1976-03-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that in spite of the government's anti-inflation measures, inflation continues to play havoc with the economy of every region of this country, especially in the food sector, considering also that the Anti-Inflation Board's decisions contribute to reducing the purchasing power of Canadian workers faced with soaring prices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House consider the advisibility of abolishing the Anti-Inflation Board, which will cost more than $13 million in 1976 while jeopardizing the social peace of our country, and consider the implementation of measures proposed by the Social Credit as expounded in Bill C-328, An Act to provide for emergency measures to deal with the inflation of prices.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important and urgent matter.
Considering the very alarming unemployment increase in Quebec, particularly in the eastern area of the province, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House recommend to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that at the time of the Ottawa-Quebec agreement, account should be taken of the disastrous economic conditions in the South Shore area, and that the economic needs of this area be mentioned in this agreement in order that the area might benefit from it and the number of its unemployed people be reduced.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of National Defence. I wish he would get here on time. In any event in his absence I will direct them to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence told the House that there have been conversations by telephone "with my deputy minister" on the subject of financing the Lockheed LRPA purchase contract. Outside the House the minister appeared to be rather confused over the substance and nature of those conversations but indicated both inside and outside the House that the telephone conversations involving his deputy minister concerned financial aid to the company as well. Would the Prime Minister confirm the substance of these conversations; that is, would they constitute an attempt on behalf of Reisman and Grandy Limited to establish financing terms for the LRPA contract.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was not a party to these conversations. I think the best thing would be to take note of the question on behalf of the minister or to ask him a little later when he is in the House.


Walter David Baker: I would have hoped that, as a result of the minister's statements yesterday, he would have made himself aware of what those contacts were. In any event, the minister stated outside the House

March 25, 1976
Oral Questions
that he believed the other party to the conversation was in fact Mr. Reisman. That was a statement made downstairs. I wonder if the Prime Minister would be in a position to confirm that Mr. Reisman was in fact the other party in the conversations with Deputy Minister Nixon and, further, which party initiated these calls?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will inquire.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-DATE OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN REISMAN AND DEPUTY MINISTER-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CONTRACTS WITH REISMAN AND GRANDY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of these matters, and in view of the effect that such communications might very well have on a purchase contract such as the one which we are talking about, would the Prime Minister also confirm whether these conversations took place before the contract was announced on November 27, 1975 or was it during the period immediately following the announcement in which the financial difficulties emerged, and further, would the Prime Minister table all the contracts Reisman and Grandy had with the government since they retired and, as well, whatever additional correspondence or documentation there is which spells out the terms of reference of these contracts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday in so far as the departments were concerned. I also said that no such contract had been entered into. I indicated yesterday that there had been two very short term contractual arrangements with two departments, and that is the extent of my knowledge. I also stated to the Leader of the Opposition that the matter was being looked into and that I would report when I had the facts.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister is looking into the matter of former senior civil servants being employed shortly after retirement as consultants to the government, would the right hon. gentleman also consider the propriety of retired civil servants acting commercially as consultants on government matters, and who are at the same time directors of Crown corporations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will look at that also, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday in the House, and I think on other occasions as well, the minister was questioned with regard to requests to the United States government for detailed information on bribes offered by Lockheed with regard to purchases of aircraft. The minister replied that he had had conversations with senior officials of the United States government. I should like now to ask him whether he or any other representative of the government have adopted or will adopt the procedure indicated by the justice department of the United States, namely, that foreign governments should negotiate with the justice department to obtain information gathered by U.S. agencies such as SEC in regard to so called "overseas pay-offs" by U.S. concerns?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have said that I do not believe we should have an investigation until there is something that we should be investigating. The hon. member is suggesting a kind of witch hunt-


An hon. Member:: Not a witch hunt, fact finding.


James Armstrong Richardson: In the Senate hearings there was a full disclosure of the improper payments that the Lockheed company had made. The countries in which these payments had been made were named, and Canada was not mentioned at any time in those full hearings. I think that is all that we should expect. I do not think it is right to assume that there is wrongdoing when there is no evidence.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I should like to say to the minister that I for one am getting a little tired of these cover ups.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Many other countries have adopted the procedure suggested by the U.S. authorities, namely, they have gone to the justice department and are seeking information. What is the reason that this minister is not prepared to do the same as they are doing? He could keep the answer confidential, as far as I know, but why does he not find out what the facts are?


James Armstrong Richardson: The other countries which are seeking information were named at the Senate hearing, and they had a reason to investigate.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I had slipped in a question which I had not expected to ask, but I will now go on to my last question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Did you get an answer to it?


Francis Andrew Brewin: No answer.


Mr. Nystrom:: I wish he would slip in an answer.
March 25, 1976


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-SUGGESTED TERMINATION OF CONTRACT AND PURCHASE OF OTHER MAKE OF AIRCRAFT
Francis Andrew Brewin: I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of the total history of this matter and the fact that no agreement has actually been made-and there is no assurance of delivery if an agreement is made-the government will terminate negotiations with Lockheed and seek the necessary long-range patrol aircraft through refitting the Argus or in some other manner.


James Armstrong Richardson: That is not our present intention.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I shall put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. *
As last night over the CBC's French network news bulletin the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion stated that the Ottawa-Quebec agreement on the eastern part of Quebec would lapse on March 31, 1976 but would be renewed any day now, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the south shore between Levis and Rimous-ki will be included in this agreement or whether it will be covered by special agreement, as requested by municipal councils and other groups?

Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works following up questions regarding the confrontation issue raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Yesterday the Minister of Public Works admitted that he had consulted some of his colleagues in cabinet on the question of confrontation which he raised with Mr. Justice Hugessen. He stated further that he would try to get some precise recollection about whom he talked to before he approached Mr. Justice Hugessen. Has the minister succeeded in recollecting with whom he discussed this matter, and will he now give us the names of his colleagues?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have read over the question and answer of yesterday, and it is apparent that there was some confusion in my mind as to whether we were talking about the rumour or the confrontation. I have been endeavouring to recollect where I had heard or might have heard this rumour, which I gave an undertaking to do. In so far as the hon. member for Vancouver South was seeking from me the names of my cabinet colleagues with whom I had discussed the issue generally or the nature of the law case, I think I cannot do better than repeat my previous position, that conversations as between cabinet colleagues should not be disclosed in answer to questions during the question period.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in fact the minister is in the process of discussing with his colleagues renewal of this agreement due to lapse soon. When an agreement has been approved by cabinet, its terms will be announced to hon. members.


PROPOSED DECENTRALIZATION OF INDUSTRY TO FAVOUR UNDERDEVELOPED REGIONS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for his answer and put a supplementary to him.
As several political personalities have expressed, these last few years, a wish for industrial decentralization, may I ask if his government intends to encourage it further to the advantage of the underdeveloped or developing regions where skilled labour already exists to meet the needs of new industries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to the extent where the question deals with industrial decentralization, I shall convey to the minister the representations and arguments of the hon. member. With regard to the decentralization of government services, that matter concerns the President of the Treasury Board who has already made very helpful decisions for the province of Quebec in that regard.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I submit that is a lot of nonsense-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -because yesterday the Minister of Public Works stated, regardless of whether he is talking about confrontation or ganging up, in no uncertain terms:
Mr. Speaker, I have no very clear recollection but I thought I probably did mention this to some of my other colleagues in cabinet.
I just want to tell the minister that the hon. member for Vancouver South-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ALLEGEDLY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS OF MR. DRURY CONCERNING GANGING UP ON FRENCH SPEAKING MINISTERS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my second question and I hope the minister will be able to answer this, is that on Thursday of last week the Minister of Public Works stated:
... it is difficult to ascribe a precise source to baseless rumours.
He was referring to the alleged ganging up of the English-speaking establishment against prominently placed

March 25, 1976
Oral Questions
French-speaking persons. However, La Presse of March 17 stated-


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, apparently in the House, regarding the ganging up, the minister advised that this was a baseless rumour while outside he stated, according to La Presse, that the matter came from the hon. member for Papineau, which is a contradiction. Can the minister explain this obvious contradiction between statements inside the House which describe the rumours as baseless and statements outside the House which pinpoint the precise source of such rumours as the hon. member for Papineau?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the so-called statements outside the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister now advise this House whether in fact the question regarding the ganging up stemmed from the hon. member for Papineau or not? Can he assure the House of this or not?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. gentleman is driving at.


Walter David Baker: He is driving at the whole truth.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: He is asking me, it seems, to reveal the substance of a conversation with a cabinet colleague. On a number of occasions I have stated-and I think I am right-that those conversations should not be disclosed, should not be published.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If he is asking me something else I do not quite understand what it is.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services regarding the LRPA contract. Could the minister indicate to the House whether interim financing has been arranged as of today and if so, in what amount? If not, can the minister give us some indication whether it will be achieved before April 1?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this question is still under discussion.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBILITY OF PRICE INCREASE AFTER APRIL 1
J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister, who is responsible for the writing of this contract, give some indication to the House of what the situation will be on April 1 should the contract not be signed? In other words, will the price of the LRPA program increase by about 15 per cent after April 1?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer the hon. member's question, which is purely hypothetical. I think I cannot give more details to the hon. member at the moment.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? As the Prime Minister told me on October 30, in the House, that he would refer to the Privy Council and the Department of Finance for study my suggestion for paying productivity incentives in direct proportion to productivity gains, as incentives for greater productivity in industry, which would make our products competitive; and as, on February 4, nearly two months ago, the Prime Minister promised to make a statement soon, but has not made a statement in the House on the matter, may I ask if he has lost interest in this important matter, particularly as most economists agree that there can be no real recovery, and the AIB program will not succeed, unless industrial productivity increases substantially. Will he tell the House if he intends to make a statement, and when?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agreed at the outset that the hon. member was asking an important question, one to which we made explicit references in the white paper published on October 14. Since then a few studies have been progressing and the committee I referred to, the interdepartmental committee, is looking at a whole series of proposed programs. One has to do with the nature of Canadian productivity problems, another is on opportunities for productivity improvement; another is for the preliminary identification of policies and programs to exploit those opportunities.
Other studies have been initiated in other areas. They include the Canadian historical record of productivity growth; the improvement of the measurement of productivity; the measurement of productivity in the public service; regional development programs and productivity performance.
Studies have been undertaken in other areas which are directly related to productivity, such as-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
March 25, 1976


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I am aware that these studies are not expected to be presented to cabinet for consideration for at least another six months, which means that one year will have passed since I brought to the Prime Minister's attention the need for productivity incentives to increase industrial productivity, which is the key to the whole matter, and as it is obvious that the Prime Minister, who is delaying, is determined to take over Sir John A. MacDonald's title, "Old tomorrow", may I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for N orthumberland-Durham.


George Harris Hees: -if the Prime Minister does not realize that since our convention of a few weeks ago, and in view of the government's recent bad performance, his "tomorrows" are disappearing at a rapidly accelerating rate?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence is in the House, may I direct a question to him about the Reisman and Grandy affair. Yesterday the minister suggested that no representations had been made on behalf of the Lockheed company but that there had been conversations concerning the contract. In fairness to the minister, the matter may involve semantics rather than an attempt to mislead the House. I am sure that, in fulfilling his responsibilities, he knew specifically and definitely what was said by whom to whom. Will he now tell us exactly what those conversations were about? Who said what to whom?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the conversations with my deputy minister, which took place by telephone, were in the new year and they took place after the decision by cabinet to purchase the Lockheed long-range patrol aircraft. As far as I am aware, they concerned financing and how that financing might best be achieved. I do not think it is possible to provide details of these conversations without a much more careful examination of the individuals concerned.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF APPOINTMENT OF REISMAN AND GRANDY AS CONSULTANTS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It seems that we are drawing a fine distinction in language between representation and conversations. May I ask the minister if either he or the Prime Minister knew that Mr. Reisman-and I gather Mr. Reisman was on the other end of the telephone line talking about the announcement of this particular contract-was actually on a retainer from the Lockheed company.
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I did not know of the conversations, as you would know from my reply a day or two ago. I had no personal knowledge that conversations had taken place. I was aware, because it was not in any way a secret, that the firm of Reisman and Grandy had been appointed as consultants to Lockheed. I was aware of that as of a fairly short time ago, but I was not aware that any conversations had taken place.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of recent reports that four major copper companies in Canada have raised their prices by about 5 per cent from 63 cents to 66 cents a pound. In view of the indications that the rise in price is the result of increases in the international price for copper rather than an increase in costs, and in light of the fact this increase in price is likely to work its way into the cost structure of the economy as a whole in coming weeks, what action does the minister intend to take immediately rather than wait for the Anti-Inflation Board to examine the quarterly reports of these companies which may take weeks or months, especially with the huge backlog facing the Anti-Inflation Board?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we indicated with respect to certain of the basic commodities, copper being the example, which trades, as it is said on a sawtooth market, that we were not applying the same criteria with regard to cost pass through that would apply with respect to other commodities. Indeed, 53 cents a pound was the price that had been prevailing for much of the early part of this year. Most of the copper in Canada was probably being sold at less than the cost of production. We should indeed look at the returns in the industry over a longer period and not apply strictly the cost pass-through formula. In that sense, the copper industry and other base metal industries would be treated in a different form than other companies in Canada with, however, the over-all restriction on profits that would apply, but over a longer period.


Max Saltsman: In view of the fact that in 1974 Noranda, for example, had earnings of $155 million whereas in 1975 it had earnings of $50 million and in 1973 of some $121 million, if it is subject to a proviso that earnings will have to be 95 per cent of the average for the base year, it will be able to raise copper prices sky-high before being caught by any form of regulations the minister is setting up. Can the minister assure the House that when he comes to looking at the permissible profit and price levels of companies like Noranda, he will take into account the result of unjustifiable windfall profits over the last couple of years rather than use that as a way of determining what their profit should be in the future?

March 25, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of an averaging formula, to try to average out the different years and different experience.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Following the completion of the Canada Consulting Group report concerned with the CBC and its relations with its affiliates, will the minister ensure that this report will be made available to the House and that the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts will be asked to study it and make recommendations in this regard in order that members of parliament may have at least minimal participation in the elaboration of the general CBC policy as it applies to its affiliates and as it affects its monstrous budget?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have to take under advisement the status of the report. However, that certainly does not prevent the hon. member and other members of the broadcasting committee from discussing with the president of the corporation its affiliate policy. I know the CBC would be quite willing to discuss the matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the takeover of the junta in Argentina, can the minister advise the House if he has received a report from the Canadian embassy as to the security of Canadians in Argentina and the protection of property owned by Canadians?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We had a report yesterday from our ambassador who has informed us that our chancery is operating in a normal way and that there has not been any report of danger to Canadian citizens or Canadian property.


ARGENTINA-POSSIBILITY OF RECOGNITION OF NEW GOVERNMENT-STATUS OF SALE OF CANDU REACTOR
Claude Wagner: Can the minister advise the House if the government is in the process of granting recognition to the military government now in power in Argentina? Also, in view of the obvious dangers of the unstable political situation, does the government

still wish to proceed with the sale of a CANDU reactor to that country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the embassy of Argentina has been in touch with us advising us of a new government of Argentina. Obviously, the question of recognition by Canada was in the mind of the Argentinian authorities. We have not yet extended recognition and we will do so when the normal criteria are fulfilled. With regard to the sale of a reactor, which is the subject of an intergovernmental agreement, these intergovernmental agreements are binding even though there may be a change of government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CUBA-SUGGESTED REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ARMED FORCES FROM AFRICA
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the breakdown of talks in Rhodesia, plus the statement by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that further aggression in Africa was unacceptable to the United States and the buildup of Soviet and Cuban forces in Mozambique which could lead to the outbreak of all out conflict in Rhodesia and other countries in Africa, will the Prime Minister express to Premier Castro of Cuba the concern of Canadians over the continued participation of his 12,000 troops in African conflict and will he request their withdrawal to Cuba in the interest of world peace?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to repeat publicly once again that we are opposed to all outside armed intervention on the African continent, whether it applies to Cuba or any other country.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I can appreciate the Prime Minister's concern. I can assure him it is a concern that is shared by all Canadians, according to correspondence which I and members of my party are receiving. I simply ask at this stage if the Prime Minister will express that concern to Premier Castro by asking him, in the interest of world peace-to withdraw his troops from Africa so there will not be a continued threat of aggression in that part of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Some members apparently are in agreement with this type of policy. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will give that request consideration.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I made such representations to Premier Castro a couple of months ago. I made them to him personally. I will give consideration to the hon. member's suggestion, but I think he flatters me if he thinks I can get Premier Castro to change his mind just by sending him a message when I was not able to do it by talking to him personally.
March 25, 1976


CONFERENCE BETWEEN COPPER PRODUCING AND CONSUMING COUNTRIES-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It deals with the conference going on in Geneva between the copper producing and copper consuming countries. Has the minister any report on the conference this week? In particular, will he inform the House who is the person representing Canada?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: On the second part of the question, I apologize. I meant to get this for the hon. member because he asked me privately the other day. I have not got the names of the participants. As to the first part of the question, I can say that the UNCTAD, or United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, has convened its meeting in Geneva and that we are taking an active part- that is to say, Canada is in the conference. In answer to an earlier initiative by the hon. member, let me tell him that the report I have says it is not likely a commodity agreement will be reached at this particular meeting, but it is expected considerable progress will be made toward a more rational approach to the production and supply problem. I will undertake to find out who the representatives are.


SUGGESTED RESTORATION OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the minister's answer which, I presume, means that the government is in favour of international commodity agreements, would the hon. gentleman, as the minister of trade, join with the United States and Australia in trying to restore the International Wheat Agreement because the grain farmers of the world have had no floor protection, now, for eight years?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I hope I did not convey the wrong impression, Mr. Speaker. I said the objective of the meeting was to discuss commodity agreements. The Canadian position on this subject is that there ought to be a producing as well as a consuming nation arrangement. This might be somewhat different from what the hon. gentleman has in mind. As to the question concerning the International Wheat Agreement, I should like to have some time in which to find out what is the current status of the agreement before trying to reply in detail.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It ran out.
*	* He


MEASURES TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF SWINE 'FLU
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and
Oral Questions
Welfare? In view of the possible imminent danger of a worldwide "swine 'flu" epidemic and the decision taken by the President of the United States in that connection I should like to ask what steps are being taken to ensure supplies of vaccine for the immunization of Canadians.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in communication with the American authorities for several weeks on that subject, as well as with the World Health Organization and health services in Great Britain. Unfortunately the vaccine as such does not exist now. It will have to be manufactured. In Canada, we have the capacity to produce a maximum of about 300,000 doses until next fall. We would have to get the surplus from abroad. We are currently in consultation with other countries to study this whole matter and I shall perhaps have something to add on that subject early next week.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Has the minister been in touch with the provincial ministers of health who are awaiting his announcement before deciding what to do?


Marc Lalonde: The officials of my department should already be in communication with provincial authorities; they have already been in communication with provincial authorities on this subject. If they have not, they will be before the end of the day.


POSSIBILITY OF PROGRAM SIMILAR TO UNITED STATES TO DEAL WITH SWINE 'FLU
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, considering that this illness can affect Canada as well as the United States, can we expect in Canada an announcement similar to the statement the President of the United States made yesterday?


Marc Lalonde: I would like to remind the hon. member that no case of this illness, of this virus, has been identified in Canada to date. As for the announcement I shall have to make on this subject, the hon. member should show some patience and wait till early next week. Even if I made an announcement today, this would change absolutely nothing. There is no vaccine at the present time.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another supplementary of the minister.
Unless I am mistaken, the minister is telling me that this does not affect Canada as gravely as the United States. I assume this epidemic will stop at the 49th parallel.


Marc Lalonde: I am afraid the hon. member did not understand my reply and I suggest that he read it carefully. He will then realize that all I said was that there has not yet been any identified case of that illness in Canada. The illness, the virus, is so far limited to a very restricted area of the United States, around Fort Dix, in New Jersey.

March 25, 1976
12136_____________________________
Oral Questions BILINGUALISM


PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF CARTWRIGHT
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Considering that the conclusions of the research which was carried out by Professor Cartwright of London's Western University, Ontario, on behalf of the Bilingual district Advisory Board, were released by the Secretary of State Department on March 23, 1976, and considering that in the five year census which will be taken in May, the working language will not be on the list of questions asked, against the recommendations of the B and B Commission, will the President of the Treasury Board tell the House whether or not he intends to refer the result of Professor Cartwright's conclusions to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts so that the issue of the survival of French minorities in Ontario and New Brunswick may be discussed?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this question was considered within the government during the present study on the report of the commission, although it has not yet been decided to proceed immediately with bilingual districts. We hope to do so very shortly. Of course, we shall then take Professor Cartwright's comments into account.


CRITERIA USED TO SELECT DEALERS TO IMPORT EGGS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question, if I may, to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As a result of the government decision to double the number of United States eggs imported into Canada, a situation appears to be developing in which the egg import regulations will allow a number of selected egg importers in Canada to share in an annual profit of between $600,000 and $1,000,000. Can the minister describe to the House the criteria used to select the Ontario dealers who will share in this profit? It is understood that at present these licences are approved by one individual, this individual being an official in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I, too, saw the news report and have asked for a detailed explanation. I understand, from a casual explanation which has been provided to me, that permits are allocated on the basis of the historic trade pattern to importers who have been in the business in the past, and that there is a surplus wich is allocated on a first come, first served basis. I shall let the hon. member have the details. I might add, though, that I am looking into this whole arrangement. If the quantity is substantially higher, then, conceivably, we ought to increase the number of people who participate.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services or to the Minister of National Defence-it is supplementary to a question asked yesterday by the member for Grenville-Carleton. In view of the fact that Computing Devices of Canada have allegedly lost a contract for supplying computer terminals can the minister advise whether or not the officers in the Samson program office had advised Computing Devices of Canada that they did not need any terminals until September of this year, although it was later?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the contract entered into by Computing Devices of Canada was cancelled because the company did not fulfill its obligations with respect to both the date of delivery and the price indicated in the tender, which it wanted to have revised, a request which is absolutely unacceptable.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I appreciate the details which the minister has been able to provide. I am inquiring as to whether or not the Samson program office at any time, even though there may have been a delay in the contract, said to Computing Devices: We do not need the terminals until September, 1976?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire about this situation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the United Nations have passed a resolution outlawing trade in Namibian goods and in view of the fact that these goods are still entering Canada legally, since Canada has not ratified or consented to the UN motion, may I ask when is it Canada's intention to concur in the UN motion-or is it the intention to continue to permit entry of Namibian goods?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the only sanctions that Canada had accepted within the United Nations system, of course, are the sanctions that applied to Rhodesia, and there have been no such sanctions applied with regard to trade with Namibia.
March 25, 1976


INCOME TAX
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. I understand that a couple of weeks ago at a meeting of national church leaders with the Prime Minister concerning tax writeoffs being granted to Falcon-bridge Nickel as a result of investments in Namibia it was decided to refer the matter of these benefits to the Department of National Revenue for review and decision. I wonder whether the minister could report when we may have some action in respect of Falconbridge?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss it with my officials and try to get back to the hon. member sometime today and give him an exact time.


FEED GRAIN-POSSIBILITY OF PLEBISCITE ON MARKETING SYSTEM IN VIEW OF MINISTER'S PROMISE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the promise he made in May, 1974, that he would have a plebiscite on marketing of domestic feed grains within one year of the inception of the program, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture yesterday said he was not aware of that promise, and that the promise is now one year overdue, I would ask the minister whether he is going to keep the promise and, if so, when are we going to have the plebiscite?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated prior to this time to farm organizations and farmers that not all parts of the feed grain program are in place yet and, in addition, the very unusual marketing conditions for grain have made it somewhat difficult to assess the program. I have not, therefore, arrived at a decision as to the time it would be appropriate.


POSSIBILITY OF MARKETING ALL GRAINS THROUGH WHEAT BOARD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Food Prices Review Board has commissioned a study on the futures market and has concluded that the marketing of grain on the open market means lower prices for producers and higher prices and costs to consumers, I wonder whether the minister is reconsidering the policy and now intends to bring all grains under the purview of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the question.
Oral Questions


BARLEY-LOSSES RESULTING FROM WIDE SPREAD BETWEEN PRICES FOR TWO GRADES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO COMPENSATE
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked the acting minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board the following question which he took as notice, and I wonder if the minister can answer it for me today:
Many farmers are annoyed at the fact that in the 1974-75 crop year when they shipped cars of barley for malting, one car would be graded 2CW and the next No. 1 feed, yet both cars ended up for malting. Then, this year the final payments of 99 cents per bushel for 2CW and 18 cents for No. 1 feed were announced. Can the acting minister tell the House what the government plans to do to compensate the farmers for this unrealistic spread in the final payments between 2CW barley and No. 1 feed which amounted to losses of $2,000 per car for many farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member has in his hands a two-page letter which details the situation and which indicates that there are two parts to the problem in respect of the differences in final payments last year. One of these problems, it is hoped, will be cured by the creation of a separate malting barley pool, and a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act is before the House. The other problem relates to the fact that the barley originally selected is reclassed as feed and goes into the regular feed pool, and then later on, as the Wheat Board sells barley, it may well sell that barley for malting in a year when there is a great shortage of malting barley. This is a matter of internal Wheat Board distribution of grains. Those farmers who received a final payment for additional barley shared in the amount that was available from that barley sold as malting.


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, hopefully Bill C-88 will correct this situation in the future, but could the minister tell me what his plans are to compensate the farmers for the severe losses they suffered in the 1974-75 crop year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have no plans at all. For a number of years I had discussions with farm organizations on the question of a separate pool for malting barley, but they were generally not very receptive to the idea and, therefore, we did not move to create a separate pool. About a year ago when they indicated they had changed their position and would accept a separate pool we immediately made a move in that direction and put a bill before the House.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker,
I gave notice to the Minister of Justice of this question regarding a matter I have asked about before, namely, the Keith Latta case. Now that the meeting with departmental officials of both the federal Justice Department and the Attorney General of Alberta, on March 10 last, has been held in reference to the Latta murder case, when will the minister be in a position to make a ministerial decision
21804-7%

March 25, 1976
Oral Questions
regarding a new trial for Mr. Latta, particularly in view of the fact that he may have been wrongfully convincted because of a signed statement by Miss Sylvia McCauley, who later married the jury foreman, which statement was made in 1972 and corroborates Latta's version as to the facts? I wonder now if the minister can tell us when he will be in a position to make a decision on such an important matter of justice, particularly in view of the fact that this man may be wrongfully incarcerated?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: I would hope very soon, Mr. Speaker. However, since the hon. member last asked a question on this matter, we have had very considerable difficulty interviewing the witness involved and, in fact, have had to proceed without interviewing her. We are now awaiting the formation of a final decision and report from the Alberta Attorney General's office.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the evidence may have been known to the Crown but not presented at the trial, and may have influenced defence counsel at the time not to call the accused to give evidence on his own behalf, and if this evidence had been heard by the jury the verdict may have been one of acquittal and not one of guilty, will the minister not take these facts into consideration, particularly the fact that this was not known to defence counsel?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, without accepting entirely that version of the trial, in making a decision either to refer the matter back to the court of appeal or to have a new trial we will take all factors into account.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Solicitor General and it relates to a question I asked on Tuesday regarding his conversion on a Winnipeg radio program which led him to comment at the end that he hoped his comments were not in contempt of court. In view of his statements regarding a case presently before the Quebec courts involving CFCF radio station, Montreal, I would like to ask whether he has discussed this matter with the Prime Minister, as the Prime Minister gave me his undertaking would happen, and has he anything to report about this rather unusual conduct of a minister of the Crown?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I did discuss this with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Communications. As the hon. member points out, I was on a hotline show and was asked what I thought about the CRTC investigation into radio station CFCF. I was asked if I thought this was an infringement of the freedom of the press. I said I felt the CRTC had an obligation to investigate this complaint, but I did not know what the outcome of the investigation would be. I also said I had objected to Bill C-22 and that as far as I knew I did not see anything wrong with doing that.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
During a conference last week in Montreal, the minister stated that in the near future Quebec could very well exercise some quite legitimate powers over many local but very important aspects of cablevision. In view of the cultural impact of cablevision on all small communities whose vitality she deems essential to the cultural integrity of Quebec, in the present circumstances and given the quite different but very encouraging attitude of her predecessor, I would ask the minister if she intends to put forward, as soon as possible, some propositions corresponding to the spirit of her conference last week so we will know the powers she seems willing to leave to the provinces?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is racking his brains to find significant differences between the propositions put forward by my predecessor and mine. Basically, in my speech last week I tried to summarize all the propositions already made in rather broad terms, I admit, but I also submitted them to the provinces in broad terms because the negotiations will not be initiated with the same provinces. I said it was necessary, in my opinion, particularly for the province of Quebec if it is to maintain its cultural integrity that it regain some authority over the cable system which undoubtedly has a local impact and which can have a great effect on the culture of small communities. Consequently I reiterated this offer which was never withdrawn, and the terms of this offer will get more precise as I grow more aware of the provinces' claims and needs.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer of the Minister, who always seems very cooperative, may I ask her if she intends to meet the provincial ministers involved in this issue and to inform the House of the decisions by way of propositions?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, no meeting of Ministers of Communications has been arranged for the near future. However, next week I will initiate a visit of the provinces to get in touch with my provincial counterparts.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the government House leader, although the business for the day is pretty well
March 25, 1976

confirmed, what the business is for tomorrow and the beginning of next week.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will resume consideration of the second reading of Bill C-89, the amendments to the Anti-Inflation Act. If second reading should be concluded tomorrow-which seems to be the prospect- and any votes are required, I believe there would be a disposition to put them off until the first order of government business on Monday. When the second reading of Bill C-89 is concluded, we will call Bill S-31, the third reading of Bill C-61, and consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-71. That business, if not concluded tomorrow, will be continued on Monday, and we will then return to the second reading of Bill C-83.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is one further matter which arose during the course of the question period. I wonder, because the Prime Minister did not want to offend the rules of the House and he did not answer or comment in respect of my question concerning the tabling of the contracts with Reisman and Grandy tomorrow, whether the government House leader, as part of the House business, might review the question I asked and inform the House tomorrow whether or not there would be this submission. At the same time, would he undertake overnight to speak to the Minister of National Defence and give him a lecture in respect of his cabinet responsibility in knowing what his deputy ministers are doing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the same point of order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that Thursday will not seem like Thursday if I do not have to ask again the question I have asked every Thursday since last October. May I assume that before next Thursday we will have the bill respecting Canadian Veterans who were prisoners of war?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, it is my intention to bring down notice of that bill either tomorrow or very shortly.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD TABLING OF REPORT RESPECTING PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report from the AntiInflation Board with regard to property and casualty insurance.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(1) I wish to table, in both official
Electoral Boundaries
languages, the Law Reform Commission report entitled "Our Criminal Law".


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), London West (Mr. Buchanan), Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), Halton (Mr. Philbrook), York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), Windsor West (Mr. Gray), York East (Mr. Col-lenette), Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), Trinity (Miss Nicholson), Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), Welland (Mr. Railton), St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) and Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) has been filed with me, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario.
If the House agrees, may we appendix these objections to today's Votes and Proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Further, I have received an objection signed by the hon. members for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), Wellington-Grey-Duffer-in-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), Oxford (Mr. Halliday), Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) and Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), which has been filled with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario.
Again, may we agree that these objections be made an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING QUEBEC
Mr. Speaker:: May I also inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Chambly (Mr. Loi-selle), Sainte-Marie (Mr. Dupont), Levis (Mr. Guay), Beauce (Mr. Caron), Longueuil (Mr. Olivier), Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox), Saint-Michel (Miss Begin), Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), Compton (Mr. Tessier), St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), and Duvernay (Mr. Demers), has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec.
If the House agrees, we will make this an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(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: 3,526, 3,701, 3,989 and 3,990.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


LIFT PROGRAMME
Mr. Hamilton (Qu'appelle-Moose Mountain): x. What was the total amount paid under the LIFT Programme?
2.	What was the cultivated wheat acreage in (a) Saskatchewan (b) Manitoba (c) Alberta in (i) 1963 (ii) 1969 (iii) 1970?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.

Saskatchewan Manitoba Alberta
1963	1969	197017,910,000	16,600,000	8,000,0003.153.000	2,500,000	1,400,0005.933.000	5,300,000	2,600,000


USE OF X-RAY BY CHIROPRACTORS IN CANADA
Mr. Orlikow: x. Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare information on the extent of the use of X-rays by chiropractors in Canada and, if so, does he, or the Health Protection Branch, medically agree with the use of total body chiropractic X-rays on the Canadian public?
2.	Has the Minister information on the extent of treatment of children by chiropractors?
3.	Does the government extend official recognition to the practice of chiropractic in any way, for example, the signing of passports, workmens compensation, etc.?


Marc Lalonde: 1. The Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Protection Branch has recently initiated a computer program for collecting and analyzing data on the radiation doses received by Canadians in the course of medical and para-medical diagnostic procedures. Discussions are proceeding with provincial health departments at the technical level with the object of incorporating data from provincial X-ray surveillance programs into the central pool. However, the study has not yet proceeded to the point where the extent of use of X-rays by chiropractors can be evaluated. However, based upon utilization data of those provinces that pay for chiropractic and chiropractic X-rays under their medical care plans, and other related data, it is estimated that some 584,000 chiropractic X-rays were taken in Canada during 1974. As chiropractors are free to bill patients for additional services not covered by provincial plans, and since Workmen's Compensation Board cases were not included, the foregoing estimates likely understate the case. It appears that in practice, chiropractors generally do not use either total body or full spinal X-rays

as a matter of routine, but use X-rays for selected areas of the spinal column. Chiropractors use X-rays essentially for diagnostic purposes and not as a selective screening process or as a routine evaluation of new patients. The Health Protection Branch regards X-rays as an essential diagnostic tool, although their use involves some risk to the patient and should, therefore, be used only for valid medical reasons. Full spinal chiropractic X-ray examinations are not regarded by the Health Protection Branch as medically justifiable and this view is shared by the Canadian Medical Association.
2.	Based upon the utilization data and other factors mentioned in Part 1, it is estimated that some 144,000 services or 2.1 per cent of all chiropractic services rendred during 1974 were for children 14 years of age and under. Of these 144,000 services, 4.4 per cent involved the use of X-ray. When children 15 of 19 years of age are included, the number of services increases to 332,000 and the percentage of services involving the use X-ray increases to 5.2 per cent.
3.	The signature of a chiropractor is considered satisfactory for certification of federal employee sick leave (Form NHW-500). Subject to certain conditions chiropractic reports are accepted by the Department of National Health and Welfare medical officers who review Unemployment Insurance Commission medical assessments. Chiropractors are excluded from the list of passport guarantors. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has added chiropractice as a benefit under its employee benefit plan. The Group Surgical Medical Insurance Plan for federal employees provides chiropractic benefits beyond those provided by the provincial insurance program. Several provincial health insurance plans cover chiropractic care on a limited basis, although the federal government does not share in these latter benefits as an insured service under the Medical Care Program. Workmen's Compensation Boards in all provinces except Quebec and Newfoundland have authorized workmen to receive chiropractic care.


POST OFFICE-ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT
Mr. MacKay: 1.	Has new electronic surveillance equipment been installed in post offices and stations across Canada and, if so, which ones?
2.	What is the actual or estimated cost of having such equipment installed in a (a) large (b) medium (c) small sized postal station?
3.	To what extent will such equipment be used to monitor postal sorters and other inside workers and will the surveillance be daily?
4.	Will letter carriers and wicket workers also be monitored?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. No electronic observation equipment installations have yet been completed.
2.	It is not contemplated that such equipment would necessarily be considered for all post offices in the various categories questioned, (o) The estimated cost for an equipment installation in a large post office (Grade 10 and up) is $250,000 plus, depending upon actual size, (b) The estimated cost for a medium post office (Grades 8 and 9) is an average of $70,000. (c) The estimated cost for a small post office (Grade 7 or lower) is an average of $40,000.
3.	The equipment will be used solely by postal inspectors, only when there are reasonable grounds to believe
March 25, 1976

that criminal activities are taking place in a postal facility. It is not proposed to use such equipment on a daily basis nor for productivity or staff control purposes.
4.	Equipment will be used to observe any person located in a postal facility where there is reason to believe criminal activities may be taking place. No such observation equipment will be used in employee rest rooms or cafeterias.


MAIL REPORTED MISSING OR STOLEN
Mr. MacKay: 1.	In each of the past five years, how many pieces of mail were reported missing or stolen and how many were eventually recovered?
2.	For the same years, by province, how much money was paid from the Post Office budget as remuneration for lost mail?
3.	From what part of the budget was this remuneration taken?
4.	Are monies for the remuneration set at a certain limit in each fiscal year and, if not, is the amount limitless?
5.	For the same years, did the Post Office Department recover any money from persons convicted or dismissed for mail theft and, if so, which section received the money?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. Customer Complaints Received by District Offices for Ordinary Letter, Parcel and Special Delivery Losses.
Fiscal Year	Total
1970-71	55,231
1971-72	61,675
1972-73	68,856
1973-74	72,932
1974-75	64,211
Newfoundland	1970-1 8,481.10
Nova Scotia	18,631.01
New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island	17,976.60
Quebec	271,019.43
Ontario	294,930.21
Manitoba	19,622.91
Saskatchewan	10,956.09
Alberta	15,789.60
British Columbia and Yukon	19,652.56



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-91, 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.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to express the hope that we might come to some understanding about today's arrangements.
Interim Supply
Note: Our recording system does not include such information as the number of items reported stolen or the rate of recovery of articles said to have been lost.
2. Provincial indemnity payments made for all classes of Domestic losses over the past five fiscal years are shown on the attached sheet. We are unable to give separate payments made by N.B. and P.E.I., and B.C. and Yukon, as combined reports are submitted. Payments for uninsured items are only included in provincial totals for the fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75.
3. Indemnity payments for losses of registered, insured and C.O.D. items are paid out of postal revenue in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (1)(C)(i), (ii) and (iv) of the Post Office Act.
4.	By gazetted regulations, the amount of indemnity payable on individual claims is limited and the Department may authorize payment of claims within these limits.
5.	On a number of occasions in the past five years, the Post Office Department has recovered monies from persons convicted or dismissed, and in each instance the monies recovered were either returned to the rightful owner(s) or deposited to the Post Office account. Such monies were recovered as a result of voluntary restitutions by offenders or pursuant to orders issued by the Courts.
1971-2	1972-3	1973-4	1974-57,521.64	10,843.53	19,241.46	23,741.6719,747.55	26,305.99	33,364.74	36,974.1918,876.57	25,214.44	27,998.36	34,564.11390,224.60	418,660.28	507,712.45	653,688.32352,450.02	473,942.38	721,447.83	811,646.9120,565.16	44,570.43	64,799.00	65,159.5213,812.25	26,249.42	38,331.94	55,823.4414,449.94	27,632.70	48,352.12	46,259.5318,995.95	28,884.42	42,809.70	59,589.31
We, on this side of the House, would like all the debate on Bill C-91 to take place in committee of the whole. I am not sure the government is in full agreement with that, but perhaps we could have some statement from the government House leader so that we could have an understanding as to how we are to spend the day on this bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, following upon what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, I think there is the same disposition on the part of the official opposition. I think it would be best, in what is a rather unique procedure, that we go right into committee of the whole for consideration of the bill. I hope the government House leader will agree. I think there will be ample opportunity for the statement someone would normally make on second reading to be made at the committee stage.

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply


Mitchell William Sharp: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is not the government's intention to have a long debate on second reading. However, I think it would be desirable for the minister to present the bill and if, of course, there should be a disposition on the part of members on the other side of the House to contribute to the debate on second reading, we could not stop them if they wished to participate. However, on this side of the House I have an understanding that the minister will be the only speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, under the Financial
Administration Act, the government is requesting from the House, through this second bill, an appropriation of funds, the authorization to spend approximately $4,971 billion during the fiscal period 1976-77, which is slightly more than one quarter of the disbursements I submitted on February 18. By the same token, the government is asking for the authorization to borrow up to $6 billion to finance public works and other projects during the fiscal year starting April 1, an amount unchanged from 1975-76. It goes without saying that the government will not necessarily make use of this entire borrowing power. And my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has assured me that if such was the desire of the hon. members, he could personally come to a committee of the House to explain that borrowing policy for 1976-77.
As indicated yesterday by my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), the changes made to procedure governing the passing of this bill give members the opportunity to express their opinion on the spending policy and the borrowing policy of the government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity offered me by this intervention on second reading to comment on and refute some of the criticisms directed toward this policy since the submission of the main estimates last February 18.
Hon. members are aware that many Canadians are concerned about the scope and effectiveness of public spending at all levels of government. We share these concerns which have been promoted by the abnormally high increase in federal and provincial expenditures during the last two years. Accordingly, we have taken a series of measures to limit the growth of expenditures, to curb the expansion of the public service and to improve productivity throughout the government.
Costs can be, and have been controlled; productivity gains can be, and have been, achieved in the federal public service. This is very much the business of the Treasury Board and its secretariat, and they have been far from inactive. Ministers and senior executives will testify-even complain, occasionally-that over the years the budgetary controls administered by the secretariat's program branch have become much more rigorous. The administrative policy branch has kept regulations and guidelines constantly under review and tightened them whenever feasible and justifiable.
The personnel policy branch had managed to keep the salaries and wages of federal public servants at levels

comparable to the average remuneration of other Canadians in similar occupational categories. The planning branch, apart from conducting, each year, effectiveness and efficiency analyses in major policy areas, as well as government-wide managerial studies, has developed and begun to implement systems of operational performance measurements and methods of benefit-cost analysis applicable to government operations.

Judging from the accusations they make right and left, it is not unwarranted to remind hon. members of the opposition some of our recent initiatives in this field.
On January 22 of this year, a Treasury Board circular informed federal departments and agencies of reductions they have to make in administrative practices of the government, to comply with the Prime Minister's undertaking to reduce government spendings, as part of the fight against inflation. These reductions affect in particular the purchase of photocopying equipment and of motor vehicles, the participation of public servants in non-government conferences, office furniture, travels and the use of taxis.
I do not believe these measures will enable us to save huge amounts. However they will generate necessary restraint in the public administration and put an end to abuses which, though not too frequent, rightly concerned Canadian taxpayers.
In February, I urged the Treasury Board officials, in the memoranda they were sending to deputy ministers and managers of federal agencies, to remind them of the announcement made last December by the Prime Minister, who emphasized that the budgetary restraint policy of the government was not to be applied in the current year only, but had to be maintained for several years in order to be efficient.
In early March, following the review by the Auditor General on financial management and control within the federal government, I announced the creation of a new branch of the financial administration within the secretariat of the Treasury Board. On the same day, I announced to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that we fully agreed with 22 out of 34 recommendations by the Auditor General, that we accepted with some reservations 10 other recommendations and that only two were unacceptable to us. It has been argued by some people, when hearing of this new branch, that the government had finally decided to appoint a "watchdog" for federal spendings. It is not so, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier, the Program Branch of the secretariat has been examining the estimates of the various departments for a long time, just as the Planning Branch has been assessing their efficiency and output and the Administrative Policy Branch has been reviewing their practices in many areas, including financial administration. The re-structure now under way is rather designed to strengthen and tighten financial controls that have existed for many decades.

To complete this review of some of our recent initiatives toward better spending control, I might add that the secretary of the Treasury Board, at my request, tabled this morning in the public accounts committee the new benefit-cost analysis guide which is being issued to all depart-
March 25, 1976

ments and agencies. As you know, the Treasury Board has been actively involved in fostering the use of this modern management technique by individual government departments, while carrying out itself a number of benefit-cost studies of major expenditure programs.
Put simply, benefit-cost analyses can provide ministers and public administrators with some rough and ready measures of the social usefulness of a project or program by considering all the benefits to society arising from it- even the less tangible one-and comparing them with the total cost of the project. It is not a substitute for administrative, common sense or political judgment, but it provides a more concrete basis, more economic facts, on which to apply such common sense or judgment. The new guide prepared by the planning branch of the Treasury Board secretariat lays down the conceptual framework for benefit-cost analysis, discusses the methodological problems which government analysts must resolve, and gives them practical advice on how they should proceed.
Finally, I would like to announce a further measure to trim down operating costs and raise productivity levels within the federal public service. At my request, the Secretary of the Treasury Board wrote last week to all deputy ministers and heads of agencies to inform them of the government's decision to establish a senior interdepartmental committee on administrative improvements. The terms of reference of the committee are as follows: first, to identify those areas in which improvements can be made in the management and control of administrative inputs; second, to establish priorities for the review of those areas; third, to establish or redefine the study objective and the organization required to develop solutions to each of the identified areas in which improvements can be made; fourth, to make recommendations to the cabinet, as required, through the Treasury Board, on the administrative improvements proposed as a result of the studies; fifth, to recommend to the Treasury Board the most effective means of implementing and monitoring the administrative improvements approved by cabinet as a result of the studies; sixth, to report semi-annually to the Treasury Board and, if appropriate, to the cabinet on the progress of the committee.
A number of departments and agencies will be permanently involved in the committee because the scope and complexity of their operations require attention on a continuing basis; others will be invited to participate whenever the committee deems it useful to review operations under their responsibility where efficiency could be improved and savings made. But I suspect that this is far too complicated to discuss in detail in the House with hon. members of the opposition. They are not really interested in a more efficient public service or in more effective government programs. What they want is blood on, the floor and a knife in the financial gut of every department, even if its operations are vital to the Canadian economy; even if thousands of people are thrown out of work, and even if economic and social progress is brought to a halt.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame on you, Jean.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Interim Supply


Mr. Towers:: Mr Speaker, I take strong exception to the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) because of the hours of toil members of the public accounts committee have put into the committee and in working on this type of program. While we may have doubts as to the agreement of the President of the Treasury Board to go along with the recommendations of the Auditor General, I certainly take exception to his comments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will admit that this is a question of opinion and has no relation to the procedure of this House. The hon. member can intervene at a later time in committee of the whole.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that is a good illustration, Mr. Speaker, of why the people of Canada decided that we should sit on this side-because hon. members opposite are not able to face any criticism. They spend days and days criticizing. I read three or four lines from my speech, and they blew up. Obviously, they are not ready to take the responsibility of running the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Call an election: we'll show you.


An hon. Member:: What do you think this is-a hockey game?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If you want a good fight, okay, let's go.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: All we hear from hon. members opposite on expenditure policy are contradictory and irresponsible statements, constant bickering and politicking to confuse and mislead Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Our Conversative opponents, for example, profess to be shocked by the recent rise in federal spending.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that speech?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is that an $800 speech, or a $1,600 speech?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have a good government. We are well organized and we have good speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is unbelievable how they lose their control. They profess to be shocked, even if additional expenditures are mainly attributable to policies which they urged upon us and supported, such as subsidies to oil importers in the eastern provinces. The official opposition misses no opportunity to call for spending cuts, but always in general, never in specific terms. Hon. members opposite sneer when we point out that it is difficult to limit outlays
12144

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply
on statutory programs, but they make it even more difficult with their stalling and filibustering when we try to do it.
There was an example of that shameless double-talk last week during the debate on the medical care legislation. Conveniently forgetting the mindless calls of their colleagues from Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) and Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for austerity and more austerity, the Conservative members from Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley), St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), did their best to delay passage of that bill, as if the government could live indefinitely with runaway medicare costs. They have been consistent. We are here every day, and there is not a single question period in which some of them do not get up and ask for more expenditures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The debate in this House on second reading of Bill C-68 is over. This is no time for the minister to revive that debate.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: It was stopped by closure, remember!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Okay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about Bill C-91.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The expenditure policy of the government between 1968 and 1973 can be considered as the continuation of post-war Liberal economics which have been so beneficial for Canada. Federal expenditures were allowed to grow at a rate which varied from year to year depending upon the needs of federal programs and the requirements of the economy as a whole. Because we introduced new programs and expanded many of the existing ones, the share of national output, absorbed by federal expenditures, increased slightly-by less than 1 per cent on average, but the growth of real GNP remained above 5 per cent during that entire five-year period, with the single exception of 1970. Moreover, the surpluses accumulated during the good years, on a national accounts basis, more than offset the deficit incurred in 1971 and 1972. What happened, then, in the past two years? Why were we not, in 1974 and 1975, able to maintain the balanced policy of the previous five years? Why has the increase in federal expenditures been higher than usual? Why was it necessary to absorb a sizeable deficit last year?
My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), will have much to say on these questions in his forthcoming budget speech. However, the short answer is that the four-fold increase in oil prices, compounding years of chronic inflation and instability in international markets, plunged the world economy into its worst slump since the end of the Second World War-and, confronted with declining exports and sluggish domestic demand, our government simply rejected the Bennett solution. We refused to make matters worse by savage cuts in federal spending, even when slower growth cut into our revenues and when inflation bloated our expenditures.

With the support of all provincial governments, including those of oil producing provinces, we refused to let the oil importing provinces of eastern Canada bear, without relief, the full burden of higher energy prices. But that cost a great deal of money. Had it not been for oil compensation payments, the over-all increase of federal expenditures- measured on the public accounts basis-would have been about $4.2 billion less in the last two fiscal years as well as the one beginning on April 1, but the private sector would then have been saddled with a huge financial burden which would have depressed the economy even more. The fact that the recession was relatively milder in Canada than in most other industrial countries, and much milder than in the United States, bears testimony to the basic soundness of our economic policies. We have managed to avoid a contraction in real output even in 1975, a year when only half a dozen members of the OECD group were able to achieve any real growth.
In conclusion, I should like to remind our critics that the main estimates of expenditure are only one half of the government's budgetary policy. They must wait for the budget speech proper to learn about the other half, namely, the government's policy and expectations concerning revenues, borrowings and general economic conditions during 1976 and the early part of 1977. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) will greatly enlighten them on that issue.
Unlike Conservatives and New Democrats, Liberals are not dogmatic about public expenditures. We believe that the government should not hesitate to spend more when the state of the economy and the general welfare of Canadians require it. But we also believe that the government should not hesitate to trim its sails when conditions change and the private sector provides adequate impetus for economic growth. In addition, whatever may be the level of expenditures, the government constantly tries to ensure that funds are spent efficiently and that Canadians are provided with effective public services-and I mean all ministers, not just the President of the Treasury Board. I am so enthusiastic about my job that I sometimes get carried away.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Like this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A few weeks ago I said that I am the only one who has an incentive to control public spending. I was speaking, of course, for the Treasury Board of which the Minister of Finance is also a member and on which nine other ministers sit either as permanent or alternate members. But even then I was perhaps unfair to my colleagues. They are responsible for programs which are all essential, one way or another, for the continued economic, social and cultural development of Canada. It is, therefore, natural that they should constantly strive to improve and expand these programs, and such improvements usually cost money. Since resources are always limited, the Treasury Board must, unfortunately, intervene at this point to implement the over-all expenditure policy previously set by all ministers.
March 25, 1976

I can assure the House that the overwhelming majority of submissions made by ministers to the Treasury Board stay within the financial guidelines and the social priorities set by cabinet, but I must emphasize that the few submissions that are beyond these guidelines are not rejected out of hand. The responsible minister then discusses the matter with his friendly treasurer; sometimes he manages to convince me that the projected expenditure is indeed an essential and urgent one, and sometimes I manage to convince him that the project can be delayed or phased over several years,
I wanted to make these few comments, Mr. Speaker, I have cut out the middle of my speech because I am so involved in the technology of the government that I did not want to lose my natural instinct to be a little bit of a politician-because that is what this House is all about. I am certain that if I did it would annoy my friends opposite. I do not want them to look too bad for the public, because they are so thin-skinned that the public might think they will never be able to form a government. Of course, I do not want to be part of the government for generations and generations.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself, Jean.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You won't be, after 1978.


An hon. Member:: In 1978 you will be on this side of the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I love to have this kind of debate, Mr. Speaker, with a little bit of life in this House of Commons-and my good friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is in complete agreement. I think that on occasion we have to debate some aspects of interim supply because we want to have the money to operate until the end of June. In committee, of course, members will have occasion to review all the expenditures. There is a good procedure for that, but we must have authority to spend on an interim basis until June 30. All members on the various committees of the House will have occasion not only to question me but to question all ministers about their estimates and the operation of their departments.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this bill is a new procedure. I was a bit caught by surprise because I thought it was to be a long debate on second reading. It is obvious that I have worked very hard on this speech-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -just to accommodate my hon. friends. But I have cut many pages from it. Many of them were to be very political, and I know I should not be political so let us go back to the figures. I am always willing to co-operate with members of parliament and give them all information possible. I have taken many of their recommendations into account. I am glad to say that members of the public accounts committee have developed good working relations. In fact, the other day we set a precedent; the chairman of the committee is a member of the opposition, the Auditor General was there, and so was I, and the three of us were in complete agreement. I think that is the way we should go about controlling expenditures within government. In fact, it is not a question of being on one side of
Interim Supply
government or on the other side-we have a collective responsibility to make sure the money is well spent. I am not a member of the Social Credit party, and it is too bad no one from that party is in the House.


An hon. Member:: That is nasty.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We do not print the money; we collect it from taxpayers, and that is why we are careful with every penny.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question regarding part of the schedule of Bill C-91?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This will have to be done when we are in committee of the whole. The motion in front of us is for second reading of the bill. We cannot debate the bill at this time unless we do so on its principle. This is not the time for the calling of questions.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think there was a general understanding that the minister would be permitted to make the statement he did and then we would immediately go into committee of the whole and take care of those matters. I understood that to be the case. The government House leader is not here, but I think that was the understanding.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is the understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is no definite order, but there seems to be an understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 2.
Mr. Stevens:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If I understood the President of the Treasury Board correctly, I believe he indicated that the Minister of Finance would be willing to appear and give us an explanation concerning the borrowing requirements as indicated in clause 5 of the bill before us. I was wondering whether we could have the minister take up that suggestion and request that the Minister of Finance so appear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I discussed this matter with the Minister of Finance during the question period and he said that he would be available, when requested by the House, to come and deal with the borrowing authority requirement in this bill. I think that is an improvement on the rule, because I know the frustration of members with the strict rule we had before; it was not satisfactory.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Eight o'clock?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will check and report to the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to have the bureaucrat, turned politician return to the chamber and hope to find blood on the floor. I found it particularly interesting that he stabbed himself in the course of his own speech. Perhaps the blood on the
21804 -8'/2
March 25, 1976

Interim Supply
floor is his own! I am glad he changed his tune somewhere after the middle part of his speech, because I had assumed that this procedure, which was a special procedure, was brought about because of the absolutely ridiculous ways in which this parliament, representing as we do the people of the country, is without the ability realistically to review the estimates and expenditures of government.
A few minutes ago the minister suggested that standing committees can review estimates. I tell the minister that I and other hon. members, including government supporters, have attempted to do this elsewhere, and I tell him that our rules of procedure do not permit us to examine in depth the details of government spending.
Many years ago, when I was a student at Carleton University, I used to sit in the gallery and watch the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others consider the estimates in committee of the whole. Then the House exercised control over government spending. We watched committee of the whole deal with the estimates of each minister. The consideration of estimates was not restricted by time. The quality of ministers' answers determined how long estimates were given consideration. Only after the minister had answered all questions were the estimates passed. Some ministers were candid with the committee, others were not so candid. When ministers were candid, no matter how complex their estimates were, the estimates were passed. If ministers did not answer fully, or refused to answer, or evaded questions-as ministers have been known to do from time to time-the estimates were held up.
The rules were changed in 1969. The review of estimates was made the responsibility of standing committees and the rights of members restricted. It became difficult for members to determine the real cost and purpose of various provisions in the estimates, and almost impossible to see if they were sound. It is one thing for any minister to tell the House he has embarked on a program, but quite another for parliament to be satisfied that the program is operating properly as the minister may claim. At present, the representatives of this country's 23 million people are given little right to examine the estimates. Certain things, nonetheless, are apparent. The government claims that it has no control over the growth of certain expenditures, but it is evident that it is responsible for increased spending in certain areas in which there is no evidence of diminution of costs.
Let me quote some figures. About 45 per cent of the increase in government spending is attributable to grants, contributions and transfer payments. Yet in other areas, significant savings could be made. It is clearly evident that the bulk of the increase in spending is accounted for by spending in areas where the government exercises a high degree of control. Consider the following categories of increases: salaries and wages have increased 13.6 per cent; other personnel costs, 18.4 per cent; transport and communications, 12.4 per cent; information, 16.5 per cent; professional and special services, 9.9 per cent; rentals, 18 per cent; purchased repair and upkeep, 15.1 per cent; utilities, material and supplies, 13.5 per cent; capital, land, building and equipment, 11.9 per cent; capital, machinery

and equipment, 24.4 per cent; public debt charges, 23.1 per cent; and all other expenditures, 36.4 per cent.
Clearly, the minister's claim that the government is exercising restraint is unfounded. The facts are to the contrary. Members of the government talk a great deal about fighting inflation and about the white paper on inflation, but the government does not intend to follow its own guidelines when increasing wages, salaries and other personnel costs. I suggest that an examination of the estimates will show I am right. If the government is sincere in what it says about restraint, let it practice that restraint. It alone must decide if it will follow its own policy. It cannot look to the opposition for guidance; it must look to itself. It alone can determine if it will follow its own policy. The government is basically responsible for establishing shortterm as well as long-term priorities for expenditures, and it has not done so. For instance-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order, I am a little confused by the procedure. I have nothing against the way the hon. member is proceeding but I had understood that if we were to proceed in such a way, we would have to go in committee and, generally, when we are in committee it is not to deliver as long a speech as this one but to answer questions. It is something of a general debate that the hon. member has just launched because normally I should be invited to answer several points he has made. I cannot possibly make any remarks if he delivers a 20-minute speech. I do not mind. It will still be possible on second reading.


Gérald Laniel: Order. To inform the hon. minister, I must state that it is a fact that in committee there is time for questions but each member is entitled to use his 20 minutes as he sees fit. The minister may speak as often as he wishes to answer questions which have been raised. He also has 20 minutes each time he takes the floor to answer objections or points put forward by hon. members.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I respect that. Questions will be asked. The difficulty is that the minister is most reluctant to answer questions asked in committee of the whole or elsewhere. I was talking about the government's restraint program and spending priorities. What has happened? Ministers are beating their breasts, telling us they practice restraint. But what, actually, are they doing? In these times of restraint, the government has launched a program for decentralizing government. The cost is not less than between $50,000 and $60,000 per employee involved. Is that restraint? How much is the government spending on information? According to my information, the total cost of information services and staff is at least $138 million. If we make reasonable allowance for the cost of accommodation and support services, that figure rises to about $150 million.
What do we have? What do we get for it? Does anybody feel well informed? Government press hand-outs are considered by the press as a bad joke in terms of number and quality-glossy publications, overproduced, underread and poorly created. What has the over $5 million budget of
March 25, 1976

external affairs done to our image abroad? What will the planned increase of over $1 million in 1976-77 add? There is the first question.
The $14 million spent by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be increased by over $4.5 million in 1976-77. While tourism seems to be doing well with its $834 million, what is the other $10 million going to do for us? It, visibly, has not done much for our exports recently. Why does Statistics Canada need almost $4 million more in 1976-77? What does the $10 million, plus, spending by national defence do to improve our defence posture when we have not even made up our mind which way we are going? These are the matters to which this government should direct itself-and not in terms of its restraint program, a program that, as a matter of fact, is not a restraint program at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There is one other matter which affects every member of the House of Commons. It is the ability that we, as parliamentarians-not just ministers or government supporters, but all of us- have to examine expenditures of government. What is the attitude of a bureaucrat toward committees of the House of Commons? I have a quote from a retired bureaucrat, Frank Howard. He was a communications officer, and is now a writer. He tells us what he thinks of the parliamentary system and the ability of committees to find out how the Queen's money, the money of the people of this country, is spent. This is what he had to say about his job as a communications officer, and I quote from the March 7 edition of Saturday Night:
I came to worry about what I was doing to the press. My job was to manipulate it. The simple truth was that it was easy: the press didn't know how to ask the right questions, so you went out and fed them the answers you wanted.
With parliament we operated the same way. We figured out a way of getting off easy with Commons committees. At the first opportunity possible we'd get the top scientist in the department to speak. He'd come across with a whole lot of stuff about gigahertzes and geostationary orbits and if some MP asked a question, he'd say no, they hadn't quite understood and come back with more jargon, and so the MP would give up and none of them would come even close to understanding the real problems of communications.
Here is what he had to say about the right of parliamentarians to know:
In the end, you come to view information as something you put out when it's to your advantage. By your advantage, I mean the advantage of the system. People within the system who don't understand that information is a commodity, to be used and exploited for the system's advantage, don't get along.
Parliament can't control government. MPs don't know what questions to ask, and even if they asked them, there's no way of forcing the government to give answers. Even ministers don't control the bureaucracy. Ministers spend their first year trying to get into their department, and then they're co-opted by the department. For people outside trying to represent the public interest, it's even worse. Ranged up against them is a bureaucracy that amounts to a vast information processing machine with years and years of experience.
That says something to every member of parliament. It says something to those who want to see the rules reformed. The government is always talking about shortening the length of debate. The government House leader talks about television in the House. There are much more important things to be done. Forget about the cosmetics.
Interim Supply
Give us the tools. Give us the means to ask the proper questions. Give us the answers to our questions. Make our committees independent. Give us those tools and we will show this or any other government what ought to be within the power of a parliament, properly equipped, to inquire. We would not use these tools to obstruct, as we are accused of doing, but honestly and objectively to look at the estimates of each department. We do not have that power, and that is what we require.
When the government House leader raises in this House the necessity of reforming the rules, I completely agree with him. However, I want the government House leader to understand that if we are going-


An hon. Member:: Do you want a soap-box?


Walter David Baker: Apparently the hon. member does not care if the regulations are changed. If we are going to make the legislative machinery move more quickly, the price for that change is going to be a heavy one indeed. The price will be to give to parliament assembled here and in the various committees a revision of the committees' system so there can, at long last, be something that we have not had since the rule changes were pushed through this parliament by closure in the sixties; that is, the right to know and the right to examine.


Mr. Blais:: You cannot ask questions.


Walter David Baker: I have something to say about asking questions. The man who wrote the article I quoted had the following to say about that matter:
The people who are interested in finding out things have to be given the means of finding things out. There's a rough rule of thumb in government that you spend about two to three per cent of the budget of a program on information relating to the program. Why not insist that, say, one-tenth of one per cent of a program's budget be channelled into research by the opposition parties. If you put down $80 million for LIP this year, then you put down $80,000 for research into LIP. And so on. Now if you started that tomorrow, the opposition wouldn't know what to do; they'd still concentrate on the horror stories. But over time, they'd build a competent research staff. This might turn into a bureaucracy. At least it would be a counter-bureaucracy.
If these suggestions were taken, we would see, for the first time in many years, an honest examination of government expenditures. It would not only serve parliament, which it should serve first, but the government as well. The government would know that committees were a well-informed, articulate sounding board for their programs. After the programs were considered by the committees, they would be acceptable without suspicion-and this is something that is very important. The knowledge that we have, in terms of the operation of government, is vested in the bureaucracy, the government. In terms of parliament and its operation, access to knowledge has become overweighted on the government side.
I ask the President of the Treasury Board, as the keeper of the public purse, whether he is prepared to recommend to his ministry, as a first priority in terms of spending, and to the commissioners of internal economy of this place-of which he is one-a substantial increase, on a negotiated basis, with respect to funds for the operation of research offices of all political parties represented in this House.

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply
I make this request so that the work of this parliament can determine the examination of the estimates, the study of the government's legislative program, the study of its priorities, the questioning of its objectives, finding out whether those objectives are being met, and discussing whether the offices, in terms of cost analysis, cost-benefit work referred to by the minister, are being carried out. We in this parliament should be able to examine that work. You are an officer of parliament, Mr. Chairman, and you must care about it as well. If this kind of thing does not start now, we will see a continuation of the ability of the government to stonewall not only in this chamber but in the committee. Those things which should be exposed will not be exposed, and as to those things for which the government ought to get credit, we will not know about them in a way in which we can honestly accept them. If this is done, this institution will take on a new life of its own. I hope the minister will consider the propriety, the rightness of asking for an amendment to the rules of this House so that we can bring back, once more at least, some departmental estimates into the committee of the whole in the old way.
Some people look upon this public institution with some cynicism. From what we have seen in the last few days, I can understand that. But what I suggest would constitute a great improvement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, we welcome this day during which we can spend some time on the estimates for the year just ahead of us. We shall all discover very soon that the day will go very fast, and my contribution to avoiding that will be to speak for less than the 20 minutes I am allowed.
I was interested in the reference the previous speaker made to the days when he sat in the gallery as a student watching some of us who were already on the floor dealing with estimates in the committee of supply. I was a member of the committee which changed all that and put the estimates into the various committees. We were involved in quite a struggle when that was done in 1968, but I am prepared to say that we did win certain gains though we also suffered a very real loss. I think we had very much more control when the estimates were on the floor and there was no time limit. I know we cannot go back to that system. The number of departments, the amount of money which is spent, the items on which the money is spent-all these things have multiplied so much that we cannot go back to that earlier arrangement. However, I think that when we reform the rules with respect to the handling of expenditures we ought to make provision for bringing back to the floor of the House of Commons two or three departments a year, picked by the opposition, and discussion on those estimates when they are on the floor should be without time limit. If it is done the other way, ministers can just sit it out, members on the government side can exercise their right to use up some of the time, and any sense of control by the House of Commons over expenditure of money is gone. However, I do not want to be guilty of using this day, when we have estimates before us, in discussing procedure, though I welcome the comments the

hon. member for Grenville-Carleton made in that direction.
I welcome the speech made by the President of the Treasury Board. I enjoy him when he deals with the technicalities of his position. I enjoy him just as much, perhaps more, when he launches into a political tirade. He is good at it. I have seen him grow into quite a politician since he first came here some 14 years ago. But I want to say to him there is one taunt he may think he can throw at the Progressive Conservative party but he cannot throw it at us. He likes to say to the Progressive Conservatives that though they call for restraint, though they call for cuts in expenditure, they also demand new expenditures. He knows he cannot throw that charge at us because we have said many times that we realize that civilization costs money. He knows that we do not look upon government taxing and spending as a form of highway robbery but as a means of redistributing the wealth which is created in this country.
Our quarrel with the government is not with its level of spending but with its order of priorities. Right now, if the government wants to talk about restraint, about cutting expenditures, the way to implement such a program is not just to cut everything by a certain percentage, not for the President of the Treasury Board to become "Mr. No" to every one of his colleagues, but to make cuts where they can be applied without causing suffering, and to realize that in some cases the circumstances call for increases.
We have before us today an interim supply bill which provides for three-twelfths of all the estimates for 1975-76 and some more twelfths for certain of the departments. This being so, discussion can cover virtually an unlimited range of subjects. We regret very much that the estimates are such that they carry out the government's announced intention to freeze family allowances at the 1975 level. Even in a period of restraint, even when cuts are being made, it is the responsibility of the government to face up to the difficulties of those who are in need, and we contend that failure to escalate family allowances in 1976 in accordance with the rise in the cost of living is a gross piece of unfairness.
By the same token, I regret that no provision is made in the main estimates for an increase in the basic amount of old age security payments. Provision is there for an escalation corresponding to the rise in the cost of living, and this applies not only to the basic amount but to the guaranteed income supplement. However, the government takes the view that nothing more needs to be done in connection with that issue, and says-especially to hon. members on my right, "If you want expenditures cut, you cannot be asking for further expenditures at the same time." I say, again, that what concerns us is the scale of priorities, how the money is spent.
I cannot join in all the complaints the previous speaker made about government spending, but I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that there is cause for complaint when the number of public servants in the SX category has risen from 400 a few years ago to over 1,000. I would remind the minister that between 1969 and 1974, while he was minister of Indian affairs and northern development, the number of public servants in that category in his department-these are the highest paid public serv-
March 25, 1976

ants-rose from 16 to 47. This is hardly restraint: it is a sample of what the government does.
Then there are these huge expenses on buildings for the defence department, some of which may not be necessary; and there is the kind of expenditure we seem to be facing in connection with the Lockheed contract or agreement. The people of Canada wonder what is going on, and have reason to be cynical. Our position as a party is not that the government is doing the wrong thing in raising money by taxation and in spending it. Our contention is that the money is being spent, in many cases, on the wrong things-and that where money is needed, this government does not come through. We think it is wrong for the President of the Treasury Board simply to stand up with confidence, because he is saying "No" to everybody else, and say "No" to those on family allowances, those on old age pensions, and so on.
Initially I said I would try not to use the 20 minutes that is allotted to each of us because I hoped that during the day a number of members could take part. Some of my colleagues have specific points they want to speak about, and since I probably will not get a chance to speak again in the day, I should like to say now that I welcome the fact that the Minister of Finance is going to come in to deal with the borrowing business. I will not go into the technicalities of that, but I hope when he comes he will answer some questions in relation to the "Orion" which Lockheed is trying to sell us. My colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, was asking questions about this "Orion" business today. Most of us feel that the whole situation is such a mess that the government should walk away from it right now.
What bothers me, in terms of this borrowing authority, is that under clause 5 of this bill the government will have the authority to borrow the sum of $6 billion-$6,000 million. I should like to know whether that will include the authority to borrow money for front-end financing of the "Orion" aircraft. The minister shakes his head. I hope that is the position; but I trust we will get a clear answer on that from the Minister of Finance when he comes in.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but in all fairness to others I shall not. We welcome this day and we want more days like it, but we do not want days that end the way this one will, with the clock telling us it is 9.45 p.m. and we have to quit. We want more days like those we used to have when we could put the ministers on the spot in respect of their expenditures and get something done.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I understand that a few members on this side of the House would like to intervene in the debate. Hon. members have asked me several questions and I would like to be sure that if I reply to those questions it will take away from the right of hon. members on this side of the House to reply.


An hon. Member:: Tell them to say something, if they are going to speak.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are supposed to have a question period here.


An hon. Member:: We are in committee of the whole.
Interim Supply


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The opposition House leader did not ask too many questions, but he made a speech. I think that some of the points he made will be answered by my parliamentary secretary in a few minutes.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, would you instruct the President of the Treasury Board what it means to be in committee on a bill? We are here, not just to ask questions but to express views in respect of the bill which the government is asking us to pass. It is not for the President of the Treasury Board to tell us that all we can do is ask questions; we have the right to express opinions, and that is what we are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I do not think the Chair is here to give lessons or courses in procedure. I will do my best to direct the proceedings of this committee. The minister has the floor now, and I think he has the right to answer at least the two speeches that have been made. After that, I will go to the opposition and the hon. member who follows the minister will do as he wishes, ask questions or make a speech, and then I will go to a government member. I hope that after a while hon. members will appreciate that I am going in the right direction.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is exactly the point. If I get up and take away from the right of hon. members on this side to take their turn, I will sit down and not reply. I think members on this side of the House have exactly the same rights as anybody else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: My long experience in the House tells me that they ask questions, and this is a question too. [Translation]
Mr. Chairman, must I understand that when I am finished with my remarks you will return to the opposition or give the floor to a government member? I would like to have your opinion before I reply.


Gérald Laniel: The minister has the floor, he has 20 minutes to address the committee. As I said, the Chair intends to alternate from one side to the other, but if the minister speaks after each intervention, it will be difficult to do this.
Of course, nothing prevents the minister from taking part in the debate as often as he wishes, but perhaps he can limit his interventions or group his answers so that from time to time a government member can be recognized.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I shall speak for a few minutes and I hope that my remarks will not deprive my colleagues on this side of the House of their right to take part in this debate, because I think a minister must be in a position to answer members from both sides of the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Let us get the rules of the game straight. The President of the Treasury Board and members on the Liberal side are not going to take up

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply
most of this day by the President of the Treasury Board answering every intervention and not having that counted as a Liberal member speaking. If the President of the Treasury Board speaks, that is a speech to be-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I would hope that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands would listen to the Chair. I have explained that and I have laid down the procedure I intend to follow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérald Laniel: The hon. President of the Treasury Board.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Well, he has the floor. If I have the floor, I will reply.


Gérald Laniel: I would hope that the hon. minister would look at the Chair, not at the opposition, and speak to the Chair.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a bit too polite, and that is why I hesitated. I would like to answer a few of the points that were raised. Of course, I cannot deal with all the points. I would like to point out, for example, to the hon. member for Winnipeg South, who said we had neglected some segments in our priorities-


Stanley Howard Knowles: "North


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: "South Centre?"


Stanley Howard Knowles: "North


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: "North," all right. Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North	Centre):	"North
Centre."


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Well, Mr. Knowles, all right!


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: True, we have decided in the current restraint exercise not to index family allowances on the cost of living. But if the hon. member looked at statistics instead of dealing with generalities he would realize that family allowances have increased threefold during the past few years. From a $616 million budget in 1969, they were increased to $2.07 billion in 1975-76. This means that the government of Canada have always shown great concern in the area of social security, much so that we are now allocating 35 per cent of government expenditures to health and welfare, as compared to a mere 26.8 per cent in 1961.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the House leader for the official opposition, raised some points. He referred to statistics in the blue book pointing to a 20.3 per cent increase in salary expenditures. Only, he implied we have no intention of remaining within the guidelines we issued as the controls program was established on October 14, 1975. I said so in this House, but the hon. member chose to ignore that.

This year however, 130,000 public servants are renegotiating their collective agreements with the federal government. At the end of February, we had signed contracts with upwards of 80,000 of the 130,000 public servants, and all such contracts remained within the guidelines of October 14. The 20.3 per cent figure, if the hon. member wants to use it includes certain factors. But as far as salaries are concerned, we were always within the guidelines. Only there has been an increase in the number of public servants over last year, and also the natural promotions within an agency. And there is nothing I can do about that. It must be that our public servants are well treated because they live longer and longer, they get their pensions longer and this is reflected in the cost of public service.
When we spend money for the well-being of retired public servants, this cannot be considered as expenditures on the current force.
Earlier the House leader for the New Democratic Party-
He spoke about the increases in the government. Of course there was a great increase in some departments.


Mr. Orlikow:: All departments.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes. But I want to say that since I have been President of the Treasury Board in the last two years we have reviewed the increases that we had in 1971, 1972 and 1973 which were at a level of something like 24 per cent-and the result is that they have been 4 per cent or 5 per cent in the last two years.


An hon. Member:: Tell us what you did when you were minister of Indian affairs.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We increased expenditures in Indian affairs when I was there, and I am not ashamed of that. It is true that I spent a lot of money when I was minister of Indian affairs, but we had a very difficult situation. For the first time in our history, this nation gave money to the Indians in order to help them get organized. We have given their associations money to give me hell and to bring forward their problems. When I became the minister there were only a few Indians attending university. This year, I think there will be 3,000 Indians at university level in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I have been obliged to give this assistance. I am not ashamed of that, because I think our Indians have gained greater respectability in our nation- and the hon. member is not contributing anything to the achievement of that.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps before we get into my comments I might suggest to the minister, in view of the fact that he has asked the Minister of Finance to come in to listen to some of the debate when our members speak on finance, and since we on this side of the House also wish to make some comments in respect of the Department of National Health and Welfare, it might be advisable to have the Minister of National Health and Welfare here. He does not listen very well, but if he is here physically, perhaps some of it might sink in.
March 25, 1976

I was somewhat interested in the minister's comments with regard to giving the Indians money "to give him hell". I think he would be better off if he gave them money to enable them to have a decent living in this country. But this is not the area to which I want to dedicate most of my comments. I wish to touch on a subject of great importance which, according to the government, does not have too much political sex appeal. I refer to the subject of medical research. It seems to me that the attitude of the President of the Treasury Board to this subject has been inexcusable insofar as his policies may result in the decimation of the research community in this country.
I do not wish to sound as if I am speaking contrary to what other members have been saying, which is that as a whole the minister and the government have failed to make cuts in expenditures. As a general rule, that is true: they have not made the required cuts in government spending in keeping with the times in which we live. However, the research field is a strange place in which to have cuts. Cuts in expenditures in respect of research are, indeed, not cuts at all, but the fact. The minister is getting a little excited. I wish he would pay attention to what is being said. He has intervened to say there were not any cuts. The fact is that the budget has been frozen. Since inflation has been very rampant in this country, and in so far as medical research is concerned it has been running somewhere in the vicinity of 18 per cent, when the budget is frozen in the face of 18 per cent inflation this is the same as cutting it by 18 per cent in practical terms.
What we are seeing here is a government which is trying to ride to political glory on the back of the research community of this country. This is just as shameful as riding to glory on the back of the poor, which the minister has been doing by putting a freeze on family allowances and thereby making things difficult for the children and mothers of our nation. The minister has challenged our party to say where he should be making cuts where he has not done so. I could give him a long list. One place is in respect of the Canada Development Corporation. That could be cut out completely. The other is Petro-Can. It is unnecessary. Then there is the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office. The extravagant expenditures by the government are completely unnecessary, but nothing is being done about that.
Then we come to something closer to the minister's heart. How about the bilingual program? How necessary is that in so far as our social and economic structure is concerned at a time of restraint? We know that the bilingual program not only has failed in unifying Canada but has divided Canada very substantially. What this boils down to is that the minister is saying to the people of Canada that he does not mind if they die of a heart attack so long as on their death-bed they can speak in both official languages.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Nonsense.


Paul Yewchuk: That is the kind of priority we are being faced with. The minister does not like to hear these facts, but the fact is that if he would look at the total budget of the bilingual program he would see that there is a somewhat mixed-up priority on his part, and not on my part.
Interim Supply
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a little information about the Medical Research Council, because I do not think he knows what it does. I want to read some of the objectives so that he will realize it is a rather important program for the health of this nation and its future. These are the objectives for which the grants of money have been made. The first objective is to expand the scientific and technological base for health care. Does the minister say that is a good objective, or does he say that it should be cut?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There is no cut.


Paul Yewchuk: I have already explained that there has, indeed, been a cut of 18 per cent, which is what the inflation rate has been in the research area. That 18 per cent inflation rate is there, and it is real, not imagined. People have had to face up to it and make substantial cuts. As a matter of fact, I am glad to hear the minister shouting that there is no cut, because I have a letter here, produced by his own department, called "newsletter from the Medical Research Council." I will read to him a little later what cuts have been ordered, because obviously he is not aware of them.
I would like to conclude by stating the objectives of medical research. The second objective was to improve the application of scientific principles to health care. I do not think anybody can argue with that. It is a good objective, and it should be upheld. The third objective is to ensure an adequate research base for education in the health sciences. I think that is the area which is being severely damaged by the short-sightedness of this minister. The fourth one is to support the training of research investigators in the health sciences. That follows the broad field of education. We are not training our research investigators any longer, and we are asking them to go into other fields of employment because there are no funds in this field. The final objective is to support research contributing to new knowledge in the health sciences. I know that the attitude of this government was that it did not want to be confused by knowledge and facts. Perhaps that is why we are faced with these cuts.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarification, may I give some information to the hon. member?


Steve Eugene Paproski: No, he is not ready.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bechard):: Would the hon. member allow the minister to clarify a point? If so, the chair would have no objection.


Paul Yewchuk: No, Mr. Chairman, the minister has already spoken three times. I listened very carefully while he was speaking, and I hope he will do the same while I am speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: We have only 20 minutes each in this debate.


An hon. Member:: The minister wants to hog the floor.

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, I know, he likes talking. I know hon. members on the other side do not like to hear the truth. Every time it comes up in the House they seem to be upset and they start to shout.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mrs. Holt:: Would you like to know the definition of truth? Would you like a dictionary?


Paul Yewchuk: The hon. member for Vancouver-I am not sure what her constituency is, I think it is Vancouver-Kingsway-needs a dictionary to know the meaning of the word "truth". If she wants to leave the chamber for a few minutes to find out the meaning of that word, we will forgive her.
To get on with the business at hand, I have information here with regard to the record of grants since this minister became President of the Treasury Board. We have information about projects which have been approved for April 1,
1976.	The information is that the renewal rate for programs which have been going on for some time-research projects which are now in process-is 60 per cent. This means that 40 per cent of ongoing projects have been eliminated. Does the minister say that is not a cut? '


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, that is not a cut.


Paul Yewchuk: But 40 per cent of the projects have not been approved for renewal.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member is asking a question. May I reply to it?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mark it down, Jean. Answer it later.


Albert Béchard: The minister will have an opportunity to answer the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I object to that ruling, Mr. Chairman, because one of our members has been prevented from speaking. I will reply only in opposition time, not in our time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thin skin, eh?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a fact.


Paul Yewchuk: The minister's skin is thin.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Don't ask me questions if you don't want my answers.


Paul Yewchuk: I hope the minister has a pen and will take note of all the questions and answer them all at once. I have many questions to ask, and perhaps it would be easier if he would simply answer them later. I want to compare the renewal rate for April, 1976, of 60 per cent with that of last November when it was 75 per cent. So the minister can see the difference. Last November, 25 per cent of the projects were thrown out; but in April, 40 per cent of ongoing projects will be cut.
In terms of new applications-and research is not simply intended to carry on programs which were started, two, three or ten years ago-if we want to satisfy one of the objectives to which I have referred, that is, to contribute 
new information in the research field, we must also accept new applications for entirely new programs. Starting in April, 345 such applications were filed, of which only 10 per cent were accepted, or only some 35. That means that the other 300 were simply turned away. If the minister is pleased and proud of that kind of record, let him rise in the House and say so. If I were in his boots, I would be ashamed of such a record. The argument which he has used from time to time has been that this is going to save money.
Let us look at the people who are in research. I am inclined to think that a significant number of them, perhaps 30 per cent or 50 per cent, are medical doctors. I do not have the exact figures, but I am sure the minister will be able to find them. Once these people are rejected, in terms of applications to do research, they will not go and dig ditches, drive a truck, go on welfare or on unemployment insurance, which the minister perhaps would like them to do: those medical doctors will go into practice. We know that a busy physician in active practice not only draws a salary above that of a researcher in a health insurance program footed by provincial and federal governments, but generates substantially higher costs in terms of expenditures in hospitals, laboratories, X-ray departments, and so on. Indeed, it has been estimated that an active, practising physician generates a total cost of perhaps a quarter of a million dollars.
So we may be rejecting a research project which may cost $50,000 a year, if we say, roughly, that a researcher's salary is $20,000 a year and he may require another $30,000 for equipment, staff, and so on. Even from the short-term point of view, there is no saving at all. In fact, it will create a higher cost to the taxpayer than if this budget had not been cut and these people were kept in the research field. I do not believe, either from the short-term point of view or the long-term point of view, that cutting costs in medical research will in any way save money to the taxpayer.
The minister became a little excited when I said he was cutting costs. I have here the newsletter to which I made reference previously. It indicates a substantial number of things which have been cut from the usual program and have been followed by the Medical Research Council. The first one was the cut respecting the planned heart research project. I thought it was rather strange and ironical to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare, on television a week or two ago, doing the three-step test to check his cardiac fitness while at the same time he cancelled the heart research program which had been planned by the Medical Research Council.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Paul Yewchuk: It is typical of the kind of priorities by which this government lives. I think we, as a people, as a country, and a parliament, should have some explanation for this ridiculous state of affairs. Just to get back to the cuts, the Medical Research Council "Newsletter," volume 6, No. 2, of January 15, 1976, indicates that for the fiscal year 1976-77 the programs of the Medical Research Council are altered as follows: no visiting scientists awards will be made for the coming year; no funds for summer undergraduate research scholarships will be made available to the deans of the medical, dental and pharmaceutical facul-
March 25, 1976

ties for the summer of 1976; and the awards which are normally made in June for grants are cancelled completely for 1976. They are completely cancelled, not just cut back, and in this case perhaps several hundred projects will not get a chance to be considered at all. That is what the minister calls not cutbacks. I notice he left the House because he could not listen to the truth.


An hon. Member:: He couldn't listen to you for long.


Paul Yewchuk: I should like to quote from that same "Newsletter;"
At three per cent cut will accordingly be made in the operation component ... of all MRC grants for 1976-77 ... A similar reduction will be made in the operating component of 1976-77 funds provided to MRC groups...
The new program of one-year research professorships announced by council in its April 1975 Newsletter has, with regret, been shelved for the time being.
I think, in plain English, "shelved" means "cut".
The allocation for symposia will be held to the amount already committed for 1976-77.
That will not be changed. There is another one-
-the general research grants to deans of medicine, dentistry and pharmacy will be continued during the coming year, but at two-thirds the amount for 1975-76 ... No provision has been made for an increase in the number of MRC groups. Program grants, announced in April 1975, will be initiated but on a more modest scale than had been planned.
Finally, in the awards section-


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


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to some of the points made at the beginning of this debate by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, who I regret is not in the House at the moment, and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Walter will be right back. You can go ahead with Stanley.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: At the beginning of every debate of this nature there is an almost routine reference to the good old days. The allegation is made in the days of committee of supply, parliament did some great and wonderful things, and that this place has somehow degenerated into an institution which has no control whatever over estimates any more.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I sat in a parliament which was alleged to have been so great-and so did you, Mr. Chairman, as I think back-and I recall what happened in the parliament of 1963-1965 in which I served. It is true that the estimates procedure was in committee of supply and committee of the whole House, and hon. members who sat on the other side eventually had to face their own consciences. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was one who did. It was not an examination of estimates, it was a procedure of obstruction which took place, and I remember
Interim Supply
very clearly that over 20 days were used on a very small item of supplementary estimates involving a single department. It was passed eventually without even a dollar being changed, and that was alleged to have been the great democratic procedure of the House of Commons in those days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: All the members of this House came to the conclusion that parliament was being disgraced by the procedure, and that it was not what it was alleged to be by those on the other side who spoke. They realized that the people who voted us to this place expected us to do a job and not to go through the kind of sham which took place in committee of the whole. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was attempting to say things in, I think, a fair and impartial way. He said that when the changes of 1968 were introduced, from his point of view there were certain gains and certain losses. He admitted that there were improvements, and the strengthening of the committee system is, I am sure, one of them. The attempt to deal in a more fundamental and honest way with the question of estimates has probably plagued more than just this parliament. The British parliament has grappled with this question, and if I may suggest, with even less success than this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: On an inventory of gains, I wish that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had catalogued a few more of the gains which actually did develop, because there were very definitely some. One of the gains which did not come right away, but which came a little later, as referred to by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, was the development of research services in this House of Commons. Research services were made available to every party. It is for hon. members of the parties to answer for the use made of these research services. If they are used well, this House is a better place: if they are used poorly, this House is not doing its job.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said the remedy was to give more and more money. I have been trying to find out just what would be an appropriate sum. His answer is that of the old Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labour, just give us more and more. He does not quantify what he wants; he does not offer any standards; he just says we have to have more. In one breath he says, "don't spend as much," and in the next breath he says, "Give us more research services." In fairness, we have to come to some understanding of the goals and objectives of the elected representatives and parties in this House and how they are going to deal with the problem.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just remember, you may be in opposition some day.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: No doubt. I hope to see more than one change in government before I am through. I hope I will be able to survive as long as my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, although that would be a very long time indeed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You will be in opposition in 1978.

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Let us look again at what has to be done by way of innovations in an attempt to come to grips with the problem. Just about a year ago a package of new rules was introduced into this House, and I think everyone agreed that the rules introduced were steps forward; for example, the termination of the question period at three o'clock, the reduction of the number of Standing Order 43 motions which could be introduced, and so on. However, I wonder how many hon. members opposite recall that one of the items in the package which was offered was the ability to call departments before the House, in committee of the whole, on supply days. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is looking at me, and I am sure he remembers that. It was part of the package and there were hon. members on this side of the House who looked on this with some trepidation. They were concerned that this was giving a great deal. But I must say that the one or two rather feeble attempts to use that particular item in this House were not very impressive. Hon. members in the House gave up even trying.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, oh!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre intervenes, but he was one who not long ago said in the House that he hoped to bring individual ministers and individual departments back into committee of the whole again so that there could be some control over them. I think that is almost a complete paraphrasing of his words. When the opportunity was offered in the rules' package of a year ago, I suggest that no good use was made of that opportunity by hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Virtue does not reside just on any one side. We are all members! We all carry out our responsibility and we are all aware of the problems of estimates. There is too much money, government is too big and it is hard to come to grips with it. The amount of knowledge which individual members can assimilate and use effectively is limited. We are aware of this, so there is a real attempt being made today by the Auditor General before the public accounts committee. It was looking at the estimates book, looking at the procedures, looking at the changes made as a result of an investigation by an outside group which examined the question of estimates some years ago and offered suggestions for reform. There is an honest difference of opinion amongst representatives of the Treasury Board who have maintained with a good deal of conviction before the committee that the new form of estimates is an improvement. A group of independent accountants was brought in by the Auditor General; they made the argument that the changes were not an improvement and tried to suggest a better format.
Hon. members opposite said that we were not doing the right things on estimates. It is like a ritual, Mr. Chairman: they have an obligation to go to the public accounts committee, make representations to the Auditor General, tell him how the estimates can be improved and make suggestions for improvement in the means by which hon. mem-

bers of this House can exercise their ancient and democratic right of voting supply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It is not enough just to bitch about it, to just say time after time that parliament has lost something, that in the good old days we did great things and that now we are a sad reflection of what we were before; that is not the way to deal with the question. Some very good and diligent members from the other side sit on the public accounts committee. There is a definite lack of partisan atmosphere in the examination by the public accounts committee, and I think it is to the credit of hon. members on all sides to recognize that we have a problem.
I have just made these observations because I hoped that when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, for whom I have the greatest personal respect-he represents a riding adjoining mine, and we have known each other for 20 years-would do more than talk about the good old days, the great things that were done and our democratic right. He referred to articles by a former member of the public service, Mr. Frank Howard. Mr. Chairman, I served nine years in the public service and appeared before committees to answer questions for my minister. I had to go through the whole exercise, and I cannot share the view that this parliament has in any way lost any of its democratic rights.
There are just one or two other things I should like to add. I listened to the hon. member for Athabasca and I should like to set the record straitht on some of the things he said. He repeated allegations of cuts to the Medical Research Council. Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the actual money voted for medical research in the fiscal year 1974-75 was $42,800,000, in the fiscal year 1975-76 it was $47,400,000, in the fiscal year 1976-77 the amount indicated in the estimates is $48,400,000.
I know there are hon. members an all sides of the House on the public accounts committee who are more competent than I am to review the heroic efforts of the Auditor General to come to grips with the basic problem of how an elected legislature should deal with estimates of the magnitude on which we have to vote. I hope they will intervene in this debate.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, my time is limited and I want to spend most of it dealing with the question of medical research. Let us get the record clear when this minister, who has designated himself "Mr. No", boasts so loudly. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put some of the figures on the record in so far as we have them. It is not always easy for us to get answers. If a member of parliament does not ask precisely the right question-and it is difficult to know all the titles and categories-he gets an answer only to the question he asks.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Sometimes, not even that.


David Orlikow: There is one small, but important group that I am concerned about-the senior executive officers, the people who earn from $30,000 to $66,000 a year. According to the figures supplied by the minister's department, in 1968 there were 381 of these people; by 1974 there were
March 25, 1976

1,062. I will leave it to the minister to calculate the percentage increase. In the Treasury Board alone, the increase was from 20 to 47. So when the minister says he is "Mr. No", he is "Mr. No" with a good deal of reservation. I think he knows he is being unfair when he critizes us or suggests that we object to the increased expenditures on the native people of this country. What we object to is the tremendous increase in the amount of money that has gone to senior bureaucrats.
I am not going to take much time to expound on this theme, but I suggest to the minister and to the parliamentary secretary that if they are honest and want to look at the situation realistically, they should look at the current issue of Saturday Night which contains an article by Douglas Hartle who for some time was a deputy secretary of the Treasury Board. I think Mr. Hartle knows what he is talking about, and his article shows how far out of whack the system is. As the hon. member for Athabasca was talking about the plight of medical research, one might have thought it a figment of the imagination of the opposition. We heard the usual rude and loud interjection of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. If she could read- which I sometimes doubt-I would suggest that she should take advantage-


Simma Holt: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, on a point of order.


Simma Holt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest to the hon. member that not only can I read, but I have written and I have achieved a certain degree of success, where the hon. member seems to have failed. As a matter of fact, I have just discovered that his colleague, who is the great expert, cannot read: he does not even know of a simple bill that was introduced the other day, and has been misquoting it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. Would the hon. lady resume her seat?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member: she interjects, and hon. members on this side know how often she interjects. I want to put a few things on the record so there will be no misunderstanding of what people in the scientific community have to say about the fact that the government has frozen the amount of money given to medical research in the current fiscal year. I should like to read from a letter sent out by Dr. Malcolm Brown, chairman of the Medical Research Council of Canada, a government agency. The letter is dated January 16, 1976, and is addressed to the deans of the medical colleges in this country. It reads in part:
The visiting scientist, research professorships and summer undergraduate research scholarships programs have been suspended for 1976-77.
The June, 1976, grants competition has been cancelled.
A number of new programs about to be announced have been shelved for the time being.
Program grants, announced in April 1975, will be initiated in a modest way.
Interim Supply
General research grants have each been reduced by one-third for 1976-77.
A 3 per cent cut will be made in the operating component (exclusive of support provided for approved trainee and professional assistants) of all MRC grants for 1976-77 except term grants in their third year and terminal awards, as well as in the operating components of funds provided to MRC groups, development grants and program grants. A number of terminal awards which would in the past have been of eight months' duration will be reduced to three months.
The number of new scholarships to be offered for 1976-77 will be 15.
The intake to the fellowship program has been reduced from 75 in 1975-76 to 50 in the post-MD, DDS and DVM category and from 55 to 44 in the post Ph.D category-
I understand that the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the minister responsible for science received close to 500 letters from people in the scientific community. Some scientists were good enough to send copies of letters to members of the opposition. May I quote part of the letter written by Dr. Victor Chernick, professor and head, department of pediatrics, at the children's centre in Winnipeg, and sent to the Prime Minister on March 1, 1976. Dr. Chernick said, in part:
The level of funding for medical research in Canada on a per capita basis is approximately $2 (MRC budget of $50 million) while that in the United States is approximately ten times this rate. Thus, we are in danger of losing our best people, scientists who would compete very favourably in the U.S. funding arena.
May I quote from another letter sent to the Prime Minister on January 29 by Dr. J. C. Haworth, professor of pediatrics, director of clinical investigation and research at the health sciences centre, Winnipeg. He said, in part:
Reduction of our research programs will have the following results ... Since about 70 per cent of our research funding is used to pay salaries, the reduction in the value of research funds will inevitably require the discharge of some technical staff. Quite apart from the personal hardship this will cause, it must be recognized that many of these people are highly trained and skilled in their work and it will take years to train others to the same level of competence when research funds again become more plentiful.
Allow me to quote from another letter which Dr. William A. Bridger, secretary of the Canadian Biochemical Society, sent to the Prime Minister on January 15, 1976. He said, in part:
I wish to express my dismay and frustration, shared by the over 800 members of the Canadian Biochemical Society, which arise from your recently announced freeze upon the budget of the Medical Research Council. The freeze results in a cut of about $7 million from a budget that was already inadequate to the extent that the very survival of a viable medical research establishment in this country was threatened. This cut, together with inflationary pressures upon research budgets which have accumulated over the past few years, can be guaranteed to have profound deleterious effects upon the activities of the Canadian medical research community, with widespread, irreversible ramifications for future medical care that I am sure all thinking Canadians would wish to avoid.
Writing to the Prime Minister of January 26, 1976, D. G. Scraba, associate professor of the department of biochemistry, University of Alberta, said in part:
While I support your government's intention to control its spending, I seriously question its priorities for restraint. Surely the saving of $7 million from the total federal budget cannot justify the harmful immediate and long-term effects upon medical research in this country.
On January 14, 1976, Alec Sehon, Ph.D, D.Sc., F.R.S.C., professor, head and director of the medical research group, University of Manitoba, wrote to me as follows-

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Did he not
send a copy of his letter to the government?


David Orlikow: I do not know. The government agreed to table it. Professor Sehon said, in part:
This funding has amounted to less than $50 million for 1975-76. By comparison, the cost of the Olympic Games in Montreal this year- which is of little, if any, long-term consequence to the nation-is predicted to be in the order of $1-$2 billion!
I quoted part of the letter Dr. Bridger sent to the Prime Minister, a copy of which he sent to me. Dr. Bridger wrote another letter. I raised the very question I am raising at present in the adjournment debate on March 4. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology answered me. I sent a copy of that day's Hansard to Dr. Bridger. Dr. Bridger wrote to the parliamentary secretary. I did not ask him to write; he sent me a copy of his letter. I shall put part of it on record as he, being an expert in the field, can express the concerns of the scientific community more adequately than I can. Dealing with the parliamentary secretary's answer, Dr. Bridger, who was obviously concerned about the effects of the government's freeze on medical research, wrote in part, in his letter dated March 17, 1976, as follows:
You state that "scientific research cannot be an exception" in the effort to reduce inflation. In fact, research councils have been singled out for devastating cuts. While the rest of society is given a ten per cent guideline, the research council budgets for the coming year have been frozen at the fiscal 1975-76 level. Surely you can appreciate that this results directly in a decrease in our research capacity which is precisely equivalent to the rate of inflation, estimated to be nearly 20 per cent in recent surveys of research laboratories. Although excellent cases can be made for expansion of Canada's research effort, we are at the moment falling away behind. And then, you have the audacity to say that-
Dr. Bridger then quoted the words of the parliamentary secretary:
-it certainly does not mean that there will be a dismantling of our research teams.
That is the end of the quotation. The letter goes on to say:
It means exactly that! By 1974 the level of support of research had reached a critically low level; all mediocrity had been weeded out. The present freeze means that about 7 per cent of the research teams in this country, employing over 1,000 highly trained scientists who have survived in the fierce competition until now, will be forced to shut down. Your allegation that the freeze would not have this unavoidable consequence is utterly preposterous.
Allow me to put on record two brief excerpts from the letter sent to the Minister of State for Science and Technology on January 16, 1976, by Keith Yates, professor and chairman, department of chemistry, University of Toronto. He said, in part:
I am writing to you, both as a practising scientist and as chairman of one of the largest university chemistry departments in Canada, to express my grave concern over the steadily deteriorating position of basic science in this country.
He went on to say:
One has only to examine the budgetary treatment of the National Research Council over the past six years to realize that support of basic science in this country has occupied a very low position in terms of federal government priorities. This council, which plays a crucial role for all Canadian university scientists engaged in fundamental research, has received budgetary increases over the period 1970-75 which have fallen far short of increased costs due to inflation. In a period when the Consumer Price Index increased by well over 50 per cent, the NRC budget received cumulative increases totalling only 5.5 per cent. In the

forthcoming budget year (1976-77), when the CPI will probably again increase by more that 10 per cent, the NRC budget will be frozen at the already inadequate 1975-76 level.
The minister suggested that it is not enough to criticize: we ought to show where we can make cuts. Need I remind the minister how much the government spent on Mirabel and of the tens of millions spent on Pickering airport, not needed and not be proceeded with? Each year this government has been in power the Auditor General has listed a tale of horrors. One would hope the government would pay some attention and that some year there would be a lessening of his criticism. After all, it can no longer be said that the Auditor General is a political enemy of the government, that he was appointed by a Conservative government. This government has chosen the Auditor General. He may not be a Liberal, but I am sure they knew when they appointed him that he was not against the Liberals. However, the tale of horror continues about waste, poor management, poor planning and an escalation of senior civil servants, with all that means in the way of salaries, extra secretaries and fancy office space costing hundreds of thousands of dollars which is unused each year because they are not ready for it.
The minister tells us that this is a firm budget and they are determined to hold the line, to show restraint and to make cuts. I hope that from the few remarks I have made it will be obvious to everyone that we in the opposition have every right to say that we are still skeptical about the minister's words.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity of the debate on Bill C-91 to make a few representations to the cabinet and underline once more the needs of the province of Quebec, in particular the region I have the honour to represent. I would like as well to emphasize the fact that in a few areas, the province of Quebec has not reached the level it should have reached in view of the efforts that were made and the propaganda broadcasted on the news both on the CBC network and private stations.
Mr. Chairman, the economic situation of eastern Quebec is such that it requires immediate action from the central government. I am really staggered when I hear entirely contradictory news, as I did yesterday on the CBC. The Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce, on one hand, was asserting that the province of Quebec is experiencing a real growth and that the economy of the province has never been so flourishing. A moment later, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) whom I respect for his frankness, after looking at his department's report, deplored the fact that the province of Quebec is lagging behind other provinces, that its per capita income is lower and that industrial development is slower than in the other provinces.
I will take this opportunity to make a comment that I wish to be as kind as possible. I heard in the House from some of my colleagues comments to the effect that the federal government is in the hands of the French power. The French power would mean that the federal cabinet is governing first and above all according to the interests of
March 25, 1976

the province of Quebec, the only French-speaking province in this country. And yet, if one looks at statistics, one sees that this French power is not acting only in the interests of the province of Quebec since the latter is lagging behind other provinces.
At any rate, Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to raise a debate which might jeopardize or eliminate the unity that must exist in our country. We are first of all Canadians. We also have different cultures. We have two official languages: English and French. Both have the same rights in this country and in this Parliament, and I think we would be wasting very precious time if we were to discuss those questions which were settled many years ago and to which we should not come back. But still there are economic problems, and the interests of the French-speaking or English-speaking people are absolutely the same in this country. I have never seen a $20 bill speaking either English or French; the $20 bill speaks both languages.
We also need an income, both in the east and in the west, to enable each Canadian to meet his obligations, to buy the things necessary to satisfy his personal needs at the individual, family and community level.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I find inacceptable these glaring contradictions between the statements of a French-speaking minister of the Parliament of Canada and those of a minister of the National Assembly of Quebec on the same subject, who analyzed the situation and came to completely opposite conclusions. And if I consider the budget of the Canadian government, the budget allocated to each province of our country, I find it equitably distributed, but still it remains the duty of the Canadian government, of the Canadian Parliament, to see if there is an equitable distribution among the regions of Canada, whatever the province in which they are.
The Gaspe peninsula, the south shore of the St. Lawrence, the Quebec City area, and the province of Quebec within Canada, deserve as much attention from the Canadian government as the Vancouver or Victoria areas, or the Maritime provinces. To my mind, our role consists in administering funds without consideration of race or religion. We must see to it that the budget of the Canadian government is shared equitably, taking into consideration the needs of each area, whether it is inhabited by Francophones or Anglophones. That is how I see things, Mr. Chairman.
Now, this is what happens: the province of Quebec has transportation problems that may not exist elsewhere. That is what brings me to speak of the wharves located along the St. Lawrence river which help communications between those who live out on the islands and those who live on the mainland. At the present time, Mr. Chairman, there is a quarrel going on between the federal and Quebec provincial governments, about whether the wharves located in the province of Quebec, along the St. Lawrence, should be considered part of the highway network of the province. If so, responsibility for their maintenance should fall to the province. The federal and provincial governments have set a body to look into the matter and share responsibilities; according to my information, the Quebec government is quite willing to accept the responsibility for the maintenance of those wharves as part of its highway network conditional upon the central government's first
Interim Supply
repairing them before handing them over to the province for future maintenance. That is the bone of contention, Mr. Chairman.
This afternoon I communicated with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) and I asked him some clarification about the items contained in Bill C-91 which request a borrowing power of $6 billion. That is quite a lot of money, Mr. Chairman. Can we hope that with these $6 billion, the central government, through the Department of Public Works, will make improvements to the wharves along the St. Lawrence and on the islands of the St. Lawrence which need maintenance work to remain operative? I am not talking about wharves which should be maintained because of their history, for instance, but about those that have to be used regularly to maintain constant communications between the islands and the mainland.
The minister, who is an intelligent and an honest man, did not want to give me any definite answer. He simply gave me a note saying that he would review the program and that if the wharves in Bellechasse-and Bellechasse is part of Canada as far as I know-are included in the estimates, part of the budgetary items will be used to upgrade the wharves which need it, and this would come under this borrowing power of $6 billion.
Mr. Chairman, if this is the case, I shall be glad to support this bill. This money is needed to effect these improvements, to upgrade the wharves. There should be an agreement with the Quebec government for these wharves to be properly maintained, and come in the future under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government as part of the Quebec network. I am in complete agreement on this point. However, it matters little where these billions of dollars come from; this is something that must be discussed. I hope that this year, when Parliament studies the legislation giving chartered banks the power to create credit and to loan money to the population, we shall discuss this issue. However, for the time being, Mr. Chairman, it is my duty to support this budget item if they agree to use that money to solve a problem which has been swept under the carpet for too long. I very much hope that the Minister of Public Works will take into account the representations I am making now so that this matter can be solved once and for all.
A second point I would like to make in this debate is the federal-provincial agreements on the economic development of our country. There is an absolute necessity for the central government to sign agreements with the governments of all provinces, because the provinces are regional administrations closer to the people and they are in a better position to determine the real priorities for Canadians.
I wish that the central government could speed up all forms of negotiations. Not that the central government should impose its views on provincial governments but negotiations should be conducted on a meaningful basis. People appointed by the government or by ministers of various departments-civil servants, the senior civil servants of our administration-should understand once for all how urgent it is for Canada's unity to expedite those negotiations as people become impatient. The public at

Interim Supply
large cannot understand in every detail the various forms of negotiations and it gets impatient.
Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, some elements of our population take advantage of the slowness of negotiation to raise linguistic, racial and regional issues likely to divide Canadians further instead of uniting them so that all together we could work seriously and efficiently toward the development and prosperity of our country.
Mr. Chairman, within our parliamentary duties we sometimes have the unique opportunity to visit other countries as delegates. Mr. Chairman, in countries we only know by name and whose customs are unknown to us, we can see that people of all races are living there, black, white, orientals, Indians, people who speak several languages and who succeed in living and working together.
I wish to mention Mauritius that I visited last fall. Those people succeed in working together for the prosperity of their country.
Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad if we could do the same in this country. Whether we eat in French, in English, in German or in Italian, whatever the language we use, we must always keep in mind that we are first and above all Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, Canada is the most beautiful country in the world. In spite of our hard winters, of our snow, we still have four seasons we should be proud of. If Canada is to continue its development and growth for the profit of all the people who live in it, we must of necessity cooperate. We must work together and, as Canadian parliamentarians, we must always keep in mind that we must administer the revenue of our country by distributing it equitably.
Mr. Chairman, I make these remarks so that we can have a fair distribution in Quebec.
It does not matter whether we are Liberals, Conservatives, members of the Social Credit Party or members of the New Democratic Party. What matters is that we can say to the Canadian people that we made what we could to have a fair distribution of incomes between Canadians so that each area of the country has its shares and that we can say proudly: Canada is developing all its areas, regardless of our language.


Mr. Holmes:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure those members who know me in the House will recognize that I will not be partisan during this debate. I do want to indicate my very grave concern about this science policy for Canada, and particularly that component that deals with medical research.
The minister in his comments which, if I may say so, were of a highly political form, has indicated a program of restraint. I have no difficulty in identifying with that. I think he should also note the importance of research and development in terms of the productivity about which he talked. Of course, whether it be in economic terms or in human terms, research and development in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of many, are an investment in the future.

If one wanted to dramatize the importance of medical research I think all he would have to do is point to the questions which were raised in the House today, and I am referring specifically to the problem of swine influenza and the recent announcement of the President of the United States, who indicated his administration will be introducing a comprehensive program to prevent the outbreak of this particular disease. I only need to refer to the great epidemic of 1916-18 in which 15 million to 18 million lives were lost. May I simply say that without medical research and without the bio-medical community, that type of commodity and that type of progress would not be with us today.
At the outset I want to quote, if I may, from an article which states:
It is difficult to realize at such short range just how important an influence the work of Dr. Banting and Mr. Best has been in stimulating medical research in Canada, and indeed throughout the civilized world; but it seems likely that history will view the discovery of insulin, not only as a valuable contribution to the science of medicine but of peculiar significance in as much as the efforts of several ancillary sciences were focused upon its discovery. In a peculiar way, therefore, the work of Banting and Best represents medical research at its highest. So far as Canada is concerned we may be forgiven our special pride, in that our owns sons, in our own country, have produced something so worthy of the noblest traditions of our calling, and that their discovery was given freely to the whole world. We are well aware that Canada has produced many exceptional men of science, but only too many whose contributions have brought renown alone to the countries of their adoption, rather than to the land of their education and birth.
That editorial appeared in the CMA Journal in 1923, and it depicted the spirit of our pioneers in the bio-medical research community. It also, of course, outlined the successes of that particular day. We have seen that spirit throughout the 1960's, but I want to say with all sincerity that in recent years we have seen the strangulation of that pioneering spirit, with a very demoralizing effect on the medical research community in Canada.
I have followed with great interest and concern the Ministry of Science and Technology, and in particular the Medical Research Council. I have done this, as I indicated, with great concern since my arrival in Ottawa as a member of parliament in 1972. I think one can best describe the system, in my experience, as one of action, reaction, confrontation, and innumerable committee reports; in fact, a constant upheaval regarding the funding of research and, in particular, medical research in Canada, something that is most undesirable where stability is required.
I was prepared at the outset today to argue that the Medical Research Council requires an additional 15 per cent to 20 per cent in funding for the coming fiscal year, and I believe I would have no difficulty in presenting that argument. However, after hearing the President of the Treasury Board speak I have no intention of entering into the numbers game at this particular time, which in my view would be counterproductive when the government is employing political tactics to give the impression that it is actually introducing measures of economic restraint but without any consideration of priorities.
Let me make it very clear, and I want to make this very clear so there is no misunderstanding among hon. members in this Chamber, that if in fact the federal government had a national policy for science, and if in fact the federal government had a national policy in respect of health
March 25, 1976

research, and medical research in particular, then I would suggest to you in all sincerity that this debate would not have been necessary today. It would have been redundant and, indeed, the scientific community would have had adequate funds to carry out its particular disciplines.
As the scenario of government inaction in developing policy and the demoralizing confrontation with the scientific community have unfolded, one fact has become perfectly clear. The scientists for their part have a good deal to learn about policy and the political process; and the government and, I say in all sincerity, the bureaucracy of mandarins associated with it, have a great deal to learn about science. I have no doubt that if dialogue between the two parties I have mentioned had been better, and if the government has seen fit to establish a mechanism for an ongoing exchange of views, a realistic and effective science policy would have been established. As I indicated previously, this debate would have been redundant and unnecessary.
I indicated that scientists have a good deal to learn about policy and the political process. Frankly I have some degree of sympathy with that section of the scientific community which believes they must devote their efforts to their primary work rather than being involved in the political arena. However, the recent experience of representatives of the Canadian Society of Clinical Investigations at their meeting in Quebec, and their dealings with the press, are an example of an unfortunate communications gap that can occur and be very detrimental to their cause. Without attempting to defend their action I believe that many scientists are afraid of the media and have found the political process to be frustrating, time-consuming, and non-productive.
On a more positive note I wish to emphasize the importance of good communications and to state that this was demonstrated very ably by a Dr. John Bienenstock of McMaster, and Dr. Charles Schriber of Montreal, when they appeared as witnesses before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and articulated in a positive manner the concerns of the research community.
I submit to the government, Mr. Speaker, that this is the type of dialogue that is extremely important. I indicated that the government and the mandarins associated with the government have a great deal to learn about science. I wish to take a moment or two to mention briefly a few principles I feel are important, principles which I believe the government has not grasped and does not understand in the whole field of scientific endeavour.
In the area of health I do not think anyone would argue that the ultimate goal of all health research is to improve the health of each Canadian. Society expects, and we have the responsibility to assure high standards of medical education, health services, and health care. Research is linked to the training of professional manpower, to learning, and to a high quality health care system, and is therefore dependent on a viable research base. I find it inconceivable that the government cannot understand this very simple fundamental principle that medical research is interrelated with medical education, which in turn is related to the quality of medical care that is given Canadians.
Interim Supply
If I may, Mr. Chairman, in relation to this particular aspect I should like to quote from an article by Dr. J. B. Armstrong entitled "Quality Teaching, Care Depends on Research". I should point out that Dr. Armstrong is Chief Medical Adviser to the Canadian Heart Foundation. The article states:
Scientific research is a part of the culture and has a role not unlike creative activity in the arts. But it has an additional function, a dividend if you will, in the expansion of knowledge as well as experience. Scientific research is thus a learning experience, of asking questions and seeking answers. Research in the humanities tends to rely on interpretation of the work of others, that is, library research as distinct from the bench research of the natural sciences. My point is that scholarly research is a creative learning experience for the worker and at the same time adds to the general fund of knowledge.
The learning aspect of research is a most important component of university activity, where most of the organized higher learning now takes place. Medical knowledge is no exception. It is growing very rapidly, almost certainly doubling in less than every five years. To keep abreast of this rapid expansion, the learning process in Canadian health centres requires that our imaginative teachers be learners also, at the threshold of their particular fields of endeavour. This form of learning in our medical schools is medical research. The recognition of this learning component by MRC and other health agencies has meant that the distribution of grants and awards has offset, to a degree, regional disparities. It is essential to the continued development of health care in Canada.
Again I must re-emphasize the very fundamental principle, which has not grasped by the government or by the ministers on the opposite side, that medical research and medical education are involved with the delivery of quality health care. I have no intention of developing the arguments in respect of basic or pure research versus applied research or mission oriented research since I believe there is an important role for each of these areas. I think it is clear that we must establish some priorities which require urgent attention, and therefore there must be appropriate research programs for this. However, I must also point out that in my opinion we must ensure an adequate freedom for the researchers in our community.
In this regard I was particularly disturbed by a recent article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, March 18, 1976. It is entitled "Scientists Come Out Fighting as Research Money Frozen". I wish to quote the article as follows:
Science Minister C. M. Drury recently told the Senate science policy committee that science and technology should be supported 'to the extent that it can serve to resolve the problems we face, social or national problems. The extent to which it would exist for and in itself is, in my mind, a great deal more doubtful.' Mr. Drury argued against a 'blind faith' in science as 'a good thing'. If science and technology can be helpful 'it should be supported,' he said, 'and if it can't it shouldn't.'
I realize that newspapers at times have been known to misquote, but I want to remind hon. members that in the throne speech of 1973, at which time the science policy was espoused, on that day there was no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of these who followed it closely, that the decision of the government was in fact to make certain that the various research councils and the various granting bodies should more directly serve its own policy objectives.
I know there are many individuals in all parts of this House who believe there is no room for basic research or for curiosity research. However, I want to suggest this is a very dangerous assumption. I would simply refer to the present classification that is used in terms of grants. As I understand it there are three classifications. There is type

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply
I,	referred to as curiosity-oriented research. There is a type
II,	which is real research for support of departmental goals. Finally, there is research for the support of national objectives. If one looks at this very carefully one will see there are certain dangers.
I want to emphasize that I believe in theory there is some merit to this type of approach. For example, I know that curiosity-oriented research or so-called pure research can be and is evaluated by the peer review mechanism guaranteeing scientific excellence. The danger, of course, is when the politician or bureaucrat, or some other individual raises the priority rating of a scientifically inadequate type of program and is prepared to make it fundable under a type II program. Of course we have the situation where the pure science will be pursued for political reasons, and of course in such an instance, in my opinion, everyone will lose.
Before closing I should like to quote what I think is a very worthwhile comment by Albert Szent-Gyorgyi in an article on research grants which appeared in "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine-Autumn 1974". I should point out that Albert Szent-Gyorgyi was the Nobel Laureate for the discovery of Vitamin C. It states:
Scientific research is, in many ways, related to art. If one wants good music to be produced, one looks for a good musician and not for a project. Projects have no meaning and value anyway, because there are only two kinds of science: good and bad. Good science is made by good scientists, poor science by poor scientists, and the most brillant project is worthless in the hands of a poor scientist, while, conversely, a good scientist has a good chance to come up with something valuable whatever he touches, because "die Welt rundet sich im Tautrophen" (Goethe) which could be translated by saying that all the great laws of nature are represented in a drop of dew. Pasteur went to Germany to study brewing beer and came home with the discovery of optical isomerism.
It is easy to find good scientists, because the good scientists are mostly those who have produced good science. Find them and support them, enable them to work. That's all there is to it. Don't torture them with senseless projects.
Let me simply say in conclusion that the entire problem related to medical research, to the science policy in Canada, is, in my opinion, more than the need for a temporary transfusion of funds. I believe it requires an understanding, a grasp of the problems of science and its importance in our community, and a recognition on the part of the government of the importance of science in our community and to Canadian citizens. Finally, it requires a commitment to develop that type of science policy.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), the Chair should receive two reports. Therefore, I ask leave to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider this bill again later this day. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin), Ontario (Mr. Cafik), Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), York West (Mr. Fleming), Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), Mississauga (Mr. Abbott), St. Catharines (Mr. Parent), Trinity (Miss Nicholson), Fort William (Mr. McRae), and Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario.


OBJECTION TO COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING QUEBEC
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: It is also my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre), Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron), Levis (Mr. Guay), Frontenac (Mr. Cor-riveau), Labelle (Mr. Dupras), Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) and Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Quebec.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objections as appendices to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-91, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31 March, 1977-Mr. Chretien-Mr. McCleave in the Chair.
Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is it agreed that it is now six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.55 p.m. the Committee took recess.
March 25, 1976



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the hon. member for Scarborough East. There were some discussions earlier today with respect to the presence this evening of the Minister of Finance, and I think at some inconvenience he did make an arrangement to be here sharp at eight o'clock in order to answer some questions to be asked by one hon. member. I wonder if it would be agreeable to the hon. member for Scarborough East if that could be done so that the minister could be questioned, and then we would carry on with the normal course of things.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad indeed to co-operate with the suggestion made by the hon. member.


Walter David Baker: I wish to thank the hon. member.


Prosper Boulanger: There still must be unanimous consent of the committee. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wish to express my thanks to the hon. member for Scarborough East for yielding the floor, and also to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton for his courtesy with regard to the arrangements which were made.
My statement is with respect to clause 5 of the interim supply bill which, as hon. members know, seeks new statutory borrowing authority of $6 billion and would serve the purpose of cancelling all outstanding and unused borrowing authority.
As hon. members are aware, the Financial Administration Act, section 36, requires that no money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of parliament. This refers to new money only, because there is a continuing authority in the act for the government to borrow funds to repay maturing debt. Authority to borrow sufficient new money to cover estimated financial requirements, together with a margin for contingencies, is normally sought and granted in one of the first appropriation acts of any fiscal year.
Hon. members might find it helpful if I begin by reviewing the situation in fiscal 1975-76, which will come to an end in a few days time. It will be recalled that a borrowing authority of $4 billion is provided in Appropriation Act No. 2 for 1975, and a further $2 billion in the Supplementary Borrowing Authority Act 1975. Under this total authority of $6 billion we have obtained net new money of $4.6 billion this fiscal year, and a further $214 million will be obtained from the April 1 bond issue. Thus the unused authority which will be cancelled by the passage of the bill will amount to about $1.2 billion.
In sum, by March 31, 1976, the increases in debt issues will be as follows: treasury bills, $865 million; Canada savings bonds, $2,600 million; marketable bonds, $1,175 million, making a total of $4,640 million. The amounts offered at the 90 day and 180 day treasury bill auctions
Interim Supply
were increased, starting a year ago, at the rate of $10 million per week, and this subsequently increased in July to $15 million, and in October to $20 million.
After a pause during the Canada Savings Bond campaign the program was reinstituted with a weekly offer of $20 million, and this figure is now $25 million. The one year bills were auctioned four times during the year, with increments totalling $150 million over the period.
In fiscal 1975-76, $1,774 million in marketable bonds matured, and in exchange $2,550 million worth of bonds were sold. In August a gap in the maturity schedule was used to raise a further $400 million of new money. Emphasis was placed during the year on raising money on the long term bond market, and it proved possible to build up a $600 million single issue maturing October 1, 1995.
The 1975-76 Canada Savings Bond program was most successful with gross sales of about $3,700 million, while redemptions over the fiscal year totalled about $1,100 million. It will be noted that the Canada Saving Bonds total has been maintained at approximately 39 per cent of the total government debt.
The ownership of the debt has changed slightly over the year. The chartered banks own about $100 million more, while the Bank of Canada has increased its holdings by $800 million. The public has purchased about $1 billion of marketable securities and treasury bills as well as $2.5 billion of Canada Savings Bonds.
The $4.6 billion we borrowed has been more than sufficient to meet our requirements. Our cash balances amounted to $3.2 billion at the beginning of the year and stood at $3.7 billion as of yesterday, an increase of $500 million. Thus our total financial requirements have amounted to $4 billion. Excluding foreign exchange transactions which have, on balance, been a source of funds, our financial requirements have been $4.3 billion.
We expect a substantial rundown in cash balances in the remaining few days of the fiscal year. A number of large payments will be made, and the volume of tax refunds is building. I cannot be precise about the final figure for the fiscal year but it seems likely that the total financial requirements will be at the lower end of the range of $5 billion to $6 billion.
I would remind hon. members that the books remain open for a period of time after the end of the fiscal year and thus some months will elapse before the detailed accounts showing the breakdown between budgetary and non-budgetary transactions will be prepared. I will provide the House with preliminary estimates in my budget in May.
Turning to the fiscal year 1976-77, my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has indicated that total outlays for the fiscal year will be $42,150 million, an increase of a little less than 16 per cent. The main estimates have of course been tabled in the House and are being examined in detail by the standing committees. It seems likely that our revenues will grow by broadly similar amounts as our outlays, on the basis of the existing tax structure and the widespread expectation that real growth

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply
in the economy will amount to about 5 per cent and the rate of inflation will decline.
On this basis, the total financial requirements will be of the same order of magnitude next year as in 1975-76. I will of course be providing more precise and detailed forecasts in my budget, taking into account the latest information available on the economy and any policy tax changes to be announced at that time.
As in 1975-76, we may be able to meet some of our requirements by running down cash balances, since they are likely to be at a comfortable level, even after the drain of the next few days. I can thus visualize a public debt program for 1976-77 of broadly similar magnitude and composition as in 1975-76.
The borrowing authority of $6 billion being sought by the government under this bill is the same as that obtained in 1975-76, and provides the necessary margin for contingencies. The financial requirements excluding foreign exchange transactions may be larger than can now be foreseen. Foreign exchange transactions are impossible to predict. If the Canadian dollar is strong in the exchange markets, our ongoing policy of intervention in order to maintain orderly market conditions can add significantly to our cash requirements as they have done recently. It is of course also the case that the sale of foreign exchange can provide a source of money for us when the value of the Canadian dollar is declining.
Finally, I would note that we cannot control with great precision the amounts of Canada Savings Bonds which the public will buy each year. Successful campaigns as in the past two years can exhaust the borrowing authority if no margin is provided.
That is a review of the use of the borrowing authority in the fiscal year just closing and some perspective on the borrowing authority now being sought on an interim basis in this bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell the House what the cumulative borrowing authority to the government is at the present time, bearing in mind the two appropriation bills he referred to which were both passed in 1975?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks I just indicated that it came to an aggregate of $6 billion-$4 billion provided in Appropriation Act No. 2 of 1975, and a further $2 billion in the Supplementary Borrowing Authority Act of 1975.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister misunderstood my question. The wording of the two appropriation acts that I referred to is that the government has the authority to negotiate loans, etc. to the extent of the $6 billion that he refers to, but in addition they can also carry all the debt that is on the books. What I want is a figure of the total debt, plus the additional authority made available to the government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the figure of the total outstanding debt was given in the standing committee. I do not have it with me this evening. Both the government's funded debt and other liabilities-as up to date figures as were then available-were given to the hon.

member in the standing committee. I would have to check the debt review to give that exact figure. To repeat my answer, however, the authorization for 1975-76 was $6 billion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I take it the figure that the minister is referring to is the one given at the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on March 18.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The last time the hon. member and I addressed this issue, and I am not sure of the exact date, my officials were there and made the calculation as near as one can do at the moment, on the outstanding debt. My recollection is it was as of March 31, 1975, and the more up to date figure of March 31, 1976 which was necessarily an estimate, and the estimated average between the two figures.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Further on a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, the debt figures given by the minister at that committee meeting are the debt figures in relation to interest bearing debt. Do I take it that clause 5 gives authorization only in reference to interest bearing debt and does not include the total gross debt of the country which at March 31, 1975, for example, was $62.6 billion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Clause 5 provides authority to borrow on such terms either by interest or discount as may be arranged in the market by the Bank of Canada as agent for the Government of Canada. Other debts that the government may have under the Canada Pension Plan, armed forces superannuation and other plans are not included in this authority to borrow. This is authority to borrow for the purpose of government expenditures.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: May I take it from the minister's remarks that liabilities that are reflected on Canada's balance sheet in a liability and assets sense, liabilities that are not interest bearing, are not included in the gross debt figures that are contemplated in clause 5?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There are liabilities of various kinds in regard to various departments. What we have been talking about are the liabilities for which I am responsible as Minister of Finance under the Department of Finance. Other outstanding liabilities, either on current terms or otherwise, would have to be found from the various departments themselves.
For example, if the hon. member is referring to unliquidated claims that might be recovered against the Government of Canada under the Crown Liability Act in the Federal Court of Canada, of course one cannot make any estimate in advance of what damages the courts may award against the government for motor vehicle negligence or other liabilities. We are talking exclusively of authority to borrow funds for the purpose of the Crown meeting the expenditures of the Government of Canada in 1976-77.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I may refer again to the meeting of the standing committee to which the minister has referred and the figures given by the minister that day, as of March 31, 1976, the interest bearing debt of the nation was $53,667 million. To come back to my first question: assuming that is a correct estimate, $53,667 million, is it fair for the
March 25, 1976

committee to assume that upon the passage of this $6 billion authorization contemplated in clause 5, the total debt outstanding plus the additional authorization will be $59,667 million?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as was indicated to the hon. member the amount involved is an estimate. I would have to check and see whether he has read the figures into the record correctly but, subject to that, that is the estimate of the liability in relation to outstanding treasury bills, Canada Savings Bonds, and funded debt of the Government of Canada. We are considering authority for $6 billion more. At this moment no part of the $6 billion has been issued. If it were issued the figure would be as estimated, or very close to it, plus the additional $6 billion, as indicated in the clause.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, to be specific, I gave the minister a copy of the minutes of that finance committee meeting. He may check the $53,667 million figure. Am I correct in assuming that that $53,667 million, plus the $6 billion contemplated in clause 5, will be the total authorized debt outstanding?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Chairman. That is an estimate only as of March 31, 1976, which has not arrived yet. The officials were estimating the figures for the purpose of the hon. gentleman's question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, may I ask another specific question? If one assumes that the estimate is correct, is the government requesting authority, over all, with respect to $6 billion, plus $53,667 million?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Chairman. We are requesting authorization for $6 billion. There is already an outstanding, significant allocation with regard to treasury bills, funded debt, and Government of Canada Savings Bonds. No authority is being sought at this time for that $53 billion-odd, because authority already exists with respect to that money.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that two appropriation bills were passed last year, one for $4 billion, another for $2 billion, for a total of $6 billion. On the basis of his own figures, given at the finance committee meeting, it appears that the government will have borrowed $6,156 million, or $156 million more than was authorized by the two appropriation bills to which he referred. Can the minister say why this over-run occurred?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, if I may refer again to the remarks I made when introducing the item for the benefit of the hon. gentlemen, section 36 of the Financial Administration Act requires that no money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of parliament. The hon. member's reference is to new money, but there is continuing authority under the act for the government to borrow funds in order to repay maturing debt. You do not need fresh authority under the Financial Administration Act to pay maturing debt. That authority is already provided by the Financial Administration Act.
Interim Supply


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the minister misunderstood me again. I shall try to be more specific. According to his own figures, as of March 31, 1975, total federal government interest bearing borrowings stood at $47,511 million. The government's estimated borrowings, which must, by inference, mean new borrowing as well as existing borrowing, as of March 31, 1976, exactly the same year with which the two appropriation bills mentioned dealt, had risen to the figure of $53,667 million, which represents an increase of $6,156 million, or $156 million more than the $6 billion authorized. Could the minister comment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, borrowings during the year did not quite equal the $6 billion figure, but the money would have been partly used for re-funding existing debt, as I suggested to the hon. gentleman.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, according to public account figures, as of the end of March, 1975, the total, gross federal debt stood at $62,696 million. Yet this evening, and also during the finance committee meeting, it was mentioned that the total interest bearing debt of the nation stood at $47,511 million. Can the minister explain how the difference of $15,185 million arises? That is the difference between the figure respecting this country's gross debt as mentioned in the committee, and as mentioned in committee of the whole this evening.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the figures for the purpose of government borrowing on March 18 were estimates, of course. The estimate as of March 31, 1976, is for $53 billion. But here we are talking not about other liabilities; we are talking about the government's borrowing, pursuant to its borrowing authority, which is what this item is about. As I said to the hon. gentleman, I do not pretend to give all the other liabilities of the Government of Canada, only the liabilities on funded debt.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, to refer to the estimates, the minister is asking for an increase of $875 million in debt servicing costs. To be specific, I am referring to the estimate for the fiscal year 1977, item 8-16. The minister suggests that government spending to cover debt servicing charges, interest, etc., will rise from $3,775 million, to $4,650 million, an increase of $875 million. Why is this staggering amount required, if he proposes to borrow in the current year an additional $6 billion at the outside? Even if we adopt the highest interest figures the minister quoted in committee, if the government borrowed $6 billion extra at 8.2 per cent, it cannot justify a jump of $875 million in extra interest costs. Apparently the government is seeking authority for that amount under this bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would have to say that that is the estimate of liability which will occur. Of course the over-all interest cost to the Government of Canada will be averaged out as lower cost debt is retired and new debt issued.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Chairman, may I mention two things happening which are directly related to the subject we are debating and connected with the public accounts committee. It is important for the committee and the Canadian public to know of three important studies undertaken

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply
during the last several months under the auspices of the public accounts committee. The first of these concerns the study of the independent review committee which, I understand, will lead to the introduction of a new auditor general act. The President of the Treasury Board has recently said he intends to introduce this bill fairly soon.
The second study dealt with the review of the public accounts of Canada. This was a particularly important study because it will lead ultimately to measures which will enable people to measure the year by year, or even month by month financial performance of the $40 billion corporation known as the Government of Canada. This important topic has been debated in the public accounts committee several times. Ultimately it will have far-reaching effects on the way in which the financial activities of the government can be measured, and the financial performance in one year will be compared with what has been suggested in the budget that year. One year's performance will also be compared with another year's.
I suggest that recommendations concerning the public accounts of Canada will result eventually in a system of accounts the significance of which will be recognized beyond the confines of Parliament Hill. In other words it will be a form of financial reporting that will be recognizable in terms of modern day financial management reporting. This is an extremely important matter. It is one to which the government has been anxious to address itself for a considerable time.
A study was conducted with the benefit of considerable outside expertise in the form of professional guidance. The study will, of course, be ongoing. We have been given assurance by the President of the Treasury Board that the 41 recommendations emanating from that study will indeed be implemented as quickly as possible. It is important to understand that some of these recommendations are far-reaching in terms of the accounting and financial reporting systems in use in the government, and it may take several years before they can be implemented in whole. The main thing is that a start has been made.
The other important point is that the Auditor General has assured us that each year from now on he will give an accounting to the Public Accounts Committee of the way in which of these recommendations have been implemented, how far they have been implemented, and what recommendations still remain to be implemented. In view of the extensive nature of these recommendations, this is an important point. Indeed we may cover one or more parliaments before all the recommendations can be implemented. This is very reassuring to a member of parliament, who after all has no particular tenure in the position he occupies in any particular parliament, to know that even if he should leave this House these kinds of important recommendations will come into force in due course.
The third report I would like to speak about tonight, and perhaps this is the most far-reaching of all these reports, has been labelled the financial management and control study. This particular report was the result of a study that was initiated by the present Auditor General, shortly after his appointment some two years ago, in conjunction with Treasury Board and the President of the Treasury Board to

undertake the most comprehensive review of the financial management and control operations of the government that has been undertaken since the days of the Glassco Commission.
I am sure many of us will recall the excitement among the Canadian public that accompanied the appointment of the Glassco Commission some 15 years ago, and the excitement with which we reviewed its recommendations. I am happy to note that over the past 15 years the government has implemented many of those recommendations.
However, it is important to note that a number of the recommendations in the area of financial management and control have yet to be implemented in whole. I say this because they have been implemented in part. To some of us who were examining the current report, that part is not nearly adequate. In fact it is missing a great deal. This is the area to which this current financial management and control study has addressed itself.
I would also like to note that this particular study is only about half completed. The current report being reviewed in the public accounts committee deals principally with matters related to government departments as such. It is my understanding that there will be another part of this study which will result in another report, perhaps next year or in the foreseeable future, that will deal Crown corporations and the many agencies of government.
It is perhaps important to note some of the terms of reference given to this particular group when their study was to be undertaken. One of the key areas is the recommendations which came out of this study dealing with the manner in which estimates should be placed before parliament. This is a very key point. I wish to enumerate the directions given to the study committee when it was appointed.


Prosper Boulanger: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he will recall that it was unanimously agreed to discuss clause 5. When I recognized the hon. member I thought he was either going to speak or ask a question on clause 5 rather than engage in a general debate on clause 2. I have recognized the hon. member and I cannot ask him to yield the floor, but I suggest that he address himself to clause 5.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield the floor. However, I wish to reserve my right to speak on clause 2 at another point.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, if I may take another run at the minister, perhaps I can get an answer to my first question if I try again. I refer the minister, to the actual wording of clause 5. It reads:
The Governor in Council may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by Parliament, by any Act-
My question is, how much is the amount remaining unborrowed and negotiable under previous authority which could be added to the $6 billion now being requested?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I already responded to the hon. member, both in committee and here. One cannot give an actual figure outstanding as of the
March 25, 1976

moment. An estimate was given as of March 31, 1976, by my officials in committee. The figure for that was $53,667 million. That is the amount they estimated as of March 31, 1976.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I come back to my basic third question. Assuming the estimate the minister referred to, the $53,667 million, is a correct figure, is it correct to say that on April 1, coming into the new fiscal year of 1977, the government may then borrow the existing $53,667 million, plus another $6 billion, in short, almost $60 billion-$59,667 million? Am I correct?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr, Chairman, the hon. member is not correct. The government has borrowed an amount of approximately the estimate. The government is authorized to borrow, starting April 1, a further $6 billion and that is all.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Assuming the minister's estimate given at committee is correct, that on March 31 the total government borrowing will be $53,667 million, is it correct to say that what the government is asking for is an additional $6 billion which, if it is utilized during the next fiscal year, will mean that its total borrowing will be $59,667 million?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That very much depends on redemptions, the extent to which the $53,667 million is reduced. One can only guess at it. I suppose one could say that the outside aggregate of both borrowing authority and outstanding, the debt would be the sum of two figures.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Finally we got it; the sum of the two figures would be a total debt and authorization of $59,667 million.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked if the government is being authorized to borrow in the coming year $53,667 million, plus $6 billion, and my answer to that was no. The government is being authorized to borrow $6 billion only. There is an estimated $53 billion outstanding.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If we could assume that we could return to April 1 of the current fiscal year, in other words, to April 1, 1975, is it not correct also to say that the figure the hon. gentleman has given us for total government borrowing of $57,511 million could only be increased by $6 billion as a result of the two appropriation bills to which we have referred, which allow a further authorized borrowing of $6 billion? In short, if one adds the estimated figure the minister has given us it appears we have gone $156 million over the authorizations in the two appropriation bills.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The figure given was as at March 31, 1975. I cannot be certain of the figure as at April 1 without inquiry. Perhaps I could refer again to my statement that there was net new money in the fiscal year of $4.6 billion and that a further $214 million would be obtained from the April 1st bond issue. So, if the same event had occurred in the previous year, of course the March 31 figure would have been exceeded by April 1.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I shall not delay the proceedings. It appears the authorization has been exceeded and perhaps we shall
Interim Supply
have more to say about that later in the proceedings. May I ask the minister this question? In view of Governor Bouey's attempt to be a little more restrained as far as monetary growth is concerned, would the minister indicate whether his new financing plans have been discussed with Governor Bouey and has he indicated that the hon. gentleman's fiscal stance in connection with the federal government's cash needs is acceptable to him? Does the governor feel he can live with it and yet retain the relatively restrained monetary growth he has been suggesting?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The governor does not, of course, pass judgment on fiscal policy; that is the responsibility of the department. But I think I can refer to the statement of the governor in the annual report of the Bank of Canada indicating his approbation in general terms of the fiscal policies of the government and also of the antiinflation policies we are pursuing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Bearing in mind the governor's statement that he felt government would have to be less demanding as far as cash requirements are concerned, has the minister specifically discussed with the governor the cash needs of the federal treasury in the coming year, and has the governor indicated that the monetary stance he is proposing is sufficient to cover the fiscal needs outlined by the minister?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have not discussed any specific cash figure. We have talked about it on a broader economic basis. The governor shares the government's concern that a too tight fiscal or monetary policy could have the effect of retarding recovery and risking much higher rates of unemployment, and it is for this reason he has given his approval to the government's fiscal stance and to the economic policy we have followed with regard to the anti-inflation program. That is why we agree, of course, on the appropriateness of the monetary policy being followed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on clause two. I do not wish to interrupt the interesting line of questioning which the hon. member for York-Simcoe is carrying on, but in view of the fact that the Chairman this afternoon held everyone down to 20 minutes I should like to have some idea how long the hon. member is going to be.


Prosper Boulanger: The time allotted to the hon. member for York-Simcoe is very close to expiring. If the hon. member could wait a few minutes we might be able to carry clause 5. I will allow the hon. member for York-Simcoe one more question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank hon. members also for their patience. My final question is this: of the $6 million which may be borrowed, does the minister contemplate any of this sum being placed outside Canada, in the United States, or in other foreign capital markets?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If I might correct the hon. member again, it is $6 billion which is to be borrowed, not $6 million. It is difficult to say where it will be placed. In all probability it will be placed in Canada. The Canada Savings Bond issue will, of course, be entirely confined to Canadians. It will depend very much on the state of the

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply
market at the time. The great probability is that it will be placed here. It has been quite some time, a period of years, since the Government of Canada placed a bond issue outside the country.


Prosper Boulanger: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Clause 5 stood.

On Clause 2.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out an error in clause 2. We read $198,670,283.33 in the English text and $199,670,283.33 in the French translation. As you know, the French side is always more generous than the English side but this should not occur in this bill. Therefore I should like to inform the House, on a point of order, that on page 2, clause 2, subclause g), the French should read $198,670,283.33 instead of $199,670,283.33.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I base my point of order on Standing Order 69 which states that "no bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape." I wanted to bring that to your attention. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board would tell the House what he was trying to do-whether he was trying to confuse the Auditor General or members of parliament, or whether he has joined the C.D. Howe club whose motto is "What's a million?" In any case, I raised this point on the basis of the provision clearly set out in Standing Order 69.


Prosper Boulanger: We are now on
clause 2. The hon. member for Scarborough East.
On clause 2-$4,970,732,370.57 granted for 1976-77.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, I realize time is running out so I shall be brief. During this discussion of the estimates of the President of the Treasury Board I wish to call attention to a pay practice which I consider to be unfair to those employees of the government known as casuals. I am addressing this point to the minister in his capacity as representing the government as employer. It is somewhat in the nature of a grievance felt by many people in my constituency, and undoubtedly by constituents of other members. The grievance arise from the regulations administered by Treasury Board relating to the retroactive pay of casuals. The problem can be simply stated.
First, as members well know, casuals are not included in the collective bargaining process nor do they enjoy certain other benefits available to permanent employees of the government. The question I want to raise for hon. members is this: should these differences in the status of casuals and other employees justify the present rule that casuals do not qualify for retroactive pay when, for example, they have worked during a period after a collective agreement has expired and before a new one is negotiated? I do not think they should be excluded from retroactive pay because of their different status.

For example, let us assume that an agreement expired last November and that the new agreement was ratified in February, with a three-month period following termination of the agreement. Those who are classified as permanent employees, or even as term casuals, will receive retroactive pay for the three months' period after the agreement terminated. This is not the case with casuals unless a casual had worked in an uninterrupted fashion for the preceding six months.
It is this six-month formula or rule that I wish to raise as a grievance before we pass the estimates. I believe this produces an injustice, and what I am doing is making a representation to the President of the Treasury Board, asking him to consider changing the formula. Let us consider perhaps a typical case, and then I should like to suggest to the minister an amended formula.
Consider a casual during any given year who works for perhaps three weeks and is then laid off, comes back on the payroll for two months and is then laid off, comes back on the payroll for a few weeks and is laid off, and comes back on the payroll for six months and is laid off. That is a typical pattern under which casuals operate now.
These are valuable employees if only in that they give flexibility to the employment needs of the government. They assist the government in its work during peak periods and they are not employed at other periods but in effect are on standby. This is of benefit to the employees who wish to be in the casual category, and is of benefit to the government, particularly to certain departments which have seasonal loads, for example National Health and Welfare, the Post Office, the Unemployment Insurance Commission undoubtedly, as well as other departments where there is an unsteady rhythm of employment needs.
The pay for these casuals is in fact related to that of a permanent employee in a similar category. Let us say it is to the second level or the minimum level of a clerk, grade 1, 2 or 3, whatever the cross-reference is. When the pay of one of these permanent employees is raised and there is a retroactive feature, that permanent employee receives retroactive pay, but the casual employee who is linked in a pay fashion to that level does not receive the retroactive pay for the same period. This is a grievance. This is unfair, in my view. It is unjust, and it is more keenly felt during a period of inflation.
My suggestion to the minister would be that the six-month rule be changed. There may be various formulas for the change, but the one I should like to suggest for his consideration is that a casual employee be entitled to retroactivity if the casual employee has worked for a six-month period, whether or not interrupted, in the 12 months preceding the termination of the agreement.
That would be a definite improvement because it would mean that the casual could accumulate six months over the year preceding termination. The employee might accumulate three months, then break off, then three weeks, and so on. There may be other formulas but this is the principle I am seeking, that these people be entitled to retroactivity on a less restrictive and more just formula than the one now existing.
March 25, 1976

This is not a great change to ask. The principle of retroactivity is already granted for casuals provided they have six uninterrupted months. I am only suggesting that the formula be changed to broaden it in its reach to other employees. I will say no more. I put this as a representation to the minister, and I am sure there are other hon. members who would be glad to support it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I wish to thank the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) for bringing this problem to my attention. I was not aware of this apparent difference in the compensation methods of our casual employees. Obviously I cannot accept right away the hon. member's proposition because, first of all, there is a dogma in the relations between the government's employees and the government itself whereby we do not bring any changes without consulting the union representatives. So I take good note of these recommendations. There seems to be a discrepancy; the hon. member makes a concrete suggestion which I will be glad to consider with a view to finding a remedy to what seems to be an injustice.

While I am on my feet I should like to come back to a subject which was discussed at some length today regarding the Medical Research Council. I just want to say that this is a very difficult situation because there are a lot of good causes in the land. This is another illustration of the fact that the government's money is not always wasted. I would point out to the hon. member that the funds of the Medical Research Council have not been cut back, an not even frozen. The amount in 1974-75 was $42,860,000. The year after that we gave the council what I consider a substantial increase, to $47,434,000. In this fiscal year it will be $48,434,000 rather than $47,434,000, or an increase of $1 million. Of course I agree with everybody that this does not meet all the requirements of the council.
One hon. member tried to create the impression that I did not know anything about this at all. I must inform him that my own brother is a medical researcher and he gave me hell for this, even more than the hon. member. This is not my money but the money of all the taxpayers, and I have to do the best I can with it. We all know that there are pressures on members of the House; I always welcome suggestions from everyone, but we do have to make these difficult decisions. We hope that next year we will do better. I want to point out to the hon. member that there was no cutback at all, and not even a freeze. I must admit it was a very modest increase, but it is not a cutback when you give an extra $1 million. For me a million dollars is a very big amount of money.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have been waiting for your ruling on my earlier point of order. I am wondering how you are going to correct the error in this bill. There are many members who are not here tonight and they will not be aware of the error.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair took notice of the point brought to the attention of the committee. The hon. member asked a question concerning the purpose of this mistake. However, a mistake is a mistake, and in the mind of the Chair this is the type of error which I think we should correct by unanimous consent. Is it agreed?
Interim Supply


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman-


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, a short while ago I was in the middle of my speech in connection with matters relating to clause 2 when it was pointed out to me by the Chair at the time that we were actually dealing with a different clause. I asked that my position be preserved once we reached the discussion of clause 2. I would appreciate knowing where I stand now.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I think the hon. member is just losing valuable time. We will come to him in due course. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman, I consider it somewhat strange that the government should boast so loudly about the substantial cuts in expenditures in respect of its guidelines aimed at inflation.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. If the parliamentary secretary wishes to raise a point of order about the fact that the hon. member for Scarborough West has not been recognized, the decision has been rendered by the Chair. The only alternative is to challenge my ruling. The Chair has the authority to recognize members in turn. The hon. member for Scarborough West had yielded to another member, for whatever reason. It is not his choice when he will be recognized. It is a prerogative of the Chair. The parliamentary secretary knows that. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman, before I was interrupted I was saying that the government should not be boasting about this. If we look at the facts, this is a very hollow boast. Let us look at the government expenditures over the past eight years, according to the figures in the book of estimates. In the 1968-69 fiscal year the estimates amounted to $10.8 billion while the current estimates stand at $38.4 billion. The figure has almost quadrupled in eight years.
Between 1975-76 and 1976-77 the figure increased from $28.2 billion to $38.4 billion. It was calculated about a year ago that if the government went on increasing its spending at the rate it was then, successive governments headed by the present Prime Minister would be spending by the end of this current year as much as was spent by all preceding Canadian governments combined. That is an example of restraint.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


Donald W. Munro: No. I will accept a question at the end of my remarks.
This is a strange record on which to base such a boast. The $38.4 billion is the figure in the main estimates only

March 25, 1976
Interim Supply
before any supplementaries have been added. When the supplementaries are added I am sure the figure will be over the quadruplicate. My prime interest, aside from deflating some of this inflationary talk or deflationary talk, is to concern myself with some of the defects in the planning over the last umpteen years by the government in the matter of air-sea rescue on the west coast.
Last year ten fishermen were lost during the herringfishing season off the west coast. There were 14 vessels lost and six more seriously damaged. That was in March, 1975. With some prompting the Department of Transport set up an inquiry in mid-April. By July, after further prompting, a report was finally tabled in this House. It was a good report. It contained some excellent recommendations. Some were for immediate application, certainly before the next herring fishing season which began earlier this month.
Were these recommendations ever implemented before the fishing fleet set out to sea earlier this month, because four more lives already have been lost this season on the herring fishing grounds? Two of these lives were lost on Monday night this week. Against this background the following facts have a great relevance.
There are three service helicopters for air-sea rescue on the west coast, in addition to the one single coast guard helicopter. Of the three service helicopters, as of this morning only one was serviceable. In other words, two helicopters are in service at this moment to be available on call for the fishing fleet at sea composed of hundreds of small vessels spread up and down the coast.
What is more, the helicopter situation is not better this year than it was last year. This brings up the subject of today's debate-the lack of foresight by the government which places us in this perilous position of having too little in the way of air-sea rescue capability on the west coast. I am inclined to think the situation is not much better on the east coast, but we will hear about that shortly.
There is another element in this situation which deserves some comment. The three service helicopters, the three normally available at Comox, are by priority assigned to land search or to sea search for an aircraft downed at sea. They are not necessarily available for air-sea rescue for fishermen in distress. This means that on the west coast only one helicopter with hoist capacity is available, when serviceable, for the saving of life at sea in the Pacific in respect of the fishing fleet.
I should like to revert for a moment to the Fishing Boat Casualty Report which I mentioned earlier. In that report dated March, 1975, but not released to parliament until well on into July, and only then because of continual prodding by me, the officers of the Department of Transport inquiring into last year's accidents made a number of far-reaching recommendations. These recommendations related to training for skippers and mates, the publication of a fishermen's safety pamphlet for seamen generally, as well as weather forecasting, stability and load restrictions and arrangements.
I have had occasion to review these recommendations during the past few days because of the accidents that took place. I wonder how many of these recommendations were ever implemented. I found them all to be excellent and

practical recommendations, but were they implemented? That is what I want to know. If they were not implemented, what was the reason. We lost 14 men and ten vessels last year, and four more men early this year, partly I suspect because these recommendations were not implemented.
Early in January the fishermen made representations to B.C. members of parliament about the forthcoming fishing season. I have a copy of those representations as conveyed to the Minister of Transport by my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria. Some of the recommendations made by the fishermen are identical to those made by the committee of enquiry. These include stability testing, loading arrangements and so on. Aside from this there was a call for improved air-sea rescue facilities for the fishing area. Was any heed paid to this call for help? How much heed was paid to the recommendations that were presented to the minister in January?
The first of the fishing boat disasters this year occurred off Cape Beale, the southern lip of Barclay Sound. Who came to the rescue? The United States Coast Guard. I believe one of their helicopters-and this I find distressing-crashed into the sea in its attempt to rescue some of our Canadian fishermen. We are fortunate in having neighbours of that kind. Two fishermen and the helicopter crew were saved as a result of the activities of a lifeboat crew which put out to sea. Most of the helicopter itself was eventually salvaged, but one seaman was lost and more would have been lost had it not been for the U.S. coastguard. Is there any better way of pointing out the deficiencies of the Canadian coastguard and the Canadian air-sea rescue facilities on the west coast?
I have said it before and I say it again now, hopefully for the last time, that we do not have an effective air-sea rescue on our coast. What is at issue here is a combination of the improper assignment of priorities in budgeting over the last eight or ten years, lack of foresight, and a confusion in the co-ordination of command. If these shortcomings had not been allowed to occur four, five or six years ago, we would not be in the position we are in today, that is, of asking the government to re-examine its priorities so that everything necessary is done to protect the lives of our fishermen.
Strengthening the air-sea rescue capability will cost a lot of money, but lives are at stake. Implementation of the recommendations of the Department of Transport will cost less money, but lives are still at stake, and the recommendations deserve to be implemented. This failure of the government to assign priorities properly adds to the growing fund of lack of confidence which marks the history of the government. Unfortunately this lack of confidence also reflects on parliament and on its members.
The government's credibility is in question, not only as a result of its failure to take the necessary steps in time vis-a-vis air-sea rescue. It has also been considerably shaken, I suggest, as a result of the failure of normal ethical standards of conduct to exercise their expected effect on all members of the cabinet, leading to the commission of what has come to be called impropriety. Now we have the sight of former senior public servants exercising
March 25, 1976

functions in the private sector which at least causes one to ask oneself whether some conflict of interest is not at issue.
The experiment in * which we are engaged today as a means of re-examining the estimates is long overdue. It is not absolutely clear whether it will be effective, but something effective has to be worked out to restore the credibility of parliament and of governments in general.
Last evening, for example, as we were asked to approve supplementary estimates we found it absolutely impossible to amend in any way the sums proposed by the government. There was one sum in particular which did not need to be there at all, yet we could not remove it. We were told that we should have had it removed in committee and brought forward to the House as an amendment when reporting the estimates to the House. That had been tried, Mr. Chairman. An opposition motion was put in the committee aimed at dropping that particular sum from the estimates. It was a sum which a senior public servant said he would not need, a matter of some $186,000 to be dropped. What happened? The government members voted to a man to oppose that deletion. As a majority their will prevailed, and as a result we passed in the supplementaries last night a sum of $186,000 which will not be needed.
It was maintained at the time that the unused funds would be returned in the normal course of events to the consolidated revenue fund. This is not necessarily so because in another committee, one on which I sat, some $858,000 of funds voted by this parliament to cover capital costs were admitted to have been diverted to the payment of services. When we questioned this improper procedure we were told that permission to cover this diversion was actually being asked at that moment. But if you examined those supplementaries, those funds had already been spent. So we cannot be absolutely certain that the $186,000 which was overestimated would be returned to the consolidated revenue fund automatically. This is one of the reasons why we are having this particular experiment in procedure tonight.
We want to devise methods of improving control by parliament over expenditures by government of whatever kind. What we want to know is where the government places its priorities in relation to expenditures of public funds, and in particular in the case of which I spoke, in relation to the safety of life at sea. There has been no evidence over the past three or four years, even after the tragedies of last year, that priorities in this area have been adjusted to meet altering demands.
In the matter of co-ordination of effort to bring together the activities of all the departments concerned, such as the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Fisheries, the Solicitor General's Department, the RCMP, the Department of National Defence, and even Customs, little has been done to meet these crying needs. I am disturbed that the government is so bankrupt in the matter of governing that it will permit this parliament and the whole democratic process to become so eroded that we will have to start again at the beginning to restore parliament and all its institutions to the respect and honour which an effective performance alone can produce.
Interim Supply


Mr. Flynn:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member said that when the controversial bill came up "the government to a man . ..". I would like to correct him. It was "the government to a person".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to terminate my comments which I started a little earlier. I yielded my place to allow the discussion to continue on clause 5. I was discussing the terms of reference given some two years to the committee which appear in the report of the Auditor General on financial management and control practices within the government. I should like to read these terms of reference into the record because of their new application to the estimates process which we are now going through.
The committee was asked to examine:
(a)	Statutes and Treasury Board regulations, policies, directives and guidelines relevant to financial management and control, and the extent of compliance therewith in departments and agencies;
(b)	Financial systems and procedures in departments and agencies including budgetary controls, accounting for revenues, expenditures, assets, liabilities, commitments, and financial reporting systems;
(c)	Integration of the departmental and agency accounting processes and systems with the central systems;
(d)	Extent to which the financial systems and procedures are monitored and audited by internal or operational audit groups;
(e)	Type, accuracy, timeliness, purpose and use of financial information and reports currently prepared;
(f)	Extent of decentralization following on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Government Organization and its impact on over-all financial control, and
(g)	Duties, responsibilities and functions of financial and accounting managers and staff with special reference to the system of financial and accounting control and the relationships of their function with central financial and accounting agencies.
I think it is important also that these terms of reference, as I mentioned earlier, were very encompassing and provided the largest investigation into financial management and control within government organization that has taken place since the Glassco Commission was appointed some 15 years ago.
In the time available to me tonight I should like to cover one or two of the major recommendations from that study, and I emphasize again that the study is only half completed. I will be brief because I know others want to participate in this debate. To the present time the study has only dealt with individual government departments. The next part of the study will deal with Crown corporations and their many agencies operated under the government.
One of the key recommendations from this study is that no longer is it recommended that three departments continue to hold the joint responsibility for the financing, management, and control of accounting procedures and procedures relating to preparation of estimates in the government. Indeed up until now it has been the practice that this responsibility has been shared by the Department of Supply and Services, the Treasury Board, and the Department of Finance.
In large industry-and government is a large organization-it is accepted that there must be centralization of
21804-9^2

March 25, 197
Interim Supply
financial control at some point. This particular study in its report recommends that this responsibility pass entirely to the Treasury Board. In future-and this is the recommendation which the President of the Treasury Board has unequivocally indicated will certainly be accepted by the government-there will be one department in government, the Treasury Board, which will assume this central responsibility for financial management and control.
I think it is important also to note that there has been a recommendation by this committee that there be more consideration in the formation of estimates, starting at the top and working down. This is not intended to take away the incentive of the people working out in the field and at the lower levels of government to come up with the kinds of programs which they think it would be proper and desirable to implement. What it does say, however, is that at some point there is to be a cap put on. In other words, that cap will be put on at the top, and individual ideas being worked upon from the bottom up will have to be sifted at some point so that indeed they can fit into the over-all total which can be ascribed to that particular department. I think this is important because there has been a tendency in the past, in the massive growth of government bureaucracy we have seen, for programs to come up from the bottom, and it has been difficult to ascertain just what cap has been applied. This is an important recommendation.
Another important recommendation on which there may still be some difference in interpretation is the matter of the appointment of a chief financial officer with the government. I believe it is the idea of the study group that a person should be designated chief financial officer at some point, just as we find is done in large corporate undertakings. Regardless of the total number of people who have financial control, somewhere in a corporate entity there is one chief financial officer who ultimately must answer to the brass, as it were, for what is happening in terms of the financial operation of that undertaking.
I believe that at the moment the Treasury Board is of the opinion that the Treasury Board as a collective unit is the chief financial officer, and I think this is something which needs to be explored still further.
Of the three studies I mentioned earlier I think this study is being put before the Public Accounts Committee and is the most important in terms of over-all purview of government financial operations in years to come. It will take many years to implement in its entirety, and the understanding of those of us in the Public Accounts Committee at the present time is that there are only two recommendations with which the Treasury Board tends to disagree. There are perhaps seven or eight recommendations with which the Treasury Board agrees, and a number over which there is substantial agreement.
For the purposes of the record, the recommendations in the study are contained in chapter 10 of the report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1975. This particular chapter is so significant that I believe for the first time in recent years the Auditor General found it necessary to bring out a supplement of some 300 pages to back up strictly that one chapter of his report for the year ended March 31, 1975. This supplement deals completely with the many recommendations made to date by the

financial management and control study group. I empha size to date, because the importance of this matter is s< great that indeed, it will be continued in the current yea; with relation to Crown corporations and their relatec agencies.
There are many other recommendations I should have liked to talk about because I think they form a verj essential part of the over-all role of parliamentarians ir. their review of estimates which are put before them. In the recommendations there is a real endeavour to give parliamentarians more concrete information which will enable them to do their job in committees and to make their examination of the various estimates put before them in a much more rational and meaningful method than is currently possible under the existing system.
Much more could be said about this very important subject, but I just wanted to put these points, in relation to chapter 10 of the report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1975, on the record at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes which are left I should like to ask the committee to give some thought to a matter which is of grave concern to quite a number of people in my constituency, to a large number of people on the coast of British Columbia, and to an even larger number of people who live in the Atlantic provinces. I am referring to the search and rescue service of the government.
The men who go down to the sea in ships and do business in deep waters deserve the very best kind of protection this country can provide. The men who sail our ships in the coastal trade, and the fishermen who go out to bring food back for the people of this country, are entitled to a very good, adequate, and efficient search and rescue operation. They are not getting it. The service has been both inadequate and inefficient. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has given some of the figures, and there is no need to weary the committee with more.
The fact is that on the Pacific, coast when the herring season is on, some 1,600 fishing boats go out into deep water. Last year we lost 14 men and 13 ships, and already in this season, which has not by any means finished, we have lost four men and five ships. On the east coast there has been a steady series of losses of both ships and men.
I have in my hand the report of Mr. Justice P. Lloyd Soper, who made an inquiry into the loss of ships on the Atlantic coast and made his report to the Minister of Transport, and to the best of my knowledge not a single one of the recommendations made to that minister has been implemented.
What is the reason for the poor service which is being provided on both our coasts? I want to say that it does not lie with the men who man the coastguard or who are trying to provide the service. These men are doing the very best they can with inadequate equipment, and with a hopeless administrative structure. The main problem lies in the fact that we have divided jurisdiction. The Department of Transport, the Department of National Defence, and the Department of Fisheries are all in the picture; the RCMP also has some part in it, as has the coastguard. In addition, the United States coastguard comes to our rescue very frequently, thank heaven!
March 25, 1976


James Armstrong Richardson: We help them, too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On
March 18 as reported at page 11902 of Hansard I asked the Minister of National Defence about the serious losses we have suffered in the last few days both in men and boats on the Pacific coast. The minister replied:
I should point out also that maritime rescue is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. The Department of National Defence does not have a maritime rescue capability but we have a very effective air-search capability.
I asked the minister at that time how you could have a search and rescue operation in which the Department of Transport is responsible for the rescue function and the Department of National Defence is responsible for searching. That is exactly why we have had such serious losses. Moreover, we have to depend on the United States coastguard service. The minister said:
We tend to assist the U.S. more on the east coast; they assist us more on the west coast.
This may be a very good arrangement on paper but the fact remains, Mr. Chairman, when the storm hits the coastline, east or west, it hits both the American coastline and the Canadian coastline. The result is that the United States has to look after its own people. We cannot expect them to neglect servicing their people in order to meet our needs.
It seems to me this is a hopeless situation. Not only have we got a divided jurisdiction but we have inadequate equipment. The rescue operation does not have night equipment. The search operation can go out and find the ship or men clinging to a life raft, but there is no way until daybreak that the rescue operation can be effected.
What needs to be done, Mr. Chairman? I suggest the first thing is to order equipment which would make it possible to carry on both search and rescue operations 24 hours a day. We need night lights on helicopters, proper landing facilities, ships that are able to go out in stormy seas and which can fire a life line, and are strong enough to tow a stricken ship back to port.
The other thing we need is a single agency which will be responsible for the entire search and rescue operation. This divided jurisdiction has created a monstrosity. It is for the government to decide which department such an agency should come under but there certainly ought to be one agency for search and rescue, maritime and aerial, with all the facilities it needs. It should be able to go into action on both coasts. We should not have to depend on the generosity of our American friends. The men in the coastal trade or those who go out to catch fish should know that, in the event of a serious storm or running on the rocks, they have a reasonable chance of being rescued.
The other thing that needs to be (lone is for the government to accept the recommendations made by the Department of Transport, by the Department of Fisheries, and by committees of inquiry like the Soper committee and put those recommendations into effect.
The Minister of Transport was asked about this matter yesterday. As reported at page 12095 of Hansard he admitted that he had received recommendations from his department that fundamental changes were needed in the regula-
Interim Supply
tions but these had not been made. This has been put off year after year. In the meantime brave men drown, good ships are wrecked, and ministers of the various departments pass the buck from one to the other.
The Minister of National Defence says his department is responsible for the search but the Department of Transport has to effect the rescue. The Minister of Transport told the House yesterday that these regulations are going to be promulgated later and then we will get around to doing something. Despite the fact that ministers have had the recommendations on their desks for several years nothing has been done.
It has always caused me some amusement that the Liberal party, while admitting it may not be the most innovative organization or the most imaginative in the world, has claimed to be the most competent. They believe they are the people who can be trusted to manage the affairs of Canada. But what do we see? Since the end of World War II the Liberal party has been in office for 36 out of 41 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the Tories left office the Liberal party has been in power for 13 years, eight of them in an administration headed by the present Prime Minister. Hon. members who pound their desks overlook the fact that those years will haunt them for their failure to do anything about the appalling search and rescue conditions in this country. With all those years behind them why have they not done something about this problem?
What has happened as we sit in this House has become more and more apparent. We listen to ministers say they are going to do something about the problem. They talk about appointing a task force or having a study or a report made. Then when they get the report they say the matter has to go to cabinet and that in the next six months the government will take a decision. Those are the phrases they use, Mr. Chairman.
Instead of living up to their claim as efficient administrators the government is increasingly becoming inefficient, is showing administrative incompetence. It is a bureaucracy that has grown bigger but not better, a bureaucracy that daily is becoming more insensitive to the needs of the people and less responsive to the requests of the Canadian people for action.
The President of the Treasury Board, who is a very hard working minister and a friendly person, has a duty to do more than watch the expenditures of the government. Surely he has a responsibility not just to audit the books but to audit the programs. How has it been possible that in the years he has sat on the Treasury benches nothing has been done about the divided authority and the hopelessly inefficient search and rescue operation?
For years the fishermen's union have asked for regulations which would provide for fish to be treated as cargo, so that it would be necessary to insert bulkheads in boats, to prevent fish from sliding, and ships capsizing during a storm. This was not done. They proposed to the Depart-

Interim Supply
ment of Transport regulations concerning Plimsoll lines so that fishing boats cannot be overloaded. Nothing was done. They asked for regulations to stimulate standards for the construction of bulkheads, particularly in the stern, to make ships more seaworthy. Nothing was done.
I say that the government has a responsibility to listen and to act on the matter. The Prime Minister has a responsibility. Perhaps it is time for him to get rid of some of the extinct volcanoes on the treasury benches and replace them with young men and women-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -who
might bring to cabinet, imagination, competence, and new ideas.


Mr. Andras:: You are being mischievous, Tommy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I urge either the President of the Treasury Board or the Prime Minister, since only they have real authority in the matter, or consider my representations, to institute new search and rescue operations, to do something with regard to equipment, and to establish a single agency with responsibilities in this area in place of the divided, hopeless monstrosity with which we are now saddled. Above all, they should implement recommendations their own civil servants have proposed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order, in order to clarify something briefly. I had some conversations with the hon. member for York-Simcoe. He was asking questions about estimated interest bearing debt as of March 31, 1976. We discussed the figure of $53 billion. That figure represents an aggregate of funded debt, plus other liabilities of the Government of Canada. The authority sought here is with regard to funded debt; therefore the question he raised earlier as to whether we had exceeded the $6 billion authorized for 1975-76 is explained by reason of the fact that the funded debt between the two periods he talked about, March 31, 1975, and the estimate as of March 31, 1976, is the difference between $33 billion and $37.6 billion, or the $4.6 billion mentioned in my earlier remarks. In other words, although the total interest bearing debt is $53.6 billion, that figure includes other liabilities such as pension contributions. We are talking here about funded debt only.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I do not think there ought to be debate at this point. The minister sought the floor to rectify an earlier statement. I do not think the matter ought to go beyond that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It is true that according to the rules you ought to bring this debate to an end at 9.45. Since it is generally understood that no one will force a recorded vote-which is the purpose for the 15 minutes-I wonder if we could not agree to carry on for another ten minutes and let the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East contribute to what has been discussed.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Of course the committee has no authority to do as the hon. member suggests, but the Chairman perhaps could not see the clock for another five minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I shall take only a few minutes. I thank my colleagues in the House, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, for extending this courtesy to me. I think the remarks I am about to make will reflect the thinking of the hon. member for South Shore, the hon. member for St. John's East-


Robert Jardine McCleave: The member for Halifax-East Hants.


J. Michael Forrestall: -the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and, indeed, all hon. members coming from the Atlantic provinces who, time and again in recent weeks, indeed in the last ten or 15 years, have spoken in this House about the inadequacy of search and rescue operations on the east coast, Gulf of St. Lawrence, on our Great Lakes and other inland waters.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands described this service as inadequate. It is. I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that not one of the points raised this evening in connection with search and rescue involves the spending of more money. This evening we talked about the better organization and utilization of the facilities available in the Canadian Armed Forces, Department of Transport, the marine branch of the RCMP, the Department of Fisheries, our oceanographic vessels, and so on.
The Canadian government has at its disposal the fourth or fifth largest navy in the world; yet we cannot adequately protect our fishermen, including our coastal fishermen. We cannot give to coastal seamen the protection they require. I shall allude to a long list of rescue operations to make clear the magnitude of the problem. Let me make clear once more that I am not talking about the spending of more money. I am talking about the need for a better organization of existing funds and of facilities already in being and at our disposal.
The four regional search and rescue control centres last year dealt with 6,349 incidents. These search and rescue operations were co-ordinated by the four centres, in Halifax, Trenton, Edmonton, and Vancouver. Of those 6,000-odd incidents, 2,538 involved air incidents, 3,120 marine incidents, 637 were what you might call humanitarian incidents, and 55 involved aid to the civil power.
Let me say a word about the Atlantic region covering 1.8 million square miles-half the Atlantic. It runs westward to a line approximately half way down the Quebec coast, covers all the maritime provinces and goes as far north as 70 degrees north, or about 350 miles north of Frobisher Bay. Last year alone in this area we dealt with some 1,525 incidents, of which 731 were air, 619 marine and 160 were medical evacuations, or so-called humanitarian operations. We saved 210 lives. If there had been slightly more efficiency, if the available facilities had been used better, we could have saved 231 lives. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the lives that are lost.
March 25, 1976

Two men lost their lives 150 feet from the shore of Halifax harbour because no boat or helicopter could get to them to save them. Clearly there is something desperately wrong. In Halifax harbour there are fisheries vessels, oceanographic vessels, naval vessels. These two men drowned less than a mile and a quarter away from people who might have been watching from the side of a hill. The helicopter squadron in the area could not do anything; therefore the men drowned. We mourn the loss of our seamen.
We need operational helicopters on the east coast, but at present they are not capable of operating after dark. Why, Mr. Chairman? The government will not give the Canadian military enough money to buy enough fuel so that the men flying those helicopters can maintain a night flying proficiency. They need training. You cannot send an untrained man out at night and ask him to take somebody off a pitching, foundering boat. He must be proficient. He needs training. He must be safe at what he is doing. Our personnel cannot operate safely because they have not been trained. They do not have their night flying licences. These things could be achieved without the expenditure of additional money. It involves better co-operation and utilization of existing facilities.
I shall sit down with this comment, Mr. Chairman. This will not happen in this country until there is a single, paramount authority responsible for all search and rescue. We can no longer have a divided jurisdiction. It has not saved us money. It has cost us lives. Canadians cannot afford that when we have the facilities to avoid such loss of life. I suggest that the President of the Treasury Board should consult with his colleagues in Transport, Defence, Fisheries, the coast guard, and the RCMP. They should be forced to get together and choose among them what will be the paramount authority, assuming full responsibility for all search and rescue operations in Canada. Let that single authority pull together in the most efficient way our facilities, capacities, and capabilities so that our seamen and those involved in air indicents will have the type of search and rescue operations to which they are entitled. I appreciate Your Honour's indulgence.


Gérald Laniel: Order please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to the order passed on Wednesday, March 24, 1976, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to adopt the said motion now under consideration.

Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A, B, C, D, E, and F agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Interim Supply
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That Bill C-91, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1977, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Wednesday, March 24, 1976, Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Sharp, moves that the bill be now read a third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was going to rise earlier, but the rules do not provide it. All I would like to say is that we on this side of the House welcomed the opportunity of the debate today. It was by way of experiment. It may not have gone 100 per cent, but I think we have made some progress.
I hope that on other occasions when we have appropriation bills we can have a debate that is more open-ended without the ten o'clock rule so that all hon. members who wish to participate may do so. I know that members opposite were just bursting forth with inspiration, as were members on this side. I hope it will not be limited to that. However, we will see what progress can be made in the future.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I missed some of the proceedings of the last moment or so because of certain sounds. However, I believe there was a small amendment made in committee that, for technical reasons, should be concurred in at this stage before third reading is given.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the point is accomplished by the Chair making note of the fact that a figure in the text was changed during the course of the committee proceedings. That should be noted. It has been treated as an editorial change. In any event it is appropriate that it be brought to the attention of the House so that it can be properly noted as having taken place.
With respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), there are occasions on which points of order raised by hon. members related to the procedures, particularly to supply procedures, cannot be accepted by the Chair. However, it is obvious that the spirit of those points has been recognized in the proceedings that were adopted by the House today. Indeed, much of the anguish experienced by hon. members who conscientiously endeavoured to participate in a meaningful examination of the supply process has been given effect to today. The point of order of the hon. member for Edmonton West is well taken.
It being ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, March 26, 1976