1976-11-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter or urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the investigative reports in the Winnipeg Free Press revealing that the Manitoba Housing Corporation, which has received millions of dollars in funding from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has been paying above appraisal costs for land, such as $123,000 to MBS Construction Ltd. for a piece of land it could have bought for $86,000, and considering that government spending is in dire need of being controlled, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House directs the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to include in the terms of reference of the newly announced task force on the supply and cost of serviced residential land in Canada an investigation into the financial operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with a view to saving taxpayers' money on land deals, especially in the Winnipeg area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the many revelations of poor management and circumvention of Treasury Board rules contained in the most recent report of the Auditor General of Canada, and in view of the current investigations into certain aspects of the activities of Statistics Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the practice currently underway at Statistics Canada relating to the hiring of personnel in the Systems Development Division, particularly since 1972, be reviewed by the minister because the use of contract personnel instead of regular Statistics Canada employees has reached alarming proportions, with the consequent unnecessary imposition of expense without any corresponding benefit in terms of capability, as well as representing in this area a frustration of normal Treasury Board policies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of pressing necessity.
As a result of a collective conflict during the summer of 1976 in the Quebec building sector, a great many workers applied for benefits; unfortunately, the only answer received up to now is that their case is under consideration. Since there is no provision in the unemployment legislation and regulations requiring public servants to make their decision known within a certain period and since the workers concerned cannot apply for social welfare, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House recommend to the Minister of Manpower to set up immediately a mechanism to enable the workers involved to obtain without delay a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

November 24, 1976
Oral Questions


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED DELAY IN LES TERRASSES DE LA CHAUDlfiRE PROJECT PENDING INQUIRY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the revelations in respect of surplus space and improper planning and use of space contained in the recent report of the Auditor General, and because of the excessive amortization rate contracted by the government at a time when interest rates had peaked, along with other disadvantageous business considerations not in the taxpayers' interest, and because of the scheduled transfer of $50 million on December 1 to the promoter of Les Terrasses de La Chaudiere, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Public Works arrange a moratorium on further construction until the whole matter can be reassessed by a relevant parliamentary committee, and possible alternatives to the participation of the government of Canada in this project have been explored.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the presentation of such a motion can only be made with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and also the Prime Minister I should like to put my question to the Acting Minister of Finance. As the Minister of Finance has referred to OECD reports which he has stated forecast a slowdown in the real growth of major industrial nations, will the Acting Minister of Finance indicate whether his department has received for editing a draft OECD report on Canada's economic prospects and, if so, will he confirm or otherwise that such report predicts a 3 per cent real growth for this nation in the latter half of 1977, which the report refers to as a mini-recession?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no such draft has been received here in the Department of Finance. I did see the report in the Montreal Gazette this morning. I inquired into it and have the following information for hon. members. That economic forecasting of the OECD is in process now.

The published report will not be available until December. The article in question may well be based on a draft version of the report but only when the final figures become available will it be possible for us to assess that report and appraise its value. I might say that the Minister of Finance has already indicated to this House his concern that growth prospects for 1977 now look less strong than we would wish. That is a world-wide phenomenon. We would not characterize this prospect as a mini-recession. I wonder whether indeed, the report of the OECD characterized it as a mini-recession. In any event, in the last two weeks certain monetary policy adjustments have been announced by the Bank of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Other direct employment measures have been introduced.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I may go to the acting Minister of Finance, I would like the acting Minister of Finance to indicate if it is not true that members of the Finance Department are now in Paris reviewing the OECD documentation behind the report to which we have referred.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will look into that.


POSSIBILITY OF EARLY INTRODUCTION OF BUDGET
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may attempt once again to go to the acting Minister of Finance. Noting the statement of the Minister of Finance that he will not introduce a new budget before Christmas, and in view of the fact that Canadian and international publications are now commenting adversely on Canada's present economic conditions and speculate that the Canadian dollar may fall significantly due to these circumstances, would the acting Minister of Finance take up with the Minister of Finance the advisability of bringing in an early budget, certainly before the end of January, at which time hopefully a more confident attitude will develop in respect of our future.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that we would not hesitate to make any adjustments which appear appropriate bearing in mind both our goals of fighting inflation and increasing employment.


POSSIBILITY MINISTER OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION WOULD RECOMMEND EARLY INTRODUCTION OF BUDGET
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I know he does not accept the complacent and insensitive statement of the Minister of Finance of last Monday when he indicated to the leader of the New Democratic Party that he would not bring in a budget. Is the minister now aware of the figures and analysis of the OECD in terms of growth rate, inflation, unemployment and the

Canadian dollar which indicates that we face a mini-recession? Surely, he must be aware of the analysis and the figures. Is he now prepared to recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that serious consideration be given to the bringing in of an early budget?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, as the parliamentary secretary has so admirably indicated in his, I think, full and comprehensive answer, the paper referred to by the hon. member is in all probability in draft form and will not be ready until December. It would seem to me to be appropriate to wait until we have a final version of that report. In the interim, I have concern about unemployment and I am making my own moves in that particular area.


REPORT OF OECD INDICATING REMEDIAL MEASURES NECESSARY
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Draft report or no draft report, the cat is out of the bag. Things are tough. We are facing a mini-recession. Does the minister not accept the statement of the OECD that remedial measures must now be taken or the slowdown will be much worse in 1977. Does he accept that statement in the OECD draft or not?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows, being here from the class of '68, that he is asking the minister for an opinion on a particular area and that is not appropriate. I think I would like to read the report in its final form, and then come to some conclusions at that particular time rather than jump the gun.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Am I to understand now that the minister, together with the Treasury front benches, will not take any action until it suits them politically? Is that what we are talking about?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS DATE OF CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIERS- CONSULTATION WITH QUEBEC
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will put my question to the Acting Prime Minister who, I understand, is the Minister of Labour today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We are in real trouble.


John Edward Broadbent: We might even get more reasonable answers today.
Oral Questions
I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would confirm that a letter has gone out from the government of Canada to all the provincial premiers informing them of the federal government's desire to hold the first ministers' conference on December 13 and 14.


Hon. John C. Munro (Acting Prime Minister):: Yes, I believe so. That is my understanding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is the best statement we have heard.


John Edward Broadbent: Given the fact that the newly elected premier of the province of Quebec had earlier publicly requested the government of Canada not to hold the conference in December but to put it off until January in order for him to be prepared to discuss the serious issues involved, could the Acting Prime Minister-after he gets information from the minister behind him-tell the House whether or not the government of Quebec was consulted about the date for this conference and whether the newly elected premier of the province of Quebec has agreed to have this conference in December?


John Carr Munro: I would advise the leader of the NDP that there has been an exchange of correspondence. The new minister of finance for the province of Quebec will be participating at the finance ministers' meeting in December. No request to hold off the first ministers' meeting has been received as yet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF PROPOSALS TO PROVINCIAL PREMIERS TO AVOID ANTICIPATED RECESSION
John Edward Broadbent: Given the important nature of this conference and the OECD report which has already been referred to this afternoon forecasting a recession in 1977 if new stimulative measures are not taken, could the Acting Prime Minister tell us if new proposals will be brought before the provincial premiers at that meeting in order to head off the anticipated recession?


John Carr Munro: It has
already been indicated by my colleagues and the parliamentary secretary that that is not the final report. We have to wait until we get the final report before we reach any conclusions with respect to it. But I would think the leader of the NDP must have noted that the Bank of Canada has lowered its interest rates, and, we hope, that will have a significant impact. He is probably also well aware of the fact that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will be announcing direct employment programs designed to have a noticeable impact on unemployment.

November 24, 1976
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Further to the motion presented by my colleague from Bellechasse concerning the conflict in the building industry in Quebec last summer, which conflict has now been settled, surely the minister knows that a large number of workers who have asked for unemployment benefits have all been given the same answer: Your case is under review. In the meantime, those people are not even entitled to welfare since civil servants refuse to reach a decision. Can the minister tell us whether his department has taken a stand with regard to those thousands of Quebecers and, if not, can he instruct his civil servants to reach a decision as soon as possible so if their decision does not satisfy the unemployed they can appeal the decision?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into the situation described by the hon. leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, after which I shall give him a report.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that, like the other ministers, this one has to do a lot of "looking into", but the people concerned have been waiting for financial assistance since August because they are entitled neither to unemployment insurance nor welfare. Can the minister tell us how long this study will take since all the facts are known, so that those Quebecers can be helped out?


ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. It has to do with the establishment of the Royal Commission on Financial Organization and Accountability. In light of the widespread consensus that the royal commission is completely unnecessary and constitutes a stalling tactic on the part of the government, and in light of the need to ensure that whatever the commission does represents an honest and impartial examination of the facts, if any public interest is to be served, was the President of the Treasury Board aware at the time of the announcement that one of the members of the commission, Mr. H. Marcel Caron is a former director of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, who must share responsibility for the substantial payments out of public funds about

which the Auditor General expressed grave concern in his latest report?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, without in any way accepting the preamble to the question with regard to the reason for the royal commission, I must inform the hon. member that I became aware only last night that the member of the commission to whom he is referring had in fact been a director of AECL.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You have to be kidding.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The Auditor General was really right.


Walter David Baker: Who appointed him?


Robert Knight Andras: I must say that his appointment was discussed in very informed circles. He is recognized as being a very distinguished and capable member of the accounting profession in Quebec. His financial expertise and accounting expertise are recognized as being needed and desirable on the commission, and indeed, he resigned from AECL of his own volition and for his own reasons earlier.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the fact that the minister became aware of this only last night, can he tell the House whether he will apprise himself of the nature and extent of Mr. Caron's knowledge of the transactions which were made and which were clearly questionable in the eyes of the Auditor General at that time? Will the minister undertake to look into this whole question to ensure that the question of impropriety does not rest in any way, shape or form with Mr. Caron, and will he report back to the House?


Robert Knight Andras: Without implying any agreement about Mr. Caron, I have already given such consideration because I think it is necessary to clear up the issue quickly.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Since there could be a conflict of interest in this particular area-


Mr. Fairweather:: There is a conflict of interest.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and given the fact that on the surface at least there seem to be some built in biases on the part of other commissioners, and in the hope that this commission will be as impartial as the public demands, will the minister give this House an undertaking that he will examine and review the credentials of all the members of this commission before proceeding further?


Robert Knight Andras: That has been done by many people with regard to this particular issue. I have already indicated I was not aware of that complication until last night, so the answer is yes.


SUGGESTED REQUEST FOR MR. CARON'S RESIGNATION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has just informed the House that he became aware only last night of the conflict of interest position of Commissioner Caron, I would like to ask the minister, who has to take the responsibility for this royal commission and who did just that when he announced it to the House, whether he will now ask for Mr. Caron's resignation from that commission, since there is no doubt that there is a conflict of interest.


Robert Knight Andras: It is very sad that a member of this House would choose to infer from my indication that I became aware that Mr. Caron had been a director of AECL that that per se constitutes a conflict of interest. I did not say-and I certainly would not promise-that I would ask for his resignation until I know a great deal more about the circumstances.
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-DATE OF CONCLUSION OF RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT-AMOUNT OF LOSS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also about one of these questionable matters. It is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister is well aware, for over a year now we have been asking him regularly how much Canadian taxpayers are going to lose on the Argentinian nuclear generating transaction. Will he now confirm to the House that agreement has been reached regarding the renegotiation of that contract? Would he tell the House when that agreement was reached? Would he also confirm that the amount the Canadian public is going to lose on that deal is in the neighbourhood of $50 million?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, fortunately I am in a position of having to confirm that the loss is not going to be anything like $50 million; I am, though, put in the position of having to confirm to the House that the loss is going to be substantial. I think it is going to be in the order of about $25 million.
An bon. Member: What is $25 million?


Alastair William Gillespie: I acknowledge that is one hell of a loss and I am not happy with it.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing about it?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am a lot happier about the situation now than I was a year ago when I took action to have that contract renegotiated.
Oral Questions


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Maybe the money is to be recovered out of the minister's salary.


An hon. Member:: Out of his travelling allowance.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot the first part of the question. We have been nagging at him for over a year. Our understanding is that Mr. Foster, the president of AECL, actually reached an agreement about March of this year. Why the delay in informing the House of this information which the minister has known? Why the delay in signing the agreement? What actual date was the agreement signed?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recognize that there are many details to be ironed out before a renegotiation as substantial as this one is acceptable. I am not in a position to say to the House that it is final from the point of view of both parties but I believe it will be final within a matter of days if it has not already been signed within a matter of days. That is the kind of time frame we are working with.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the statement made by the Auditor General to the effect that what worries him is that fraud is occurring and there is not much evidence of important ways that it can be detected, could the minister tell the House whether this problem is going to be stalled until the royal commission reports, thereby covering up the deficiency within the report?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, for the 23rd or 24th time I refer the hon. member to the comprehensive report I tabled on Friday which indicates that practically every recommendation of the Auditor General, plus those of the Treasury Board and the Public Accounts Committee, has been or is going to be implemented without waiting for the royal commission. The purpose of the royal commission is quite different. Hon. members would serve this House and the country much better by at least recognizing that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the President of the Treasury Board agree that as a matter of policy when a royal commission is investigating a situation it effectively takes the discussion of that topic out of this House of Commons and out of the public domain?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there will be no delay, short of substantial organizational changes, and many other reorganizations will take place. I have been through this two or three times. If the hon. member does not want to listen I do not know what I can do to enlighten him.

November 24, 1976
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not have to take lessons from the minister on listening. Will the minister make serious representation to his colleagues with respect to the recommendations and observations made by the Auditor General about the spending of unallocated funds-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would have been better if the hon. member had not tipped his hand by indicating he was about to make a representation. The hon. member for Central Nova.


STATISTICS CANADA
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. Is a review of the hiring practices at Statistics Canada under way to see if they are in conformity with Treasury Board practices, particularly in the Systems Development Division since there are now between 40 and 45 contract employees there in proportion to 170 regular employees?


Robert Knight Andras: If the hon. member will take it from Hansard rather than from the order paper and written questions, most certainly I will listen to the hon. member's representation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response. Keeping in mind that the contractors retained by Statistics Canada are doing work which can be done just as well by regular employees at much less expense, and that none of these contracts appear to be for the performance of certain well defined tasks or the completion of a project for any agreed upon fee, will the minister take special note and investigate this matter himself?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I note the hon. member's comments.


ROYAL COMMISSION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the same minister and ask him if an examination was made, before this commission was set up, relative to the background of the several people appointed? I ask this because the minister said that only last evening he found out Mr. Caron's record. Certainly, the record was

generally known. I ask the minister this: were those appointments approved of by Mr. Pitfield, before they were submitted to cabinet? I ask whether Mr. Lambert, an estimable person, was appointed because of his desire to control salary levels, he having recommended that deputy ministers should be paid up to $60,000 per year; and was Mr. Stoner appointed, a former clerk of the Privy Council-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Quiet, you rabble.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to help the minister. I ask whether Mr. Stoner was appointed because he was the former deputy minister of transport during the Sky Shops affair, and whether Professor John Hodgetts-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely, the right hon. member realizes that he is well embarked on a clearly argumentative line of questioning.


John George Diefenbaker: I am inquiring for information, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask about Professor Hodgetts this: whether the government agrees with the views expressed in one of his books, that the civil service is-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The line of questioning of the right hon. member is clearly argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed. The people opposite, when they fear information, endeavour to howl one down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the right hon. member realizes that only rarely and with great reluctance do I interfere with his line of questioning. He began by asking a question about what consideration was given to these appointments. That was a perfectly legitimate question. I asked him to desist from the continuing line of individual representations with respect to each member. The question as to what considerations were taken into account in appointing the commission is, it seems to me, legitimate, and perhaps the minister wants to answer it; but I cannot let the right hon. member go on seriatum with respect to every commissioner and representations concerning each one.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to show my respect for the Speaker. The Speaker is the protector of the rights of members in all parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 24, 1976


John George Diefenbaker: My simple question regarding Professor Hodgetts is this: Was he appointed because he stated that the civil service is a safeguard against the excess of politicians?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the members of the commission were appointed for their noted competence and I am sure they will perform well.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, concerns Dr. J. S. Foster who became President of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in 1974 and who, according to reports, had second thoughts about large sums of money being paid to an agent negotiating the sale of a nuclear reactor in South Korea. It is reported that Dr. Foster said he discussed this matter with several cabinet ministers. I ask the minister if Dr. Foster discussed this matter with him, or has discussed it with him since the matter arose? I ask, in particular, whether included in the over $8 million which the Auditor General has called in question there is the matter of $5.4 million paid to the agent, concerning which account there is only the terse statement that these expenditures were allocated on the basis of the decision of the agent? I ask the minister if this matter was drawn to his attention then by Dr. Foster, or has it been drawn to his attention since then? I also ask whether the minister has found out what the instructions of the agent were for the dispersal of this large sum of money?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Dr. Foster was appointed as president of AECL on January 1, 1975. Dr. Foster is a distinguished public servant, a distinguished engineer and a man of international reputation. He brought this matter to my attention earlier this year. The reference in the Auditor General's report is that he had second thoughts. That is the Auditor General's particular description of Dr. Foster's motivation. I, on my own, discussed this question with some of my colleagues, so in that sense the Auditor General's report is entirely accurate. As to the question of how that $8 million was allocated, what was appropriate and what invoices should have been submitted but have not been submitted, these questions, I submit, should be fully explored before the public accounts committee. I have had discussions with the chairman of the public accounts committee and I believe there is a good chance the committee may meet early next week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister went all around the question. We have the facts, as he has given them. They are public knowledge. I ask him whether he knew that the sum of $5.4 million was being paid to an agent, and that the only accounting was to the effect that these expenses had been
Oral Questions
allocated in accordance with the instructions of the agent. Did he approve this without knowing the instructions of the agent, or does he know what those instructions were and is he prepared to tell the House? Also, will he tell the House whether $2.4 million was paid to the Italian Firm Italimpianti in the absence of information as to what the money was for. Did the minister inquire into that matter? If so, can he say what information he had and will he give that information to the House, or did he approve these sums of money without knowing for what the expenditures were incurred?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member assumes that the minister in charge of a Crown corporation approves all expenditures of a Crown corporation. The hon. member must realize, I am sure, that Crown corporations are created by parliament for one good reason: They should stand on their own, independent from the day to day management of ministers. I was not involved in the approval, to use the hon. member's phrase, of the specific expenditures to which he referred. As to the question of the Argentinian payment, this was brought to my attention only a few weeks ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? I appreciate that the minister is not involved in the day to day operations of Crown corporations. I ask if he was consulted at any time about the giving to agents of sums of money for unspecified services? Has he assured himself that these sums of money were not used either for bribery or influence peddling. Surely, these are areas the minister ought to have acquainted himself on when discussing this matter with the president of a Crown corporation.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, there are some very serious inferences that can be drawn on the basis of reading the Auditor General's report. Allegations of bribery and the sort of thing that the hon. member has made are very serious indeed, and need to be explored at the soonest possible opportunity. That is why I have discussed this matter with the chairman of the Public Accounts committee. The question about what services were purchased for the fees that were paid to the agent should more properly be discussed before the committee where the Auditor General can make his representation and officers of the corporation can be examined in detail because clearly there were many, many services provided by these agents, first in securing the contracts and, second, in servicing the contracts once made.


PROPORTION OF CARE COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DISEASES RELATED TO ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and

Oral Questions
Welfare. In view of the galloping health care costs and the failure of the government to date to contain those costs, I wish to ask the minister what percentage of those health care costs are attributed to alcohol and alcohol produced disease, keeping in mind it is reported that 40 per cent of health care costs in France are due to alcohol and alcohol related disease. Further, what percentage of health care costs are attributed to respiratory diseases, including cancer of the lung, occurring in smokers and occupational hazards?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless the minister has that information immediately, perhaps the question ought to be placed on the order paper.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will give a short answer to the hon. member. He may want to pursue this matter with an order paper question. First, I disagree with his statement that we have had galloping health costs this year. Thanks to the efforts of the provincial governments and the federal government, we have been able to reduce by some $42 million the estimates of expenditures on the health side during the course of this year. I think that indicates remarkable progress as far as health care costs are concerned. With regard to the cost of alcohol abuse there is no specific answer to that question. However, there are estimates. Previous estimates were over $1 billion. More recent estimates indicate in Canada alone it might be as high as $2 billion. It is estimated that in the United States the cost is $25 billion.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Ten o'clock.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of his statement yesterday about the importance of a financial officer. He said:
-it could possibly challenge the whole structure of parliamentary responsibility, ministerial responsibility to parliament and the rights of members of this House.
I presume the financial officer would basically be dealing with senior levels of the public service on accounting and financial matters of the ministry. I presume his annual report would be tabled in parliament in the normal course. I further presume that the work of the Public Accounts committee might very well be lessened as a result of the work of a financial officer catching mistakes at their source. Will the minister explain how in his judgment and in the judgment of the government the parliamentary responsibility or the rights
[Mr. Rynard.l
of members of this House could in any way be curtailed by adopting the report of the Auditor General?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I say with great respect to the hon. member that he has partially answered his own question. He made a great number of presumptions which are not clearly indicated in anything that I have seen. There could be patterns where this could be done. I said yesterday that I find a certain appeal and attraction for the proposition, so much so that I want to be quite sure about these other matters, not just that matter of accountability, although related to it is the question of decentralization and perhaps over-centralization, as a reaction to some of our concerns. All these questions have to be answered. In the meantime, there are many things we are going to do. We are not going to wait. There are many presumptions, as the hon. member said, and these have to be examined.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, surely the overall presumption with respect to parliament is that parliament, through its Public Accounts committee, has approved of this kind of recommendation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Indeed, it is rather presumptuous of the ministry to sidestep the assertions of the parliament of Canada through its Public Accounts committee. Given that set of facts, is there any earthly reason why the government of Canada ought not to reconsider what is obviously an attempt to avoid what is necessary in this government, namely the control of the financial and administrative affairs of the people of Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is no argument about the need. There will always be the need, even after we make these changes, for further examination and careful attention to the improvement of control over financial management. However, there are serious questions about the final method or structure and organization in which it is done. I really think that down the path, although he may not admit it, the hon. member will quietly agree that this is a serious matter which has to be resolved.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour. In view of a very critical situation in the port of Saint John, New Brunswick involving a dispute between maintenance workers under the National Harbours Board over an Anti-Inflation Board ruling, can the minister inform the House what action he is taking to bring about a rapid solution in order to allow the normal movement of millions of dollars
November 24, 1976

worth of perishable seed potatoes to traditional as well as major new overseas markets?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I and my officials in my department are certainly aware of the inter-relationship of what is going on at the ports of Saint John and Halifax in terms of the settlements involved there. All the facts surrounding the situation are being made known to the Anti-Inflation Board. I can only hope there will be a satisfactory solution emanating from this review.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the waste and extravagance exposed in the Auditor-General's report, can the minister advise why to date moneys could not be found and why a satisfactory financial arrangement has not been made with the coal miners of Cape Breton who were forcibly pre-retired from their place of employment and shabbily treated in this particular instance by the present government?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that question should properly be addressed to the minister who is responsible for that area of government operations.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the minister, for whom I have the greatest respect and who knows the problems of the working man, would not accept that question. May I ask a supplementary which may be helpful. Will the minister consult with his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who, before he became a minister, fully endorsed the claims of the coal miners and Mr. Tom Kent, president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and ascertain whether funds can be found to rectify this long standing grievance of these pre-retired miners?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is as forcible a representation as the other one made by the hon. member.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Does the minister consider it in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers to permit MAGI to go ahead with its investment in a cruise ship to be operated out of the port of Halifax in and around Nova Scotia in the summer and
Oral Questions
in the south in the winter, the ship being registered in Bermuda for the purpose of avoiding Canadian taxation? The ship will be purchased with Canadian dollars but will carry a non-Canadian crew.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has just mentioned, and as he is fully aware, the development corporation of metropolitan Halifax was set up with the assistance of the federal and provincial governments and the federal holds 25 per cent of the shares of this corporation. Therefore we are represented by a certain number of directors in the corporation, but the administrative office, as such, makes the decisions and, of course, they are implemented. They are not necessarily sent on to the minister day by day but when the report is before us, Mr. Speaker, I intend to examine it very thoroughly and personally to see if it would be advisable to bring modifications to the guidelines of the corporation.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was not looking for a lecture on the establishment of the MAGI. I am quite familiar with how it was established and for what particular purpose. My question is this. Given the high unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, does this government consider it to be in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers to invest money in the supply of two or three hundred jobs for non-Canadians when there is ample crew and labour to do this kind of work in the Atlantic area.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, if I understand this project right, the crew of that ship will probably come from the Halifax area and that is the area which will benefit from the economic impact. I am not saying that this is the best investment this corporation could make, I am not implying this at all, but the information available is that there will be economic repercussions over the Halifax area and the corporation will keep looking for the best possible investments in that region, as the hon. member has already requested himself.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister said in his speech on October 28:
One of the first things we want to do ts to create a national forum which would discuss and make recommendations on the big economic issues of the day. Such a forum would bring together representatives of government, labour, business, the farm community, possibly others.
With reference to the words "possibly others", what other representatives are contemplated?

November 24, 1976
Oral Questions


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we have not formally concluded who the others will be. First, we want to consult fully with the people we first talked to as to the dimensions of this national forum. The hon. member is-


Mr. Horner:: Will parliament do?


John Carr Munro: Yes, parliament is fine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I have already suggested to the labour critic for the opposition that if he wishes to take an opposition day to discuss the national forum or any of the other 14 points, I will be happy to be in the House and give what explanation I can. The opposition has not chosen to do so yet, but let me assure the hon. member there is no design to avert parliament. If I may continue, this matter is on the table for discussion with the interested groups. If we made a decision prior to full consultation I do not think it would help. I think it would be safe to assume that agricultural interests will be involved, and that no doubt will make the hon. member's seatmate very happy.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister whether he was setting forth government policy in his speech on October 28. May I also ask him this. If we had an opposition day, would he be able to tell us then what the other representatives might be?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member and the House should be aware that we are meeting with the business community tomorrow. Following that we hope to meet again with labour. There will be discussions with other groups which might be interested in participating in this body, so that depending on when the hon. member wishes to have his opposition day I might be able to be more specific.


John Allen Fraser: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise the House whether he discussed the formulation of the national forum, as set out in his speech of October 28, before he made that speech; and before he made it the policy of the government was it discussed with the Canadian Labour Congress? Can the minister say whether the Canadian Labour Congress accepts the format the minister set out?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that is why it is difficult to indicate what other interests might be involved in this national forum. We are not sure at this stage whether the type of forum we are suggesting-an alliance of various interests on an equal footing to discuss national problems-would be suitable to the business community or to labour. The hon. member is fully aware that labour has indicated that they were desirous of having a tripartite body with a wide-sweeping delegation of powers.


John Allen Fraser: This is multipartite.


John Carr Munro: If I might finish, there has been some division among labour on this. The Canadian Federation of Labour and others do not favour such a proposal. It is our hope that we can reconcile this question so that we can get on with the national forum and select appropriate representatives.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In the report of the Secretariat of the Treasury Board dated last July, it is stated that the problem of rental costs on unused accommodation is receiving continuing attention by the Department of Public Works. How can the minister explain the fact that the Crown has paid $4 million and an annual rent of $241,000 for property for which it has no present use, as mentioned in the Auditor General's report which was tabled on Monday?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Auditor General's report refers to a time frame that predates the item to which the hon. member is referring, and I think it is important to keep this fact in mind. Nonetheless, this is an ongoing review and the Minister of Public Works is in constant discussion and consultation on this and other matters with some of his colleagues and myself.


Robert Elgin McKinley: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General also noted that the present use of office space in many cases exceeds the existing guidelines for the provision and allocation of office space by more than 30 per cent. Since the Department of Public Works provides accommodation on the basis of an assumed growth factor, will the minister assure the House that if the expected growth is not realized, that surplus space will be returned to DPW for reallocation? Apparently at the present time there is no provision for that.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, those very matters, particularly in relation to our determination to keep the growth of the public service down next year to less than one percent, are receiving very serious consideration indeed. I have already indicated we are in regular discussion on them.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I gave written notice of this question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister request Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to check with its counterpart in

Nova Scotia, the Nova Scotia Housing Commission, to determine the circumstances under which building lots were sold in the lower Sackville area with a guarantee that neighbouring land, as set forth in a plan signed by the commission, given to each purchaser with his deed, would be used for church, school and park purposes, a guarantee that has now been torn up by the Nova Scotia Housing Commission, with the exception of the lot that was promised a church, and instead replaced with an attempted sale to something called the Sackville Town Centre Development Company which plans a shopping centre? I ask this question because money from all over Canada has gone into this development through CMHC.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question so I was able to check into it. It is quite right that the town has changed its plan. In fact, it is following a plan that is different from the one first submitted. I have talked to our officials in the area and they have pointed out to me that they have no right, under the loan arrangement for residential land, to stop the town from proceeding with the proposed enlargement of the shopping centre facilities. I will take it upon myself, with the help of the hon. member, to make further representations to the city authorities in order possibly to get them to change their minds; but if they do not, unfortunately CMHC has no authority to force them to do so.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister is so co-operative, may I ask him whether he would mind joining me in a vigorous debate at ten o'clock, when perhaps this parliament can tell the Nova Scotia government that it is not going to get away with stunts like this in the future.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Could the minister confirm that Mr. O. G. Stoner, now Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who has been appointed as one of the commissioners, was one of those among the senior civil servants who argued against the implementation of the Auditor General's recommendation that a comptroller general be established at a deputy minister level reporting to the President of the Treasury Board?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the opinion held by Mr. Stoner on this matter. He has made no such opinion known to me, and I have no knowledge of it.
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCHERS FOR PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Public Accounts Committee at almost every meeting is deluged by a veritable army of civil servants, all of whom at least purport to be experts in their fields, is the government considering increasing the research staff for members of the committee, having in mind the fact that this is the most important committee of this House at this time and we are in desperate need of more than one researcher who is already desperately overworked?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if this is a representation I will check with my colleagues and let the hon. member know.


APOLOGY TO MR. SPEAKER
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned lest an unbecoming flippancy and cheekiness on my part yesterday be misconstrued. It was generated, if I can apologize, by a bit of barracking that was going on, and it might be construed as being disrespectful of the Chair or its occupant, for whom I have the highest respect. I meant the intervention to be good natured. In the light of day I see that it is not really good natured but is repugnant, and I apologize for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might emphasize that my look of astonishment yesterday I am sure should have, if it did not, reflect the fact that I can hardly think of a member less likely than this hon. member to direct intentional disrespect not only to the Chair but in fact to any member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege has to do with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) regarding a question of mine and I would refer you to Hansard of November 16, 1976. I asked the minister a question about the Argentia naval base and I would like to give a little bit of background to illustrate the point.

November 24, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
The north side of Argentia naval base, which is a base leased to the Americans for 99 years, was abandoned by them some two or three years ago. They imposed the condition that if the base were used by other persons or concerns for business or industrial development they had the right to get the facilities back on 30 days' notice. The minister has negotiated with the United States to have that changed, and I asked the minister whether he had discussions with U.S. authorities and, if so, when those discussions would conclude, and would there be an announcement of some change, or was there likely to be a change, to which the minister replied that he had discussions three weeks earlier and he was encouraged by the results and expected to get some word soon from the United States authorities. He also said:
However, I have no idea as to the specific date or time when I will hear from them.
Yesterday I discovered that United States authorities had informed the Government of Canada on or before October 21 that they were prepared to change this 30-day right so that they would only have the right to go back into the north side of the base in the event of a war, an emergency or a military necessity; that they had informed external affairs, the minister's department that the government of Newfoundland had been informed to the same effect, and that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion had been informed by the Department of External Affairs, for which the minister reports, to exactly the same effect.
I am not saying that the minister deliberately misled the House, and he may have a reasonable explanation, but certainly I was misled and the House of Commons was misled, and the people of Argentia and Newfoundland were misled by the minister's answer.
My question of privilege is that while the minister does not have to answer a question, when he is alleging to be giving the facts the facts surely have to be truthful and accurate, and not misleading or inaccurate.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the minister's department had heard from the U.S. Embassy that this condition had been changed, how could the minister say in this House that he expects he will have some idea when he will hear from them at a date or time in the future, and he had not yet heard from them? This at least calls for an explanation from the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker, because I submit that to mislead the House of Commons knowingly or unknowingly is a breach of the privilege of members of this House.
I have a motion I could move, but there might be a better procedure. I am not sure of the procedure or if the minister wants to explain. Otherwise I will definitely have to move the motion because his answer and the facts just do not coincide.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain the procedure to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I was about to say to him that if I am around here long enough I suppose I will see everything, but this is the first time in my ten years here that I have been accused of misleading this House either deliberately or unintentionally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, when this comes from the hon. member for St. John's West, a fellow Newfoundlander, it is doubly revolting for me to have to deal with it in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The procedure, and surely to goodness the hon. member should know even though he is only a new member of this House, is, as most hon. members of this House have done on dozens of occasions in the past, to say to me, "Look, I have this information," and ask me for something additional, without raising it on a question of privilege in order to try to get some kind of cheap publicity out of it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the situation can be quite readily explained. I think the hon. member should also have said that on the afternoon he asked that question he also came over to me and said he had not been able to ask a supplementary, and he sat in this chair alongside me and I gave him further information and told him I would get as much more as I possibly could as soon as 1 could.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The situation happens to be, Mr. Speaker, that the document to which the hon. member refers was indeed delivered, as he has said, to the Government of Canada sometime around the date he has mentioned. If he will look at my schedule for that time he will find I was in the Soviet Union at that particular time. I was not in a position to be briefed or informed by my colleagues or those in the department on what the note had contained. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member as a former cabinet minister in Newfoundland might have been screaming his head off in the other way if I had revealed publicly what was in the document before we got a response from the government of Newfoundland which we had undertaken to consult.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was doing my best to look after the interests of Newfoundland long before the hon. member decided that he was going to lead us into a new era, and I continue to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As may have been evident in the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), it did appear there was every likelihood of some disagreement between the two hon. members. That now
November 24, 1976

appears to have been confirmed by the intervention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It being a matter of disagreement between the two hon. members it would not warrant further action in respect of a question of privilege, within the classic definition of which this does not fall.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated that what the hon. member for St. John's West has raised is essentially disagreement between two hon. members which, if he will consult the precedents, he will realize does not constitute a question of privilege. Whatever the nature of the disagreement, the purpose of raising a question of privilege is not to permit a dialogue between the two hon. members or further debate on the question, or in fact to give the minister an opportunity to respond to the member's complaints. The question for the Chair is whether or not the member's complaints constitute a question of privilege. My ruling is that they constitute a disagreement between two hon. members and a difference of interpretation of the statements given and the circumstances surrounding them. That does not constitute a question of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: for leave to introduce Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Epp:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, regarding the presentation of the immigration bill by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) just a moment ago. With your indulgence I believe it is necessary, in order to explain my point of order, to give a little of the background about what happened prior to this point in time.
Immigration
Approximately two years ago the government published a green paper on immigration, which was a comprehensive study of immigration patterns of the past as well as an outline of the options the government saw that Canadians had available to them regarding future immigration. Subsequent to the tabling of the green paper a reference was made to a special joint committee of both Houses of this parliament to study immigration. As a member of that committee I had the privilege, along with other members of this House and of the other place, to travel across Canada and receive the views of individual Canadians as well as of groups with a special interest in immigration. Following those extensive hearings across Canada the members re-assembled in Ottawa and wrote a report which was presented to both Houses of this parliament.
This brings me to the point of time of last night and today. Last night, and again this morning in the media, especially in the electronic media, specific provisions of the immigration bill were outlined to the Canadian public. In fact if one checks the specifics in the bill as outlined through the electronic media last night with the highlights which accompany the package which is tabled with the bill today by the minister, one finds not only are they the same but that they are identical in word and in structure. That simply brings me to the point that there is a tradition and a precedent in this House that bills not be presented to the public before they are presented to the House. Not only is this a tradition and precedent, it is a standing rule of parliament through the ages that bills are confidential until they receive first reading in the House of Commons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that either directly, or without the minister wanting to see too much of what is happening in his department, specific leaks were given so that the media could present to the public the specific provisions of the bill.
I say to the minister that up to this point, as with the former minister, now the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), co-operation has been the order in respect to this committee. I think members on both sides of the House will agree on this. That co-operation can no longer be asked for or expected if the minister goes ahead and presents the provisions of the bill to the media and again shows as this government so often does in its many procedures that parliament is not important and is secondary to its own purposes. This is a shoddy action and one that is definitely not worthy of the minister considering the co-operation he expects.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I take second place to no person in the House of Commons concerning my respect for this Chamber. I am fully familiar with the precedent that has been established, and I think the appropriate precedent that has been established, that bills and the contents thereof, or comments on them, should not be introduced until they are tabled in the House at first reading.
On more than one occasion it has been suggested to me in the course of my career that this might be a good time to do something this way or that way, and I have indicated I would

November 24, 1976
Immigration
not do so until it had been discussed in caucus and until it was introduced in the House of Commons. I always said that until that was done I would not comment on it or make any release to the media.
In this particular instance there was obviously a leak. This particular document is translated into some 13 different languages, and with the numbers of people who have to be involved in that kind of thing I am surprised that the leak did not come out a little bit sooner. I apologize for that. I wish that it were possible to stop it.
On the one hand we have the opposition saying we are too secretive, and on the other hand that now we are opening it up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have welcomed the work performed by all members of this House and by the general public in finally bringing forth the special joint committee report. I think I have paid significant tribute to it, as has my predecessor, by adopting some 40 of the 45 recommendations made by that special joint committee. This could not have been done without the co-operation referred to by the hon. member. I hope that kind of co-operation will continue. As a courtesy to him and to other opposition critics I gave an advance comment on the press words about two o'clock so that they would be in a position at three o'clock to answer the press and be as fully informed as it is possible to be. I thought that was a form of co-operation that might have been accepted by the hon. member.
I apologize for the fact that there was a press leak but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that what I heard on CBC to the effect that it was a press release is dead wrong. I am just as upset as the hon. member is that this particular information was made available publicly before the bill was actually introduced in the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his candid remark in respect of this matter and for admitting he knows, as a member of the class of '68, that this sort of thing is looked upon with a very sad eye. Given the fact the minister has admitted there is a leak in his department-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not admitting there was a leak in the department.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Let us say that the minister admitted there was a leak. I think he would like to get to the bottom of this because unquestionably he will be bringing in other bills and statements, and he must protect himself as well as protect this institution. So I now move, with the consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), that the matter of the leak regarding-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an admirable try on the part of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) but I think we should get back to the schedule of business which is the introduction of bills, under which this bill on
immigration was introduced. I recognized the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) on a point of order which related to the introduction of bills and to the circumstances surrounding it. The minister replied, and then the hon. member for Hamilton West intervened in the discussion, but that in no way opens the way for the introduction of motions, which is not provided for under the Standing Orders at this time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With all due respect, and I do respect the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully submit that perhaps you did not hear me because of the noise in the Chamber. I asked for the unanimous consent of the House to move that motion, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not intend to carry on with this matter, but knowing that hon. members are very concerned about this sort of matter I hope that having asked for unanimous consent they will approve my motion, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member did seek the unanimous consent of the House, he did it very quietly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I respect his assessment of it. If in fact, while he had the floor, he sought the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion to the House, I presume the House should be able to respond as to whether or not the hon. member has unanimous consent for the introduction of such a motion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: But this was a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), as I understand it, wishes to discuss whether it was a question of privilege. The matter was not raised as a question of privilege, it was raised as a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 26.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is premature.


MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested as a member of parliament, and coming as I do from the class of '57, in the fact that in the last two days we have listened to a number of discussions as to whether or not the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should pre-empt time on television to make the broadcast which he wishes to make

November 24, 1976

tonight without first having obtained from parliament a direction that he may speak on this very important subject to the Mitges general constituency of Canada. He has not taken the opportunity to avail himself of the opinions of members of this Nystrom Chamber, and therefore he will be speaking tonight solely as ouikow the leader of the Liberal party. As a protest I move, seconded Patterson by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the House do now adjourn.
Motion to Adjourn
Messrs.
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Rodriguez
Rynard
Schumacher
Scott
Skoreyko
Smith (Churchill) Stevens Stewart (Marquette) Symes Towers-75.
++NAYS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members are aware of the rule that a motion to adjourn the House is always in order. It has been moved by the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters), and seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), that this House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 169, 172, 421 to 432 inclusive, 434, 435, 656, 707, 758, 783, 901, 945 and 977.
1338

November 24, 1976
Order Paper Questions
[ Text]


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How much has been spent by the government on harbour development at Gros Cacouna?
2.	In what years were such expenditures made and in what amounts?
3.	What was the purpose of the expenditures and to what extent were they successful?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and Transport Canada as follow: 1. $8,819,333.91.
2.	1960-61, $45,000.00; 1961-62, $17,136.49; 1962-63, $29,998.19; 1963-64, $6,826.85; 1964-65, $240,998.57; 196566, $2,288,310.45; 1966-67, $1,537,357.11; 1967-68, $3,559,574.52; 1968-69, $1,068,021.00; 1969-70, $19,110.82; 197071, $2,381.19; 1971-72, $4,618.72.
3.	The purpose of the expenditures was to provide the basic harbour infrastructure for a deep water harbour at Gros Cacouna site. This work was completed satisfactorily.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Who are the lawyers Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation deal with, in (a) Dartmouth (b) Halifax County, Nova Scotia?
2.	Has CMHC received any formal or informal complaints respecting the level of treatment afforded citizens by such lawyers?
3.	Is CMHC satisfied that a sufficient choice of lawyers exists in Dartmouth and Halifax County to ensure the public can have legal services of the highest calibre?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1. CMHC retained the following lawyers for legal work for loans approved in 1975 under the National Housing Act in Dartmouth, Halifax and Halifax County: Bedford, W. E. Hopkins; Dartmouth, Thomas B. Davis; Kenneth C. Fowlie; Davis I. Jones, Q.C.; Frank Metcalf; Carl M. Misener, Q.C.; Bruce C. Waterfield; John A. Young. Halifax, Marvin C. Block; C. W. Burchell, Q.C.; F. W. Cordon; John G. Cooper; Ronald J. Downie, Q.C.; W. C. Dunlop, Q.C.; E. J. Flinn; Leonard A. Kitz, Q.C.; Elwin J. MacNeil; G. R. Matheson, Q.C.; Peter J. E. McDonough; R. M. Medjuck, Q.C.; J. W. E. Mingo, Q.C.; Wilfred P. Moore; Ben Y. S. Prossin; G. B. Robertson, Q.C.; E. Anthony Ross.
2.	CMHC has not received any complaints, either formal or informal, respecting the level of treatment afforded citizens by any of the above-mentioned lawyers.
3.	The number of solicitors retained by CMHC in these areas gives a sufficient choice of lawyers to ensure that the public has adequate legal services.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Note: This Centre was opened in late 1972. (a) 1973, One full-time psychologist: (i) MA; (ii) McGill Forensic Clinic; (iii) $15,416-$19,269. (b) None, (a) 1974 and 1975, Two full-time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 1973; (iii) 1974, $16,911-$21,005; 1975, $ 18,771-$23,316. (i) MA; (ii) Direct entry from University; (iii) 1974, $ 14,085-$ 18,364; 1975, $15,634-$20,384. (b) One part-time psychologist: (i) PhD; (ii) Professor in Psychology, University of Quebec; (iii) $25 per half day.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: This Institution was opened in late 1972. (a) 1972-1975, Two full-time psychologists; (i) PhD, University of Alberta; (ii) Undergraduate studies; (iii) 1972, $ 14,441-$ 18,052; 1973, $ 15,416-$ 19,269; 1974, $16,911-$21,005; 1975, $18,771-$23,316. (i) BA Psychology; (ii) Research Assistant; (iii) 1972, $14,441-$18,052; 1973, $ 15,416-$ 19,269; 1974, $16,911-$21,005; 1975, $ 18,771-$23,316. (b) 1972, None, (b) 1973 and 1974, One part-time psychologist: (i) PhD; (ii) University professor at Queen's. Extensive experience as a Hospital Assistant, (iii) Up to $5,000 per annum based on working 2 half days per week, (b) 1975, Two part-time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 19736 and 1974; (iii) $833 per month based on working 2 half days per week, (i) PhD Psychology; (ii) Extensive teaching in psychology and in mental hospitals; (iii) $1,500 per month.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: (a) 1970-1973, One full-time psychologist: (i) MA in Psychology, (ii) Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario. Woodlands Mental Health Services, Vancouver, B.C. (iii) 1970, $10,736-$14,126; 1971, $11,380-$ 14,974; 1972, $11,949-$ 15,723; 1973, $ 12,756-$ 16,784. (b) None, (a) 1974 and 1975, Four full-time psychologists; (i) and (ii) see 19701973; (iii) 1974, $14,085-$ 18,364; 1975, $15,634-$20,384; (i)

November 24, 1976

MA in Psychology, (ii) Direct entry from university, (iii)
1974,	$14,085-518,364; 1975, $15,634-120,384; (i) MA in Psychology, (ii) British Columbia Mental Health Services Department of Veterans Affairs, (iii) 1974, $14,085-518,364;
1975,	$15,634-520,384. (i) PHD in Psychology, (ii) British Columbia Mental Health Services, (iii) 1974, $19,264-$23,-949; 1975, $21,383-526,583. (b) 1974, One part-time psychologist: (i) MA in Psychology, (ii) Lecturer at University of B.C. (iii) Contract not to exceed $16,911. 1975, Two part-time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 1974. (iii) Contract not to exceed $15,000. (i) BA in Psychology, (ii) Direct entry from university. (iii) Contract of $10,805.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Millhaven Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: Not open. 1971: Opened in April, 1971. (a) Three Full time psychologists, (b) None. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary. Came from Queen's University and Hospital, (iii) Salary range $13,973-516,218. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary. (iii) Salary range $10,736-514,126. (a)(i) MA Psychology. (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary, (iii) Salary range $8,590-511,302. 1972: (a) Three full time psychologists. (b) None. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary. Came from Queen's University and Hospital, (iii) Salary range $14,441-518,051. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary, (iii) Salary range $11,949-515,723. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary, (iii) Salary range $11,949-515,723. 1973: (a) Three full time psychologists, (b) None. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary. Came from Queen's University and Hospital, (iii) Salary range $15,416-519,269. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary, (iii) Salary range $15,416-519,269. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary, (iii) Salary range $12,756-516,784. 1974: (a) Three full time psychologists, (b) None. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary Came from Queen's University and Hospital, (iii) Salary range $16,911-$21,005. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary, (iii) Salary range $16,911-521,005. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary. (iii) Salary range $16,911-521,005. 1975: (a) Three full time psychologists, (b) None. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary. Came from Queen's University and Hospital, (iii) Salary range $18,771-523,316. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary. (iii) Salary range $18,771-523,316. (a)(i) MA Psychology. (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary, (iii) Salary range $ 18,771-$23,316.
Order Paper Questions PSYCHOLOGISTS-LECLERC


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at LeClerc and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970 and 1971: There were six psychologists at the Quebec Regional Headquarters, these psychologists moved to institutions as required. 1972: (a) Two full time psychologists:
(i)	MA Criminology, (ii) Upon graduation from the University of Montreal, Nurse at DVA Hospital, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, (iii) Salary range $11,949-515,723. (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Social Work, Hull, Police Department Classification officer, C.P.S. Psychologist-Ottawa University, (iii) Salary range $14,441-518,051. 1973: Two full time psychologists: (i) and
(ii)	see 1972. (iii) Salary range $12,756-516,784. (i) and (ii) see 1972. (iii) Salary range $15,416-519,269. 1974: Two full time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 1972. (iii) Salary range $ 14,085-$ 18,364. (i) and (ii) see 1972. (iii) Salary range $16,911-521,005. 1975: Three full time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 1972. (iii) Salary range $ 18,771 -$23,316. (i) and (ii) see 1972. (iii) Salary range $15,634-520,384. (i) BA. (ii) University of Montreal, Graduate student, (iii) Salary range $11,994-516,427. (b) None.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Saskatchewan Penitentiary and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: (a) One full time psychologist: (i) MA. (ii) New Delhi, India Children's Hospital-aid in child psychology. Came to Canada 1968, worked in Toronto and at the City Hospital of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, before joining C.P.S.
(iii)	$ 12,973-$ 16,218. 1971: (a) One full time psychologist: (i) MA PHD. (ii) Saskatchewan Newstart 1969-1971. (iii) $13,751-$17,191. 1972: (a) Two full time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 1971. (iii) $14,441-518,051. (i) MA. (ii) Short term Summer student jobs, (iii) $14,441-518,051. 1973: (a) Two full time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 1971. (iii) $15,416-519,269. (i) and (ii) see 1972. (iii) $15,416-519,269. 1974: (a) Two full time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 1971. (iii) $16,911-521,005. (i) and (ii) see 1972. (iii) $16,911-521,005. 1975: (a) Two full time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 1971. (iii) $18,771-523,316. (i) and (ii) see 1972. (iii) $18,771-523,316. (b) None.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Cowansville and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?
80005-17V2

November 24, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: (a) Six psychologist positions pooled on establishment of Regional Headquarters, Quebec Region, (b) None. 1971: (a) Two full time positions, (b) None. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Health and Welfare Social Worker, Moncton, N.B. (iii) Salary range $13,751 -$ 17,191. (a)(i) MA Psychology. (ii) Geodesic land survey, Toronto, (iii) Salary range $13,751-517,191. 1972: (a) Two full time positions, (b) None. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Health and Welfare Social Worker, Moncton, N.B. (iii) Salary range $14,441-$18,051. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Geodesic land survey, Toronto, (iii) Salary range $14,441-$ 18,051. 1973: (a) Two full time positions. (b) None. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Health and Welfare Social Worker, Moncton, N.B. (iii) Salary range $15,416-$19,269. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Geodesic land survey, Toronto, (iii) Salary range $ 15,416-$ 19,269. 1974: (a) Two full time positions, (b) None. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Health and Welfare Social Worker, Moncton, N.B. (iii) Salary range $16,911-S21,005. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Geodesic land survey, Toronto, (iii) Salary range $16,911-$21,005. 1975: (a) Two full time positions, (b) None. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Health and Welfare Social Worker, Moncton, N.B. (iii) Salary range $18,771-523,316. (a)(i) MA Psychology, (ii) Geodesic land survey, Toronto, (iii) Salary range $18,771-523,316.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Archambault and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: There were six psychologists at the Quebec Regional Headquarters, these psychologists moved to institutions as required, (a) 1971: Two full time psychologists: (i) MA Letters. (ii) Professor, College Andre Grasset; Professor, College St. Therese; Professor, College Rouin; Montreal School Board, (iii) Salary range $13,751-517,191. (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Advisor, University of Montreal, Allan Memorial Centre, (iii) Salary range $11,380-514,974. 1972: Two full time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 1971. (iii) Salary range $14,441-518,051. (i) and (ii) see 1971. (iii) Salary range $14,441-$18,051. 1973: Two full time psychologists: (i) and (ii) see 1971. (iii) Salary range $15,416-519,669. (i) MA. (ii) Self-employed Counsellor, Montreal, (iii) Salary range $12,756-516,784. 1974: One full time psychologist (one position vacant) (i) MA. (ii) Advisor, Consulting Firm, Montreal, (iii) Salary range $10,805-$14,799. 1975: Two full time psychologists: (i) MA psychology. (ii) Chambly Seminary, Montreal School Board, (iii) Salary range $15,634-520,384. (i) MA psychology, (ii) Professor, University of Montreal, (iii) Salary range $11,994-516,427. (b) None.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Stony Mountain Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: (a) Two full time psychologists, (b) One part time, (a) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) From University of Manitoba, (iii) Salary range $10,736-514,126. (a) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Iowa State Penitentiary; Flint Michigan Clinic of Psychology; Flint, Michigan, (iii) Salary range $12,973-516,218. (b) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Psychologist-Regina Jail; Psychologist-Selkirk Health Centre, Manitoba, (iii) Salary set at $25 per half day. 1971: (a) Two full time, (b) One part time, (a) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Iowa State Penitentiary; Flint Michigan Clinic of Psychology; Flint, Michigan, (iii) Salary range $13,751-517,191. (a) (i) MA. (ii) From University of Saskatchewan. (iii) Salary range $11,380-$ 14,974. (b) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Psychologist-Regina Jail; Psychologist- Selkirk Health Centre, Manitoba, (iii) Salary set at $25 per half day. 1972: (a) Two full time, (b) One part time, (a) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Iowa State Penitentiary; Flint Michigan Clinic of Psychology; Flint, Michigan, (iii) Salary range $14,441-518,051. (a) (i) MA. (ii) From University of Saskatchewan. (iii) Salary range $11,949-$ 15,723. (b) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Psychologist-Regina Jail; Psychologist- Selkirk Health Centre, Manitoba, (iii) Salary set at $25 per half day. 1973: (a) Two full time, (b) One part time, (a) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Iowa State Penitentiary; Flint Michigan Clinic of Psychology, Flint, Michigan, (iii) Salary range $15,416-519,269. (a) (i) MA. (ii) From University of Saskatchewan. (iii) Salary range $12,756-516,784. (b) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Psychologist-Regina Jail; Psychologist- Selkirk Health Centre, Manitoba, (iii) Salary set at $25 per half day. 1974: (a) Two full time, (b) One part time, (a) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Iowa State Penitentiary; Flint Michigan Clinic of Psychology; Flint, Michigan, (iii) Salary range $16,901-521,005. (a) (i) MA. (ii) From University of Saskatchewan. (iii) Salary range $14,085-$ 18,364. (b) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Psychologist-Regina Jail; Psychologist- Selkirk Health Centre, Manitoba, (iii) Salary set at $25 per half day. 1975: (a) Two full time, (b) One part time, (a) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Iowa State Penitentiary; Flint Michigan Clinic of Psychology, Flint, Michigan, (iii) Salary range $18,771-522,316. (a) (i) MA. (ii) From University of Saskatchewan. (iii) Salary range $18,771-522,316. (b) (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Psychologist-Regina Jail; Psychologist- Selkirk Health Centre, Manitoba, (iii) Salary set at $25 per half day.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Joyceville Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?

November 24, 1976


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970 and 1971: There were six psychologists at the Ontario Regional Headquarters, these psychologists moved to institutions as required. 1972: (a) One full time psychologist, (i) MA. (ii) Transferred from Collins Bay Institution Member of PSAC Headquarters, Ottawa, (iii) Salary range $11,949-$15,723. 1973: None, psychologist position vacant, cases referred to Collins Bay Institution. 1974: (a) Two full time psychologists, (i) MA. (ii) Direct entry from the University of Toronto, (iii) Salary range $16,911-S21,005. (i) MA. (ii) Transfer from the Provincial Corrections of Ontario, (iii) Salary range $14,085-$18,364. 1975: (a) Two full time psychologists. (i) MA. (ii) Direct entry from the University of Toronto, (iii) Salary range $18,771-$23,316. (i) MA. (ii) Transfer from the Provincial Corrections of Ontario, (iii) Salary range $15,634-$20,384. (b) None.
PSYCHOLOGISTS-MONTfiE ST. FRANCIS


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Montee St. Francis and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: This institution has no psychologist on establishment. Referrals are made to either the Laval Maximum Institution or the Quebec Psychiatric Centre.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Quebec Federal Training Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970 and 1971: All six psychologists pooled on Quebec Regional Headquarters establishment. 1972: (a) One full-time psychologist, (b) None, (i) MA Criminology, (ii) Graduate, University of Montreal, (iii) Salary range $14,441-$18,051. 1973: (a) Two full-time psychologists, (b) None, (i) MA psychology, (ii) Social Welfare Worker, Hull, P.Q. (iii) Salary range $ 15,416-$ 19,269. (i) MA psychology, (ii) Psychologist-Pinel Institution, Quebec, (iii) Salary range $ 15,416-$ 19,269. 1974: (a) Two full-time psychologists, (b) None, (i) MA psychology, (ii) Social Welfare Worker, Hull, P.Q. (iii) Salary range $16,911-$21,005. (i) MA psychology, (ii) Psychologist-Pinel Institution, Quebec, (iii) Salary range $14,085-$ 18,364. 1975: (a) Two full-time psychologists, (b) None, (i) MA psychology, (ii) Social Welfare Worker, Hull, P.Q. (iii) Salary range $18,771-$23,316. (i) MA Psychology, (ii) Psychologist-Pinel Institution, Quebec, (iii) Salary range $15,634-$20,384.
Order Paper Questions PSYCHOLOGISTS-WARKWORTH INSTITUTION


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Warkworth Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: (a) Two full-time psychologists, (b) None, (i) BA, MA, PhD. (ii) Post Graduate Studies, University of Alberta, (iii) Salary range $12,973-$ 16,218. (i) MA psychology, (ii) Central Reformatory, Department of Justice, Province of New Brunswick, (iii) Salary range $ 12,973-$ 16,218. 1971: (a) Two full-time psychologists, (b) None, (i) BA, MA, PhD. (ii) Post Graduate Studies, University of Alberta, (iii) Salary range $13,751-$17,191. (i) MA psychology, (ii) Central Reformatory, Department of Justice, Province of New Brunswick, (iii) Salary range $13,751-$17,191. 1972: (a) Two full-time psychologists, (b) None, (i) BA, MA, PhD. (ii) Post Graduate Studies, University of Alberta, (iii) Salary range $14,441-$18,051. (i) MA psychology, (ii) Central Reformatory, Department of Justice, Province of New Brunswick, (iii) Salary range $14,441-$18,051. 1973: (a) Two full-time psychologists, (b) None, (i) MA psychology, (ii) Central Reformatory, Department of Justice, Province of New Brunswick, (iii) Salary range $15,416-$ 19,269. (i) BA. (ii) Graduate School of Psychology, Guelph University, Guelph, Ontario, (iii) Salary range $12,756-$ 16,784. 1974: (a) Two full-time psychologists, (b) None, (i) MA psychology, (ii) Central Reformatory, Department of Justice, Province of New Brunswick. (iii) Salary range $16,911-$21,005. (i) BA. (ii) Graduate School of Psychology, Guelph University, Guelph, Ontario, (iii) Salary range $ 14,085-$ 18,364. 1975: (a) Three full-time psychologists, (b) None, (i) MA psychology, (ii) Correctional Services Psychologist, Department of Corrections, Province of Ontario, (iii) Salary range $18,771-$23,316. (i) BA. (ii) Graduate School of Psychology, Guelph University, Guelph, Ontario, (iii) Salary range $15,634-$20,384. (i) BS, MA, PhD. (ii) Post Graduate studies in Psychology, University of California, (iii) Salary range $15,634-$20,384.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Millhaven Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: This Institution opened on April 15, 1971. (a) See following statement, (b) None. 1971: Four full time Classification officers. No. 1 (i) Grade 13 plus courses and diploma in Criminology, (ii) Clerk-Kingston Penitentiary 1950-promoted through various jobs from Counsellor to Classification Officer, (iii) $10,701-$12,159. No. 2 (i) BA. (ii) Teacher, Kingston School Board, Ontario, (iii) $10,701-$12,159. No. 3

November 24, 1976
Order Paper Questions
(i) BA. (ii) Transfer from Kingston Penitentiary, (iii) $10,701-$12,159. No. 4 (i) Grade 12. (ii) Kingston Penitentiary as Correctional Officer 1960. Promoted to Guidance officer then to Classification officer, (iii) $10,701-$12,159. 1972: Five full time Classification officers. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see No. 1, 1971. (iii) $13,070-$14,852. No. 2 (i) and (ii) see No. 2, 1971. (iii) $11,236-$ 12,767. No. 3 (i) BA. (ii) Transferred from Kingston Penitentiary on close down. Four years service as Classification officer. Graduate of Queen's University, (iii) $9,326-$11,107. No. 4 (i) BA. (ii) Teacher, various Ontario Schools, Service with the Royal Canadian Navy, (iii) $11,236-$ 12,767. No. 5 (i) BA psychology, (ii) Direct entry from Queen's University, (iii) $9,326-$l 1,107. 1973: Eight full time Classification officers. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see No. 1, 1971. (iii) $14,442-$ 16,411.	No.	2	(i)	and	(ii)	see	No.	2,	1971.	(iii)$12,416-$14,108.	No.	3	(i)	and	(ii)	see	No.	3,	1972.	(iii)$12,416-$14,108.	No.	4	(i)	and	(ii)	see	No.	4,	1972.	(iii)$ 12,416-$ 14,108.	No.	5	(i)	and	(ii)	see	No.	5,	1972.	(iii)
$ 12,416-$ 14,108. No. 6 (i) BA. (ii) Salesman, Simpkin Roller Bearing Co., Toronto, (iii) $12,416-$ 14,108. No. 7 (i) BA plus two years law (ii) Summer short term employment, (iii) $ 12,416-$ 14,108. No. 8 (i) BA. (ii) University of Ohio, U.S. Youth Corps, (iii) $ 10,305-$ 12,273. 1974: Ten full time Classification officers. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see No. 1, 1971. (iii) $15,886-$ 18,052. No. 2 (i) MA Criminology, (ii) National Parole Service, Toronto, Ontario, (iii) $13,658-$ 15,519. No. 3
(i)	BA. (ii) Direct entry from Queen's University, (iii) $13,658-$ 15,519. No. 4 (i) BA (ii) Military Police-RCAF. Security officer-Guelph Institution, (iii) $13,658-$ 15,519. No. 5 (i) BA Honours, (ii) Direct entry from Carleton University, Ottawa, (iii) $7,800-$ 11,820. No. 6 (i) M Ed psychology.
(ii)	Teacher, Laurentian High School, Ottawa, (iii) $13,658-$15,519. No. 7 (i) BA psychology, (ii) Metropolitan Police Constable, Toronto, Ontario, Hospital orderly-Ontario Hospital. (iii) $13,658-$ 15,519. No. 8 (i) BA psychology, (ii) Fiber Glass Co., Guelph, and guard at Guelph Institution, (iii) $13,658-$15,519. No. 9 (i) BA (ii) Direct entry from the University of Waterloo for Training and Development as Classification officer, (iii) $8,940-$ 13,440. No. 10 (i) Grade 12. (ii) Insurance adjuster, courses at Queen's University in Social Science, (iii) $9,052-$ 11,913. 1975. Nine full time Classification officers. No. 1 (i), (ii) and (iii) see No. 1, 1974; No. 2 (i), (ii) and (iii) see No. 2, 1974; No. 3 (i), (ii) and (iii) see No. 3, 1974; No. 4 (i), (ii) and (iii) see No. 4, 1974; No. 5
(i)	, (ii) and (iii) see No. 5, 1974; No. 6 (i), (ii) and (iii) see No. 6, 1974; No. 7 (i), (ii) and (iii) see No. 7, 1974; No. 8 (i),
(ii)	and (iii) see No. 8, 1974; No. 9 (i), (ii) and (iii) see No. 9, 1974.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Office of the Prime Minister, Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, Indian Claims Commission, Economic Council of Canada, Privy Council Office and Federal-Provincial Relations Office hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Ralph Goodale: Office of the Prime Minister: five employees transferred to other government departments or agencies, six employees left the public service for personal reasons. Nine employees were hired. One employee was laid off. Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat: one employee was hired. Indian Claims Commission: one employee was hired. Economic Council of Canada: 10 employees were hired. Five employees transferred to other government departments or agencies. Privy Council Office: 17 employees transferred to other government departments or agencies. 16 employees left the public service for personal reasons: four employees left during the probationary period. One employee was released. Two employees were laid off. 12 employees were hired. Federal-Provincial Relations Office: two employees transferred to other government departments or agencies. Three employees left the public service for personal reasons. Two employees were hired.


Mr. McKinnon: How many government employees are being sent, with their families, to reside in California to supervise various aspects of the Lockheed Aurora contract?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned: At present, a total of 84 personnel and their families are planned to be transferred to California in support of the CP-140 Aurora program. 25 of this group will be in California throughout the program. The other 59 personnel, who will be formed into various teams to accomplish specific tasks, will be there only for the length of time it takes to complete these tasks.
In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: Nine DSS employees and their dependants.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	What was the cost of printing the government telephone directory for 1974, 1975 and 1976 to date?
2.	Is the directory printed every three months and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, how often is it printed per year?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Supply and Services Canada is concerned: 1. 1974, Printing Only* $172,210.40; 1975, Printing Only* $218,536.88; 1976, Printing and Composition-$232,763.56 to date.
'Composition costs paid direct by Government Telecommunications Agency. These costs can be obtained from the Government Telecommunications Agency. In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned: 2. Until 1975-76 the

November 24, 1976

directory was printed every three months. This met the requirement of departments and agencies to publish the most current information available. In 1975-76 directory printings were reduced to three times per year to reduce production and publishing costs.


Mr. Bawden: Did the government commission any studies by the Hudson Institute of Canada or the Hudson Institute between 1971 and May 1976 and, if so, what was the cost and subject of each such study?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1972-73: Corporate Environment Program, $19,600; 1974-75: Corporate Environment Program, $11,880; European Research Program, $4,950; Total, $16,830. 1975-76: Corporate Environment Program, $13,860; European Research Program, $4,950; Total, $18,810. 1971-72 and 1973-74, Nil. In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: 1971-72: Nil. 1972-73: $27,500 to participate in the Third Phase of the study "The Corporate Environment, 1975-1985". 1973-74: Nil; 1974-75: Nil; 1975-76: Nil.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As at the beginning of October 1976 under the Foreign Investment Review Act, how many (a) take-over cases (b) new business cases were outstanding?
2.	In each case, how many months have elapsed since the date of the first application?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. As of October 1, 1976 there were: (a) 67 reviewable acquisition cases outstanding; and (b) 83 reviewable new business cases outstanding.
2. With respect to cases outstanding on October I, 1976, the elapsed time from the date a complete notice was received by the Agency to October 1, 1976, was:
	Number of	Number of reviewable
	reviewable	new business
Day Range	acquisition cases	cases0- 30	20	2931- 60	15	1661- 90	8	1491-120	7	10121-150	3	7151-180	5	5181-210	1	2211-240	4	301-330	1	361-390	1	391-420	2	-
Order Paper Questions
As of November 12, 1976, 27 of the 67 acquisition cases and 27 of the 83 new business cases had been resolved.


Mr. Howie: 1.	(a) As of November 1, 1976, how many persons were employed by the Surveys and Mapping Branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (b) what are the total annual wages of those employed?
2.	What is the total expenditure for printing by non-government printers by the Branch for each fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. (a) 1,068 persons; (b) $16,545,000.
2. (a) $155,734; (b) $62,821.


Mr. Beatty: Has the government in recent years studied the possibility of a policy which would require that federal documents and directives designed to be read by the public would have to be written in a way that would be easily understood by the average citizen and, if so (a) by whom was the study conducted (b) on what date was it completed (c) what were its conclusions (d) what action has been taken by the government as a result of such study?


Ralph Goodale: As a matter of policy, the Government has under constant review, through its Departments and Agencies, its communications with citizens and how best to ensure that the information to which they are entitled is readily available. The cost in manpower and time to gather information on the numerous means used to apply this policy would be prohibitive.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 436 and 617 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 436 and 617 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we had no notice of the request that has been made. It might very well be reasonable, but I wonder if the hon. member could tell us whose questions are involved and what is the reason.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the second of the questions, No. 617, is a question from the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and requests some rather detailed information about statistics of the Unemployment Insurance Commis-

Motions for Papers
sion. As hon. members can see, it is rather voluminous and it would be more expedient to deal with it as an order for return. The second question is a question from the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) dealing with an inquiry having to do with classification officers in penitentiaries. It, as well, involves a rather lengthy and detailed answer, and that is why we suggested it be dealt with in this particular manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the questions referred to, Nos. 436 and 617, be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Saskatchewan Penitentiary and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?
Return tabled.


Mr. Alexander: 1.	How many claimants receiving unemployment insurance benefits in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 to date, by month, province and sex, had (i) an eight (ii) a nine (iii) a ten (iv) an eleven (v) a twelve week attachment to the labour force previous to their applications for benefits?
2.	For each category, what percentage of the total unemployment insurance recipients did these applicants represent?
Return Tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before leaving questions it may be worth while bringing to the attention of the House again what the opposition House leader has just requested. This involves information which has been requested on a number of occasions in the past regarding an application for the House's permission to table orders for returns. Indeed, in light of representations that have been made in the past, it might very well be preferable if the parliamentary secretary would inform the House leaders of his intention to seek this permission of the House on future occasions.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 1,6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15,23 and 35.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, letters and telegrams relating to Canada's $11 million claim against the Government of France as a result of the opting out by France of the NATO military alliance and the eviction of participating units in 1966.
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the release of confidential documents and their contents would be prejudicial to the conduct of the international affairs of Canada and current negotiations. I am therefore obliged to ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements between the government and the Province of Alberta having to do with the transfer of Col. Belcher Hospital in Calgary.
Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the transfer of Colonel Belcher Hospital in Calgary is not currently under negotiation. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements between the government and the Province of Manitoba having to do with the transfer of Deer Lodge Hospital in Winnipeg.
Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, the transfer of Deer
November 24, 1976

Lodge Hospital in Winnipeg is not currently under negotiation. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements between the government and the Province of Ontario having to do with the transfer of Westminster Hospital in London.
Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, the material requested involves ongoing discussions or negotiations which may culminate in a contract between the two governments and therefore cannot be released. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion. *


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements between the government and the Province of Quebec having to do with the transfer of St. Anne's Hospital in St. Anne de Bellevue.
Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, the transfer of St. Anne's Hospital in St. Anne de Bellevue is not currently under negotiation. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements between the government and the Province of Quebec having to do with the transfer of Queen Mary Hospital in Montreal.
Motions for Papers
Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, the material requested involved ongoing discussions on negotiations which may culminate in a contract between the two governments and therefore cannot be released. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements between the government and the Province of Nova Scotia having to do with the transfer of Camp Hill Hospital in Halifax.
Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, the material requested involves ongoing discussions or negotiations which may culminate in a contract between the two governments and therefore cannot be released. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any reports or reviews with respect to a national food policy prepared by or under the direction of the group known as the DMs Ten.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Perhaps we could hear from the government why this is being refused.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested are internal documents of a confidential nature and cannot be released to the House. I would ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
1346

November 24, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
[ Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Whiteway:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any task force reports, reviews or studies with respect to the use of leg hold traps.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all minutes of meetings, correspondence and telegrams having to do with decentralizing the Department of Veterans Affairs to any province.
Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested are internal documents of a confidential nature and cannot be produced. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1 rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to give notice that tomorrow it is our intention to raise a question of privilege centred on the question of parliamentary secretaries answering on behalf of acting ministers or ministers in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-19, to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, to continue with my remarks of last evening on Bill C-19, we

have since last evening had an opportunity to study the answers to the questions directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) yesterday with regard to the latest report of the Auditor General and the government's proposal to establish a royal commission to examine the uncontrolled expenditures in the country today.
I note that the President of the Treasury Board in answer to one question said that there is no doubt that the Auditor General has recommended the establishment of the office of a comptroller general. He said:
We are not negating this; we say that it has a certain appeal and attraction, but that the question begins to bear on other important questions to do with the whole process of parliament and accountability.
I think it is most unfortunate that this recommendation is not accepted because in this way some action could be taken in respect of the uncontrolled expenditures and the financial fiasco we have in this country today. As was pointed out yesterday, the appointment of this royal commission is nothing but a stalling tactic. It will take years before this commission will come back with any recommendations. Sufficient recommendations have been made by the Auditor General in this recent report and in the past number of years. Practically none of these recommendations have been implemented by the government.
Before I continue my remarks I should like to refer to a speech made in Toronto by the former minister of finance, Mr. John Turner. This speech was made on November 20. Mr. Turner criticized the federal government's economic policies and called for an immediate end to wage and price controls. If this is not a case of the kettle calling the pot black I do not know what it is. Here we have a former finance minister who has not taken much responsibility for the financial mess we have in this country today, although while he was minister over a number of years he introduced some of the most disastrous budgets this country has seen. When he criticizes the government today he is actually criticizing himself.
I should also like to refer to a study that was completed just last year by the Independent Review Committee. This is a detailed study of the office of the Auditor General. The report contains 162 pages of recommendations to improve the Department of the Auditor General. It is full of recommendations on how to improve accounting systems in the federal government. This is another reason why we do not need this royal commission.
I should like to refer to the terms of reference in respect of the Independent Review Committee. They state:
The Review Committee shall inquire into and report upon what should be the responsibilities, relationships with government departments and agencies, and reporting procedures of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and what should be the statutory and other requirements to ensure that he can meet such responsibilities with the necessary degree of independence. The inquiry is to include a review of:
-the responsibilities of the Office in relation to current conditions and
requirements, taking into account the manner in which comparable functions
are discharged in other countries having similar governmental institutions;
November 24, 1976

-the scope of audit examinations conducted under the statutory requirements of the Financial Administration Act and other acts, and the types of other inquiries relative to the financial affairs of Canada which may be performed on request;
-the relationships between the Office and
The Public Accounts Committee, the Minister of Finance, the Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission, audit groups within government departments and agencies, government departments and crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, and other professional and governmental auditing organizations;
-the content, method of preparation, timing and format of reports by the Auditor General.
Those were the terms of reference. They completely fulfilled those terms of reference and the recommendations here. All that is left to be done is to implement them. There is no need at all for a royal commission which, as has been said yesterday and as I will repeat today, is nothing but a big stall.


Mr. Stollery:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As 1 understand it, we are now debating Bill C-19. I do not know why the hon. member is talking about the Auditor General's report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It is quite clear.


Peter A. Stollery: The hon. member should be brought to order and asked to discuss the matter that is before us this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is very difficult for the Chair to make a decision as to whether or not the hon. member was addressing himself to the bill when he made reference to the Auditor General's report. However, I would ask hon. members to address their remarks to Bill C-19.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Your ruling was quite proper and I would not want to argue with it, but I was listening to the speech of the hon. member and, as I understood it, he was dealing with the Auditor General's report in the light of Bill C-19 in which the government is seeking to save money, to restrain its spending. In effect, the hon. member is stating that in his report the Auditor General is saying to Canadians and to this parliament that the government, which asks so much of Canadian citizens, has been unable to restrain itself or control its spending.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I hope the hon. member will understand that I did not mention any particular hon. member. I was asking all hon. members to address their remarks to Bill C-19.


A. Daniel McKenzie: During the lengthy debate on this bill reference has been made practically in every speech to the Auditor General's report which deals with government spending. That is what this is all about, and to prevent this matter from being discussed in the debate at this time would be quite ridiculous.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
The reason I want to comment on the former auditor general's report is to assist the government and to show it the many weaknesses in its operations, and to assist it in restraint in spending by showing it the financial mess in which it is now, and its poor accounting system. That is what I am here to do, to help it.
In his recent remarks Mr. Henderson was also trying to be helpful. He has written articles and made contributions on a continuous basis. We should listen to this man who is a very knowledgeable individual. This is what he wrote:
At the time the government was advancing hundreds of millions of dollars to underwrite Expo '67, I asked Mitchell Sharp, then the minister of finance, to submit the loans to parliament for approval. He finally did so but I never realized how strongly the Pearson government had opposed my request until, meeting several top deputy ministers by chance one day on Ottawa's Wellington Street, they began to kid me about my demands. One of them parodying C. D. Howe, said: "Hell, who's to stop us-those guys on the Hill?"
It is this attitude in the top echelons of the public service that explains why our MPs are given so little hard information about government spending. At the same time, cabinet has little patience with parliamentary questioning. It upsets the political and bureaucratic timetable, even though it seldom if ever alters the government's intentions. This is why more and more frequently now the Trudeau government provides to the House of Commons only the base minimum of information about its proposed spending. It seems to consider it sufficient to conform to the various steps in the parliamentary process which, weighed down by the parliamentary timetable and the complexities of the spending details, means that few members of the House are able to ask meaningful questions.
Until we are provided with this type of information we will never be able to keep a check on the government's expenditures. With the rule changes introduced by the Liberal government of the day in 1969 which limited the examination of the estimates, the Liberals have trapped themselves with their own rule changes. They themselves do not even know what is going on. This is the paradox with which we are faced today. Therefore any information any member can contribute in this regard in the debate on Bill C-19 is useful. That is what this forum is for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Henderson goes on to say:
The job of the chairman of each of the estimates committees of the House (who is carefully selected by the government) is to get departmental estimates approved as quickly as possible. Each spring we witness what amounts to a ballet or dance ritual in the committees-ministers opening the debates with policy pronouncements followed by their deputies closing them with a minimum of disturbance. In my view, it is high time the opposition accepted its responsibilities of opposing, of vigorously questioning, of demanding and securing information that the press will pick up and the public understand.
That is exactly what we in the Conservative party are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: The article goes on to read:
The Trudeau government's estimated cash requirements for 1966-67 amount to $42 billion; out of the 95 departmental estimates, only 20 are lower than in 1975-76. The other 75 all demand more money.
The detail given to justify these huge increases in the estimates blue book is minimal indeed. It was cut back from the simpler presentation given prior to 1970-71 to reflect a system of "budgeting by programs", but the Treasury Board's definition of "programs" is essentially a departmental exercise-it does not, for instance, pull out and show separately the huge over-all costs of such
8OOO5-I8V2

November 24, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
programs as bilingualism for the public service, surely a government "program" by any standard.
In his introduction to the Estimates, Treasury Board president Jean Chretien reminds us that this approach "represents a synthesis of the recommendations of many observers, particularly the members of parliament who served on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts during the first session of the Twenty-Eighth Parliament with whom the new form of these estimates was discussed in all significant particulars."
This was in November, 1968, when, as auditor general, I was the adviser to the Public Accounts Committee of the day. C. M. Drury, then president of the Treasury Board, presented the government's proposals. One of these was a still further reduction in the number of votes or debating opportunities available to the members of parliament.
This is one of the main problems. With the rule changes, the government reduced the number of votes. Prior to 1969 there were approximately 350 votes. This number has been reduced to around 160. When you have about 350 votes, you have detailed accounts of each department's expenditures. But now in these reduced votes you have such references as "others, went up $5 million", or "miscellaneous, went up $3 million". What kind of examination is that? The Canadian people are entitled to a better scrutiny of how their tax dollars are being spent. This is the problem we are facing today. There is no control and no proper examination. That is why the government feels the need to introduce bills such as Bill C-19.
The article goes on to read:
These reductions may have served the needs of the Treasury Board administration but they have not facilitated the work of the MPs. The sums they must deal with are so large and the information available in the blue books is so minimal that for many MPs the votes have become exercises in frustration and futility.
Certainly that is a truthful statement.
The committee also charged the auditor general in 1968 with seeing to it that a certain basic minimum disclosure criteria is followed in publishing the estimates and instructed him to bring any deviations to the attention of parliament. I carried out this instruction up to 1972 but the committee seldom got around to examining the cases and censuring the Treasury Board. As the spending becomes larger and larger every year, less and less disclosure exists.
The present auditor general, my successor, is concerned about this ...
And he certainly showed his concern in the report he filed this week.
In the first installment of his massive Financial Management and Control Study tabled last December, he wrote: "The study leads to one clear conclusion: the present state of the financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness."
Small wonder that parliament has lost control of government spending. The members-our representatives-scarcely have a fighting chance to get adequate information on the spending they have to approve. When they approve the 1976-77 spending estimates, they will indeed be turning $42 billion over to a government whose financial controls are "significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness."
It is time this was all changed, and that is why I feel we should have a wide open and full discussion about the report of the Auditor General and Bill C-19, and perhaps before we are finished the government might even bring in some amendments to strengthen this bill.
There are also others who conduct studies of government waste and mismanagement. Not only the Auditor General and

hon. members of the official opposition, but also members of the news media and others have carried out research, and 1 would like to quote from an article written by Jacques Grenier as follows:
Until a few months ago, a florist from Pickering, Ontario, used to drive about 250 miles every Friday afternoon just to do his job. He'd go to Ottawa, to the corner of Bank and Wellington streets, in the heart of the city, and enter the Confederation Building. There he'd spend several hours tending to the plants that abound in hallways and offices. That done, he'd head back to Pickering. The annual cost to the Canadian taxpayer? Try $60,000.
These kinds of expenditures have got to be stopped. These are not priorities or necessities, by any stretch of the imagination.
In his article on government extravagance Mr. Grenier went on to say:
The blame lies not with the florist, who was merely fortunate to land such a bountiful job, but with the bureaucracy that would permit such abuses. The sad truth of the matter is that the federal civil service has reached the point where it is no longer controllable. In truth, Chretien was underguessing: for the present fiscal year there are 352,836 federal public service employees. To put that in perspective, it's an increase of 31 per cent over the past eight years, whereas the entire national employed working force has risen only 22 per cent over the same period. Or, in yet another manner, 10 federal employees in 1976 for every one such worker in 1940.
In the past decade, Ottawa has exploded upwards, with dozens of glass and steel high-rise buildings crowding into a 50-square-block area in the centre of the city. The nation's business goes on in thousands upon thousands of offices and cubicles, the life of the country filtering along a network of in-and out-baskets. The short circuits and the abuses are built into the system.
One has to wonder about all the buildings the government has in Ottawa, the huge empires being built in Hull and in other parts of Quebec. Now we are told that the Department of Veterans Affairs is to move to Prince Edward Island. There are two huge buildings here on Wellington Street; what is going to happen to those buildings? Are they going to be sold, left vacant, or are more government departments to be moved in to fill those buildings up with still more civil servants? There has been no response from the government as to what it is going to do with those two DVA buildings.
Mr. Grenier's articles goes on as follows:
A former senior official with External Affairs, John Starnes, recently headed a government task force looking into certain aspects of the civil service. He found: (1) the civil service is too large and growing too fast; (2) there are many employees who are being paid more than they are worth; and (3) there are many employees ...


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw to the attention of the Chair that the hon. member who presently has the floor is not addressing himself to the bill which is before us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are insulting the Chair. The Chair is listening to the speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I am sure hon. members will find that if they hear the hon. member out, he will, hopefully, relate his remarks to the bill which is before us.
November 24, 1976


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I will be giving examples which certainly have to do with Bill C-19, which is a bill to control expenditures.


Ralph Goodale: This is a filibuster.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Perhaps after I have finished my remarks some hon. members opposite will tell me what they are doing about the issues raised in this article. Then they would be making a real contribution. I raised this matter once before in this House with the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, who was praising the government here one night on what a brilliant job it was doing. When I raised this matter he gave me no answer at all. Perhaps some hon. members opposite can come up with something today.
There are many dedicated, conscientious and hardworking civil servants, but here are some examples of some who are not, again as related by Mr. Grenier:
Because of the sheer size of the bureaucracy, a civil servant who wants to can go almost completely underground, performing little or no work. A federal employee at the National Museums of Canada admitted to me that he works about an hour a week. He makes over $15,000 a year. A bright young bureaucrat with the Foreign Investment Review Agency admits working about two hours a week. His salary is $28,000.
That is not bad for two hours a week. What is the government doing about employees who are working one and two hours a week for this kind of money? I hope we can get some answers from government members today.
Mr. Grenier goes on to say the following:
From my own brief stint as a civil service information officer in Industry, Trade and Commerce, I can sympathize with him. He complains of not having enough to do, and when there are tasks, they seem to be meaningless. I discovered that working too fast simply left that much more time with nothing to do. Like the cubicles in the high-rise buildings, the bureaucratic workload is compartmentalized. Once you've finished the assigned work, there is usually little else to do. If you strike out on your own, you run the risk of trampling on someone else's jurisdiction. There is built-in discouragement for someone trying to make work by finding other jobs to do to fill in his time.
I do not know how widespread this is or whether this is completely factual, but as I said, I raised this matter in the House previously and there was no response from the former minister who was praising the government on the brilliant administration job it was doing. I hope some hon. members today will be able to answer some of these charges.
My remarks have not gone over too well with hon. members opposite, as they feel that I was not referring to Bill C-19 as much as I should. However, I feel the areas I have touched on are certainly important. They all have to do with the waste, extravagance, and uncontrolled spending there is within the government, and I touched on those areas today. We have never received any satisfactory answers, and all the government has done is propose the establishment of a royal commission. I am sure this royal commission will take at least two or three years, but there have been no comments from the government as to what it is going to do in the meantime. I do not know whether it has even looked at this document, the "Report of the Independent Review Committee". If all its recommendations were implemented we would have an excellent accounting system in Canada.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
Before I finish, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that there is evidence here of improper accounting procedures in Crown corporations. In the Auditor General's report it is pointed out that $14 million has gone astray in the CBC. I am well acquainted with how Air Canada works in Winnipeg-it is accountable to no one. Millions of dollars go astray and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) refuse to give satisfactory answers to our questions. All we get from the financial statement of Air Canada is the news that there is to be a general review. This is a Crown corporation dealing with taxpayers' money. I know perfectly well that nothing is being done in Air Canada but lots of recommendations in this document pointed out the faults with that corporation and said that a proper accounting system should be established for it and other Crown corporations.
With regard to those employees being paid $28,000 a year for working two hours a week, and $15,000 a year for working one hour of the week, I hope some member of the government can explain whether any research and study are being done into these charges made by Mr. Jacques Grenier and others. I shall certainly welcome their comments.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-19. For those members who have just entered the Chamber and have not been paying attention to the debate, the short title of the bill is "An act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures". Mr. Speaker, you know and I know, and any member who has been in this Chamber more than ten minutes knows, that a bill referring to government expenditures can cover almost any relevant subject of government spending.
I was amused when the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) who I guess crawled out of the Spadina Expressway, rose on a facetious point of order to the effect that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) was out of order. I can understand his frustration and that of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who is also from the great metropolis of Toronto. The rest of us see it when we fly over it and we love to visit it, but we never hear from members opposite who hail from there except when they stand up at five after five, or five minutes to ten in the closing hours of debate and finally are consumed with courage to raise a point of order. I can understand and sympathize with those hon. members.
Frankly I can understand and sympathize with any member opposite. If I were even an objective Canadian-which I am not because I belong to this side and am partisan, and do not mind being partisan in a most constructive way-but if I were on the government side or were an objective Canadian, as most are when they are not committed to any political party, I would look at the events of this week in this second session of this Thirtieth Parliament which put in microcosm the pathetic record of the government.

November 24, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
What do we have tonight? We have the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who a year or so ago said separatism is dead, going on the national airways and television-


Mr. Blaker:: Mr. Speaker on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) on a point of order.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order not so much because I want to contend with the remarks made by the hon. member because the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) was correct; hon. members do stray from the point. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) is supposed to be discussing Bill C-19. I am not interested in hearing his views on the recent Quebec election. To me it seems logical that the hon. member should be asked to stay on Bill C-19.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This bill is destroying Confederation if you read it. Read the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It seems that the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) has a valid point. I do not think the Quebec election has anything to do with Bill C-19, and I would hope that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) would confine his remarks to Bill C-19.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am getting sick and tired of false interruptions from the opposite side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: With due respect, if hon. members read the bill as I read it and try to anticipate these fictitious points of order-we are talking about government expenditures. In the generality of any second reading debate a member is entitled to become pretty general. I am coming to the reason why I am opposed to this bill. Although the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) is not directly affected there are members from Quebec who will be adversely affected by clauses of Bill C-19 referring to the export of flour and grain. But, Mr. Speaker, I will come back to the false point of order. With respect to your ruling, or your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that any member who has had any experience in second reading debates would know that when you open a report talking about government expenditures-what more are you talking about than certain principles? I was going to suggest two things that would make any Canadian ashamed of the government's record. One is that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister are using government expenditures tonight to go on our national airwaves and tell Canadians things are not as bad as they were, even though he said six months ago that separatism is dead.
The second point is that Canadians have become disillusioned with this government. The polls are so low you could have one of those little Schnauzer dogs and it could not do anything against the pole because the pole is too high-a

poodle dog would be too high the way the polls are in terms of the present standing of the party. The Prime Minister, who came on the federal scene with a mandate to bring us together, now has to go on CBC tonight and state that things are not quite the way he would like them to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am not happy that he has to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: But I can also say this-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The second and fundamental reason why the polls are too high-if you had a Pekingese you could not get it to use those poles.
What else is the federal government supposed to do than bring us together and look after spending? In the Auditor General's report filed this week-which is the second arrow in my two arrow bow-there is an indictment against the government for the way it has managed spending in this country, that has no history or precedent-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: For these two fundamental reasons, and in a general way talking about the principle of unity in this country which the Prime Minister now has to say is not quite the way he would like to see it through his rose coloured glasses-it is funamental that every Prime Minister since Sir John A. Macdonald has tried to bring this country together.
As far as Bill C-19 is concerned, it is the second indictment against this government by every Canadian who has to pay income tax and sales tax, and by every Canadian who watches the Prime Minister on television try to explain the unexplainable and defend the indefensible. Every Canadian knows that there has never been a government in the history of Canada which has spent taxpayers' money as this government has.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No other government has wasted as much, that is right.


An hon. Member:: You won't be here much longer.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I think I will be here a lot longer than the hon. lady from South Western Nova. In my short time in this House this country's budget has risen from $6.8 billion to about $42 billion.


John Allen Fraser: Many hon. members, hear, hear!


Miss Campbell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not hear what the hon. member had to say about the
November 24, 1976

constituency of South Western Nova, but I did hear something about the great amount of spending this government is supposedly doing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Supposedly?


Coline M. Campbell: I remind the hon. member of the huge amounts of spending provided for in the 1957-58 statutes of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I ask hon. members to refrain from raising such points of order and questions of privilege, and I suggest that we should hear the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan).


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, there are enough seals opposite us to justify the hunt.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their guidance; I am a moderate man-some would say I have much to be moderate about. I suggest that your direction, Mr. Speaker, will help to cool it on the opposite side. I am sure hon. members will understand that if 1 was carried away I was expressing in caption form the indignation which Canadians from coast to coast feel about the wild spending spree of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am about to deal with the merits, or demerits, of Bill C-19.


An hon. Member:: What does the hon. member know about that?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I wish the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) would get up off his seat and make a speech.


Ralph Goodale: I already have made one.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I know you did, dear sir. I hope the hon. member for Assiniboia makes as many speeches as he can in this parliament, because it will be the last opportunity he will have.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There will be no more Otto and no more Ralph.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Some hon. members opposite are trying the patience-


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has just made some reference to the constituency of Assiniboia. I rise to point out to him and the House that in his recent visit to the community of Weyburn he did more to elect Liberal candidates all over western Canada than anyone has ever done before.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I asked hon. members to refrain from raising such points of order. I
Restraint of Government Expenditures will ask the hon. member for Annapolis Valley not to challenge the hon. member who just spoke.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with that. I certainly was not casting any reflection on the constituency of Assiniboia, which I have visited many times. A former representative of that constituency in this House, Lawrence Watson of Avonlea, is a very dear friend of mine. I was in Assiniboia not long ago. And if, accidentally, I did or said anything which would help to elect any Liberal member, I did it out of the kindness and charity of my heart; because, considering what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has done to Liberals across the country, there is little hope that any of them will come back.
I was going to speak about government expenditures, and the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia may be germane to what I am about to say about Bill C-19. There is an aircraft known as the Learjet which flies in the sky. I thought we had done our pioneering in aircraft. We built the Canadair airliner and built STOL aircraft. I guess now we have something called the "Langjet", which may take the place of the Learjet. Perhaps Conservatives, when they go to that beautiful, open sky, breadbasket country of the west, can accidentally say things which may help a Liberal or two; because since the Liberals have a Minister of Transport who racked up $740,000 under a user-pay concept whereby he uses and the public pays, any Liberal west of the Lakehead needs all the help he can get.
Before I deal with the details of the bill may I commend to hon. members of this House the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who has been, in effect, the chairman of our committee for dealing with this bill.


Coline M. Campbell: Did you say he has been an ineffective chairman?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He has been one of the most effective chairmen I have seen on my side of the House and considering the chaos prevailing on the government side I should think hon. members opposite could well use his services. Do not despair, I
say.


Ralph Goodale: If he wants to come over, he is welcome.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, many more of our chairmen will be sitting on the other side of the House in the not too distant future and will restore order to the confused state of government in this country. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, we all know of the excellence of the hon. member for Vegreville; I do not want to embarrass him with too many rose bowl bouquets. As chairman of our caucus he exercised tact of which Chairman Mao would have been proud. That is why he is known as "Chairman Maz". Having seen how tactful the hon. member has been with those on my side who wanted to speak on Bill C-19, and how he allowed for idiosyncracies, I can only say that in all my years here I have never seen any one perform these tasks more ably than the hon. member for Vegreville has performed them.

November 24, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures


Ralph Goodale: Also, he is the master of the filibuster.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The title of Bill C-19 has something to do with restraint of government expenditures. 1 thought we were concerned about restraining government expenditures, but I could not believe my ears when earlier this week I heard what the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) had to say about the recent Auditor General's report. The President of the Treasury Board is an honourable man, and I would still buy a car from him in Thunder Bay-I think.


James Aloysius McGrath: But not a used car.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: But not a used car. He is an honourable man, and when he stood up in this House to explain the Auditor General's report he tried to sound natural when he said the budget is under control, but the actual spending of money and our accounting procedures are somewhat out of control. You can readily see our dilemma in discussing a bill such as Bill C-19 which ostensibly has to do with restraint of government expenditures. When the President of the Treasury Board says on the one hand that the actual spending of money, not the budgeting, is out of control, and the Auditor General in his report says that the government has all but lost control of government spending, you can see our dilemma.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And the government is not going to do anything about it for three years.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What did the government do? It set up a royal commission which is to last three years and cost $ 1,000 a day, according to Mr. Pitfield, a person important to some hon. members opposite. Actually, he is somewhat closer to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) than he is to others on the government side. Mr. Pitfield suggested that it will be a 1,000-day royal commission. The government appointed a royal commission to study again that which the Auditor General, helped by 60 or 70 professionals, studied for at least one year.
I am somewhat disappointed at the government's action. I am one of the class of '65, which includes the Prime Minister.
I recall the hon. gentleman opposite graduating from the class and becoming Prime Minister, but I remain in the opposition.
I hope to improve that state some day soon. Part of the dilemma facing Canadians is that the man who was going to bring in the new politics also plays the oldest shell game, the oldest political game. He knows that when you face an embarrassing development such as the tabling of an Auditor General's report which sheds an unfavourable light on government spending, the thing to do is to upstage the opposition. You pull the oldest card from the pack, or play the oldest shell game, by appointing a royal commission.
We found out yesterday that the government did not even do any checking. Talk about restraint of government expenditures. The government did not even practice restraint when making appointments to the commission. It did not consider
[Mr. Nowlan. 1
the conflicts of interest of people who will study themselves. We are not in the litany of judicial interpretations of people opposite, making telephone calls to judges-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am not going down that road. We have been down that road.
There are many things you can say about a royal commission. However, this is the first time we are having a commission where the commissioners will be investigating themselves. This new level of commissioning in this country should be condemned by every Canadian. With regard to Bill C-19-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am glad the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) is in the Chamber. He stands to lose as much as others from the Lakehead eastward.
There are many things I could say about Bill C-19. Before my time runs out I want to move an amendment. I will move a reasoned amendment to the bill in about two minutes just in case I do not have time to complete my remarks.
My particular objection is to clause 15, a very simple clause. The hon. member for Assiniboia knows this because he made a speech on it, as did other members. In clause 15 there are only eight words to be found. It repeals Section 272 of the Railway Act, which is the section that allows export flour and export grain to move at preferred or subsidized rates. Export grain moves at the 1960 rate, and export flour at the 1966 rate. Obviously this helps our situation in the international market.
Because of what is being done through clause 15 and other clauses of this bill, I will move a reasoned amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-19, an act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, because the said bill rejects the principle of parliamentary sovereignty through its excessive use of the expedient and inefficient use of ministerial discretion, thereby further weakening the opportunities available to this House to control expenditures."
I would like to explain the purport of that reasoned amendment. I am glad the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is here because he is a lawyer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Without getting into the substance of the amendment, may I be helpful to my hon. friend and suggest that his seconder be someone who has not already spoken? I believe the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has spoken.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate that. I am always open to suggestions and respond to constructive ones. I would like to have my amendment seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
November 24, 1976

There are several comments I would like to make about clause 15, and some general comments about the bill.
Clause 2 refers to the Adult Occupational Training Act. That act will exist no longer. In fact the explanatory notes state, and I quote:
This amendment would remove certain statutory restrictions now applicable in respect of training allowance rates-
In effect, they would be determined by regulation. In other words, you go from statute to order in council.
Clause 3 deals with the Company of Young Canadians. That authorizing statute is being repealed. There will be no further ministerial discretion involved.
Clause 6 deals with the Family Allowances Act. A statutory authority is involved. There is some protection in the statute. Hon. members may agree or disagree, but at least there is a statute and it can only be changed by statute. With the amendment in clause 6, there is a transfer of federal statute to provincial regulation. The present statute can only be changed following a debate in this House. The regulation can be changed by any order in council.
Further on in the bill we come to the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. That basically is restricted to certain rates of the previous year. It is interesting to note that under this amendment the very act can be repealed by order in council. This is a federal statute which provides funds for necessary research. These funds are to be frozen at certain levels because of restraint. According to clause 12 the governor in council may repeal the act holus bolus. There will be no further need to come back to parliament.
Clause 14 affects members from the west. It deals with the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Here again payments are made under an act. Under this clause the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) by order in council will authorize payments out of the fund.
Next is clause 15, the clause in which I am vitally interested. It will have an adverse effect, not just on the Atlantic ports of Halifax and Saint John, but on several terminal points and elevator places along the St. Lawrence River and in the Lakehead.
Under clause 15, Section 272 is being cut out of the Railway Act. This may not be as important as the Crowsnest Pass rates. The Crowsnest rates are preferred subsidy rates for the movement of western grain through the Crowsnest Pass westward. This is very important to many people, although not necessarily the Minister of Transport who is trying to change this. In any event our western grain moves to the western ports and on to the international market at a lower price than if the companies had to pay compensatory rates. Obviously the 1896 rates are cheaper than the 1976 rates. However, Bill C-19 does not touch the Crowsnest Pass rates.
I do not know whether this includes Thunder Bay, but certainly every member in eastern Canada, Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec should be violently objecting to this amendment. It is as basic and necessary to Atlantic Canada as
Restraint of Government Expenditures the Crowsnest rates are to western Canada. Just because we are dealing with smaller amounts of money does not make the principle any different. Just eight words in Bill C-19 eliminate forever the statutory guarantee with regard to the flow of export grain and flour through our Atlantic ports.
To be fair, while this debate was going on the Minister of Transport made a proposal which the Canadian Milling Association has reluctantly accepted. I understand it was a take it or leave it proposition. The minister, not by a bill or an amendment to the bill, but by a statement in the House and a press statement outside, offered a two-year program on a reduced scale involving the payment of certain millions of dollars to assist the export market. As I understand the statement of the minister, this only applies to export flour, not export grain. More important than that, we had the minister's statement today concerning a potential two year program which has no statutory authority and could be changed by whimsy tomorrow, or if a new minister came in could be changed overnight. There is no guarantee that this program will be in operation for two years, quite apart from what is going to happen after the two years.
There are a lot of milling towns in eastern Quebec and along the St. Lawrence Seaway that are going to be adversely affected by this bill. Everyone in the milling trade says that if we lose that assistance which helps us export flour to international markets at the present rate, which is frozen under the act-it is the 1966 rate for flour so it is a preferred rate-we will lose the last of our flour export customers. I do not know how many members opposite know this, but the ironic thing is that our biggest customer is Cuba, which takes 350,000 metric tons under a trade deal whereby Russia purchases the flour and then delivers it to Cuba. I am informed that with removal of the subsidy the price of this export flour will go up by $15 to $20 per ton. If this happens, Mr. Speaker, it will effectively eliminate the Cuban market which now takes two thirds of our flour exports. This will mean in turn that workers in mills in Atlantic Canada, and workers in the ports of Halifax and Saint John, will not be required, and that several mills between Thunder Bay and the Atlantic ports will close down.
We are trying to increase our exports at a time when our balance of payments is so unfavourable, Mr. Speaker, yet we are removing provisions that have been entrenched in a statute for a long time. I am not talking about billions and billions of dollars, I am talking about a total of $17 million of which $3 million is assistance for export flour. For the last three years the Minister of Transport has been using his private jet and has run up a bill of roughly three quarters of a million dollars, some of which is legitimate, some of which has been a little too extravagant.
Under the eastern feed freight assistance program there is something like $20 million to $24 million involved, though there is a declining scale. The multiplier effect of the feed freight assistance program or the assistance for the export of flour and/or grain far outweight this amount in the return of

November 24, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures tax dollars provided by people working in industries that are complementary to and help supply the milling industry. I suggest the $17 million is more than made up for.
I want to give some facts and figures, Mr. Speaker. So far as my reasoned amendment is concerned, the clause of the bill that worries me most is clause 15, which will eliminate forever the statutory protection that exists today which provides assistance to exporters of flour. From now on this assistance will be at the whim or whimsy of the minister, no matter how sincere he be or of what political stripe. There will not be the same protection as in a statute; what protection is offered should not be considered in the same light.
This is why we in the opposition, and particularly those from Atlantic Canada, have from the outset been violently opposed to the bill. We are not opposed to all parts of the bill; there are some very good aspects of it. But in terms of clause 15 there are about 25 of my colleagues who are prepared to fight until the cows come home. We think this provision will do an economic injustice to an area that has already suffered enough economic injustices. Not all can be blamed on the government, but when it comes to restraint Atlantic Canada is hit harder than any other area, and it is an area that can sustain it the least.
I have moved this reasoned amendment because protection will be given not by statute but by order in council. I appreciate that Your Honour will want to rule on my amendment at some time as to whether it is in order. I was in this House for a few years before 1968, but I know the batting record since 1968 so far as reasoned amendments are concerned is not too good. Only about three or four have been ruled in order, some 20 odd have been tossed out. I have looked at the rulings and I know the difficulty which speakers have advanced. The decision seems to stand or fall on whether the amendment meets the first criterion set out in May and quoted in citation 382 of Beauchesne. I know Your Honour is fully aware of it, but it reads as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill...
The principle of this restraint bill is that expenditures should be reduced by specific reductions in, or deletions of, longstanding program commitments. They are so long standing, Mr. Speaker, that they are inscribed in and protected by statute. These long-standing commitments will be reduced to an extent to be determined largely by executive discretion; in other words, by order in council, or ministerial discretion. I suggest that the alternative is a general commitment to administrative efficiency, encouraged by constant and critical parliamentary supervision. Parliament should review change so that the public is protected, rather than have change by order in council or executive discretion.
We are faced with two opposing principles, in effect. You have executive discretion created by this bill because the bill removes parliamentary protection and replaces it with execu-

tive order in council. I believe that the amendment delineates clear issues of fundamental principle and policy as is required by Beauchesne, and therefore should be accepted.
So far as the multiplier effect of the bill is concerned, when you consider the complementary industries that serve the milling export trade there is some $68 million involved. I am not going to talk about the export of grain because the proposal of the Minister of Transport is not giving any further assistance to the export of grain, only flour. But so far as the export of flour is concerned, the result of this bill will be further unemployment. There is the value added component connected with the milling industry, and as 1 have said there are complementary industries. If the price of flour goes up $15 to $20 a metric ton, as several experts have predicted, a complementary loss in your export of grain will thereby be incurred. So there will be a double whammy effect, all for the sake of $ 17 million.
My concern is not only about the repeal of the Railway Act. When the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan), that beef eater, ferocious Gene, appeared before the Committee on Agriculture and was asked about the elimination of Section 272 of the Railway Act, he said "nuts". He thought it was such a crazy proposal he said "nuts" to it. That was more than six months ago. Unfortunately the minister has not participated in this debate so we have no indication whether he still wants to eat nuts or beef, or what he wants. However, I believe he realizes how concerned the agricultural industry is about the removal of this subsidy and the adverse effect that it will have on the export of grain and flour. I hope the minister will participate in this debate.
Certainly two, if not all of the Atlantic provinces, through their governments, have objected to the repealing of Section 272 of the Railway Act. This does touch upon certain areas of federal-provincial relations. As I understand it, there have been some discussions with the milling associations, but this is a pretty unilateral thing in terms of the eastern provinces, especially Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and it will have a tremendously adverse effect.
For those reasons I certainly have no hesitation in moving the reasoned amendment. In this way further consideration can be given to clause 15 of this bill and the House will have a chance to consider fully the potentially negative implications of the elimination of this clause, an action which I suggest would come back to haunt all members, certainly those from eastern Canada who would vote for the bill and thereby against the subsidy on the export of wheat and flour.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me the amendment the hon. member has just presented to the House is one about which I would have some grave reservations, and if it is Your Honour's inclination to reserve your decision on. the admissibility of the amendment I would certainly like to reserve the opportunity to debate the issue in full at some later stage.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no! Accept it, or let's hear you now.
November 24, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Having regard to the amendment, the Chair at this time does not propose to put the amendment to the House, but rather reserve a decision and take the amendment under advisement without prejudice to its acceptability. I suggest we continue with the debate in the meantime, giving the Chair the opportunity to rule on the procedural acceptability in due course.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the prudent course, and at this particular stage I would simply draw your attention, and the attention of the House, to the discussion on this particular matter in May's Sixteenth Edition at page 531.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize at the outset that I am delighted to participate in the debate on Bill C-19. I welcome any legislation that implies a restraint or cutback on government spending. I think it is apparent from the debate up to this point, and many members on this side have pointed this out, that there have been excesses in government spending witnessed in recent years. Hon. members have also pointed out the important and relevant relationship to the recent Auditor General's report and recommendations, and one really cannot divorce himself from this when talking about the whole area of fiscal and monetary policy.
Having said that, for the sake of brevity I do not want to get into these particular aspects, but there are several very important aspects of this bill that I do not believe have been explored in depth and detail as yet. I am certain we have to look at some of the adverse effects that may occur, although they may well be out of proportion to the relatively small sums of money that presumably may be saved, I must point out what has been mentioned by other hon. members, that the most offensive part of this bill is that portion dealing with the repeal of Section 272 of the Railway Act. I will have more to say about that in a moment or two.
At the outset I want to comment on remarks made by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) when he spoke in the House on November 8, 1976. At the beginning of his remarks he stated:
I think it is appropriate for government to bring forward a bill cutting expenditures which at a certain time could appear essential for the good operation of government and for the services offered to Canadians, but which after a number of years appear useless and even futile in a few cases of changing circumstances.
In my view that was a very accurate description of Information Canada, about which the minister was speaking. However, what was most disappointing was that the minister went on, in what I would call very defensive and partisan comments, to attempt to disguise the failure of that particular program, and indicated that it was abandoned or disbanded because of opposition criticism which had been focused on it over a number of years. In this regard the minister went on to say in reference to Information Canada that it, and I quote:
-had to face a barrage of repeated and, in a sense, generally negative objections on the part of the opposition, the government had to face the fact that Information Canada could no longer provide Canadians with the same services without provoking increasing criticism.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
The minister knows very well that the criticism of the opposition has been well founded over the years, yet he has conveniently ignored a discussion and an assessment of the various aspects of the failures responsible for the ultimate demise of Information Canada, irrespective of the introduction of Bill C-19. The minister knows the program was a failure, and rather than talk about it in an honest and open manner he has conveniently disbanded the program under the guise of restraint and opposition criticism. Let me give one illustration of this point.
When Information Canada was initiated it was the belief of the government of the day that the problems of migrating native people would be resolved through this specific agency, Information Canada. The government felt very secure in the fact that the use of such a program would serve as the vehicle to overcome the native people's lack of understanding of the basic processes and institutions of society.
The government knows that the program failed, and in its place the Secretary of State of the day implemented the migrating native peoples' program of 1972 to assist the development of friendship centres across Canada. These centres, principally through voluntary efforts, have demonstrated they could play an important role in bridging the difficult transition period from a rural to an urban setting. Indeed as I recall it, the government of that day promised $26.1 million for this important program, a large portion of which has never been appropriated despite the fact that the social and economic problems confronting an increasing number of migrating native people remain acute, and friendship centres have inadequate resources to carry out their programs.
I recently toured the friendship centre in Regina, and it is readily apparent following discussions with their executive that this disadvantaged minority require assistance to adjust to a far more complex social and economic life than they have previously experienced, and that the native person is confronted with a set of values and institutions in an urban centre vastly different from those he has learned in his native community or rural setting. Information Canada failed to resolve the problem, and the government has indicated it may well discontinue the native migration program. I see no evidence that the government is prepared to take action to correct this serious social problem.
As I indicated previously this is but one example which has provoked opposition criticism regarding this particular program, Information Canada. The minister knows the discontinuation of Information Canada is based on the government's failure to administer an effective program, and yet he attempts to mislead the House by suggesting the program has been discontinued because of the restraint program.
I wish to make a brief comment about that portion of the bill dealing with amendments to the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. As members know, this act which took effect on March 10, 1967, provided for the payment of grants for Canadian research and development which would be

Restraint of Government Expenditures
of benefit to Canada and Canadians. The details of the number of recipients who have received grants, and the benefits Canadians have derived from research and development are well documented, and the end results of these numerous projects could undoubtedly justify its continuation. However, there is a basic issue of greater significance; the action of the government to terminate the program is a reflection of the government's continued disinterest in the entire area of research in Canada.
As the minister knows, we have repeatedly questioned the government regarding its science policy for Canada, and in the specific areas of medical research and the Ministry of Science and Technology we have devoted opposition days in an effort to focus attention on the importance of research and development, and to emphasize it is counterproductive both in human and economic terms for the government to de-emphasize the importance of research and view it as a non-priority item. There may be some rationale for the discontinuation of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act if the government were prepared to develop a new thrust in the area of research, if the government were prepared to rationalize the existing fragmented approach to research and, above all, if the government were prepared to recognize the importance of a science policy and introduce a program reflecting these attitudes. This has not occurred.
Following the throne speech in February, 1973, at which time the government announced its intention to restructure the Ministry of Science and Technology many of us had high expectations that the government recognized the importance of research and development. We now know that was not the intent. The importance of the ministry has continued to sink into oblivion, and I am sure the prospects for a science policy for Canada are as remote as a dream. Perhaps this can best be illustrated by a recent letter dated November 18, 1976, which I received, and which I assume all members of this House received from the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies. This particular group of participants will be in Ottawa, as I
November 24, 1976
understand it, on December 7 and 8 in an effort to instruct and inform members of parliament from all parties concerning the importance of a science policy for Canada and the needs of the scientific community.
I think it is important to emphasize that this is not just a small group, the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies. Even at this point many illustrious groups are participants in its representation. These include the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies itself, the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation, the Humanities Research Council, the Social Sciences Research Council, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Association of Physicians, the Chemical Institute of Canada, and I have no doubt there will be others.
I think it is important to recognize that many disciplines are involved in the area of research in Canada. I believe it is important to point out their theme in coming to Ottawa. They make three points which I think are very relevant in terms of what has not happened in the area of science and research in Canada. Their first point is:
We seek, for all research areas, at least a restoration of the purchasing power of federal research support to the peak levels of the early 70's, at which time we took on many long term financial and other commitments which are increasingly difficult to meet.
The second point is:
It is crucial that federally-supported research programmes have a more stable environment. To this end: (a) we seek some formula which would guarantee research funding over a long period rather than leaving it to the annual vagaries of parliament, (b) We need a national policy on science. We desperately need revisions of the legislation surrounding at least two of the three federal granting councils (NRC and Canada Council) and a clear policy statement on the level of research capability which the government intends to maintain in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 25, 1976