent governments, at their own instance or the instance of others, have intruded into our affairs and grown more complex. Nevertheless, at the very foundation of our system is the doctrine that the minister is ultimately responsible, that he must stand up publicly and be answerable. That duty remains, and does not in any way limit the right of the public servant to expect that the minister will be answerable for the affairs of the department. That has not changed, and it is time this House confirmed and reaffirmed its views on ministerial responsibility. That is why the House is debating this motion today. Writing in "Parliamentary Affairs," volume 26, No. 4, published in the autumn of 1973, David Butler said, at page 403:
Consider first individual ministerial responsibility. Its central doctrine is that for every public act of a public servant, a minister has to answer to parliament. It is an assertion of democratic accountability. Honouring the ancestral cry "grievances precede supply," some member of the government has to reply for any action-or want of action-in which public money, gathered from the taxpayer, is or might be involved.
Individual ministerial responsibility is easy to ridicule. How can a minister take responsibility for the innumerable acts of his civil servants, many of them involving technicians of which he could not conceivably master? In ordinary affairs we are seldom willing to carry the can for things about which we have no knowledge and no possibility of control. We can hardly feel surprised when we see ministers passing the buck: "It was before my time," "I had to rely on the expert advice I was given," "I could not have known anything about it."
The House has received replies of that kind. I continue:
But to answer does not mean to take the blame in a personal way; still less does it mean to resign. To answer only requires a minister to say "I have ministerial responsibility for this. I am sorry that a mistake has been made. I have taken steps to see that it does not happen again."
June 22, 1976

And if it does happen again the minister will, at the least, look foolish and lose caste in the eyes of his Prime Minister, his colleagues and indeed the wider public.
Because of the factors I mentioned, the old, strict rule regarding ministerial responsibility has been diluted. But the Minister of Supply and Services, backed by every one of his colleagues and every member on his side of the House who cheered when he made his statement concerning Larry Stopforth, refused to take even a mini-step and acknowledge that he, as minister, was responsible for what was done and for what the government did. The minister and the government did not have the good grace to do that.
There is another side to ministerial responsibility. The decline is at the heart of the relationship between ministers and public servants. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, ministers take the blame; but they also take the praise. Public servants accept power without publicity. As long as they do not violate the traditional code of their profession, they are shielded from public criticism for their mistakes. That is as it should be and as it should continue to be. I have said previously that incompetence does not have to be tolerated, but that is not the case here. Incompetence has been alleged. The public servant should have the right to answer that allegation, but this government steadfastly refuses to give him that right. Why is it refusing, Mr. Speaker? Is the government worried, afraid that an examination of the case of Larry Stopforth may also lead to an examination of the blunders, foolishness, bad business practices, and so on, relating to the Orion deal? If the government is afraid of this, it ought to say so.
The present position does not do much for Larry Stopforth and every other public servant who finds himself caught in a similar situation. It is to be the lot of public servants in Canada that ministers shall attack them on the floor of the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter David Baker: Are they to be named on the floor of the House of Commons and left without redress? If that is how the government feels, it is unworthy, not only of the confidence of the people of Canada, which it does not have, but of the confidence of this House. I hope that during this debate some minister of the Crown will stand up and plead the case, publicly, of the public servant who is shunted aside and moved out of his position. Really, Mr. Speaker, that is not the important factor. What is important is this: a public servant who may have served his country in war, served it in peace in the public service of Canada, and advanced in the public service now finds himself named in the House of Commons and subject to ridicule.
He is in danger of losing all that he has, that is not transitory, by its nature-namely, his reputation. What the Minister of Supply and Services did by naming this civil servant was an act of cowardice. The act of the Prime Minister, in not rebuking his Minister of Supply and Services, was an act of complicity in that cowardice. In my judgment and respectful submission to this House of Commons-


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Be honest.
Ministerial Responsibility


Walter David Baker: I do not expect the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) to know very much about ministerial responsibility. Anyway, he will never have to worry about it.
I speak strongly about this matter. I have raised it before in this House of Commons, and I will continue to raise it. If this is going to be the attitude of the government, there is a danger to the public service of this country. Whether we are dealing with Mr. Stopforth or any other public servant, there will be a danger to the integrity of the public service. It could, in fact, lead politicization of the public service-and the public service has suffered enough by the heavy, left-handed methods of this government.
I ask the support of this House of Commons with respect to the individual about whom I have spoken today who has been maligned here and left without remedy. If the hon. member for Timmins thinks that is fair, I do not know where his moral values lie. If there is anything wrong with a public inquiry or parliamentary examination at which Mr. Stopforth would be prepared to put his reputation on the line and suffer the slings and arrows of that disclosure, along with what the government would suffer, I would certainly like to hear it.
I moved this motion because the people of Canada have lost confidence in this government. This House, therefore, ought not to have any confidence in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, after the historic half hour that we had in this House just before lunch, anything to be raised during the rest of the day is almost bound to be anti-climactic. Yet even in that kind of atmosphere the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in his motion has raised a very important issue. Like him, and like other members of the House, I look forward to the reply that will come from the ministerial benches. I notice that most of the ministers have left-all but the two orators, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Mackasey). I do not know which one is going to indulge in a flight of oratory this afternoon.
I suspect-in fact, I believe-that both ministers concur, in the proposition set out in the first part of this motion. I cannot expect either of those two ministers, or any other minister, to concur as I do in the proposition that the government does not have the confidence of this House or the country. However, I trust I am right in assuming that both of the orators sitting in the front ministerial benches agree with us about the importance of the convention of ministerial responsibility. I know my two friends very well. I know their capacity for getting into debate, slaughtering their opponents, and so on. If they cannot do it directly, they do it by beating around the bush and talking about other subjects. I hope they will come to grips with this issue. I see them tossing glances to see which one is going to do it.
This question of the importance of ministerial responsibility is such that whoever speaks for the government ought to affirm it today, even if in so doing he casts some doubt on what was done from a ministerial bench a few weeks ago.

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility
When I first came here some years ago, there was a notion about Ottawa that the real government was the public service. There was the notion that it was the deputy ministers who ran things, that even if there was a change of government, some of the same policies would be carried forward. I saw that happen. I saw governments change. The departments of government continued to give the same advice, and what might have been brought forward had the previous government stayed in office was brought forward by the new government. When this present government came in in 1968 under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), we were told that it was a new era. From here on in, the decisions were going to be made by the cabinet. There are indications that to some extent the present government has carried out that position.
Deputy ministers have been moved from one department to another. Shifts have been made so that senior public officials do not get into positions of too much power. All of this has seemed to be part of the implementation of the present government's philosophy that the government should be controlled and run by the elected ministers, not by public servants at any level.
The government has made it clear that they have a tremendously valuable and efficient public service and that their advice is very important to them, but that in the final analysis, it is the government, the cabinet, those who have been elected to office, who have the say. I submit that a government that has taken that position has even more responsibility than some earlier governments which did not take that position, to stand by the principle set out in this motion, namely, the principle of ministerial responsibility.
It is inevitable, in a debate of this kind, that reference is made to the action of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) when he stood in his place in this House on a question of privilege or on a ministerial statement and condemned one of his senior public servants. I suggest that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was quite justified in condemning that action outright, as he has done. Just as I do not like the way in which Mr. Stopforth was castigated and pilloried, so I do not intend to spend time castigating or pillorying the Minister of Supply and Services. Nevertheless, the principle which is brought into focus by this incident is certainly one concerning which there should be a clear statement by whichever of those ministerial orators is to reply in the debate today.
As I understand it, Mr. Stopforth is not the deputy minister in the department. He is not the assistant deputy minister. He is three, four or five rungs down the ladder. I do not know how much contact he had in a direct way with his minister. But, surely, for the Minister of Supply and Services, when the government has found itself in an awkward situation, to stand in the House and name him and blame him for the mess and, in effect, ruin his professional career, does not sit well with the position the government has taken with regard to its own authority and responsibility.
I am one who thinks we are served by a very efficient public service. When, on a recent occasion, it was attacked in this House, I felt I could not keep my seat; I had to stand

up and say it as I see it. However, I realize that even the most efficient group of men and women is made up of persons who can make mistakes. We all do so from time to time. A couple of us had to get up in the House yesterday and admit we make mistakes. We admitted it and took the blame for it. A senior public servant, or a public servant a little down the ladder, can make a mistake. Maybe it happens in circumstances when something has to be done. Maybe he should be suspended, or called in on the carpet or, in an extreme case, dismissed. But for a minister to name him publicly in the House of Commons, where the minister has immunity and the public servant cannot reply is, I think, deplorable.
In doing this, the minister is trying to say, "It is not my fault. We came to power prepared to take responsibility and make decisions, but now we have goofed and I say it was not my fault; we are placing the blame on somebody else." I shall not go back to my old profession and preach a sermon, but there is a story in the Old Testament about a golden calf. When Moses came down from the mountain and found that the children of Israel had created this golden calf despite his objection to idolatry, the answer was, "We do not know how it happened. We just put in the gold and out came the calf." This is one of the classic examples of failing to take responsibility.
Yet the Minister of Supply and Services is a member of a government which said things had changed, a government whose attitude was; We are in charge now. We are not letting the public service run things; we are taking the responsibility. Thus, I think the idea the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had when he put down this motion for discussion, anti-climactic though it may be today, was a good one and I hope that whichever of the two ministers over there is to reply will take the matter seriously.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and I do not mind being demolished in debate. That is part of the game. But it is not hon. members who are to be demolished. It is an issue which has to be faced, and I hope that whoever replies on behalf of the government will face that issue. It seems to me the best thing that could come out of this debate would be for a minister to say, "Yes, this should not have been done. It was wrong, and as far as the government is concerned it will not happen again."
I do not see how anyone could fail to agree with the first part of the motion which calls attention to the convention of ministerial responsibility. I trust that principle will be endorsed this afternoon. Since ministers over there have faces to save, they will no doubt dislike the latter part of the motion which calls on the House to express its lack of confidence in the government. However, I can tell hon. members opposite that the House is only being asked to express a view which is widely held in this country. Indeed, I believe it is held by a very large majority of the Canadian people. It was a long and sorry list the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton brought to our'attention. I might mention some of the items, though I shall not do so in any detail. There was the dredging scandal, the judges' affair, the Sky Shops situation and, finally, the Orion debacle resulting in the loss of $16 million because of fumbling which was the responsibility of the government. It may be that the Orion affair is not over even now,
June 22, 1976

because there are reports that something else is in the wind-


An hon. Member:: In what newspaper?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was in the
Wall Street Journal-we have to keep in touch with the organs of my hon. friends.


An hon. Member:: Be careful, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I refer particularly to the statement in that newspaper that an announcement might not be made until after parliament has recessed. That is one of the favourite tricks of the government when it has something embarrassing to announce; it waits until parliament recesses before doing so.
As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton pointed out, this session has already lasted-what is it-329 days. Before it ends it will probably have gone on for two full years from September, 1974, until September or October, 1976, and it is a session which has been characterized by messes. The present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), when he was minister of transport, came out with that truism about transportation policy being in a mess. It still is. At the moment, transportation policy, in particular with respect to aviation, is in a mess.
Agricultural policy is in a mess. There are messes with respect to energy, messes caused by the shortcomings of the government in the field of housing and environmental control. I suppose the word "mess" applies in a double way to our lakes, rivers and air-and because we have a government which cannot even manage to get a session of parliament over in the usual year or 18 months, we should not be surprised if it compounds this messy situation. When we turn to consider the anti-inflation program, we find that an extensive bureaucracy has been set up to make sure that wage increases do not take place beyond certain levels, though price increases continue to make life difficult for our people.
It is a two-year mess, this first session of the thirtieth parliament. Even if I cannot persuade my ministerial friends across the way to agree with the latter part of the motion, the fact is it is true that most of the Canadian people do not have confidence in the present government.
I want to say a word or two about one or two other things that are the cause of the lack of confidence. One of my friends across the way, if he were here, would say he knows what is coming, and he would be right. I know that a little bit was done in the first part of this session in respect of the Canada Pension Plan, but in the main this has been a very disappointing session of parliament in so far as the pensioners of Canada are concerned. No increase has been provided at all in the basic pension paid under old age security, except, of course, the cost of living increase that comes along every three months, always five or seven months behind, leaving our senior citizens in worse trouble as time goes on.
The one change that was made in the Old Age Security Act created another mess, and that is the provision for spouses' allowances which are payable only to persons who
Ministerial Responsibility
are married to and living with their spouses. I am speaking now of persons between 60 and 65 years of age. The allowance is not available to persons in that age bracket if they are spinsters, widows, bachelors or widowers. The letters we all get from persons who were not aware of what was happening in the debate express amazement. They suggest that surely this was an oversight or a failure to think the thing through, and that a government of a civilized country like Canada would not provide a pension for a spouse who has another spouse, since they can somehow get along, but would not provide it for a person who is living in the single status of any of the categories I have already mentioned.
That is a mess, and the fact that it is a mess has now been demonstrated by some answers to questions I received a few days ago to the effect that now there are about 200 cases a month of spouses who started to draw the pension but who are losing them because the elder spouse in the meantime has died. So many wives of 62 with husbands of 67, for example, were receiving the spouses' allowance. Then a few months later this generous Liberal government takes that allowance away, because the other spouse has died. The word "mess" certainly applies down the line.
We had a bill earlier in this session, Bill C-52, that had to do with the pensions in the public service. There, again, the government failed to meet a number of very crucial situations. We took care of our own pensions, of course; we seemed to be able to do that. We took care of our pay a year or so ago, over my objection. But in terms of the needs of many of our people, these needs have not been met during the course of this session.
In addition to all these other things, the difficulties we are having with relations in the public service, and so on, we have a total picture that nobody on that side can look at with any sense of pride. When the vote is called on this motion, it is pretty clear how we will vote. We will vote for it because what it says is true, that there ought to be an affirmation of the importance of the convention of ministerial responsibility. It is also true when it says that this House-and, I would add, the majority of the people of Canada-no longer has confidence in that government across the way.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, today this House is here to discuss ministerial responsibility. Rather than examining a specific policy or decision, our objective is to look at something which is less tangible but perhaps of greater import, namely, the conduct of government per se, for it is this, the conduct of government, which is at the core of ministerial responsibility. What, though, is meant by this term which is bruited about so freely?
In Canada, the basis of the term lies in the British tradition that a minister is responsible for the probity of his ministery and of its employees. We seem, however, to have modified this principle somewhat. There are now few who would extend this notion to make the minister responsible for the honesty and propriety of every action of his department. While this has reduced the range of ministerial responsibility, a new connotation has added a dimension to the term.

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility
In addition to probity in the conduct of affairs, we also demand diligence of the minister in seeing that the affairs of his department are undertaken with a basic level of competence. While it might seem more accurate to call this expectation ministerial competence rather than responsibility, this would be a mistake, for the basic principle remains that the minister is responsible for the conduct of his department's affairs. Above all, the minister is bound to ensure that his actions set an example for diligence, honesty and competence. He can scarcely excoriate a subordinate for laxness if he has been lax himself; for dishonesty, if he has been dishonest himself; or for incompetence, if he has been incompetent himself. The Canadian people should demand from their government behaviour which at the very minimum meets these criteria.
I intend to use this opportunity to examine in detail one case, namely, the financing of the LRPA project. I intend to look at it, however, not so much for the content of the decision but, rather, for what it reveals of the process and style of decision-making as practiced by the current government. In this process we will find revealed the increasing inability of the Liberals to conduct the day to day business of government.
We are not concerned here with corruption, chicanery, or even with the incoherence of the government's approach to defence policy. Rather, it is a lack of simple competence in carrying out the decisions which confront them. Because the government's blundering in this case has been both obvious and enormous, it has afforded the House a rarely equalled opportunity to catch a glimpse of the reality of decision-making as it is conducted by the Liberal cabinet.
Before I begin my analysis of the cabinet's actions, however, I wish to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members present, and beg their indulgence, as the information which I will present is far from straightforward. As a result of the government's unwillingness to let the House or the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence have access to much of the relevant documentation or to several important witnesses, the story must be pieced together from a variety of sources and teased out of ministers' obfuscatory statements. The results are difficult to follow and not entirely unambiguous. However, the general lesson is clear. We find here a cabinet conducting the nation's business without even a minimum of competence.
Let us begin with the rather surprising statement made on Friday last by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). In response to my question asking whether he knew by about mid-November "that the commitment by Lockheed to provide interim financing for the LRPA project was purely verbal", the minister replied:
I did not know that in mid-November . .. about the middle of December ... was also the first time I learned there was only a verbal agreement.
This is recorded in Hansard at page 14657. This means that the minister did not know, he now claims, about the verbal agreement. This is in direct contradiction of everything we had been led to believe up to that time. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, as I go through several statements here, to note how often we heard the word "said" and how often we hear the word "told".

You might wonder why the minister has changed his declaration from one of easy compliance with what his officials told him to one of denying that he knew it. I suggest to you that it might be that, as the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) was well off in denying that he knew about the agreement, blaming it on a subordinate, the Minister of National Defence is now trying to do the same thing.
While this admission of ignorance as to the details of the financing of a billion dollar purchase is surprising for the lack of diligence it reveals on the minister's part it implicitly contradicts his earlier statements. Indeed, the minister had, until last Friday, never wavered for a second from his contention that the whole cause of the misunderstanding was that Lockheed said it could arrange financing and then later said it could not. The Minister of National Defence has consistently identified himself with his officials on this position. The full position the minister has taken can be deduced from his various statements to the House and to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. The Minister of National Defence told the first meeting of that committee which was considering the estimates:
-it was during the final negotiation of the contract that we learned that Lockheed was not going to be able to provide the financing for the short-term production-phase payments which we had believed the company could provide.
That was what he said on March 23. At the same meeting he admitted there was a difference between the funds available in the DND budget and the funds required. He said:
It was that difference which was to be financed. It was known then and now and Lockheed indicated they could finance that previous difference. Subsequently, they said they could not and that is the sole source of the misunderstanding.
That is what the minister said on March 23. Further, he
said:
The misunderstanding was that we believed, and my officials were told by Lockheed, they could finance the difference. They subsequently told us they could not.
These are the words of the minister who said he never knew there was a verbal agreement. Further in the minister's statement, he said:
And we were satisfied then-
Meaning in November.
-that they had the financial capability to complete the contracts ... we had also been talking at the same time with Boeing ... and Boeing gave us the same assurance that they could assist with the financing.
He went on to say:
It did not seem to me there were very real difficulties in arranging the financing.
I would draw to the attention of the House the minister's use of the word "me". The minister seems to have been of the opinion that there would not be substantial problems associated with financing for a company that had had prolonged financial difficulties and was in the throes of scandals which could not but jeopardize its future hope for contracts. This despite the fact that the minister had had the problem of financing brought to him by General Allan, according to General Allan's testimony on April 13 before
June 22, 1976

the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. When I inquired on May 6 why the Minister of Supply and Services claimed he did not know about the shortfall and the verbal agreement, the deputy minister of national defence, Mr. Nixon, declined to answer directly, stating:
We as officials certainly informed Mr. Richardson, and I can only presume that the people in Supply and Services had equally informed Mr. Goyer of the situation.
That quotation is taken from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence of May 6, at page 37:6; yet the minister now claims he never knew there was a verbal agreement. Mr. Nixon at that time admitted he would have preferred a written assurance that financing could be arranged. This is what Mr. Nixon said:
-but I think General Allan and I have both made it clear to the committee that if time had permitted under the circumstances in which we had this understanding that Lockheed could provide the financing, it should have been in writing, but not being in writing it did not obligate you to something of undue proportion.
The Minister of National Defence agreed with this contention.
The truth is that General Allan was told and believed that the shortfall could be financed by the Lockheed Company. He was told the same thing by the Boeing company.
Those are the words of the minister who said he never knew of any verbal agreement. When asked if the Minister of Supply and Services knew this, the Minister of National Defence said:
I will not speak for another minister but I know it was in the cabinet document, as I have said, and which cabinet considered.
That is from the Minutes and Proceedings of Evidence of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence of May 27. The minister went on to say:
It was certainly not, and I have said this before, the Department of National Defence that said, let us finance the shortfall, let us do it that way. Other departments of government said that in order to hold down government expenditure next year and the year afterwards we only want you to spend so much. I said, all right, we will only spend that much. The payments required are so much. I think the figures are $140 million in the first year. So that must be financed. That is what took place.
As I said before, it is not really very hard to re-enact the circumstances. But when we started in to the further negotiations, Lockheed said that they could not proceed. This is the crux of the matter. I think if you have to place the blame somewhere, it was a failure of Lockheed to be able to do what they said they could do.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where in all this can one find the slightest trace that the Minister of National Defence was ignorant of the fact that this was a verbal agreement they were talking about. I would like to point out something the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is often fond of saying, that is, that Machiavelli said one who deceives will always find those who will allow themselves to be deceived. There was a lot of deception going on in this case, according to the senior members of the cabinet who claim that they were just simple people who believed everything everybody ever told them. They had no hesitation in believing this and in giving away at least $16 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money on the strength of their gullibility.
The statements that I have quoted thus far were made by the minister and his subordinates only at the end of a long and painful process stretching over a number of months in
Ministerial Responsibility
which the minister and his colleagues had sought to keep the details of their conduct from the public. The Minister of National Defence did, however, let the House know in late March that the problems revolved around the interim financing. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that before that he tried to blame it on Lockheed's bribery around the world and suggested that this was holding up the signing of the contract. In March he said it was his opinion that it was the Lockheed company's fault that the financing was not forthcoming. On March 26 he affirmed this. He said:
There was a difference between the amount of funds available in the National Defence budget and the progress payments required by Lockheed. We explained this and were told by Lockheed that the difference could be financed by them.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister had claimed he did not know it was verbal. In the days up until March he said they were told by Lockheed of the difficulties in respect of financing.
Subsequently they told us they could not do it. That is all there is to the misunderstanding. It is serious, but easy to explain.
I trust that the government will not find it so easy to explain this in the years ahead. On March 30 the Minister of National Defence went on to say:
Mr. Speaker, as recently as this morning, and on numerous earlier occasions, I talked with the officials who were negotiating with Lockheed and they were very clearly of the belief that Lockheed could provide this financing. They were so told and they so reported to us, and it was on that basis that we continued-
They had been told that it was a verbal agreement and the minister now claims he knew nothing about it. It seems logical to conclude that if the officials reported what they were told, and it was on that basis that "we" continued, then it seems to me that the Minister of National Defence and anyone else included in the term "we" must have known Lockheed gave a verbal, not a written, assurance.
This reasonable conclusion does, however, fly in the face of the minister's statement of Friday past. Are we then to conclude that the minister and his officials did not bother to inquire in any detail into the financing arrangements to be made by Lockheed, despite the minister's claim that the problem and its severity had been recognized by the minister and his colleagues a month before they were informed by Lockheed that they could not undertake the financing alone? Again I will quote the minister:
The need for financing, as I have said many times, was known during November and was the subject of discussion in the cabinet, the cabinet committee and the Treasury Board.
The minister does seem to be affirming that the decision on financing was seen as vital, yet despite that perception he made no real effort to see that the interim financing was in fact being arranged. If there was no verbal agreement and no written agreement, what on earth were they going on-pipe dreams?
What are we to conclude from this examination of the statements of the minister and his staff? The overwhelming feeling which one gets from looking at the record is that the government lacked all common sense, to say nothing of business acumen. The inadequacies that have been demonstrated are not restricted to the Minister of National Defence alone for he has involved his colleagues by saying

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility
that the fact that financing was needed was pointed out in the cabinet documents, and that it was on the basis that both companies could provide financing that negotiations continued, that cabinet decided on a particular plane, and that cabinet decided to pay for the plane by a financing rather than a direct funding route. He has also admitted that perhaps "all of them"-one assumes he means his colleagues in cabinet-should have looked more closely at this financing question.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) has been vague in his replies as to whether he knew how the financing was to be arranged. He did not say whether he knew or not if there was a verbal agreement. He just stated that he agrees with whatever the Prime Minister had said in his latest statement. Obviously if cabinet decided on the commercial financing route, this involved Lockheed, but the President of the Treasury Board will not say whether he knew that Lockheed had given any assurances-verbal or otherwise-that it could arrange financing.
The Minister of Supply and Services has, however, consistently maintained that he did not know until mid-December that the Lockheed commitment to provide financing was based on nothing more than a verbal agreement. Far from claiming to have been misled by Lockheed he has stated:
In all the negotiations with Lockheed I do not have to complain at any time about the behaviour of the company nor about their ethics.
This was recorded in Hansard of April 5, at page 12437.
The Prime Minister seems to have changed his story in a most blatant manner. Having said on June 3 and 8 that they-the government-negotiated on the basis of a verbal agreement with Lockheed, on June 10 he said that he, like the Minister of National Defence, only knew of the verbal agreement in mid-December. This was two weeks after they had decided to go ahead with the contract, seemingly contradicting what he said on June 3 and 8. It appears inconsistent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. If he does not have much more of his speech left, perhaps he could get the consent of the House to carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House and I will try to be brief.
The Prime Minister said, "We had been assured that Lockheed could supply it", meaning money. If there was no written assurance, and the Prime Minister says he did not know there was a verbal assurance, then what kind of assurance did they have? None at all.
Presumably the Prime Minister would say there is no inconsistency in these statements-that what these statements really mean is that they negotiated on the basis of a verbal agreement without knowing at the time that it was a verbal agreement. If this is the Prime Minister's justification then it says little for his own judgment or that of his colleagues. What it means is that no one ever thought to check into this financing question, that they simply proceeded on an assumption, and that the whole cabinet,

not just the Minister of National Defence and his officials, were gullible and imprudent.
If no one, including the Minister of National Defence, heard anything about a verbal commitment from Lockheed that financing could be arranged, this means that they all assumed-totally incorrectly-that the contractor would and could provide financing. This assumption was ludicrous for two reasons: first, Lockheed's financial situation, and second, defence contracts such as this, which involve research and development, setting up new production lines, etc., are never more than 20 per cent funded by the contractor unless the circumstances are exceptional. Given Lockheed's position, it would be lucky to find that 20 per cent, let alone more.
A verbal commitment from Lockheed is at least some explanation of why the cabinet acted as it did; with no commitment of any kind from Lockheed. It means cabinet just went ahead on the basis of assumptions or wishful thinking. If they assumed there was a commitment in writing, ministers should at the very least have asked to look at it. The Prime Minister has said that they acted in good faith though perhaps imprudently. Since when have we started electing governments who feel entitled to act imprudently so long as they do so in good faith?
What are we now to conclude about ministerial responsibility and the government's conduct? Thus far there seems to be no indication whatsoever that the probity of the government is in question. Despite a sometimes rather craven willingness to blame others, there is no hint of the corruption which has tainted Lockheed contracts elsewhere. The same cannot be said of their competence in the discharge of their duties. The government, both as personified in the cabinet as a whole and in the person of several of the ministers, seems not to have taken the most elementary precautions in the financing of this contract.
The government is responsible for this fiasco. We heard the Minister of Supply and Services say today that the government made its first payment on it, amounting to $10,800,000, all for nothing. The concept of ministerial responsibility requires that those whom the Prime Minister finds to be at fault must be asked to resign.
Finally, I would remind the Prime Minister that it is he and his colleagues in the cabinet who are responsible for the actions of the members of their departments; attempts to blame them for the ministers' errors are a denial of their responsibility. In this context I would ask the Prime Minister to recall the words of Machiavelli: "One who is not wise himself cannot be well advised".


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with those who have moved this opposition motion today because I find unacceptable the conduct of the government, and particularly its tendency to always find means to shirk its own responsibilities by putting them in most cases on the shoulders of a scapegoat or by not recognizing them.
Mr. Speaker, ministerial responsibility is at the basis of our parliamentary democracy; once eroded, we would have difficulty in restoring it. There has already been some mention of a few cases of lack of responsibility, for instance in the case of the Department of Supply and
June 22, 1976

Services, and in the case of the former Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), who admitted in the House the mess existing in his department. And we have just witnessed a similar case of lack of responsibility on the part of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). But my comments today concern the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), and I would like to tell him through you how he has in my opinion evaded his own responsibilities.
Among the duties of the President of the Treasury Board is the responsibility to negotiate in good faith with various organized units in the public service: typists, engineers, professional external services agents, filers, researchers, and so on. In this regard, his department, the Treasury Board, has made so many mistakes, has allowed so much injustices that today, in the public service and among the public servants, there is an attitude of frustration, fear, unstability and uncertainty for their own future and that of their children.
Mr. Speaker, because of these abuses the public service which is so devoted, loyal and qualified is now becoming a group of people who no longer know where to turn to protect their carreers. Those people, those servants of the great Canadian public, are becoming more and more disillusioned. In the past, they carried out their functions and duties with a certainty, a pride and a precision which was admired throughout the world. They were an inspiration, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, it is no longer the case. What we now see are demoralized senior public servants. I would therefore like to give a few examples.
In the House I asked questions on a number of occasions indicating the areas in which the Treasury Board had not properly fulfilled its function. I do not think I should have to go over them all, but I feel that I should at least cite them and demand some sort of reckoning. The first one I recall, since assuming the responsibilities I have been asked to assume in my party, is one affecting an arbitration award to a group of public functionaires. It was with regard to the forestry and biological sciences group of the Professional Association of the Public Service of Canada. That was a technical professional group which was highly qualified and anxious to do its work, and instead of striking, as it could have done, it opted for the arbitration route. What happened? The dates are here. It was on May 3 that I raised the question. The arbitration award came down and was accepted by the Treasury Board and by this group. If I remember correctly, the award came down just after the Anti-Inflation Board had been put into place.
An arbitration award is just exactly that. It must be recognized as one of the legitimate procedures of the bargaining process. If it is not accepted as an arbitration, we must go to some other method. However, the Treasury Board decided on its own to push aside that arbitration award and refer the matter to the Anti-Inflation Board, and there the award was set aside. I still think that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) ought to have recognized the award which was given by the arbitration tribunal, but he found a means of putting on someone
Ministerial Responsibility
else's shoulders the responsibility for setting aside an award with which he felt he would rather not agree. That was the first instance.
I brought the second instance to the minister's attention and he undertook to look into it.
Incidentally, I mentioned this arbitration award in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee on May 17 as well. To my knowledge it has not been resolved, and I would be glad if, when the minister gets a chance to consider the procedures today, he can find out just how far this matter has come, recognized his responsibilities and put things back on the rails.
The second matter is one which stems from 18 months ago. I raised the question first in 1975 in one of the committees of which I am a member, and it referred to the disbanding of a group of highly qualified and multi disciplined public servants who had been brought together into a unit called the Defence Research Board. This group has been disbanded, and the members were told that they would be allocated to other parts of the civil service. That was 18 months or perhaps two years ago, and they are still waiting to find out just what role they play and how they fit into the public service, because their prior employment was part of a separate organization. This is an abdication of the responsibility of the Treasury Board for making sure that these devoted public servants, whose objective in life is to serve the Canadian people, are not cast aside. Their rightful awards are being completely neglected.
Another matter came to my attention earlier this month. There was a group, and this time it was the economists, sociologists, and statisticians who were getting ready for their negotiations, and just prior to submitting their demands, which were negotiable, they received from Treasury Board an indication that the whole group was to be reclassified, and that threw the whole thing into disarray. That is the sort of activity a responsible minister would not allow to happen in his department. I deplore it because of what it is doing to the public service and because the government claims it wishes to respect the principles of collective bargaining.

And finally, this government has so much speeded up the bilingualization program of the civil service that the results could have been expected because there is no doubt that this speeding up policy has compelled many officials to resign or accept a transfer to other jobs for which they are not necessarily qualified.
The speedy application of the policy and the mistakes made consequently have been strongly criticized in the recent report of the Language Commissioner. Before quoting from that report, I would like to provide some clarifications to make you understand my position and that of the Progressive Conservative Party on the application of the bilingualism legislation. I hasten to note that we support the principle on which that legislation is hased, that is the Canadian people are entitled to the services provided by federal government in the official language of their choice. [English]
To be more specific, section 9 of the Official Languages
Act, to which we subscribe without any hesitation, reads as
follows:

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility

Every department and agency of the Government of Canada and every judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body or Crown Corporation, established by or pursuant to an Act of the Parliament of Canada, has the duty to ensure that members of the public can obtain available services from and can communicate with it in both official languages.
This position is clear and unequivocal. It cannot be questioned.

But we refuse to accept without protesting the actions that demoralize and destroy honest and diligent civil servants. To illustrate my point, let me first quote an excerpt from the Commissioner's report to Parliament as found on page 4. I quote:
On November 21, 1974, the President of the Treasury Board announced the creation of a research project led by recognized linguists to determine why some persons appear unable to learn a second language and whether, as a consequence, teaching methods could be improved. The study group, headed by Dr. Gilles Bibeau of the University of Montreal, set about examining all elements entering into provision of language training in the public service.
The Bibeau commission proceeded with its enquiry and I read as follows:
One of Professor Bibeau's main conclusions is that many of the roughly 53,000 bilingual positions identified in 1973-74 were chosen without regard to any detailed evaluation of each department's specific needs. Indeed, levels of second-language ability required by various occupational categories for bilingual positions had been established in 1969 by the Public Service Commission in the following manner:
In other words, the policy was a failure and that failure is acknowledged by the Commissioner of Official Languages in his report.

To give some idea of the problems that this is creating for good honest well-meaning public servants who find, for one reason or another, that they are unable to learn a second language, I should just like to read from two letters that have passed over my desk recently. I am not going to cite names because I do not want to get anybody into trouble, but these are authentic documents and the names are here.
A civil servant at Shirley's Bay approximately nine years away from retirement finds that his job has been declared bilingual. He has been in the security line, presumably on perimeter security to make sure that the Shirley's Bay operations are not tampered with. I look back to the Bibeau report. Is this one of the 53,000 posts that were declared bilingual for no good reason other than to have 53,000 to report? I suspect it is.
This man tried to learn French but he is tone deaf. Anyone who has tried to learn a language, particularly at a certain age, knows that you need some tonality-you have to be able to hear changes from what you normally hear. The deafness does not affect his work and he has indicated that he very rarely needs the second language and gets along very well with one. Suddenly he was sent a letter on April 1 of this year which informed him that his position
(Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).]
had been made bilingual and telling him that he should resign by letter immediately. The letter, which grieved me, said:
As you were unsuccessful in attaining the required level of language proficiency in the other official language-
He is tone deaf and has no need to use the language in his position, Mr. Speaker.
-those aspects of your duties which resulted in your position being identified as bilingual, shall not be carried out by you.
Even before this letter was sent it had been determined that an employee of the bilingual division of the public service was phoning around to other people in his division asking if they would take on his job. Is this the way to maintain morale in a public service? I must say I find it deplorable.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Despicable.


Donald W. Munro: I am surprised that the President of the Treasury Board should accept it. There is another letter I should like to quote from which came from a highly trained professional scientist. I am not going to give the name but I have the letter. The division in which he was working has given national leadership in technology, training methods, and efficient management methods. I have to avoid a little bit of this because it could be identified. They publish their works in both French and English on the development of the system, and have received national and international acclaim. A second edition of one of their works has been published, and a request has been received from Spanish-speaking countries to have it translated.
The director of this particular part of the public service has developed his unit to the point where it has full international recognition. It has been operated as a bilingual unit for a long time and has played a major role in encouraging institutions in the province of Quebec to improve their methods and training.
All of a sudden this man and his administrator were called to go to a language course. The administrator had just finished a course in organization and administrative management by objective. He had just reported back when he got another letter to go off to a French course. They were expecting to implement the management by objective procedures that he had learned when he was sent off on two weeks' notice. My friend here suspected he would have two weeks's notice or so, and was making plans accordingly. But not a bit of it; he received two days' notice. Having cancelled his engagements he reported to the Centre Asticou in Hull. Unfortunately this is not where the story ends. He reminds me that in this sort of thing he is taken out of the world to which he has been committed all his life, and he writes;
This is grossly unreasonable and shows a flagrant lack of understanding of the professional role in the public service. No employer has the right to demand such sacrifice for any person, particularly when a unit has already demonstrated its capability in fully achieving the employer's goals, which includes bilingualistic facility in this instance.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, when he got there he found people who had just joined the public service and had immediately been assigned to the Centre Asticou in Hull. One young person was sent on language training immediately on joining the public service. She had no intention of
June 22, 1976

working in the public service, and on completion of her training intended to resign with a working knowledge of French and money in the bank. This is no way to run the public service, and the President of the Treasury Board is not living up to his responsibilities. He is always asking for instances, Mr. Speaker, so I can give him instances.
The people who are called there know their careers are at stake. Failure means the end of the road for them. This is a tragic thing to impose upon a man four, five or six years before retirement who has performed his duties. When he joined the public service his contract did not contain any of this, and now he finds his career is jeopardized if he does not succeed.
The other thing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time having expired, he may only continue to complete his remarks if he has the unanimous consent of the House. Has the hon. member consent to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. I shall not be long.
The public servant of whom I am speaking is most detailed in his remarks. He says, "When the language bureau instruct one to report, one must do so." There is none of this business of telephoning and saying, "I have an appointment." Why, the service is worse than the Whips around here, although when the Whip says, "You must be in the House," you make sure you are in the House.
Then he writes, "Can nobody see what these officious incompetents are doing to the morale of public servants?" He says that he was given two days' notice to report, and alleged that this action showed gross insensitivity to his position, function, and responsibilities, thereby unnerving his management team and those with whom he worked. He said that this mindless, officious act was equivalent to hauling a man out of his bed in the middle of the night, to be taken from his family, still dressed in night attire. He went on to write, "Can nobody see what these officious incompetents are doing to the morale of public servants?" I hope the President of the Treasury Board is now aware of the situation. The public servant went on to say, "What is more important, cannot the cabinet see the damage it is doing to management in all government departments?"
A few lines later he said that one could not ask for a better public service unit; it is a great service, but is being demoralized. He mentions what happened to an administrative officer, and why, because at a crucial time he was sent off on a certain course, he was unable to attain certain management objectives. Mr. Speaker, it is sheer nonsense to send a man off to a management course and then, as soon as he returns, to send him on another course.
The writer of the letter said:
In the meantime the indecent haste with which the language blitzkreig is being waged on a demoralized public service indicates that our political masters clearly place 'instant' bilingualism far above more efficient use of public funds ...
Ministerial Responsibility
Although I value bilingualism in the public service, I do not value the way it is being imposed.
The writer of the letter was true to his own character; he said:
I believe in the coexistence of the two founding cultures ... It requires fostering and funding. We need better and more translation services. We need to train good language graduates as highly competent specialists; we need Francophones and Anglophones side by side across Canada.
He then asked:
Are you aware that when one is interviewed for language training the interrogator attempts to assess one's beliefs related to bilingualism?
Such an interrogation concerning one's bilingual ability is reprehensible. According to what I hear, people are being interrogated in the manner described. As the writer of the letter says:
It is insidious interrogation, calculated to look into and manipulate private thoughts, and depending upon the outcome a Canadian's career will be affected ...
.. . Criticism from within has been scarce and muted. Many are not in a position to do so for they fear for their future. Management by fear has become uppermost in the minds of all public servants. Many Canadians fought and died to prevent such tactics becoming entrenched in the western hemisphere. It is tragic to consider that some of the survivors of that struggle should find themselves at a rather late age as victims of oppression, based on irrationality and . . . political posturings . ..
He believes that we should improve our translation and interpretation services.
He ends his letter with a forthright statement: as a result of this treatment he resigned from the public service and accepted a post in the United States. We have lost a valuable public servant who during his career made a name internationally and who, but for the treatment meted out to him, would have enhanced the reputation of the Canadian public service.
I hope the minister to whom my remarks are directed, a minister prominent for having failed to shoulder the responsibilities he assumed when taking the ministerial oath, will correct the abuses mentioned in order that we may have a good, bilingual public service, able to serve the Canadian people in the official language of their choice.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, judging by the thrust of the debate begun by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that he has in mind the by-election coming up in October in Ottawa-Carleton. The constituency is populated mainly by public servants. The hon. member is trying to convince them that somehow the government is anti-public service and that the opposition has a monopoly on concern for those who work day in and day out for the people of Canada. Such a position is not abnormal. I presume that if I were a member of the perpetual opposition-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You wouldn't know how to handle the job.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -I would try to change my status. The point is, the hon. member talked almost exclusively about public servants. He forgot that the present government has done more for Canada's public servants than any other government in Canada's history.

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility


Donald W. Munro: Rubbish! The public service is demoralized.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Unfortunately the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, whom I respect, cannot be here at present because he must attend to certain other matters. No matter what he says, he cannot suggest that any other government has done more for the public service than the present government. We have given them high wages, a good pension plan with indexation, the right to organize, the right to strike, an ample grievance procedure, and an official languages act which the opposition can either accept or not accept. I do not know what the opposition would do but, speaking for myself as part of the minority in the province in which I live, I know the government does not intend to retreat from its determination to open as many careers in Ottawa as possible to bilingual people of this country. Under our policy those who are not bilingual are given the opportunity to become bilingual.
Provisions in the act, known as grandfather clauses, say that certain people, because of their seniority in years and length of service in the public service, need not take language courses. For example, in post offices in Montreal I know there are people without the ability to learn the other language. Because of their years of service in the public service they are entitled to continue as unilingual employees and will not suffer for their inability to learn the other language.
The new person entering the public service is being asked to learn the other language. This qualification is not necessarily a prerequisite. Once the new employee has joined the public service, where it is necessary he or she is asked to take advantage of the opportunity to learn the other language. It is to the everlasting credit of many hon. members opposite and members of my party that members of parliament as well as public servants have taken advantage of this program.
When the opposition bemoan the fate of the public service and try to paint the Liberal government as the enemy of the public service, I suggest it is doing this only because of the upcoming by-election. It is trying to paint this government, as I say, as anti-public service. But it should not be forgotten that day after day in the House of Commons members of the opposition rise to complain about the wages of public servants and about their numbers. They ask, when will we reduce the bureaucracy, or the public service, by 5,000 or 50,000? The opposition raises such questions almost every day.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Which part of the opposition?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The official opposition. Day after day its members get up in the House and complain about the size of the bureaucracy. When they are talking about the bureaucracy, they are not talking about the minister, the member of parliament. They are talking about the poor public servant who, day in and day out, has to grit his teeth as somebody gets up during the question period and questions why he has got a job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When the opposition says that this has been an unproductive parliament, I refer them to the hundred bills that have been passed in what is a record session of parliament. There was the Petro-Can Act, the Federal Business Development Act, the Citizenship Act which is already through second reading, amendments to the Canada Pension Plan Act, the Salaries Act, the CRTC changes, the amendments to the War Veterans' Allowances Act which my colleague brought in at a time of austerity. I give credit to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who had a part in that.
There was the Lieutenant Governers Superannuation Act, the Environmental Contaminants Act, amendments to the Customs Tariff Act, the Animal Disease and Protection Act, the Canada Business Corporation Act, the Petroleum Administration Act, and to the National Housing Act which latter are already resulting in record building.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There were amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act coming forward from a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate. That is a study of what can be done to improve the lot of the public servant in the field of industrial relations. Members from both sides of the House as well as of the Senate make up the committee.
There were amendments to the Supreme Court Act. I could go on and on. In fact so much progressive legislation passed this House of Commons it would take the whole half hour to read them. There was the Western Grain Stabilization Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Why did that take so long? It was because those across the way could not understand it. It took them months and months to understand finally that it was for the benefit of their constituents. There were amendments to the Law Reform Commission Act as well as the Income Tax Act to help the less fortunate. There was the West Coast Ports Operations Act and the Appropriation Act. There was also the Anti-Inflation Act, which I want to talk about in a few moments. I have no hesitation in talking about that. If this House is not a better House, it is because this is the most inept opposition we have seen in many years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If ministers get away with murder, as has been alleged today, it is because of the ineptitude of the people across the way in the question period and in debate. Perhaps the biggest single problem of that party is that they have no leader in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) came into the House as Leader of the Opposition, he was here day after day learning his business. The present leader who knows what he should do to weld the opposition as a team rather than divide them is never in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 22, 1976


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There has been a lot of talk about parliament. Parliament is not only the government, the members of the majority. It is everyone in this House of Commons. The opposition in this motion suggests that this is a poor parliament. They must realize that they, more than any other single force in the last two years, have been the reason for what they call a poor parliament.
One only has to look at the treatment of the Anti-Inflation Board by the opposition. One day out on the hustings, within the first two months, they criticized the Liberals for stealing their election platform. After we allegedly stole it, they criticized us day in and day out because we put it in place and it happens to be functioning. It is bringing down inflation in this country, as we said it would. What kind of co-operation did we get from the opposition? When they thought they were going to get elected on it, it was their legislation. Now they want to disown it because they think it is unpopular. Well, it is not unpopular because this government is providing the leadership that the people of Canada want.
We have a fine Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a leader who is in the House of Commons every possible day despite his responsibility as leader of the government, a leader who does not shirk his responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He gets up and answers questions. Whether the answer is popular or unpopular, you have to say one thing; he provides what the Canadian people want at this crucial time in our history, leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When the Prime Minister says that controls and restraints will stay on until inflation is at a controllable level, he means it.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a partisan mood today. But since this debate began a couple of hours ago, the official opposition have been portraying themselves as the friends of the public servants. However, after a union exercises its legal right to go on strike, the opposition is the first party to demand that that right be taken away from them. Every time some group goes on strike, the official opposition demands that that right be taken away from the public servants of Canada because it might upset or inconvenience a few people. They regard everything as a national emergency. If you were to poll the opposition tonight, they would say that if they had the opportunity, they would take away from the public servants of this country not only the right to strike but even the right to organize without the right to strike. That has been their position for the past 25 years.
I have in my little department 52,000 public servants. I have been a minister for 8 years. I have had one single case of discrimination brought forward to me as a minister. I came to the conclusion that the public servant had a case, ruled accordingly, and that person received the monetary compensation to which I thought he was entitled. We in this government understand that.
I might sometimes get a little angry and say that we have too many ex-public servants in cabinet. I often state that in good humour.
Ministerial Responsibility


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Look at the reaction. I did that on purpose. I said that public servants did not have a chance to run for office and be cabinet ministers. Did you hear the applause? Without realizing it, the members opposite walked into the trap. What they said by their applause, and it will be on the record, is that public servants should not have the right to present themselves as candidates and, least of all, should not have the right to be members of the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Why were you applauding? The opposition says they should not have the right to be candidates, they should not have the right to be cabinet ministers, they should not have the right to organize, and must not have the right to go on strike. What do they stand for? It is obvious, and I will tell you in a moment what they stand for.


Mr. Ellis:: May I ask the minister whether now, or some time before he finishes his discourse, he will accept a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Right now.


John Raymond Ellis: Thank you. I ask him whether he is prepared, because of his great benevolence toward all civil servants, to prevail upon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) to allow members of parliament to knock on the doors of members of the Armed Forces to campaign for election, something they cannot do now?


An hon. Member:: Sure, they can.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have to consider the hon. gentleman to be a unique Conservative, because once again he is going against the party line. He is so extreme in his left wing tendencies that he does not wish to consider the fact the army must be in a unique position because of the discipline needed and because of its special position in a democracy. When people join the army there are certain disciplines they must accept, as is the case in certain police forces, including the RCMP. These restraints are supposed to be compensated for in other ways, and this is, in fact, the case. Incidentally, the Canadian army never had a better friend than it has in the person of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When the changes in the Public Service Relations Act come before cabinet I undertake to bring forward the hon. member's representation with respect to members of the army in the hope that by then he will have succeeded in convincing his caucus that this is the official position of the Conservative party.
The motion before us, brought forward so late in the session, is really indicative of the barrenness of the thinking in the party opposite. It is two motions rolled into one, of course, and as I indicated I suspect from the trend of the debate so far that the opposition, in its sudden concern for

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility
the public service, is looking apprehensively toward the by-election which is to take place in Ottawa-Carleton since there is now a pretty good indication that they will lose a contest which a month ago they thought, to use a vernacular expression, was in the bag. They are beginning to worry that Ottawa-Carleton will remain true to the Liberal party as it has for so long.
Because it is getting close to six o'clock, and I want to take only five or ten minutes in which to speak after the recess, let me make it clear that no government has done more for the public service than this government. We have given to certain elements the right to collective bargaining, the right to opt for strike action if that is felt necessary. We have resisted the demands of the opposition to deny that right, particularly at times when members opposite were prepared to remove that democratic privilege on the ground that a strike by public servants was inconveniencing one party or another.
When the chips are down, we live in one of the most democratic countries of the world, and the average Canadian will put up with legal strikes if the alternative is a form of government which infringes to an intolerable degree on civil liberties and freedom. If we on this side have any bias it is to see that public servants continue to enjoy the right to go on strike provided, of course, that they have met the legal requirements. That is official Liberal policy, and we shall find out whether it is official Conservative policy when the appropriate moment comes.
The motion before us is a "nothing" motion. I am suprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should have stated very early in his address that his two-man party would support the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Three.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Four.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Four, then. In any event I suspect that the basic motive of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the same as that of the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton. One of the things about being a New Democrat, and even more about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is that you become a living example of the old adage which says hope springs eternal in the human breast. The hon. gentleman really has hopes of winning that by-election in Ottawa-Carleton. Thus, when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton sat down after his eloquent, effective, and persuasive speech, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre got up and virtually endorsed everything which had been said. Summed up in two words, his contribution to the debate was: "Me too."
It may be I am too suspicious. Maybe there has been a change in heart among the opposition. Perhaps they were concerned all these years about the plight of the public servants. Maybe they will stop demanding that we fire or lay-off tens of thousands of public servants across the country. Maybe they will cease to echo some of the editorials appearing in right wing papers in this country which say that bureaucracy is running rampant, that there are thousands on the payroll who should not be there. That is what we read day in and day out. But suddenly, the opposition is prepared to try to find out who these thousands of public servants are. They are people. They are

voters. They are, many of them, residents of Ottawa. If the bureaucracy in this country grows it is because we as Canadians want more services, and if we want more services from government a larger bureaucracy is needed to supply them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Maybe the question could be asked after supper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to ask the minister whether, when he gets back at eight o'clock, he will deal with the motion, which concerns ministerial responsibility?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That will be a pleasure.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please the hon. Minister of National Revenue rises on a point of order.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the tabling of documents in order that I might table the report of the office of the Administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their generous and vocal support of my request to revert to the tabling of documents. Pursuant to Standing Order 41 I should like to table, in both official languages, the report of the office of the Administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act.
June 22, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):
That this House, finding unacceptable the performance of the Government, particularly its penchant for shifting blame, reaffirms its belief in the importance of the convention of ministerial responsibility and expresses its lack of confidence in the Government.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, at this time-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Let's hear the truth now, and let's hear it for Bryce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: You have some support on this side. You are not all that bad.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the only ones supporting me are the philatelists. They want their first cover issues.


An hon. Member:: Let's keep this clean.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am at a handicap as I forgot my glasses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is very difficult.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That's no handicap. You are better without reading it anyway, Bryce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As I said before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was really very disappointed that this is the last opposition day debate before the end of the session. I happen to be a little bit of a traditionalist and I would like to be serious for a moment.
There were two events I enjoyed this session; one was discussing my estimates in the House, which took place on a Friday as I recall when there were a lot of excellent and intelligent questions asked from the local party and the odd one from the opposition. Really it was parliament as I knew it in the 1960's, when you had to defend yourself.
If I have any advice for a friend who might come into the House of Commons it would be that he must learn to defend himself without being personal. If you cannot do this then you do not belong here, because one must look at the House of Commons and come to the conclusion that there have been great speakers, great debaters in this House of Commons and in this country for over 100 years. Somehow they learned the difference between personal vindictiveness and debate. This is a very important point, and it makes all the difference between a job and working at something you enjoy.
Ministerial Responsibility
I sit here languishing in relative obscurity most days. I must admit that I admire the hon. gentleman representing Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He has a gift for words, but I admire him because he never gets personal, and I say that sincerely. Mind you, he is very obvious, but that is another thing. He became very obvious early today when suddenly he rediscovered the electors in the public service and the upcoming Ottawa byelection in October.
The amazing thing about that hon. gentleman's speech was that he did not make the point that should have been made when talking about parliament.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You have no excuse now, but you were going great guns without your glasses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there is a gentleman out of order, but it is not unusual for the socialists. They have never been in order as long as I can recall.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just before six o'clock I asked the minister if, when we came back at eight o'clock, he would speak to the motion, and I think his answer was "with pleasure". I wonder whether he is now going to address himself to the motion before us.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: That is what he is doing, but you do not like it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: My problem was that I did not have my glasses and I was not sure what the motion was.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: At quarter to ten the House of Commons will express its opinion on the motion as to whether this House has a lack of confidence in the government. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman will vote with or against the government, but I am willing to concede, or risk my reputation, by stating that somehow the representatives of the people of Canada will express their confidence in the government that leads them, and in the Liberal party. If I am wrong-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about ministerial responsibility.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: An hon. gentleman says, "Speak to the motion". I am doing precisely that. I am doing what the hon. gentleman for Winnipeg North Centre said, "Me too". The nice thing about the speech by the hon. gentleman from Grenville-Carleton is he said they are really the unofficial voice of the public service and that we are really bad people on this side in that we have been really hard on the public service. They say, "Look how you have treated a certain individual; we wouldn't do that". But day after day after day someone over there would get up and say, "When are you going to fire 11,000 public servants in the Ottawa district because your office is too big?"


Walter David Baker: We never said that.

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: More or less in those terms. If you look at Hansard, which I did at seven o'clock, I think you will see that there are 40 odd questions which, if you follow through on the implication, will show that in every case they represent criticism, unintentional maybe, of the public service.


Walter David Baker: Or the government.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Or of the government, but also the public service. It is not the government which criticized Reisman and Grandy who were public servants.


Walter David Baker: Retired.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Who were public servants and then retired. I do not wish to become involved in personalities. However, they are the people who brought up names today, not the government. I do not want to get involved in names. I would rather get to the fact that we live in a society right here which, rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly, is demanding of our private enterprise system a certain quality of life. We are demanding a Gross National Product that can support the poor, the blind, the crippled, the alcoholics, and even the lazy people. We are saying to that private enterprise system, which I think all of us stand for, including the converts in the corner because they become converts when they form provincial governments, that rightly or wrongly it is the best thing for this country but that at the present moment it is subject to a lot of tensions.
For the first time maybe in 30 years these tensions have come in the industrial world, or in the "have" world if you like.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I promise, Mr. Speaker, not to be too long. I just want to make a point which is important to me. Perhaps for the first time some of the industrialized nations such as our own are a little uncertain, a little afraid, a little terrified to trust the market place. They are worried because of the OPEC dispute, because of the energy crisis, and because of the environmental problems. They are worried because the poor are no longer passive. They are worried because, ironically in our quite logical dedication to democracy, for the first time all Canadians have a voice through some organization. This is not abnormal. It has penetrated, I believe, the whole western world, the whole of industrialized society. It is bound to have reflected on people. When it reflects on people it is bound to reflect on parliamentarians on both sides of the House. I am being as non-partisan as I can.
What is the problem with which we are faced? The problem is to resist panic. The problem is not to recreate the mood of the thirties when somehow leadership was tired out, and the leaders who then came forward were Hitler and Mussolini who were going to solve all the problems of the world when they were first elected. This is

the problem in this country. How do we react to this world-wide situation? It is not really world-wide.
One thing about prosperity is that if you have never known it you never know when you are worse off. The industrialized world has known prosperity for 30 years. Suddenly we are faced with a challenge. We are faced with the thought that there may be no energy in 20 years, the thought that we may destroy the ecology, the thought that just possible our free enterprise system might not be able to provide the wealth that is needed to look after the less fortunate or those who somehow have to be supported, and also provide those who contribute to the quality of life whether they be doctors, dentists, lawyers, teachers or whatever. It would be surprising if the question period and the government's actions did not somehow reflect that concern of the people. Our challenge is to have the courage to resist a mod which if carried to its ultimate, will simply destroy what has taken decades to build-our concern for each other.
I look forward to a country in which we recognize everybody's right the poor and the blind, to a minimum income, but also a society where anybody in this room can have children who, if they want to work 10 or 15 hours a day, can go to it in order to have a two-car garage, a summer home, and have a level of income that is incomparable around the world. This is really why I am here and why most of us are here on both sides of this House. This is why I feel very deeply about this institution. I may be in the minority in my thinking and I do not apologize for that.
I just want to say that as a member of the Liberal party, and as a member of this parliament which has run for 300 and some days, I have no apologies for our records. As I said earlier before six o'clock, we have brought in about 100 meaningful pieces of legislation. When I say "we" I am speaking for everybody, because parliament is not just one party; it is four parties. We are dedicated; we fight; we improve, and hopefully and practically we end up with better pieces of legislation for all Canadians. It really is very unimportant whether one sits here or there so long as one is dedicated to improving society. Much of our legislation has been improved by backbenchers and by opposition members. That is why we are here. We are not here simply to be re-elected.
We must have the courage of our convictions which got us elected in the first place. Mr. Speaker, you might say what does that have to do with the public service? Simply this: if you want government to look after the lame, the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lazy as well as all the others including, the abandoned mother and the widow, rather than have private enterprise saddled with it, then you have to expect bureaucracy to grow in the same way corporations such as General Motors grow. So it is incidental to me whether the public service is comprised of 5,000 people or 500,000 people. What is important is why we hire them and what they are doing.
I like to see our public service fulfil a useful role. It is the best public service in the world, despite the speech of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton today. The opposition has no monopoly on concern for the public service. I must be partisan to the point of repeating that this is the party, the Liberal party, which gave that public service a
June 22, 1976

voice in its own destiny, which gave it the right to bargain and the right to strike even as opposed to arbitration if it felt this necessary after it met the requirements. This is the party which gave public servants a decent income, which gave them a decent pension, and we have no apologies to make to the public service. They know it, and the opposition knows it.
I am not blaming the hon. gentleman for preparing the ground for the Ottawa by-election. I would be doing it too. I will be there at that by-election, as he will, and we will end up good friends, as we are now.
I want to say in conclusion that the Liberal party has nothing to apologize for, both in its relationship with the public service and in its record as a government in the last couple of years.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to repeat the comments of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Mackasey). I had the privilege to act as the co-chairman of the committee considering labour relations in the public service and as such I have noted the efforts made by the members of every party within that committee to protect the rights of civil servants in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada who are responsible under the legislation governing labour relations in the civil service. [English]
I would simply like to repeat that in effect when dealing with the public service at the federal level we established, in terms of labour relations for the public servants in Canada at the federal level, a system which has not been equalled in any of the public services anywhere else in the western world. Those advantages that befall public servants in terms of labour relations at the federal level in Canada are the envy of public services throughout the world. We provided them with the right to strike, and indeed we have protected them with benefits that will continue to be provided to them.
Also we are providing for the public servants in Canada the continuation of the principle which has been espoused in parliamentary democracy, that is the principle of anonymity, the principle that public servants are responsible to the House of Commons through their minister. That principle has not been changed and it is honoured every day in the House. No one will deny that in the question period, the period which is the most interesting and followed most closely by the public, every minister in the government answers for his department in terms of policy and in terms of administration. That principle has been recognized and no one denies it.
I was really disapppointed with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). When he introduced his motion I thought he would address himself to the question of ministerial responsibility which, in my view, has received a great deal of attention as the result of the statement made by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). But no, he was too interested in making some possible gain, in trying, in his particular style, to draw
Ministerial Responsibility
attention to his presence in the House by making a speech that is strictly political and partisan in nature.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: I had hoped that he would deal with the interesting and essential problem of parliamentary democracy in our adversary system. However, he did not deal with it. I left ten minutes before the end of his speech because I was disappointed that he had not dealt with the basic issue. On my return I inquired to see whether he had deigned to deal with the issue, but I found that he had not. He spent all his time dealing with the Orion case and with the Minister of Supply and Services, without specifying why he believed the conduct of the minister to have been in contravention of the recognized principle of ministerial responsibility.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did bring his attention, even though only glancingly, to the question of ministerial responsibility, primarily in requesting the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Mackasey) to deal with that issue. That was the contribution of the hon. member. I cannot understand it because members of the opposition have a wealth of material upon which to draw in order to deal with the doctrine of ministerial responsibility for this government has been immersed in that particular doctrine. As I understand it, there are two aspects to the doctrine, if I may be so bold as to deal with the issue at hand.


An hon. Member:: Yes, dredging and Sky Shops.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The first one is the doctine of collective ministerial responsibility, namely, the responsibility of the cabinet which is the collective responsibility of the whole front bench on the government side. That particular principle has been honoured increasingly since the coming of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1968.


An hon. Member:: The coming of the Prime Minister?


Jean-Jacques Blais: In support of my contention I draw the attention of hon. members opposite-individually perhaps they might not be able to comprehend it but perhaps collectively they might be able to bring some intelligence to bear on an article written by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is entitled "Decision-making".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has the floor. I suggest that we should listen and we might learn something.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is entitled "Decision-making in the Federal Cabinet". The President of the Privy Council has been a minister and a public servant. That has been stated by members of the opposition and members on this side on a number of occasions. He entered the public service when Mackenzie King was still prime minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will remember that epoch. It was in 1942 that the President of the Privy Council entered

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility
the public service. He describes the situation as he found it in those days, with a great deal of accuracy. He states in that article which was published in the "Canadian Public Administration," volume 19, in the spring of 1976, that he entered the public service in 1942. Then he goes on to say: The tradition was an oral one, and the recommendations of ministers were seldom rejected. Cabinet agenda were reasonably flexible so that matters could be raised of which notice had not been given...
There were few formal cabinet committees except Treasury Board, the Defence Committee and, for a time the Wheat Committee. Proposals by ministers came before cabinet in the first instance and only in the event of disagreement were they referred to ministerial committees which were more often than not ad hoc. At that time, interdepartmental committees of officials were more numerous than ministerial committees.
A great many comments were made this afternoon relating to the suspicion that the public service in Canada at one time really governed the government. There might have been some reason for that suspicion at the time when the President of the Privy Council first entered the public service. He states in the article:
When I arrived in Ottawa at the beginning of 1942, I recall Dr. Mackintosh's account of how he had been instructed to prepare a statement for Mr. King to use when announcing on the radio the over-all price ceiling which came into effect toward the end of 1941. He showed his draft to the prime minister who, after reading the opening paragraphs, looked up and said: 'This is important, isn't it, Dr. Mackintosh?' I couldn't imagine Mr. Pearson or Mr. Trudeau being so unaware of the momentous consequences of introducing over-all price controls.
Indeed he says in his article that in those days decisions originated much more in the public service than they did in the cabinet itself. He goes on in his article as follows:
The main characteristic of the Trudeau Cabinet in my judgment has been the application of the principle of collegiality, the practical application of the concept of joint responsibility.
Under Mr. Trudeau all proposals must be fully documented, their conclusions and recommendations based on a careful consideration of alternatives and presentation of the arguments pro and con. Lengthy documents must be accompanied by a summary in both official languages ... Caucus consultations must be described or reasons given if these have not taken place.
I can personally attest to the fact that cabinet decisions now cannot be taken unless there has been prior caucus consultation.


Walter David Baker: That is why they are so bad.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That caucus consultation has been substantial and very beneficial, if we consider the list of statutes and enactments which were enumerated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs this afternoon. The President of the Privy Council stated further as follows:
The general rule, to which there are extremely few exceptions, is that proposals are referred in the first instance to the cabinet committees for consideration and decision or, failing decision, report to cabinet.
He goes on to say the following:
The Trudeau approach to decision-making in the cabinet has had many consequences. Perhaps one of its most significant has been to require ministers to become knowledgeable, even expert, to an extent that was not required of them in the past.
My impression is that for these reasons ministers are not as dependent upon their principal civil servant advisers for policy guidance as they were in earlier administrations and that interdepartmental com-

mittees, while they remain numerous, are not as significant in the decision-making process as they once were.
This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre alluded to that fact. Although his particular position in this House did not permit him to commend the government for having taken these initiatives, I could read between the lines that indeed he approved of the greater political input in the government decision-making process. I do as well, because at this particular time we are facing a development of the powers of the House.
It is not a question, as has been said by hon. members of the opposition, of reinstating in the House powers which once were within this House. I disagree. It is a question of evolution. As members of parliament we are headed toward an increase in the control we can have over the operations of the government and over the administrative aspects of government and the bureaucracy. More and more, members of parliament are becoming ombudsmen vis-a-vis the bureaucracy in the public service, and members of parliament on both sides of the House are demanding more power, more time in the House, more control over the operations of the government and of the bureaucracy, and that is as it should be. I fully agree with that.
When we look at the changes which are being announced, undoubtedly the government in the next session will be introducing legislation relating to freedom of information. That is an essential piece of legislation, but I am surprised that hon. members opposite have not directed their minds to the principle of individual ministerial responsibility vis-a-vis the question of freedom of information. That is one of the major stumbling blocks.
When the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton attacks the Minister of Supply and Services for having chastised or castigated a member of the public service in the House, he is working against his own interest with regard to freedom of information because there is nothing wrong with what the minister did. That course of action has been followed in parliamentary democracies such as ours. It has been followed in Westminster, in New Zealand, and in Australia, and if I may quote from an article-


An hon. Member:: You are showing your ignorance.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am not showing ignorance at all. I am just showing more depth than the hon. member who is singing on the other side.
I would like to call the attention of the House to an article published by Hutchinson in 1961 and written by C. Marshall entitled "Some Problems of the Constitution". Under the heading "Responsibility for Civil Servants", at page 84 it is stated:
There seems to be uncertainty about the doctrine that Ministers are responsible for every act of their Civil Service subordinates. Sir Ivor Jennings in his Cabinet Government speaks of 'the responsibility of the Minister for every act done in his department'. In Mr. Herbert Morrison's words, 'There can be no question whatever that Ministers are responsible for everything that their officers do!' The Minister 'is responsible for every stamp stuck on an envelope'. Now it is clear in the light of earlier discussion of the term 'responsible' that such a statement might mean a number of things. It might mean that each act is legally to be considered that of the Minister. It might mean that the Minister must hold himself morally responsible for every act of his subordinates. Or it might mean that the Minister (and the Minister alone) is '.he constitutional mouthpiece through which departmental
June 22, 1976

actions are to be defended or repudiated and from whom information is to be sought.
That is the solution which C. Marshall feels has been accepted by parliamentary democracies. He cites no less an authority than Sir Anthony Eden as follows:
. . . thus clearly indicating his officials and not himself as the agents of the mischief. Moreover where action is taken of which the Minister disapproves and has no prior knowledge 'there is' said the Home Secretary, 'no obligation on the part of the Minister to endorse what he believes to be wrong, or to defend what are clearly shown to be errors of his officers'.
Herbert Morrison, in his book "Government and Parliament",
... that though the consequences 'may be rather hard on a Minister from time to time', he 'must accept responsibility as if the act were his own'. Yet he has 'a perfect right to reveal the facts and to assure the House that he has taken suitable action' where his specific orders have been disobeyed. On one such occasion a disobedient officer in the Home Office had been castigated in the House.
There are numerous precedents where public servants have not abided by the directives of their ministers or have acted contrary to recognized priciples of conduct and been castigated in the House. There is no doubt that Mr. Morrison's reference was to that. I suggest that to argue the contrary works against the growth of control by this House over the government and its operations. There is no doubt that if we are to say that the government and the ministers within that government are totally responsible for every act of civil servants, whether policy making or administrative, they will fight any move to liberate the flow of information, and that is as it should be. There is no doubt that no government can really act to the betterment of public interest if it sees that its public servants can be called on to account at any time without any clearance from their ministers. That is why I find it very strange that hon. members opposite have not sought to consider the aspect of freedom of information in terms of individual ministerial responsibility.
In an article entitled "Parliamentary Affairs" written by Leslie Wolf-Phillips there is a statement to the effect that in this House and in Westminster there has been a failure to deal with the question of secrecy in terms of ministerial responsibility. He states:
... the key justification for secrecy-the whole working of the existing system with its tradition that ministers act on confidential advice from a professional cadre of civil servants.
If we are to deal with secrecy, the justification for that secrecy is that public servants act in the belief that their particular counsel to their minister is going to be kept secret. If, on the other hand, the minister feels that he can throw the public service open to public scrutiny, indeed there is no question but that there is going to be a great interplay so that the public servants themselves will refuse to divulge to the minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Ministerial Responsibility


An hon. Member:: That is enough.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion today. We have somewhat rambled away from the meat of the motion, which reads:
That this House, finding unacceptable the performance of the Government, particularly its penchant for shifting blame, reaffirms its belief in the importance of the convention of ministerial responsibility and expresses i'ts lack of confidence in the Government.
I have no hesitation is supporting that motion. We got on to the subject of civil servants, and the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) said that the Conservative party was going to fire tens of thousands of civil servants. Mr. Speaker, I do not recall us making any such statement.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I said 50,000.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Even 50,000-that is not correct. There is an element of concern on the part of civil servants. In an article in the Winnipeg Tribune of May 15, 1976, entitled "The Big Sleep" Jacques Grenier writes:
Because of the sheer size of the bureaucracy, a civil servant who wants to can go almost completely underground performing little or no work. A federal employee at the National Museums of Canada admitted to me he works about an hour a week. He makes over $15,000 a year. A bright young bureaucrat with the Foreign Investment Review Agency admits working about two hours a week. His salary is $28,000.
An acquaintance of mine who has been in the civil service for four years, with a salary in excess of $20,000 confided, "I took this job because I wanted to make some kind of difference. Now I'm working a total of about three hours a week. It's at something I don't like, and there is no real way out of it." He is completely disillusioned.
This is what we should be concerned about in the civil service. I hope the minister has investigated the charges made in this article of federal civil servants drawing $28,000 to work two hours a week.
The minister said he is proud of his government's record. After this latest budget with about a $5 billion deficit, I do not think he has anything to be proud of. This year the Post Office will have a deficit of three-quarters of a billion dollars. That is nothing to be proud of; he should be ashamed.
Turning to ministerial responsibility, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail regarding the air travel privileges which cabinet ministers receive, as well as the leaders of the opposition.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: And some members of parliament.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I said leaders of the opposition. The article quoted the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Mar-chand) as follows:
Do you think it's funny for an airline to know that the Prime Minister is going to travel with them? And for the passengers. If I was a passenger I would not want to travel on the same aircraft as the Prime Minister. So many people want to kill this man.
I think the minister has a responsibility to report this to the RCMP. If he knows that so many people want to kill the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) he has a ministerial responsibility to report it. Is he getting phone calls or letters from kooks? What is he going to do about it? Maybe the list is too long to present to the RCMP.

Ministerial Responsibility
An area of ministerial responsibility that I have covered many times is the serious financial problems being experienced by Air Canada in its finance branch in Winnipeg. They are not only experiencing financial problems with millions of dollars going astray, they are experiencing labour problems. The government has taken some initiative in regard to labour problems and has appointed a federal mediator to deal with them, but it is shirking its duty in looking into the financial problems of Air Canada. On a number of occasions I have asked that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the Prime Minister dispatch the Auditor General to the Air Canada finance branch to find out what is going on.
The CALEA union has laid documented evidence on the table in regard to financial mismanagement and the poor billing procedures that are taking place, and the millions of dollars that are being lost. What do we get from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport? Just the answer that we should not be running Crown corporations from the floor of the House of Commons. This is nothing but a slough off. Then the parliamentary secretary tells me that Air Canada will be coming before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and that we can question them. Mr. Speaker, there is no way this committee can conduct an audit. That is impossible. The government has the power to dispatch the Auditor General to the finance branch in Winnipeg to find out what is going on.
Here are some of the charges that are being made. An article in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, June 12, states:
But CALEA says Air Canada, through its clearing house section, has paid out $40 million to other airlines without an audit and, as of September, was backlogged to October, 1973. By not auditing, the airline is simply writing off errors in billings which normally amount to $160,000 a month, or nearly $2 million over a year, the union claims.
They provided us with all documents in regard to this. It is not supposition. They go on evidence. I have the documents. The article continues:
According to the study, the Air Canada department which bills other airlines for flight coupons accepted by the Crown corporation isn't in much better financial shape.
The union estimated that $10 million in coupons were still not cashed in as of September and the backlog at one point last year hit $20 million. Even if they are eventually processed, the airline has lost millions of dollars in interest on the revenue because of the delay, CALEA says.
In press reports, published in March of last year, an internal Air Canada memorandum between officials in Winnipeg and Montreal was quoted as reporting "significant delays in billing other airlines" because of the processing delay.
This is costing millions of dollars. They estimated that $1 million in interest was lost due to this poor procedure.
The vice-president of the Air Canada finance branch, Michael H. Cochrane, made some startling statements to the Winnipeg Free Press last Thursday. He denied union allegations that mismanagement had contributed to the airline's record $12.5 million deficit last year. He said two major audits by private firms in the last year had thoroughly studied Air Canada accounting procedures and found them satisfactory. That statement is completely false. There was no detailed accounting whatsoever by any accounting firm in the finance branch. He said that the audits were conducted by Clarkson and Gordon Ltd. for the Estey inquiry into the airline last year, and by Coopers

and Lybrand for the airline itself. The deficit, he said, was caused by a major decline in passenger traffic, rising fuel bills, and other escalating prices.
In the Coopers and Lybrand report in the 1975 financial statement of Air Canada they state:
Our examination included a general review of the accounting procedures-
I have asked Air Canada employees if Coopers and Lybrand did any examination, if they came into the finance branch in Winnipeg to conduct a proper audit. They said they have seen no one there at all. The last person they saw was in there around 1972 doing some kind of an audit.
Also, under the terms of reference from the Estey report, Clarkson and Gordon were required primarily to review the Winnipeg centralized payment system, the Montreal payment system, the Dorval purchasing system, certain local branch purchases, and the system of authorization for expenditure. The review did not include payrolls and did not examine, except in a very summary fashion, the subroutines related to specific disbursements. In other words, they did not delve into airline billing.
I have referred, time and again, to discrepancies involving the finance branch; but the Minister of Transport has sloughed me off. He has refused to conduct a review into the difficulties at the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg.
Let me cite another example of mismanagement concerning reporting of ticket sales. As of October, 1975, there was in excess of $96,000 worth of unreported travel agent ticket sales, which represents a minimum of $2,208,000 unpaid for transportation. There is no mention of this in the Coopers and Lybrand report, or in the Clarkson, Gordon report. I have also pointed out that Air Canada has allowed debts as large as $186,000 to accumulate; it wrote them off because it could not collect. I submit that such a fact alone should result in an investigation of the finance branch. After all, the Estey inquiry looked into a $100,000 item. The report cost the government about $400,000. Commissioner Estey, after looking into the matter, said that he had never seen such unethical business practices as occurred in the operation of Air Canada. Yet when we ask the Minister of Transport to conduct an inquiry, he sloughs us off. He will not respond to requests for an investigation into the financial fiasco at the finance branch in Winnipeg.
Next I wish to talk about the foundation underpinning Canada's parliamentary system as inherited from Britain, cabinet solidarity. Everyone knows that a cabinet seldom agrees unanimously on any issue, and it would be a poor sort of cabinet if it did. It would nothing but a group of smug yes-men. Yet although solidarity has always been a fiction, the system cannot work without it. Cabinets argue and disagree in private, but once a majority decision is reached all ministers must support it or honourably resign; otherwise the life of any government would be chaotic and short, parliament a war of factions, and the public business neglected and deranged by frequent, indecisive elections.
As a constiutional lawyer, the Prime Minister fully understands this historic fiction and the working facts of
June 22, 1976

the system. When he took office in 1968 the Prime Minister warned his colleagues that any of them who publicly disagreed with a cabinet decision or revealed a cabinet secret would be dismissed immediately. But in the two recent extraordinary instances of public disagreement the Prime Minister did nothing to discipline, much less dismiss, the offenders.
In statements made outside the House of Commons, the Postmaster General criticized the government's revision of the unemployment insurance scheme, while the Conservative opposition supported the obvious need to curb its abuses. Quarrelling openly in the House of Commons, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) attacked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) for bungling the purchase of Orion aircraft; the national defence minister replied, quite rightly, that the collapse of the Lockheed deal was the shared responsibility of all ministers. Finally, the supply and services minister, defying a basic rule of the system, named and blamed a defenceless civil servant.
But the malaise in Ottawa is not sudden, temporary or unexpected. The disorder of the government did not begin with the outbursts of those ministers. It began with the resignation of John Turner as minister of finance last fall, followed by the conviction of the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs for contempt of court, and his resignation as minister of consumer and corporate affairs. This was then followed by the proffered resignation of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) in the affair of the Quebec judges; but the Prime Minister refused to accept the resignation. Even this regrettable episode did not prevent the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) from approaching the National Parole Board to inquire about the suspended driver's licence of the Minister of the Environment who had been convicted of leaving the scene of an automobile accident.
The behaviour of the Trudeau cabinet is disturbing and unacceptable, because it weakens the whole governing system at a time when strength is most required.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What about the hon. member's leader? He is seldom here.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Oh, boy, here we go again with the government Whip. A recent article in the Globe and Mail says that:
... Liberal Joseph Guay (St. Boniface) was feted for his leather-lunged performances in the Commons and described as the 'noisiest, most abrasive' MP on the Liberal benches.
Many of us hear the interjections of the government Whip. They are not constructive. If he would take lessons from the opposition whip, he would be far more constructive.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that my interjections make a lot of sense compared with the nonsense we hear coming from the other side of the House much of the time.


Walter David Baker: Don't be so modest, Joe.
Ministerial Responsibility


A. Daniel McKenzie: The article went on to say;
(It's said by some of the MPs in attendance that the comments were too close to the bone-Joe was not amused.)
Apparently I got to Joe's bone again tonight.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You don't know what you are talking about, unless you read. Keep reading.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Clearly, the Prime Minister cannot allow such a spectacle of confusion to last much longer.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Keep reading.


A. Daniel McKenzie: He indicated months ago that the cabinet would be shuffled after the current parliamentary session; but he will need more than another game of musical chairs if his credibility as the nation's leader is to be re-established. I suggest that Canadians have the right to expect something better than a cabinet in public disarray, a governing system unable to govern effectively until it is repaired, or to make any policy work.
Let me now deal with the Lockheed Orion fiasco which has cast a harsh light on the competence of two members of the Trudeau government, the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of National Defence.
By his shabby attempts at blame shifting, the Minister of Supply and Services has revealed that he also lacks the sense of responsibility to be a cabinet minister. Because of the financial and political troubles that had overtaken the Lockheed company, both ministers should have been especially watchful and prudent in making the deal for 18 long-range patrol aircraft at a cost of more than $1 billion. It was to be expected that a company in that position, urgently needing the contract, would put the most optimistic face on its ability to carry through.
The defence minister's chief fault was that, in emulating Lockheed's professed or real optimism, he took on trust its verbal assurance last November that it could get interim financing. I can recall, on November 27, the defence minister announcing that the big purchase would be going through and that two factories in Winnipeg would start making parts immediately for the Lockheed Orion. I questioned the minister further in the defence committee on December 1 and he assured me again that the deal was going through. He had no business making such statements.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: And what happened with regard to aircraft when the Conservatives had a majority?


An hon. Member:: Water your mushrooms, Joe.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Because of the financial and political troubles that had overtaken the Lockheed company, both ministers should have been especially watchful and prudent in making the deal for 18 long-range patrol aircraft at a cost of more than $1 billion. It was to be expected that a company in that position, urgently needing the contract, would put the most optimistic face on its ability to carry through. The defence minister's chief fault was that, in emulating Lockheed's professed or real optimism, he took on trust its verbal assurance last November that it could get interim financing. It was even more precisely the supply and services minister's responsibility to nail down
June 22, 1976

Ministerial Responsibility
this assurance in writing and to clear the financing of the entire deal before accepting the company's proposal, as he did in a telex message last December 2.
There was further confusion with regard to Treasury Board's authorizing this expenditure. I asked ministers in the House about their knowledge of this transaction, but neither would give me an answer. The Minister of Public Works refused to refer my request to the President of the Treasury Board. I questioned the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) who at that time was on the Treasury Board, but he would not get up to answer.
On June 8 this year I put on the order paper a starred question in which I asked what members of the cabinet were on the Treasury Board on December 2, 1975. The second part of my question reads:
Was the financing of the Lockheed (LRPA) deal discussed at the Treasury Board meeting of December 2, 1975 and, if so, what members of the cabinet were present?
The government does not want to tell the House which members of the cabinet at that time were on the Treasury Board. A starred question is supposed to be answered within a period of two weeks. However, they have chosen not to answer this one. I have severe reservations about this. I doubt whether any members of the cabinet appeared at the December 2 meeting. It was rubber stamped and sent through, and that is why they will not answer my question.
Further, it is now revealed that the Minister of Supply and Services received a document from his deputy minister on December 1 advising that there was some risk with Lockheed financing and warning that the Defence Department could not finance the first year of the project. This evidently demolished the minister's excuse that he did not know on December 2 that the Defence Department was not going to finance the deal by direct payment to Lockheed.
It makes even more contemptible his naming and blaming officials in Defence and his own department. Under our system of government, cabinet ministers are required to shoulder responsibility when things go wrong, not blame underlings.
The Orion mess has delayed by months, if not years, Canada's acquisition of modern patrol aircraft to replace the obsolete Argus. It will waste $16 million of the taxpayers' money-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the allotted time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak in support of the motion although I do it with a bit of a smile on my face because it is another example of the pot calling the kettle black. Listening to free enterprise Tories saying mean things to free enterprise Liberals is amusing, because when it comes right down to the way they operate there is fundamentally no difference between their policies, philosophy, and every-

thing else. Of course we have always looked with amusement on the pot to my right calling the kettle across the way black. The motion reads:
That this House, finding unacceptable the performance of the Government,-
That is a broad statement. Even I would not be brave enough to say that the entire performance of the government is unacceptable. Some parts of its performance were acceptable. On balance, however, I agree with the motion because there was more that was unacceptable than acceptable.
Before I get into the main part of my remarks I want to refer to something that was said by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), and repeated by the parliamentary secretary, to the effect that that government and that Liberal party have done the best of any in the world with regard to the rights, support for, and so forth with regard to the public service. If the Postmaster General will check Canadian history, he will find that in typical Liberal fashion they were 20 or 25 years behind.
When the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was premier of Saskatchewan in 1944, 1945 and 1946, the provincial public service got a union, the right to strike, and a better pension plan. They got rid of all the Liberal hacks in the public service. They had all this plus an independent public service commission 20 years before any Liberal government even came close to thinking about it. The minister can, however, feel proud because he is still 20 years ahead of the Tory party. He can take some satisfaction in that. However, I do not want to hear any nonsense from any Liberal. They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century with regard to the public service having the right to organize, the right to strike, an independent public service commission, and a decent pension program. The Liberal party in Saskatchewan and in every other province in Canada had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this. Finally, the federal Liberal government did it. Of course there is no Tory provincial government in the country that has got to it yet.
The minister should only take credit in terms of comparing the Liberals with the Tories. I grant him that they are 20 years ahead of the Tories, although they are 25 years behind the CCF and the NDP.
The motion further states that the House finds unacceptable the government's penchant for shifting blame and, I quote:
-reaffirms its belief in the importance of the convention of ministerial responsibility-
I imagine everyone in the House agrees with that clause. Not even the government members can argue against that. Finally it states:
-and expresses its lack of confidence in the Government.
I want to illustrate the shifting of responsibility or the failure to carry out the responsibility on the part of ministers, particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) who is also in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. That minister still refuses to carry out a vote by producers of the prairie provinces with regard to feed grains being under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, even though he promised it.
June 22, 1976

The minister in charge of the wheat board has failed to carry out that commitment in spite of the fact that the producers on the Saskatchewan Natural Products Marketing Council carried out a plebiscite which indicated 93 per cent support for keeping the Canadian Wheat Board as the sole marketing agency for feed grains. That may be why the minister in charge of the wheat board refused to carry out his responsibility and commitment. When he saw the result of the vote of the Saskatchewan producers on that issue, he cut and ran.
The minister did carry out the results of a vote one time. That is what I call shifting, or being shifty. That vote was with regard to whether rapeseed should be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister in charge of the wheat board handled that cutely. He sent a ballot to all producers. Instead of it having the usual yes or no, it had yes, no, or no opinion. In order to ensure that the rapeseed producers would not vote to have rapeseed under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, the minister counted all "no opinion" ballots as "no". When the results were tallied, the minister was able to shift responsibility. The producers voted, he said. Is that what you call a responsible exercise of ministerial responsibility? I do not think so.
With regard to railway passenger service, particularly transcontinental service, the minister made a policy announcement which in effect said that we will have only one transcontinental passenger train. In order to take the heat off, the minister asked the railway committee of the Canadian Transport Commission to carry out hearings across Canada with regard to transcontinental railway passenger trains. However, in the terms of reference there was a little fence put around them, saying they will consider the various alternatives to a transcontinental passenger train.
The minister is neatly trying to shift responsibility for his policy announcement to the Canadian Transport Commission, and he worked it in such a way that the Commission could report back on various questions concerning one trans-continental passenger train rather than two. It work very well. It suits the minister's purpose very well. He has been able to shift political and ministerial responsibility from his own neck to the railway committee of the Canadian Transport Commission.
The beauty of it is he has not only done that with the CTC. He is the boy who did a lot of talking about rail line abandonment and the political heat got heavy so he appointed a commission headed by Mr. Justice Hall. He is the boy who opened the whole thing up about reviewing the Crowsnest pass rates. It was not any other political party or any farm organisation. Then he appointed the Snavely Commission. Again he shifts the heat and the responsibility, and while those organizations are meeting and carrying out their tasks the minister continues to make decisions which come under the purview of those various inquiries. The beauty of it for the Minister of Transport is that he can take credit for it if it works, and continue to shift the blame to these other commissions and boards if it does not.
This is another reason for my supporting the motion. I do not think that is a proper or responsible exercise of minis-
Ministerial Responsibility
terial responsibility. If you have made a political and philosophic decision, you have made it. And then you see to it that it is implemented. You don't try to look around in ten directions at one time or shift the heat to other public bodies or to public servants.
The same thing has been occurring in the past several days in connection with the dispute between the government and the air traffic controllers. The House should remember some of the history of this matter. It was not the Government of Canada, it was not the Minister of Transport or his predecessor, or the minister before that, who said there should be bilingualism among air traffic controllers. It was the air traffic controllers themselves who were responsible for taking the initiative in 1974 because of the failure of successive ministers of transport to set out proper regulations governing air traffic control, particularly small aircraft using smaller airports.
In 1962 the ministry directed that French might be used by air traffic controllers only in emergencies and an immediate translation must be made into English.
In 1971 a transport study found no major problems about air traffic control in English, though some private flyers required additional assistance in French. For this reason the informal use of French in air traffic control proceeded without authorization. In other words, air traffic controllers themselves, when someone needed assistance in the second language, gave it.
Even though the air line pilots and the controllers repeatedly requested the ministry to put some regulation and order into this process, nothing was done. Finally, in 1974, the air traffic controllers proposed that limited bilingual air traffic control for visual flight rules, meaning lowflying planes, be allowed to apply at Quebec airports where traffic was light and there was no significant mix of high-speed jets with small craft.
I do not want to hear *the Minister of Transport or any other member of the government trying to take credit for bilingualism being brought into five airports. It was the air traffic controllers themselves who initiated that move, and to their credit. It was the air traffic controllers who started using French informally. All this is in the ministry's own report if hon. members would care to check on it. In June, 1974, bilingual traffic control was used for visual flight regulation. It was authorized then by the ministry following the example of the air traffic controllers for the airports of Quebec City, St. Jean, Baie Comeau, Sept-iles and St. Honore.
By March of 1975 the MOT task force called Project Bilcom presented 23 recommendations related to the use of language at airports. That report was presented to the House on May 22 last year. The majority report, with only one dissenting voice, found there was no demand for wider bilingual service. It recommended that air traffic control under instrument flight rules remain English only, that visual flight rules above 9,500 feet provide for English only and that bilingual visual flight be restricted to the five airports in the province of Quebec.
Some aviation personnel in Quebec referred the findings of the report to the Commissioner of Official Languages. Mr. Spicer, in a letter to the Ministry of Transport, recommended that the minister continue to consult with all
9SS70-3S

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility
interested parties and always give overriding priority to the safety of air travellers and air crew.
In September of last year a committee representative of CALPA, pilots, controllers, machinists, the airline industry, and the province of Quebec was set up to study bilingualism in air traffic control. It recommended that the use of French remain limited to visual flight rule operations, yet on December 31, 1975, despite all these studies, the Minister of Transport suddenly announced that bilingual air traffic control would be extended to all elements of air traffic control in Quebec. This was in spite of recommendations not only from the air traffic controllers but from the airline pilots, the machinists, the government of Quebec, and the airline companies. Disregarding this advice, the minister says bilingualism will be extended to all elements of air traffic control in Quebec, with an extension of visual flight rules to two more airports in the summer of 1976 and an eventual extension to instrument flight rules when safe procedures are developed. The minister made that announcement even though some of his own press announcements had led one to expect something different.
All parties in this House have supported bilingualism. There is no argument about that. Again we are in a situation where the minister either evades, or misuses, or abuses the responsibility which belongs to him. There can be no question about this: if it is intended to add a duty to an air traffic controller, whether that additional duty involves another language, or new instruments, or polishing his supervisor's shoes, it will increase the controller's work load, it will increase the stress upon that person, and this may be reflected in his ability to carry out his job with the maximum effectiveness and safety. This is perfectly logical. It is saying nothing against one language or another.
Surely the Minister of Transport could have met with the controllers, if necessary on a daily basis, to let them know that the resignation of Mr. Keenan was regretted not only by their organization but by himself-to let them know he would try to get another commissioner appointed as soon as possible. He might have taken them into his confidence, discussed the subject with them and reassured them that in the end the controllers, the pilots, and the companies, though the process might take somewhat longer, would have a full and definite part to play in developing an acceptable system. He might have done all this instead of making an arbitrary announcement which flies in the face of the recommendations of a committee of his own department. That is not carrying out ministerial responsibility.
Instead of that what did the minister do last week? He went to Paris. Why did he go to Paris? He went to check on bilingual air traffic control at the airports in Paris and in other countries in Europe. I could have saved him the trouble. There were eight members of this House who made a trip on April 13 and 14. I was privileged to be invited to the flight deck by the captain of that Air Canada aircraft, and I listened to the air traffic controller in Paris for the last two hours of the flight. I could have saved the minister the trouble. I could have told him it was working very well there. The same situation exists in Brussels. But the minister went to Paris to investigate.

The terms of reference for the commission of inquiry into bilingualism in respect of air traffic control are limited, as reported in the Globe and Mail of Monday, June 21. The article states that the commission is vested with the power to inquire only into methods of introducing bilingualism but it cannot inquire into the policy of whether it is safe to introduce bilingualism at all.
The minister went to Paris to check on bilingualism in air traffic control, but I should have thought that would be the job of the commission of inquiry. I should have thought that the commissioner would go to Paris, London, Brussels, The Hague, Rome, Berlin, and anywhere else necessary. The minister went, and in the meantime the whole country was shut down. Is that carrying out ministerial responsibility or is that some more of the shifty, shifting operations of that minister and, I am sorry to say, some others in the government?
I fully support the motion of want of confidence because I am convinced there has been too much of this shifting of responsibility. There has been too much evasion of responsibility, with the using of public bodies and public servants to take the political heat off or to get a tough decision implemented. Whether members of this House agree or disagree with a particular policy taken by the government is not the point. The point is that the government resorts to the use of public bodies and public servants to shift political heat and political blame. It seems to me ministers are working at abdicating their own responsibility.


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


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, the last words on the bilingualism issue in air communications show to what extent some members opposite can be hypocrites when it suits their purpose.
Indeed, unless I am mistaken the discussion today was to show our confidence in the public service. However, the case which has just been raised by the member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) shows how principles give way to prejudices. Let us take for example bilingualism in air control.

Let us take the precise example of bilingualism in air traffic control if we really believe in the competence of civil servants. Every single aircraft in this country flies according to rules devised by officials of the Department of Transport headed by Mr. McLeish. These rules are considered all around the world to be the most strict and safest. Now that these experts who devise rules concerning flying say that they can devise rules to permit bilingualism in the province of Quebec, what is the reaction of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre? He does not have confidence in them any more even though their record is flawless, and even though they have a world renowned reputation concerning safety. Now hon. members attack their reputation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, I attack the minister.


Pierre De Bané: No, Sir, do not try to misconstrue the situation we are in today. Knowing that these civil servants have an absolutely perfect reputation and record in
June 22, 1976

Canada and elsewhere concerning safety, it should not be suggested that these people can play into the hands of politicians or anybody else with the suggestion that they cannot devise bilingual procedures which are safe. How can someone in his right mind say something like that? Now we say we have to check on this through an inquiry, yet all the other rules they might devise are O.K. In this particular instance we have to check to see if what they are doing is safe. When civil servants actually do what we like we have nothing to quarrel with them about, but when there is a partisan or narrow minded benefit to be gained then we attack the policy which, in this instance, is made by experts.

Mr. Speaker, the matter before us today deals with many concepts which hardly bear any resemblance to reality any more. As Kenneth Galbraith says in his book The Affluent Society:
Ideas are by nature conservative.
They do not yield under the attack of other ideas, but under the massive aspect of circumstances against which they are helpless. When Confederation was proclaimed 109 years ago, there were hardly four civil servants in the country. Today, besides the 300,000 civil servants who come under the Public Service Commission, if we add the employees of Crown corporations such as Air Canada, Canadian National and the Armed Forces, we number about 750,000 civil servants who at an increasing rate of between 2 and 3 per cent a year, will hit 1.5 million-15 years hence. And we go on saying that ministers should be responsible for the least decision taken within their department.
In this regard, I would like to quote Norman Ward, who says at page 236 of his book The Government of Canada the following:

It is obvious that the opportunity to exercise control becomes more and more unreal as functions become more varied and complex and as the number under the minister's direction increases. A carefully planned organization can do much to overcome these handicaps, yet even with the most efficient methods, the subordinates at some level under the minister will inevitably acquire more power. The constant assertion of the principle of ministerial responsibility will cover to some degree the actual delegation of authority which has taken place, but this cannot conceal the fact that no minister (or his deputy) can hope to make even the major decisions for the five or ten or twenty thousand employees who may be nominally under him.

This idea was developed again recently by one of the most competent civil servants that I know in the federal administration, Michael Pitfield, in an article entitled "The shape of government in the 1980s: techniques and instruments for policy formulation at the federal level". Talking about the principle of ministerial responsibility, he refers, in my opinion, to one of the ideas where theory and practice are getting farther and farther apart. On page 9, he writes:

The benefits to be gained from enhancing the relationship between theory and practice are obvious; for theory to be sound it must reflect the way the real world operates, and for practice to maintain its effectiveness while keeping up with the changing needs of society, it must be consistent with theory. I suspect that for some years in Canada
Ministerial Responsibility
the theorist and the practitioner have been getting out of touch with one another.
A relevant excerpt, according to me, is the one where the former conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, said:

A Minister of the Crown is responsible, under the system in Great Britain, for the minutest details of the administration in his department; he is politically responsible, but he does not know anything at all about them. When anything goes wrong in his department, he is responsible therefore to Parliament, and if he comes to Parliament and points out that he entrusted the duty to an official in the ordinary course and in good faith, that he had been selected for his capacity, and ability, and integrity, and the moment that man has gone wrong the Minister had investigated the matter to the full and punished the man either by degradation or dismissal, he has done his duty to the public. That is the way matters are dealt with in Great Britain, and it is the way, it seems to me, that our affairs ought to be carried on in this country.

And here I quote from the debates of the House of Commons of May 15, 1909, page 6723.
I would also like to quote an article by Professor S. E. Finer on "The Individual Responsibility of Ministers" published in Public Administration, volume 3445, 1956, page 377, where he shows that the idea of the minister's accountability for all actions taking place within his department is getting gradually further away from reality. I quote: [English]
There is a good deal of constitutional folklore on this subject, to be true, but whether it adds up to a convention is very questionable.

And here he refers to a well known case in England: the resignation of Sir Thomas. He says:

And as to whether such enforced resignations as Sir Thomas' can be deemed a certain and effective constitutional remedy for mismanagement, the answer is not in any doubt. They cannot.

And he recalls what the meaning of this principle is, that is only the minister can report to Parliament. I quote from page 381:

Although the doctrine became established that Ministers alone are answerable to Parliament in respect of every act or omission of their civil servants, there seems no evidence that it was also established that-in the words of Wade and Phillips-'no Minister can shield himself by blaming his official'. And indeed, as Sir David Maxwell Fyfe himself observed, it is not true that 'Ministers are obliged to extend total protection to their officials and endorse their acts,' or that 'well justified criticism of civil servants cannot be made on a suitable occasion.' But it is clear from the cases to be cited below ...
And he provides us with several examples on page 381 ... [English]
-that Ministers do not have to defend subordinates who defy instructions or who act reprehensibly in circumstances of which the Minister
95570 - 3514

June 22, 1976
Ministerial Responsibility
could not have become aware. It is equally clear that Ministers have defended themselves by blaming their officials and firing them. And it is also true that the House does not censure the Minister who can show that the delinquency was against his express instructions, or that he could not physically have known of it-provided he makes it clear, by speech or action, that the offender has been dealt with and that therefore the delinquency is unlikely to recur.

And on page 381, he gives numerous examples of the same situation. Obviously, on a tendency ...


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow a question. Does he intend to deal in the course of his speech with the position of the member of the public service in Canada who has been named in the House of Commons by his minister and what remedies or what avenues or what redress for at least fair a hearing that a public servant is offered today? Does the hon. member intend to deal with that point?


Pierre De Bané: The hon. member has most certainly raised a very interesting point and if time permits, Mr. Speaker, I would be quite willing to discuss that.
We can say that generally there is a tendency to assume that, in politics, politicians are concerned with decisionmaking while civil servants deal with implementation. But I think that this distinction which was certainly worthwhile years ago is less and less appropriate nowadays. The best example I can think of is a conference held in Quebec City on June 2, 1976-barely three weeks ago-by professor Kenneth Kernaghan of Brock University entitled: Politics, policy and public servants: political neutrality revisited.
It is stated on page 7 of his document about the distinction we are trying to draw between politics and administration:

During the 1930's, writers on public administration who recognized the significant and growing political role of the bureaucracy lived uncomfortably with the text-book dichotomy between politics and administration. The dichotomy came under increasing attack during the war years as many scholars gained practical administrative experience in government. Shortly after the war, a number of political scientists launched a devastating assault on the notion that politics and administration were or could be separated. Among this group of postwar authors, Paul Appleby stands out for his defence of the proposition that 'public administration is policy making ... Public administration is one of a number of basic political processes.' In less celebrated and more broadly focused works than those written by American authors, British and Canadian writers demonstrated during this same period a growing recognition of the blurring of the traditional constitutional line between the politician and the administrator in the parliamentary system of government.

And on page 8, he adds . . .

Since the political role of public servants is attributed primarily to their contribution to policy development, much attention in the literature has focused on the intermingling of policy and administration. The conventional view that a clear division may be made between policy and administration has always been a fiction but has become increasingly untenable with the continuing growth of government activities and of administrative power.
[Translation]	.
And in my opinion this fiction is becoming even more obvious, if I may say so, when one sees the momentum

gaining process of government decentralization where more head offices and work units of the civil service and Crown agencies as well as government institutions are distributed across the country to allow people closer contact with the administration. In such cases, how can one argue that the ministerial responsibility must be borne by the minister for the least little action made within the department by one of his agents?
In the past, certain distinctions were made concerning the carrying out of actions that I would call normal, executive and administrative, where the ministerial responsibility is quite beyond involvement. The classical example is obviously that of a mailman who steals a letter he should be delivering. In such a case, nobody think of putting the responsibility on the minister who holds that portfolio.
But, as Professor Kernaghan said, where does the distinction lie when the administration has so expanded and become so complex that neither the minister nor his deputy nor even the assistant deputy minister can be aware of all important decisions that are taken within their own department? The best example is control by parliamentarians since, according to the current theory, hon. members not only pass estimates but exercise control over expenditures as well.
More and more, and this has been the case for several decades, no one is fooled by this so-called control of parliamentarians over public expenditures. When one considers that 264 parliamentarians must control expenditures of billions of dollars made by hundreds of federal agencies and institutions, by hundreds of thousands of public servants, one may think that this control is also becoming
ever more fictitious.	.
And I think we should make a case for an evolving theory that would be summed up in the following way: ministers are responsible for the development of their department's policy, they are collectively tied by decisions made by one of their collegues in the cabinet when it comes to the matter of management, when public servants may unknowingly fail to exercise judgment or take action without their minister's knowledge. Under the latter aspect, namely taking decisions that emanate from policies, I suggest the theory rapidly grows into fiction which is far removed from reality. Where is a minister's responsibility when, for instance, to refer to a conventional example, an inmate is released as a result of a collective decision by various people?
Let us recall the case of notary Geoffroy who had been convicted of murder and who had obtained from public servants the authorization to leave to get married. It was a total lack of judgment on the part of the officials who made that decision and according to the traditional doctrine, despite the fact that the minister had not taken part in the decision, he had to assume the responsibility for it. I believe, as Kenneth Galbraith would say, that ideas are conservative, but that facts are always there to demonstrate their absurdity and to contradict them at one time or another.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45, it is my duty, pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
June 22, 1976

every question necessary to dispose of the motion concerning the main estimates and the supplementary estimates (B) and for the passage through all stages of any bill based thereon.

The first question is on the motion of Mr. Baker (Gren-ville-Carleton). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.



Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, except those items disposed of at prior sittings, and less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 22, 1976
Estimates


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-93, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1977, be read the first time and be printed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: I would assume that the bill now having been read a first time and having been printed, it is available and has been distributed to hon. members.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-93, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1977, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 3 carry?
Clause 3 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 4 carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 5 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 6 carry?
Clause 6 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the schedule carry?


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?
Clause 1 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the bill carry?


[Stage Direction]
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1976-77-MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L27a, TREASURY BOARD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That Vote L27a, in the amount ol $5,000,000. of the Treasury Board, in respect of Loto Canada, in Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, be concurred in.


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to these supplementary estimates, vote L27a. This estimate deals with the establishment of Loto Canada. It sets out certain conditions for its operation. We in our party agree with the lottery and its purpose, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), when he appeared before the committee, gave an assurance that the last draw in this particular lottery, based on the current formula as prescribed in the bill, would be December, 1979, and that the annual reports would be referred to the committee each year. To a large extent this satisfies our reservations about Loto Canada. However, our general support for the substance does not alleviate our profound disquiet over the method of its presentation in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We contend that this is far more than an estimate; it is in fact a legislative measure. Instead of a description, we have a detailed, substantive proposition to which the House is asked to give its approval. This is a measure with all the elements of a bill; it establishes government control over the corporation, and sets out its purposes and structure as well as its finances.
The President of the Treasury Board has stated that the measure is presented in this way so that the House can express its opinion. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We are asked to express our opinion on a number of points forming part of a complex scheme, yet the actual vote is the only thing before us that can be amended. The minister is trying to get agreement to the detail of the scheme from the House without giving the House the corresponding right to examine that detail and to propose amendments which may be necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: To support our contention that this matter is not properly before the House, I would like to refer to three rulings. The first was made on March 10, 1971 On that occasion Mr. Speaker found that three items in Supplementary Estimates (C) for 1970-71 were clearly
June 22, 1976

legislative and improperly included in those supplementar-ies. I will quote from the part of the ruling that discussed dollar items in relation to the opportunity for debate in the House under Standing Order 58, because it has been suggested by the government House leader that Loto Canada could be subject to a debate and vote in the House on the initiative of the opposition on an allotted day. Mr. Speaker said:
Those members suggest that there is now no real opportunity for the consideration of such items by the House itself. That, of course, is not entirely correct since the new Standing Orders do provide for such an opportunity, albeit restricted, under the terms of Standing Order 58. Clearly the Standing Orders do provide the machinery for the consideration by the House itself of specific items in the estimates to which the opposition might take exception. However, this opportunity is undoubtedly limited and depends very much on the number of allotted supply days which might still be available by virtue of Standing Order 58. In other words, under the old rules there was unlimited time to consider supplementary estimates, including items intended to amend statutes. Under the new rules there may be only a limited time to consider supplementary estimates.
That, indeed, is the relevant point. In the case before us only two such days were left when the estimate was reported back to this House. Mr. Speaker went on to say:
Is the difference between the two situations so substantial that the past practice of allowing statutory dollar items in the supplementary estimate should now be disallowed? Should the very limited time allotted by Standing Order 58 be restricted to the consideration of what is strictly supply? There is much to be said to support an affirmative answer to these questions.
Then Mr. Speaker went on to endorse that reasoning, and specifically establish the precedent that legislative items should come in as bills and not as supplementary estimates.
The same reasoning applied on December 10, 1973, when supplementary estimate dollar items, back in the House for final approval, were declared out of order. In confirming the previous ruling Mr. Speaker stated:
-the dollar legislative item is just that-it is legislation by way of a dollar item in the estimates and I think it is not a practice which ought to be condoned and supported by the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Later on Mr. Speaker stated further:
I suggest that if such justification were put forward, it would have to be based on an emergency rather than on principle. The Chair has to make a ruling on principle, and on this basis I would have to say that these three specific items are not properly before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Vote L27a in Supplementary Estimates (A) is a slightly different dollar item in that the dollar actually is used in a purchase, but this purchase is a subterfuge to secure ipso facto House approval for the creation of a corporation. This approval would normally be sought through legislation.
The final ruling to which I would like to refer is March 26, 1974. On this occasion Mr. Speaker rejected the argument that the provision of money for the Food Prices Review Board was legislative in nature. I quote part of that ruling because it puts succinctly what must be proven in this particular case. Mr. Speaker stated:
I agree with him that Parliament cannot legislate by estimates, but on looking at this particular item I do not see what act it claims to
Estimates
amend or in what way it seeks to establish a legislative principle, or to legislate, to put it simply.
What I am contending is not that the estimate amends a bill other than an appropriation act, but that, more serious still, it asks the House to approve in detail, in a legislative fashion, the establishemnt of a company, its purposes and the benefits of some of its staff. In other words, it simply legislates.
When an estimate goes so far as not only to say what the money is allocated for, but how the proceeds of the corporation it is being lent to will be divided up, and what the financial position of civil servants will be, we have a detailed enactment, not a description. Either this is a legislative enactment or all the other estimates before us tonight have been inadequately described.
It has been contended that most of the things done here can be done by Order in Council anyway. These are the words of the President of the Treasury Board. That may be, although I do not believe that generalization applies to the last clause concerning public servants. This still does not mean that this form is proper.
The fact that the government has two options does not justify its inventing a third. Things intended to be part of statute law should be introduced as bills, even if their purpose could also be pursued, in whole or in part, by an Order in Council. If this type of estimate legislation stands as a precedent, then the next time it is tried it might take the form of legislative action which could not be done by Order in Council. We will have created a legislative form which offers governments speed as well as immunity from parliamentary scrutiny.
This point is raised. Mr. Speaker, not to throw out the lottery, with the general purposes of which we are in agreement, but to allow us the normal input which would be our right if legislation were before us. If you find that this estimate is not properly before the House I would be willing to consult with the minister and his colleagues, as are other members of our party, as to the form and progress of any bill that the President of the Treasury Board may wish to introduce before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has given some advance notice of his interest in this subject and his objection on similar grounds to the presentation of this measure in this fashion, I must indicate that I have some difficulty in accepting the precedents relating to one dollar items in the past because they are artificial in both form and substance in that they do not represent legitimate spending estimates. The amount here represents a legitimate spending estimate and is a departure from the one dollar estimate, as stated accurately by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).
There is another distinction, that is, that separate and apart from the introduction of this item in the estimates is the legislative authority or licence for the establishment by the federal government of a lottery under the Criminal Code, and therefore again it is not the breaking of new ground to introduce it in the estimates in the legislative

June 22, 1976
Estimates
sense but rather is the approval by parliament of what is approved in another statute.
I say that, to make sure that hon. members who speak on this important point of order will address themselves to those questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support wholeheartedly the point raised by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and I hope I may be permitted to commend him on the excellent case he has made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have studied the same precedents that the hon. member has quoted, but since he has put them on the record I will not re-quote them. I would simply like to sum up what he said by way of referring to those precedents by saying that he brought them to the correct conclusion, in quoting the words of Mr. Speaker, that the government cannot legislate by estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: This estimate does not establish Loto Canada. The government has already done that under legislation under which it can set up corporations. So it does not establish Loto Canada, but it does lay down some of the conditions which will apply to Loto Canada. If that is not legislation, I draw the attention of the Chair in particular to the last couple of paragraphs of the item, which are preceded by the significant words "to deem" and "to provide," and I suggest that in those paragraphs, which relate to the Government Employees Compensation Act, the Aeronautics Act, and the right of persons employed by Loto Canada to have vacation leave, sick leave, and all the things which go to public servants, this item is legislating to an extent which is greater, I say, than is the case with many bills which are brought before this House.
So the fact that it is $5 million instead of one dollar does not set aside the argument. The items of legislation are just tacked on-and I use that word because of a quotation I shall produce in a moment-to get them through. The $5 million is in itself incidental. In fact the President of the Treasury Board said that he was doing it this way so that at least it could be discussed in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, but I ask Your Honour to read it again, as I know you must have done already several times.
I ask hon. members in the House to read the item L27a, which takes a page and a quarter in the bill which is now before us, and no one can deny the fact that it is a piece of legislation. It does not establish Loto Canada, but it sets out conditions which it will observe, and it amends in effect, legislation such as the Government Employees Compensation Act, the Aeronautics Act, and certain provisions having to do with employment in the public service.
I come back to the pronouncement from the Chair to which Your Honour has agreed, namely, that the government does not have the right to legislate by using the estimates.
I said that there was something else from which I wanted to quote. I add this to the excellent quotations which were given by the hon. member for Vegreville.
I have in my hand a letter which was addressed to me on March 24, 1950, by the then auditor general of Canada, Mr. Watson Sellar. I suggest that that name, to anyone who was around a few years ago or to anyone who knows the history of the public service, stands very high. This is a letter which he wrote in response to a request I made to him, with which he enclosed a copy of a memorandum he presented to a committee of the other place. I suppose I have to expect a few catcalls along the way if I read from something which was brought to light in the other place, but at least it was brought to light by a distinguished public servant, Mr. Watson Sellar. This was a memorandum on estimates and the various issues that arise in dealing with them. There were in it two or three para-

June 22, 1976

graphs, Nos. 8, 9 and 10 under the heading "Vote Texts That Legislate".
If I may abbreviate it, Mr. Speaker, he said in these paragraphs that the practice of legislating by means of items in an appropriation act is a matter of particular constitutional concern. He spoke not only of dollar items but of any items that were legislative in character, any items that had tacked on to them matters that should be brought in by way of bills. In discussing the matter he said at one point:
Legislating by means of an Appropriation Act is a convenience when a need is transitory. Furthermore, it avoids cluttering the statute books with expired legislation. But from the constitutional viewpoint, it is open to the objection that it is, in fact, incomplete legislation ...
He was addressing himself particularly to the problems facing the Senate because he was giving this memorandum in the Senate. He said later on that if the Senate is sent a supply bill which has in it matters which are legislative, it should ask that those legislative sentences be struck out and put in another bill. Here are his exact words:
If other matters are inserted in the bill or "tacked to it"-
That is the phrase I used in anticipation a while ago.
-these should be struck out and be made into a separate bill or bills.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly what we have here. We have a supplementary item for $5 million. That is money. That is a proper subject for a supplementary estimate. The purpose of that $5 million is to make a loan to Loto Canada so that it can get started.
May I say parenthetically, Mr. Speaker-it does not need to be said because the House knows where I stand, but it should be put on the record-unlike my hon. friend I have no use for this national lottery at all. If this goes forward my colleagues and I shall be voting against it in its entirety. However, that does not deny me the right to argue that it should not be before us as an estimate at all.
Later in this memorandum Mr. Sellar says that a vote text which deals with a matter which normally should be proceeded with by a bill should be handled by a bill.
In light of all that, look again at what is in this supplementary estimate L27a. It is a money item. It is not just a dollar put in by way of subterfuge. It is real money, $5 million to get Loto Canada going, but there has been tacked on, and incidentally the government did not need the bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am having considerable difficulty in hearing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I wonder if I might be permitted to hear the conclusion of his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was trying to say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill has in it something that is legitimate as an estimate, namely, a request for $5 million to lend to Loto Canada. But there has been tacked on to it things that are legislative in character. The government did not need to bring in this bill to create Loto Canada. It
Estimates
has done this by order in council. It did not need to bring in this bill to establish some of the conditions-who will run it, the officers, how the directors will meet and all that, but it has tacked on to this $5 million some conditions about the money that will be raised out of this state lottery. It has tacked onto it items which are in effect legislative in that they amend some of the other statutes of Canada.
I submit that if the government can get away with this, it can do almost everything by including a matter in the supplementary estimates, and then shipping it off to the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. The government tacks onto an item in the estimates other items of a legislative character and, in the process, completely avoids debate on the matter on the floor of the House of Commons.
We have argued in the past about the impropriety of dollar items in the estimates. I can remember the father of the present hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) telling us that supply bills were legislation; so, why were we kicking about dollar items? He had a bit of a case then, because supply bills were debated on the floor of the House. Now they are not so debated. By using the device of tacking legislative items on to an estimate, the government can avoid debate on the floor of the House.
Earlier in this parliament Your Honour had to rule out of order clause 5 of an appropriation bill precisely because under the new rules there was no opportunity to debate something which was in clause 5 and which had not been included in the notice.


An hon. Member:: You have had all day to debate legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend opposite still thinks there is merit to the government argument that we can use an opposition day to discuss their legislation.


John Edward Broadbent: That is ridiculous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This side is not the government; the hon. member's side is. His side is responsible for bringing its legislation before parliament in the proper way. I submit, along with the hon. member for Vegreville, that this is not the case with this supplementary estimate.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I say I am thoroughly and totally opposed to the federal government's using its right that was put in the Criminal Code-although some of us voted against it-to hold state lotteries. We are opposed to this national lottery, although that is a separate issue on which we can express ourselves when this estimate comes to a vote. I contend tonight that the government does not have the right to legislate by using the estimates. In my submission Your Honour should find that the item now before the House is out of order.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, commenting on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) you rightly pointed out that we are not dealing with a dollar item. We are dealing with the request for a loan of $5 million to be put at the disposal of Loto Canada for working capital. You drew attention to what
14794

June 22, 1976
Estimates
you think are the important issues, namely, whether the item which is in the estimates and the bill now before the House are a proper use of the supply procedure for legislative purposes. This was the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I draw attention to the fact that many programs are approved, not by separate statute, but by items in the estimates. Indeed, if we look at the main estimates which have just been approved, and the bill based on them which has just been approved by this House, we shall see several items of that character. For example, I draw attention to Vote L25, of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, concerning the General Adjustment Assistance Program. That has its legislative foundation in this item in the estimates. No other legislation is required. Also, consider Vote L15 coming under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion concerning community and industrial infrastructure development. This item in the estimates forms the foundation of this program; no other legislative authority is required.
I also refer Your Honour in these particular estimates which have just been approved by the House to Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Vote L15, dealing with the Indian housing assistance program. These are established as an item in the estimates as approved and carried forward in the appropriation bill. All these give the government authority for programs for which there is not other specific legislative sanction.
It may be that there can be a preference on the part of the government, or of the opposition, as to whether any particular program should be expressed in the form of a bill or bills brought before the House in the ordinary way, or as an item in the estimates.
The point that is before you, Mr. Speaker, seems to be whether in fact a procedure is being followed which has been approved in the past and which is founded upon sound legislative practice.
The only grounds for objection to the legislative impact of an item in the estimates is when the primary purpose of that item is to amend an existing statute other than the Appropriation Act. The rulings on this are quite clear. The classic ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on March 10, 1967, quite clearly distinguished between items amending other statutes and items whose effects, although clearly legislative, do not amend existing statute law. The key portion reads:
-such proposals, when they are clearly intended to amend existing legislation, should come to the House by way of an amending bill rather than as an item in the supplementary estimates.
In conclusion may I suggest that the creation of Loto Canada is authorized by the Corporations Act and by the Criminal Code. Second, the provision of start-up money to the corporation and the authorization of payments does not amend any existing statute. Finally, and I hope this will be Your Honour's view, there is a strong and irrefutable argument that Vote L27a is entirely in order, and so is the bill based upon it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if we are to adopt in this House the reasoning just put forward by

the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), especially his last point, then we are to admit the complete abandonment of any reason at all for a bill such as the one we just dealt with a few moments ago, or a bill of this nature. If we are to say that parliament is to approve all these things without customary debate and to use as the basis for it the Criminal Code of Canada, it is a sorry day for the legislative rights and the rights of this parliament.
The other point that he raised was with respect to a number of programs which he cited as precedents. The first program that he cited as a precedent for this happened to be an emergency program which, as I understand it, would perhaps be one of the exceptions under the ruling that was made in 1973. Surely that does not apply here. There does not seem to be any particular emergency about this that could not be satisfied by a bill before parliament which could be dealt with in the normal way.
The second example which he cited in support of this dealt with an established program under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. That may be a sound precedent. I do not argue that point. However, it is certainly not a sound precedent for what the government is trying to do here, which is a completely new program.
I think the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) ought to be complimented with respect to the argument he has presented. I suggest he has put the case for a bill, a bill which we are prepared to deal with in a reasonable way. The support given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicates that he, too, is prepared for a bill. I believe there ought to be a presumption, in any ruling Your Honour makes, against allowing such large sums of money to be passed through parliament so quickly without the usual trappings which are designed to permit the examination of programs of this nature.
I can quite appreciate the urgency of the matter as seen by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), but to say that this is an emergency, or to argue that this is an established program, or to use the Criminal Code as the basis for producing what really amounts to a brand new program by way of a supplementary estimate, is not an acceptable argument and I believe the view put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville ought to be upheld by Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point of order raised by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is a very important one, and it will come as no surprise to hon. members that the Chair has had an opportunity to anticipate it to some extent. The support given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was carefully noted; it conformed to many of the pronouncements and precedents which have been cited, as well as to others which have been referred to in the research done up to this point.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has presented a portion of the opposite case. I note that his parliamentary secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Francis) were also anxious to get into the debate, but I did not find it necessary to hear them at this time.
June 22, 1976

There seem to be two questions to be decided. The first is whether the method which has been followed in bringing before the House a matter which involves not only dollars and cents but a question of principle is a desirable one. If we do adhere to the theory that a vote on second reading is a vote for or against the principle of a bill, then certainly it would have been preferable for such a matter as this, which involves not only money but a question of principle, to have been brought before the House in the form of a bill in order to allow hon. members to address themselves at one and the same time to the question of whether or not money should be voted to set up a lottery, and, further, to whether or not in principle the federal government should be involved in a scheme of this sort at the present time. However, that involves the question of the desirability of such a course being followed. The arguments of the three hon. members to my left who have contributed to the discussion made a strong case in this regard.
Nevertheless, what I have to decide is not whether it is a desirable course, but whether it is a legal course in terms of our procedures, in other words, whether it is permissible. It is not proper to compare it with a one-dollar item in the estimates because these are technical in every sense of the word. Neither is it proper to attempt to compare this particular case with cases which have been argued rather ably in the past and which led to difficulty with respect to a supply bill because it contained a borrowing clause.
I say this because the borrowing clause problem surfaced only at the time the supply bill was presented. This item is fundamentally different inasmuch as it was tabled as an estimate a month ago and is therefore substantially different from the principle involved in a borrowing clause. In a situation such as this, I have to conclude that where legislative authority exists separate from the item in the estimates, and where that authority permits the establishment of the kind of corporation which is envisaged here, and indeed both the references to the Criminal Code and to the Corporations Act are supported and do in fact provide that authority, then what is happening is that the government is not coming to parliament for legislative authority to do something, but in fact possesses the legislative authority and is coming to parliament for the money to fund it.
Again I say the desirability of this course is open to severe question, and it would certainly be hoped that where a question of principle is involved in an urgent situation, such as that which has given rise to this course and this particular situation, it would be considered an extremely singular situation, and will not be repeated in the future.
However, I do have to find and rule that in fact the legislative authority exists separate and independent from the estimates, and therefore what is sought in the estimates, the item before the House, is the money to support that legislative action which exists independent from it. In these circumstances I have to conclude that there is no legal bar to proceeding in that fashion.
The question is therefore on the motion of Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Sharp:
Estimates
That Vote L27a, in the amount of $5 million of the Treasury Board, in respect of Loto Canada, in Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might ask hon. members whether, the attendance being what it is in the circumstances, and due to the lateness of the hour, hon. members would be prepared to dispense with the ringing of the bells, or perhaps agree to a short five-minute bell. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion car		
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-94, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1977 be read the first time and be printed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-94, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1977, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall I report the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill reported.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-94, for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1977, be now read a third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. [Translation]
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed on division.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after 10 o'clock, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 11.23 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 23, 1976