1976-11-10

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has resolved that tomorrow it will not sit in order that members can be at the Cenotaph, and that members will not sit here on Friday to facilitate that very important activity by federal members. There are several notices of motions related to Remembrance Day pursuant to Standing Order 43.
Order, please. May I ask those in the galleries to please keep silent.
A number of indications have been given to the Chair of the intention on the part of private members, which is quite understandable, to put motions related to the recognition of Remembrance Day. It is certainly not the intention of the Chair to interfere with that; however, it does seem to the Chair that such an expression should come from the House as a whole as opposed to it being at the initiative of any one member. This places the Chair in the somewhat invidious position of singling out the first among several members who might want to take the responsibility to move a motion in the House related to such an expression. I sought advice and am now informed that at three o'clock this afternoon a minister of the Crown proposes to rise to make a statement, which will be followed by appropriate statements from each of the parties. So, I wonder if I might invite the co-operation of hon. members to await that event rather than putting individual motions forward pursuant to Standing Order 43 on this very important subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the consumer price index figures for three months reflect an annual rate of 8.3 per cent and an astounding annual rate of 10.8 per cent in
the past month while real growth increase stagnates, and in view of the fact that 748,000 Canadians, 7.6 per cent of our work force, are now out of work-an increase of more than 53,000 since the May budget, a figure we predicted in our response to that budget-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to consider the advisability of introducing a budget which will more effectively encourage job creation, export development and stable prices, and to consider whether such a budget could be presented before our Christmas recess.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask leave to present a motion of serious urgency to many Canadians. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the President of the Treasury Board to introduce at an early date the necessary amendments to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, so that retired Canadian Armed Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel will have their pensions escalated annually, in accordance with the rise in the cost of living, commencing in the year following the year of retirement, regardless of age, thus ending the unfair discrimination that applies to many of such personnel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 10, 1976
Hydro Rates


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that yesterday's Statistics Canada figures disclosed that the unemployment rate in Canada in October was the highest in 15 years and that the unemployment rate in October for young people between the ages of 15 and 24 has reached the rate of one out of every nine people in that age group, I ask for leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for blastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this House regrets the government's failure to provide the stimulus needed to create jobs for Canada's unemployed, and particularly for young people who are unemployed, and instructs the Minister of Finance to make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity disclosing what special measures the government intends to take to deal with this problem.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTION BOARD REVIEW PROPOSED RATE INCREASE BY ONTARIO HYDRO-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Ontario Conservative government is planning to implement a 30.3 per cent increase in hydro rates in Ontario, and in view of the fact that such an increase makes a mockery of the federal government's so-called anti-inflation program, and in view of the fact that such a large increase would literally wreck the budgets of low income Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That this House instruct the federal Anti-Inflation Board to review this increase with a view to rolling it back, in line with the guidelines which have been established for wage increases.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
(Mr. Speaker.)


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing'Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an urgent matter of national interest concerning specifically the duty of the CBC to promote national unity and reflect the Canadian reality.
Considering that on Monday November 8 the CBC refused to broadcast on the national network the inauguration of another link in the chain of local French-speaking stations in Regina because, according to the directors, this was not a matter of national interest, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the house refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts so as to reconsider the priorities set by the directors of the CBC French-speaking network in the light of the specific duty imposed on it by the legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My question arises out of the massive power rate increases proposed by the Northern Canada Power Commission, which will total 89 per cent for Yellowknife consumers and 100 per cent for those living at Fort Simpson. As the minister knows, many of the people involved there are either pensioners or native people living on fixed incomes. As he also knows, these proposed increases will take effect only with the approval of the Cabinet. I should like the minister to tell us whether the cabinet intends to approve this unfair increase on the people of the northern territories.
November 10, 1976


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, these rates which were announced yesterday by the NCPC were given notice of one year ago. What is being done at the present time is that the rates have been referred to the AIB for examination and also within our department the former minister set up a task force to examine them to see what sort of relief might be given. I expect to get their report next week.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question. I should like, first of all, to have a guarantee from the minister that once the task force reports, its recommendations will be made available to the House of Commons forthwith and not hidden, as has happened with so many reports made available to this government. I should like also to ask the minister whether, in light of the recurrent problems involved in NCPC and the recurrent unfairness to the people of the north, the government will consider making changes in the legislation regarding the NCPC, in particular whether they will amend section 10 of the act which requires a self-sustaining capacity for NCPC?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in examining the task force report, which I hope to get next week, that suggestion will be examined as well.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM REQUEST FOR ACTION TO STOP PRICE INCREASES IMPOSED ON RESIDENTS OF NORTHERN CANADA
Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. We understand from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that there has been a reference of this matter to the Anti-Inflation Board. That simply draws attention to the inconsistency of the government's approach whereby on the one hand they have been using the Anti-Inflation Board to restrict increases in wages of people in northern Canada while through another agency they are pushing through the system and imposing upon consumers in that region extravagant power rate increases. Will the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee now that action will be taken by his government to change that situation, where unfair increases are imposed upon consumers in northern Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the AIB action as regards wages but seems to neglect the fact that they also act on prices and that the Consumer Price Index is considerably lower-almost half the rate it was last year.


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


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that northerners will pay from 12 cents to 1 5 cents per kilowatt or nearly four times the price paid by people in the south for electricity, will the minister grant the demands of many northern Canadians and initiate a fully fledged, exhaustive public inquiry into the operations of NCPC?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think I would want to consider all these suggestions when I consider the report of the task force next week.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister refers to the task force and I understand there is also a task force set up to investigate the over-runs of costs in the Aishak and Strutt Lake projects. I wonder if he has received that report and if so would he table it? If he has not received it would he undertake to table it as soon as it is received?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall receiving it but I will look into the suggestion.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Tables were delivered to me this morning which were produced by the minister's department. They show that during the first half of 1977 his officials anticipate unemployment will average 7.5 per cent and that during the same period they anticipate a significant drop in the number of jobs created. I just passed a copy of the table over to the minister. Given this information would the minister not agree that the paltry program of his colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, which will not even come into operation until April 1, 1977, will not alleviate-could we have order please? I know you have just discovered unemployment. Would you listen?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that the program brought in, as announced by his colleague, will not affect the unemployment situation during the first six months of 1977?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman refers to as a paltry sum

November 10, 1976
Oral Questions
amounts to $358 million, so that it is a question of the order of values. To me at least, that is an impressive sum of money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the rate of unemployment during the coming winter, as I indicated in response to questions yesterday we are giving this matter close analysis at this time and considering what program changes we might bring about, bearing in mind, however, that in our undertaking to restrain the increase of growth of government expenditures we have a relatively narrow margin within which to act.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in order to get the full implication of the minister's policy before the House, may I ask this: Is the minister saying that the sum of money to which he referred, most of it being simply a re-introduction into the system of cutbacks which were announced in connection with other government legislation and earlier policy decisions, will be adequate to provide jobs for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are out of work now and for those Canadians who, as his own officials indicated, will be increasingly unemployed in 1977?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is $100 million coming in this winter, and as I indicated $358 million coming in during the course of the spring. These are significant sums of money in relation to public expenditures at any time. Therefore, I suggest to the hon. gentleman that it is distorting the order of values to refer to more than $400 million as paltry.


UNEMPLOYMENT-PROPOSED NEW BUDGET INCLUDING TAX CUTS TO DEAL WITH PROBLEM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that we have lost $6 billion in production because of unemployment, I say to the minister that the sum is peanuts. May I direct my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Since the Prime Minister, in reply to a question I had directed to him as reported at page 141 of Hansard, said that forecasting unemployment rates in Canada is "beyond our power to state"-the Prime Minister was referring to the cabinet-and since both the Department of Finance and the Department of Manpower and Immigration according to information I have obtained have miraculously acquired the ability to forecast rates for next year and say we are going to have unemployment rates between 7.5 per cent and 8 per cent for the year, will the Prime Minister positively assure the House that before Christmas the government will introduce a new budget which will include measures to deal with this serious situation, specifically a tax cut for medium and low income Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the very evidence the hon. member is bringing forward indicates that the Department of Finance and the Department of Manpower and Immigration are con-

cerned about that particular economic situation. If they are concerned about it, the reason obviously is that they are discussing policy responses. The hon. member will hear of the policy responses in the House just as he hears other news about the government.


FINANCE
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Considering the increasing pressure in the Canadian economy, particularly because of the rising cost of energy which results in great hesitation in the area of investments, in particular among private companies, which does not help at all in the fight against inflation, can the Minister of Finance tell the House whether his department intends to come up with new ideas to improve the situation so that these companies can be more confident in the future, particularly those which operate in eastern Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not follow the hon. member's argument completely, but I can assert that the government is now giving a subsidy of nearly $1.4 billion to reduce the cost of energy in Canada. We have other programs under the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, particularly in eastern Canada.


DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING INVESTMENT IN DISADVANTAGED REGIONS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of investments.
Can the minister advise us whether his colleague and his department are prepared to consider regional disparities more thoroughly? We may face now a very difficult situation. Western Canada does not look very much like eastern Canada, economically speaking.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I could answer the hon. member that our department is indeed continually considering regional economic disparities, including those in the regions he is mentioning. That is why our programs in conjunction with provincial governments are established with a view to developing the economic potential of those regions over a lesser or longer term. That is why we are making arrangements with provincial governments including the province of Quebec. Particularly, with the development of his own region's industrial sector in mind, we have established industrial areas and industrial structures and infrastructures which have already had results. New industries will provide jobs in a far more dynamic
November 10, 1976

endeavour than the traditional industries which exist in those communities.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
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 financial management and control mechanisms of the government of Canada. In view of the fact the Auditor General's last report highlighted, and indeed stressed, the very serious deficiencies in the financial management and control mechanisms of the government of Canada and recommended the appointment of a chief financial officer or controller general as well as in light of the refusal by the previous President of the Treasury Board to implement this recommendation, will the minister assure the House that he is not afflicted with the same intransigencies as his predecessor and advise what steps are being taken to implement this very important recommendation.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think I addressed myself to this very same question put by the hon. member two or three weeks ago. I will repeat for his benefit that the recommendation of the Auditor General is indeed being considered very seriously. We have taken very specific steps in the meantime. My predecessor took very important steps to appoint a deputy secretary with this responsibility within the Treasury Board and to augment the facilities of that deputy secretary to better enhance his ability to provide financial and audit management. Indeed, the whole series of measures which are now known by the House and contained in the Auditor General's bill, given first reading the other day, is further indication of concrete action that we are taking and, in fact, there will be more.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUDITOR GENERAL
Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Auditor General stated "I consider this the single most important financial executive job in the whole of Canada." While the minister has at least recognized the problem and has established the financial branch, the fact remains that this is not an adequate answer to meeting the deficiencies set out by the Auditor General. When can we expect the minister to table a progress report in this House on the implementation of the recommendation so that parliament and the people of Canada can see just what steps the President of the Treasury Board is taking to overcome this very serious mess?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think we are going around in circles to a degree. I already indicated and the House is aware of very specific and significant steps that have already been taken. Indeed, more
Oral Questions
will be forthcoming. I will seize a pertinent opportunity to acquaint the hon. member and his colleague about those details, probably on the occasion of second reading of the Auditor General's Act that is now before the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Auditor General has already warned Canadians that unless some basic and fundamental changes are brought to the financial control mechanisms in Canada, the day may come when he cannot give a clear certificate on the accounts of Canada. Is the minister now assuring this House that day will not become a reality or can we expect another stinging indictment from the Auditor General when he brings forth his report due to be tabled before the end of this year?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is an element of a hypothetical question in the hon. member's comments.


REASON FOR FAILURE OF ACCOUNTS TO SHOW LOSS FROM SALE OF ATOMIC REACTOR TO ARGENTINA
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the consequences of the sale of a nuclear reactor to Argentina, disastrous in terms both of morality and of the financial implications, would the minister tell us why, in the accounts of the Atomic Energy of Canada, no provision is made for the losses sustained in that sale?


Robert Knight Andras: I would have to refresh my memory as to what has been tabled but I believe I am safe in saying the figures will show up before too long.


James McPhail Gillies: Inasmuch as the Auditor General has already drawn attention to this omission, may we have an assurance that in the next tabling of the public accounts losses by Crown corporations will be shown?


Robert Knight Andras: I will certainly take that under advisement.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Bearing in mind the alarming increase in the numbers of unemployed youths, and because many of the older members of the labour force are physically worn out yet unable to afford early retirement, can the minister tell the House whether a study has been made of the question of allowing voluntary retirement at age 60 with relative payments under the Canada Pension Plan?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: This is a question which was studied rather exten-
934

November 10, 1976
Oral Questions
sively during the course of the social security review. I have asked my officials to update that particular study; indeed, I believe it has been recently updated. If the hon. member is interested in the conclusions of that examination, I will be happy to make them available to her.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Given the recommendations of the public accounts and the Auditor General in 1975 regarding the form of the estimates, and in the light of the statement by the Auditor General's office that there is at present inadequate information to enable parliament to establish the accountability of government, I ask the minister whether it is his intention, now that we are about to be faced with supplementary estimates which are in themselves an example of government spending out of control, to bring in specific recommendations with regard to the form of the estimates so that the House can at last have some information about the free spending habits of this administration?


Robert Knight Andras: The supplementary estimates about to be tabled will give a clear indication of the stringent degree of control which has been exercised, since they are considerably less than was the case in previous years.


An hon. Member:: We hope so!


Mr. Basford:: Yet day after day you want more money spent on something.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Knight Andras: Leaving that aside, the whole form of the estimates and the information conveyed to the House is being examined, as I indicated to the hon. member for Vegreville in answer to a similar question a few days ago.


PROPOSAL THAT ESTIMATES OF ONE DEPARTMENT DESIGNATED BY OPPOSITION BE EXAMINED BY HOUSE
James Aloysius McGrath: Given the seriousness of this matter and the total frustration felt by the House in its attempt to deal with it and in light of the statements by the Auditor General, may I ask the minister whether he is prepared, notwithstanding the work of the committee on procedure and the standing orders of the House, to recommend that the estimates of at least one department of government to be designated by the official opposition be brought back to this House for examination without any limitation as to time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I find it difficult to see how that falls within the administrative competence of the President of the Treasury Board.


ALLEGATION DEPARTMENTS ENCOURAGED TO SPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of a statement by Pat Lafferty of the Auditor General's office to the public accounts committee on March 23 to the effect that managers have been specifically encouraged to ensure that all available funds are spent by the end of the year, and since this clearly shows there is no incentive for public servants to be efficient with the public's money, but, rather that there is actually a strong incentive built into the system to the contrary, would the hon. gentleman inform us whether he has any plans to rectify this scandalous situation?


Robert Knight Andras: If, in fact, such a practice ever existed, the restraint program and the monitoring system now in process will certainly eliminate any tendency in that direction. But I do not believe this is a widespread practice.


ALLEGATION BY AUDITOR GENERAL NO WAY OF DETECTING FRAUD
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If the President of the Treasury Board would care to look at the proceedings of the public accounts committee for March 23 he would understand what I am talking about. I would draw his attention, now, to the following statement by the Auditor General:
What worries me quite a bit is that if there is fraud occurring there is really not much evidence of important ways by which it can be detected.
With that statement in mind, will the minister inform the House of the steps he will be taking to remedy this appalling situation?


Robert Knight Andras: As usual, the hon. member, like some of his friends, is indulging in overkill and over-statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Knight Andras: Notwithstanding this, we take a very serious view of the matter. But I would point out that the same question has been floating around during the question period in a different form for a long time.

November 10, 1976


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question, also, is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Since there is evidence from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that the action taken by the National Energy Board in transferring $90,000 of its operating costs to the operations of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board clearly contravened the provisions of the Financial Administration Act and was illegal, and in view of the fact that the committee recommended in its sixth report that disciplinary action be taken immediately by the minister, can the hon. gentleman now advise the Elouse what action has been taken in this matter; specifically, who was disciplined and to what extent?


Robert Knight Andras: I am informed that on August 16 my predecessor wrote to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, drawing attention to this recommendation of the standing committee. I do not have details as to the disciplinary action which was taken in the matter but 1 am advised by my colleague that he has taken an extremely serious view of the situation and introduced measures to ensure it will not occur again.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: A further question to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. According to the 1976 public accounts, the financial statements of certain Crown corporations were checked by private accounting firms. Will the minister arrange that in future the accounts of all Crown corporations and government agencies are dealt with by the Auditor General?


Robert Knight Andras: That matter has been considered and there have been discussions with the Auditor General with regard to it.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Everything is under study.


Robert Knight Andras: For the very good reason that this is not as simplistic a subject as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would imply.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Can the minister tell us whether the government intends to implement recommendation 17 contained in the report of the independent review committee of the Auditor General which recommends that the Auditor General should have right of access to the financial records and documents of all Crown corporations such as Air Canada, and will he be instructing the Auditor General to carry out detailed and
Oral Questions
complete audits of the accounts of all Crown corporations and government agencies, not just general reviews?


Robert Knight Andras: The detailed answer to that question will be available to the House when I make my comments on the second reading of the Auditor General's bill.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: I might preface my question by saying, Mr. Speaker, that our "overkill" cannot possibly match the government's over-spending. My question, too, relates to the Auditor General's report but it is directed to the Minister of Transport. It should be the cardinal rule of governments everywhere-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would ask his question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In view of the treasury board regulation which prevents the slop-over of surpluses from one one department, agency or program to another, what possible justification can the minister have for holding back, in a revolving surplus account, the sum of $65 million this year for use in relation to airports?


An hon. Member:: That is for travelling expenses.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the airport revolving account was set up for the purpose of making sense of our investments in our airports across the country and to assure, from an accounting point of view, we were able to have the air mode completely responsible for the costs associated with it.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, as this item is specifically criticized by the Auditor General, along with another one in the Department of Supply and Services for $3 million, I now ask the President of the Treasury Board whether at long last he will enforce the regulations of the Treasury Board so that there will be absolutely no surplus held over from one year to another which effectively destroys any possibility we have in this House of
80001-6oyz

November 10, 1976
Oral Questions
getting to the reasons for any surplus or deficit in any such fund as that of the minister.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I could give that assurance except where it affects a policy decision. But there will be such revolving funds which 1 do not think is a bad practice at all.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REASON BOARD FAILED TO PREVENT INCREASES IN HOUSING COSTS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the consumer price index which was released this morning shows that the housing component has increased 11.1 per cent in the past year compared to a 10.4 per cent increase when the government's controls program was brought in, can the minister indicate to this House the reason for the increase? Will he make a statement to the House on motions next week presenting information from his department why the Anti-Inflation Board has not prevented the further escalation in housing costs?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I could draw the hon. member's attention to the release of Statistics Canada this morning, he will note that the principal reason for the increase in the housing component of the consumer price index was the increase in municipal taxes in Canada which comes into the October figure. As 1 have had occasion to mention to the House before, the government of course is not in a position to control the taxation policies either of the provincial or municipal governments, and for this reason the anti-inflation program has not been in a good position to restrain those increases which it is true the consumer must pay.


REASON FOR REVISED GUIDELINES ON PRESS AND PROFITS OF LAND DEVELOPERS
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister realizes it is not only municipal taxes but is also the land profits that have been made. Since the major Canadian land developers are reporting huge profit increases such as Cadillac Fairview up 64 per cent, Markborough Properties up 30 per cent and Genstar up 21 per cent, can the minister indicate to this House why the government approved last Friday the revised Anti-Inflation Board regulations which widened even more significantly its guidelines on prices and profits of land developers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the principal reasons was that the land realization price of course would not be an increase in price which has occurred only during the control period. It may well indeed reflect the ownership of the land extending well before the period of controls became effective. We have indicated for the

period of the controls that any increase that occurs during the period of the controls, on the contrary, would not be entitled to be taken out of income or be exempt from excess revenue.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for Canada who is undoubtedly concerned about national unity and upholding minority rights.
I would like to know if the minister intends to ask the CBC why its news service did not see fit to include an excellent news about the opening of a French television station in Regina, that is CBKFT, on November 8, 1976? Would it not be an arrogant attitude on the part of the CBC?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly pass on the concern of the hon. member to the CBC and seek an explanation. Perhaps I could indicate to the hon. member that there is today another station opening in Vancouver. 1 am sure this House will be happy to know that the CBC is extending its facilities in this way.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can he confirm that meetings have been held in Moncton in the last few days between his officials from Ottawa and the local department of DREE? Would he advise what the purpose of these meetings is and if they have been behind closed doors whether consideration has been given to inviting participation from business and labour organizations in the region.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly confirm that my department officials hold regular meetings with provincial authorities and representatives of private enterprises under their jurisdiction. Unfortunately the hon. member did not give enough details so I cannot link those meetings with any specific case he might have in mind. If he wants to be more specific, I may be able to give him a clearer answer.
November 10, 1976


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In past years-and when I say past years I am thinking back in the fifties-at times Canada's farm exports saved the country quite large trade deficits. I should like to ask the minister if he would indicate to the House the position the government has taken on agricultural trade at the GATT talks that are going on at the present time in Geneva.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants this in complete detail it would take much too long to do that during the question period. There are the consultations which are taking place between the provinces and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and so on. I also want to inform the hon. member that at the present time the members of the Canadian Grains Commission are in different parts of the world outlining the different grades of grain that we have for sale to the millers and the grain dealers in the world. They are doing this type of thing all the time.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, that was not any answer at all. The minister knows full well what I was asking him. I would say further that if he does not have a policy he should say so publicly at the present time. I should like to ask him to pursue this point a little further. It seems that with the world food prices levelling off it will be vital to push for improved access to world markets for our agricultural products. The minister obviously could have said that himself had he wanted to. I should like to ask the minister if the government is prepared to take a tougher stand on the need for a freer trade policy so far as agricultural products are concerned. I have narrowed it down and maybe he can answer that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member will realize that this is a question of much too general a nature to be considered in the question period.


STATISTICS CANADA
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to the Statistics Canada matter. Last week the minister left the impression that what was being reported in the press was a relatively minor matter and now we know there is a full internal inquiry going on and that Mr. Kirkham, the Chief Statistician, has asked his senior staff to file financial and interest statements with him. In fact that was to have been done last Friday. This is really quite a change in
Oral Questions
the circumstances from last week to this week. Would the minister report to the House whether or not he has any new information concerning this matter today.


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker. I have talked to Mr. Kirkham. He tells me there is no problem, that the people have filed their reports if they had any. Some of them are teachers at the university. I do not see any problem about that. A few of them have investments in other businesses. I am told that one has invested some of his savings in a hairdressing business and I do not see any conflict of interest there. So I am quite satisfied that the Chief Statistician has made sure he is taking all the necessary steps to remove any doubt and to re-establish the integrity of this very good institution.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that that is the report the minister can make to the House with regard to the matter. However, there is continuing speculation on the part of the public with respect to this matter. If I may say so to the minister I think it would be in the best interests of Statistics Canada and perhaps even of the minister if this public speculation were laid to rest once and for all. With regard to that matter, would the minister agree now to table in this house publicly and openly all correspondence and other documents that have been the subject of questioning in this House of Commons and speculation so that judgment can be ultimately and finally made.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, you know I think the best way to stop any speculation is not to ask silly questions like those of the hon. member.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Has the minister made an agreement with the province of Manitoba so that the province, through its own phone system, will own and control the cable system of that province, and is this agreement to be a precedent to be followed in other provinces.
Will you boys keep quiet. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to communicate with the Minister of Communications.
[DOT] (M50)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the hon. member has adequately communicated with the minister. Perhaps he would give the opportunity to the minister now to communicate with him.


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: I hope I understood the question well enough, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the hon. member is asking me if I have signed an

November 10, 1976
Oral Questions
agreement with the government of Manitoba. I can tell him that yes, a few hours ago I did sign, in the name of the government of Canada, an agreement with the government of Manitoba relating to new arrangements between the two governments in the field of cable. Let me tell him what it is all about if you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker. This arrangement provides for guaranteed access for cable operators to the cable. It provides for priority of the broadcasting signal over other services on the cable, and it provides a guarantee that only CRTC licensees will have access to that cable. It also provides a possibility for cable operators to rent some of their hardware from the telephone companies, thus facilitating certain problems we have had with the condition of hardware ownership set out by the CRTC. I think this whole agreement shows the desire of this government to accommodate the provinces and its desire to establish an efficient and economical system of telecommunications, provided that the unquestionable jurisdiction of the federal government over broadcasting is recognized.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for her full answer on this complicated subject and unique arrangement. I should like to ask the minister very seriously, since this agreement appears to be in fundamental conflict with CRTC decisions on cable on September 15 awarding cable licenses in Manitoba, whether the minister can tell the House if this unilateral de facto reversal of CRTC policy means that the commission for all practical purposes is presently "defunctus"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -until the minister brings in new legislation setting herself up as the czar of communications.


Some hon. Members:: Czarina.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, section 23 of the Broadcasting Act gives the governor in council authority to either set aside or refer back a decision of CRTC. Two of the decisions of CRTC have been set aside, and I am sure that the existence of this new agreement will allow the CRTC to take all the new facts into account when they call for new applications for those licences.


CUSTOMS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss B6gin:: There was never a woman minister of national revenue. I would like to tell the hon. member that there is no sterile area where passengers can be helped in transit. With the development of other airports in Canada I understand the Minister of Transport is proposing to locate an in-transit lounge at the mezzanine level which will accommodate up to 250 passengers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wonder if the minister or her colleague could indicate to the House how it is that their administration has tolerated conditions over possibly the last ten years whereby in-transit passengers were allowed to wander in and about Gander airport and into the town of Gander contrary to the regulations of IATA and our other international air obligations?


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out with respect that that information should perhaps be sought in another way.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he explain why at the United Nations General Assembly yesterday Canada abstained from voting on a resolution calling for an arms embargo against South Africa, considering that Canada has imposed an embargo since 1963 and an embargo on spare military parts since 1970?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can give the hon. member a brief answer, but I would also be glad to provide him with a more detailed written explanation.


An hon. Member:: Try one here.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I certainly will try one here if the hon. member would give me the opportunity. The resolution has many different component parts in it. In the case of the one to which the hon. member referred, there were certain portions which were not acceptable to Canada. However, it did not change the policy, as the hon. member has said, that we have been following for quite some time. I might point out to him that on at least four aspects of the resolution we did in fact continue to vote against apartheid and its effects in South
November 10, 1976

Africa, but in the specific case in question there were certain elements of the resolution that were objectionable to us.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the written answer from the minister, but for the moment would he explain to the House why Canada abstained on two resolutions condemning economic co-operation with South Africa, and what is the government policy with regard to Canadian investments and trade with South Africa?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is for precisely the reason I mentioned a moment ago. However, our policy has been quite clear and consistent throughout the years with regard to trade in nonsensitive materials, non-sensitive goods. We have continued to do this with South Africa and there is no change in the situation. Of course, we have not had any restrictions against trade with any number of other countries such as, for instance, the Soviet Union or a number of others with whom we have idealogical differences. The only people with whom we will not trade are those against whom the United Nations has a specific embargo, witness, for instance, Rhodesia.



NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns inflation about which this government professes concern. On November 20, 1975, in reply to a question of mine the then minister of indian affairs and northern development said that any electric power rate increase imposed on northern consumers by the federal government's Northern Canada Power Commission would have to be approved by the minister. Would the present minister direct the task force which is now studying the power commission to devise an alternative pricing policy which will not create such hardships for the people of the Northwest Territories?


William Warren Allmand: As I have stated in answer to a previous question, the task force report on power rates in the north will be presented to me next week. I will review the entire question at that time and take into account the suggestions made by the hon. member.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. Given the fact that residents of the Northwest Territories already suffer the highest cost of living in this country, will the minister propose to cabinet an amendment to the Northern Canada Power Commission Act so that NCPC's huge capital debt will not have to be borne by a relatively small number of northern residents?
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at all the alternatives, and particularly the recommendations of the report, before I choose a solution.



CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. As a representative of one of the leading dairy areas of Canada where milk producers are anxious to see stability and to have confidence brought to the dairy industry, 1 ask the minister to confirm or deny the well-founded rumour that the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission has been fired and that the assistant chairman has resigned.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will just have to wait a little while because as Minister of Agriculture it is my job to make sure that the dairy commission is run as efficiently as possible.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Eugene Whelan: 

PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING ADMITTING PUBLIC TO GALLERIES DURING PRAYERS

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Yesterday the House passed the motion presented by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) pursuant to Standing Order 43. The motion is self-explanatory. It is designed to allow the public to take places in the galleries so that they can attend the reading of the daily prayers of the House.
Still, the motion does not say specifically how its purpose can be implemented. It provides for an amendment to our Standing Orders when in fact the time at which the doors leading to the galleries are opened is set by practice and not by our rules.
In addition, the motion was presented in the form of a recommendation and not an order. Consequently, the Chair would appreciate instructions from the House as to the implementation of the object of the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse.
To that end, it seems to me we should proceed by asking the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to look

November 10, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Korchirtski
into the ways in which the purpose of the motion can be achieved, as soon as possible, and report to the House.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as a result of an interview granted to the Canadian Press by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of November 9, with regard to the use of government aircraft.
This subject was first raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt); however, reading the article without knowing the background, one would conclude that it was raised as a result of the inquiry by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). However, that is not the main point of my complaint.
My complaint is that the minister, as quoted in the article, stated that other members of parliament are welcome to travel with him, and that many have siezed the chance, "including Stanley Korchinski, PC, Mackenzie, two weeks ago".
Anyone reading this article might justifiably conclude that there was some advantage to me as a member in taking this particular flight with the minister on a Jetstar, when in actual fact the minister is only insulation himself from public criticism by providing misleading information.
The facts as they transpired are these: New airport facilities were to be opened on October 15 at La Ronge. Hon. members will appreciate the importance of this occasion since I represent an area approximately 600 miles by 150 miles, and La Ronge happens to be in my constituency. It is 350 miles from my home base, which is in the constituency,-incidentally and I can fly three hours straight north and still be within it.
This new airport is the first airport in the riding, other than the gravel or sod strips and lakes which we use for landing. I received a letter dated October 1 from the minister informing me that the new facilities would be officially opened by him and by the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan. This letter pointed out the services which would be provided and very graciously extended an invitation to me to join the official party for the opening. Nowhere in the letter was there an invitation by the minister to me to accompany him on the Jetstar. I could have used a commercial airline to fly to Regina or Saskatoon via Air Canada and then on to La Ronge by Norcanair, but if I had done so I would have sought a government warrant for the flight, which is my right, and which would have been a cost to the treasury.
Instead I chose the cheapest method, and I asked my office to inquire whether it would be possible for me to be aboard the Jetstar which the minister would be using anyway. The minister gave his consent to this and, in fact, offered to return me to the capital after a stopover at Saskatoon.

There were four passengers besides the crew aboard the flight on the morning of October 15. The minister was accompanied by two members of his staff who deplaned at Winnipeg. The purpose of their visit to Winnipeg was unknown to me. From Winnipeg to La Ronge the only passengers aboard the Jetstar were the minister and I. I was offered a flight from La Ronge to Saskatoon after the ceremonies, with a further offer of a flight from Saskatoon to Ottawa on the following day at 4 p.m. I declined this offer. Instead I worked my way back to Regina where I picked up my car and headed for my home, which is in my riding. I returned to the capital on Monday and was in the House on that occasion as the recorded vote on that day will attest.
The minister's flight schedule did not call for his immediate return to Ottawa from his official duties, and I agree that it is within the right of the minister to use a government plane on official duties. Instead he diverted to Saskatoon, his constituency, for the balance of the day, and until 4 p.m. the following day, or the time of his departure for Ottawa, whichever was the latest. Since government aircraft are charged on the basis of time lapsed rather than actual miles travelled, I presume the minister owes an explanation as to what activities he participated in during the time lapse from the departure from La Ronge to the time he left Saskatoon for Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: Although I am not aware of his activities-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Stanley James Korchinski: -during those 24 hours, it may be that an investigation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As has always been my practice I have allowed the hon. member, pursuant to his notice of his question of privilege, to go on for some time now in raising his question of privilege. I think all hon. members are aware that this question, as with many previously proposed questions of privilege, has been raised as a result of some kind of disagreement or difference in interpretation of the language used either in the House or, in this case, outside the House, which makes it more difficult.
I do not like to cut a member too short in attempting to develop whatever question of privilege may exist; however, the hon. member has gone on now for quite some time to develop a disagreement with the statements which are attributed to the minister, and if there is no further development of the matter which relates to the privileges of the House I think the matter ought to be discontinued. If, however, the hon. member proposes to raise anything which relates to a question of privilege, I would be pleased to hear it. If not, I do not propose to hear the hon. member any further, nor do I propose to hear any other hon. member who may want to make a contribution to this particular debate.
November 10, 1976



MR. LANG-COMMENTS OF MR. KORCHINSKI

Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that you will not allow me to comment on that long, elaborate talk-


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless I am prepared to hear the hon. member further, I do not propose to hear the minister either. It seems to me that the hon. member has given a description of the events. I am not able to find in them anything on a prima facie basis which raises any allegation against the minister; quite to the contrary. If there was something in the nature of an allegation with regard to what the minister said or with regard to what was described in the House, I would be prepared to hear both sides; however, I think the matter ought to cease unless I am prepared to hear several arguments on both sides.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a legitimate question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Otto Emil Lang: It is-


An hon. Member:: Order. Stanley had to listen to the Chair; so should you.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is based on the imputations and the comments of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) to the effect that there was something improper in the use of this particular aircraft.


Charles Joseph Clark: User pay.


Otto Emil Lang: As the hon. member comes from the west I should have thought he would understand that it is important for ministers to get into the west of this country, and into the Atlantic. He may not understand this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Charles Joseph Clark: Abuser pay.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the minister, I listened very carefully, and I heard nothing in the remarks of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) which in any way imputed improper actions. Rather, it seems to me that the remarks of the hon. member imputed quite a proper use of the aircraft by the minister. I refer to the attendance at the opening of an airport, which is the minister's responsibility, and the hon. member accompanying him in that function. Accordingly, if the question only relates to imputations of impropriety, I see none. Unless there is another point that the minister wishes to speak on I would be prepared to close the matter forthwith.
Privilege-Mr. Lang


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there were suggestions that I could not have had government business which would cause the delay. I think I am entitled to make the point that my government business is very extensive throughout the week ends, in Ottawa and in other places. In short, I used that aircraft only for government purposes and it is very important that I do so. I would ask hon. members to take my word as a member on that. The pure and simple fact is that I have no personal business; only government business, except for my family in Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) on a question of privilege.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the same question of privilege to which the hon. minister has just addressed himself.


An hon. Member:: He has just flown off.


John Edward Broadbent: If Your Honour has recognized that the minister has the right to enter a comment on that question of privilege, then 1 think members on this side are entitled to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) was given the floor on a question of privilege and I had to hear him. His remarks referred to a statement alleged to have been made to the press by the minister. I have said before that the hon. member for Mackenzie seemed to me to describe a series of events which did not raise any impropriety in the use of the aircraft by the minister. The minister saw fit to make one comment, and that had to do with the day following the event referred to by the hon. member. I cannot find a question of privilege in either contribution.
The last thing I would want to do would be to extend the discussion under the guise of a question of privilege to other than the two principal combatants. In has been the custom of the House to try to recognize some basic principle in such matters. To allow the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby to speak now would be a loose application of the rules as far as privilege is concerned and it would be inviting a full range of debate on a matter which I am sure is going to be raised in many other ways in the course of this parliament, but hopefully not by way of a question of privilege.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. It is an urgent matter and I hope Your Honour will give me the floor for a few moments to develop it.

November 10, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Lang
The House is about to be presented with hundreds of millions of dollars of supplementary estimates. I directed a line of questioning, as did my colleagues today, to the President of the Treasury Board. In my second question I asked if the minister was prepared, as an interim measure, to recommend to his colleagues that at least one department be brought back into the House for examination by committee of the whole, without limitation under Standing Order 58, which is the guillotine rule. I was careful to preface my question by saying that notwithstanding the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, which is now seized with drafting a report to the House on rule changes, I would nevertheless go ahead with my question based upon what I consider to be the urgency of the matter, which is the presentation of the estimates to the House, and the evidence given by the Auditor General and his department with regard to the fact that the House and parliament as a whole have lost control over government spending.
I wanted the minister to take leadership and recommend this to his colleagues since he has responsibility to parliament for government spending as President of the Treasury Board, and to recommend on a trial basis that the estimates be brought back into committee of the whole.
I raise this matter because we are all concerned that since the rule changes we have unwittingly become a rubber stamp for government spending. The word is out that parliament has lost control over government spending, and this is a serious matter. Since the new rules came into effect in 1968 government spending has increased by over 300 per cent, yet we as a parliament have no control. The minister should take some initiative in this regard. I know he shares the same concern, as does the Auditor General and as does the Public Accounts Committee. My question to him was merely to suggest that perhaps the supplementary estimates and the main estimates for this year could be brought back into the House since it is evident that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization will not act upon this unless there is some direction from the government. I should like to hear from the minister on this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I am sure the hon. member would like to hear from the minister, but he is referring to a situation where the Chair had to make a ruling on the propriety of the question. The question was directed to the President of the Treasury Board, who is intimately concerned with the presentation of estimates and the whole process. But the question was directed to a change in the procedures of the House. It is not a new suggestion and it may have great merit. As the hon. member has developed his point, it would find sympathy in several corners of the House. A fuller examination of the estimates on the floor of the House may be a better way than that followed in the recent past.
My decision was based on the fact that for the purposes of explanation it is a procedural matter that has considerable support, and not a matter of substance with respect to estimates, which is the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board. As a procedural matter it seems to me the

question might better have been directed to the President of the Privy Council, the government House leader. I am sure such questions will be put in due course and other efforts will be made in the Committee on Procedure and Organization to see that estimates are examined in this way. I felt it was not within the administrative competence of the President of the Treasury Board.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as this is Wednesday and we will not be here at the usual time to ask about business of the House, may I ask the Acting House Leader, the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), about the government's legislative program for next week?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we will proceed today with Bill C-19, the expenditures restraint bill, and we fully expect it will be dealt with until six o'clock this evening. We do not expect it to be completed today so we will come back to that bill on Monday.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to advise what legislation will follow that at the beginning of the week? While he is thinking about that, could he advise if the government is aware now when the supplementary estimates will be brought in? There has been some interesting discussion with respect to this.
Finally, although he has not direct control over it himself, would the Postmaster General bring to the attention of the government House leader the fact that the Public Accounts Committee has not yet been organized? Would he urge the government House leader to take some action with respect to that, particularly in view of the fact that, unfortunate as it may seem, there has not been a House leaders' meeting called since the first one in the second week of this parliament? It was erroneously reported in Maclean's magazine that we manage to meet every week, but that is not so. I should like to meet every week, but it is not the case. Could the minister take these questions to the government House leader wherever he is so that we can get on with the business of the House?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the supplementary estimates I shall be presenting a motion which refers the supplementary estimates in the usual form during routine proceedings today.
With reference to the business for Monday, Bill C-19 is exciting a great deal of interest and I expect it will continue to excite a great deal of interest. We propose to carry on with this legislation and dispose of it. If, through greater co-operation than we have had in the past, we can dispose of the bill prior to Tuesday, we would proceed with the Surveys Act. We would then consult with my hon. friend on any additional legislation that we might want to present subsequently.
November 10, 1976



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should like to table documents from the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee on the funding proposals of the Canada Pension Plan for an increase in benefits.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) with regard to the sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1977 was presented by Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in my role as Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs I would like to remind hon. members that our annual service of remembrance will be held at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning at the National War Memorial. This service, organized by the Royal Canadian Legion, will be duplicated in cities, towns and villages across Canada. Everywhere in our great country citizens of all ages will stand in reverent silence remembering the more than 100,000 Canadians who made the supreme sacrifice to safeguard our way of life, the envy of the world. The human costs of Canada's wartime sacrifices can never be calculated but they will never be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, this parliament, this government, has made sure of this. We have not forgotten them. Our veterans are taken care of better than the veterans of any other country in the world.
In many other countries around the world tomorrow is also a day of mourning for the young men and women who died for their freedom. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will be attending the service at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, as the guest of his counterpart in the government of France. He will also attend the Commonwealth Memorial Service at Notre Dame Cathedral in the afternoon. Because of
Remembrance Day
his absence from Canada the Legion has invited his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton), to represent him at the national ceremony here in Ottawa.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the words which will be used tomorrow in every remembrance service: "We will remember them."


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is unfortunate that, on the one day of the year when we remember our war dead and duty, the ceremony in Canada could not take more precedence. I am privileged on behalf of my party to reply to the statement of the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs on this day, a few hours before the touching Armistice ceremony which will take place at Canada's National Memorial here in Ottawa. We, on my side of the House, endorse fully the statement of the acting minister. We also pay tribute to the Canadian Legion and to all veterans' organizations across this great land who hold dear the true meaning of remembrance as we all remember our fallen comrades on Armistice Day. While we pay tribute to the fallen, we must remember our duty to those who remain.
It is probably difficult to imagine that in 1976, some 60 years after World War I, there still remain almost one million Canadian veterans who served their country with honour and distinction, whether on the battlefield of foreign countries or here at home, always ready to defend our proud nation.
Many of these veterans still need our help, because they returned maimed and incapacitated. Unfortunately, as the years go by, the recognition of the sacrifices of veterans diminishes; but it is all-important that we should recognize that as our veteran population grows older and passes on we must renew our efforts for increasing the needed care and attention we give to the old veteran who is left alone and to the widows who cared for their loved ones while they suffered because of war.
Finally, it is timely that this House should re-affirm Canada's commitment to its veterans. May I repeat the words of a former Prime Minister who said at Vimy Ridge in 1917:
The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home-and it will always be our endeavour to so guide the attitude of public opinion that the country will support the government to prove to the returned men its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire and that no man will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I on behalf of the New Democratic Party across Canada join with all members of the House in recognizing tomorrow as Remembrance Day. We appreciate the words spoken by the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Whelan) and by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). We join with them in reaffirming our obligation to those who paid the supreme sacrifice for this country. We add that we believe it is part of our obligation to try to build the kind of world for which they gave their lives.

November 10, 1976
Estimates
I like the use every Remembrance Day of the words with which the minister closed his statement when he said, "We will remember them." I liked the way in which the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe underlined that expression. We have tried to do so in what we have done for our veterans and their families. We can be proud of what has been achieved, but much remains to be done. I hope that even yet we will find ways to make life better for those who suffered disabilities. I hope that in this House we shall soon do something the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has recommended on a number of occasions, namely, improve the pension position of the widows of all of Canada's war veterans.
Sir, we are honoured to join in this moment of recognition of the fact that tomorrow across Canada all Canadians will remember those who died.
[ Translation]
Mir. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, together with the preceding speakers, including the minister, I want to point out that tomorrow is Remembrance Day. As I already told the House, these men died for their country. Those who are still with us are the living mementoes of these unfortunate wars. May the surviving veterans, disabled or not, have the sympathetic ear of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (M. MacDonald) and particularly get quick responses, in keeping with the great sacrifices they made for their fellow countrymen.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting pursuant to Standing Orders 58(15) and 59(1), a motion calling on supplementary estimates (B), 1976-77, tabled this day, to be referred to the standing committees of the House, as follows, and with the indulgence of the House I will ask that this particular motion be printed in Hansard as if read. It is in the usual form.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with that practice may I ask if it is the will of the House that the motion for the reference of supplementary estimates to the usual standing committees shall be tabled and printed as if read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The motion above referred to is as follows:]
Mr. Blais, seconded by Mr. Andras moved that the Supplementary Estimates (B), 1976-1977 tabled this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture Vote 35b
To ihe Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Communications Vote L6b
Secretary of State Votes 10b, 15b, 20b, L21b, 35b, 40b, 65b and 70b 
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes 10b and LI6b National Defence Vote 5b
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs Vote 30b Finance Votes lb, 2b, 5b and LI3b
Industry Trade and Commerce Votes 1 b, 5b, 6b, L36b, L37b and 55b National Revenue Votes 5b and 10b To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment Votes 5b and LI 6b
To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes lb, 15b, 20b and 25b National Health and Welfare Votes 25b, 26b, 45b, 50b and 60b Urban Affairs Votes 10b, 15b, 20b and 30b To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 5b, 1 lb, 25b, 35b and 75b To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice Vote 10b
Solicitor General Votes lb, 5b, 15b and LI7b To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Labour Vote lb
Manpower and Immigration Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b and 20b To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Finance Vote 15b
Governor General and Lieutenant Governors Vote lb
Privy Council Vote 25b
Science and Technology Votes 10b and 35b
Secretary of State Vote LI 07b
Treasury Board Vote lb
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works Energy Mines and Resources Votes 5b, 6b, 30b, 35b and 75b Public Works Votes 10b, 20b, L30b and 40b To the Standing Committee on Regional Development Regional Economic Expansion Votes lb, 25b and 31b To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Post Office Vote L7b
Transport Votes 51b, 80b, 107b and LI08b


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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: 52, 54, 61, 63, 64, 78, 83, 85, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 102, 106, 108, 209, 299, 300, 488, 513, 599, 615, 622, 633, 634, 637, 638, 686, 693, 695, 698 and 704.
November 10, 1976


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and job designations of all persons hired by the Department of Public Works at the Federal Building in Brockville, Ontario, since January 1, 1974?
2.	In each case, was a competition held and, if so (a) on what date (b) how many applicants were involved (c) what are the names of all persons placed on the eligible list?
3.	Were there any cases where competitions were not held for either temporary or permanent employment and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) what are the names and job designations of all persons hired?
4.	What is a general description of the hiring practices used by the Department at the Brockville Federal Building?


Alexandre Cyr: 
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. J. Donoghue, Executive Director of Operational Planning for the Unemployment Insurance Commission of Canada, formerly Regional Director for the Province of Ontario?
Order Paper Questions
2.	On what date was Mr. Donoghue appointed Regional Director for Ontario and until what date did he hold that position (a) what was the exact number of dollars paid to him in salary during the time he held this position (b) what is his exact salary in dollars in his present position (c) was Mr. Donoghue stationed in Belleville, Ontario when he was Regional Director for the Province?
3.	During the time that Mr. Donoghue was Regional Director for Ontario did he commute on weekends on a more or less regular basis to and from Ottawa (a) was this commuting done via Toronto (b) what means of transportation was used for all aspects of this commuting (c) what was the entire cost paid by the government (d) was a daily meal allowance paid by the government to Mr. Donoghue during his term in Belleville and, if so (i) for what reason (ii) what was the total amount paid (e) did the government contribute towards rental of accommodation for Mr. Donoghue in Belleville and, if so, what was the total amount paid while he was there?
4.	What is the total of all expenses of any kind whatsoever paid to Mr. Donoghue while he was Regional Director for Ontario?
5.	(a) Is Mrs. A. Humphreys acting at the present time as secretary to Mr. J. Donoghue in his position as Executive Director of Operational Planning (b) did Mrs. Humphreys act as secretary for Mr. Donoghue while he was Regional Director for Ontario (c) what is the total of all expenses paid to Mrs. Humphreys while she was stationed in Belleville including specifically (i) transportation (ii) meal allowances (iii) accommodation (d) what was the exact annual salary in dollars of Mrs. Humphreys while she was stationed in Belleville and what is her exact salary now?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Unemployment insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	Acting appointment October 1, 1972 to August 30, 1973. Confirmed in the position September 1, 1973 until April 18, 1975. (a) His salary ranges were as follows: October 1, 1972- December 31, 1972, ($25,000-531,000); January 1, 1973-March 31, 1974, ($26,750-533,750); April 1, 1974-March 31, 1975, ($29,000-537,000); April 1, 1975-April 18, 1975 ($31,500-541,500); (b) $35,500-547,500-Salary range for his present position, (c) Yes, after being confirmed as Regional Director on September 1, 1973.
3.	Yes. (a) Travel to Toronto was dependant upon the need to meet with the Toronto Metro management, weekend meetings with unions, the media, etc. (b) Train, air, private motor car, and bus. (c) Approximately $3,240 to cover travel costs from October 1972 to August 24, 1973. The figure includes travel to Ottawa for purposes of attending to Commission business, (d) Yes-the employee was in an acting capacity and (i) on extended travel status in accordance with Treasury Board Regulations (ii) $650.00 (e) No.
4. Acting Appointment	Paid to	Paid on Behalf of	Total1972	Expenses 1973	Expenses	1,770.68 3,311.90	Not Available 756.00	1,770.68 4,067.90Confirmed	1973	Expenses 1974	Expenses 1975	Expenses	2,015.76 4,959.69 1,382.25	177.00 4.457.00 2.743.00	2,192.76 9,146.69 4,125.25$13,440.28	$8,133.00	$21,573.28
November 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
5.	(a) No. (b) Yes. (c) (i) $28. (ii) $93. (iii) Nil. (d) Belleville, $11,395 to $12,987-salary range for the position. Present, $12,762 to $15,138-salary range for the position.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. D'Arcy Rezac, at any time, Regional Manager of Operations in Belleville for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and, if so (a) on what date was he appointed (b) until what date did he serve in the position (c) what is his present position with the Commission?
2.	Prior to his appointment in Belleville, did he serve with the UIC in Toronto and, if so, in what capacity?
3.	(a) During the period of time he was in Belleville, what was the total of all expenses paid on his behalf, including any hotel expenses prepaid (b) was he on full expenses and (i) if so, for what reason (ii) if not, what expenses, if any, was he on (c) did he take up permanent residence in Belleville during his term there and, if not (i) for what reason (ii) for what reason were his expenses paid (iii) did he maintain actual residence in Toronto at the time?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes. (a) September 29, 1974 (acting as of April 1, 1974). (b) July 15, 1975. (c) Deputy Director General- Pacific Region.
2.	Yes-District Manager, High Park Office, Toronto.
3.	(a) 1974, $5,416.25; 1975, $2,770.62; Total, $8,186.87. (b) Yes, as allowed by regulations; (i) Working in Belleville and living in Toronto; (ii) Not applicable, (c) No; (i) Operation exigencies were such that a very experienced person was required in Toronto during the winter of 1974. Mr. Rezac, although an employee of high potential was assuming his first senior management post in UIC and it was felt that the Commission's best interest would be served by assigning him to the smaller central area with an office in the Belleville Regional Office for a period of 6 to 10 months prior to assuming duties in Toronto; (ii) He was on assignment; (iii) Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was any evidence gathered, or any investigation or examination made, before it was abolished, by the Special Investigation Division of the Unemployment Insurance Commission of the Regional Office Pay Centres and the possibility of infiltration of the pay system itself to produce cheques for non-existent claims by means of the issuance of such cheques without them showing up on the Current Master Record Data Tapes and, if so (a) which of the following pay centres were involved (i) Moncton (ii) Montreal (iii) Belleville (iv) Winnipeg (v) Vancouver (b) was a more extensive examination carried out at the Montreal Regional Pay Centre (c) what action in all cases was (i) recommended (ii) taken?
2.	Since the Special Investigation Division was abolished have there been any further such investigations or examinations by UIC personnel and, if so, what are all details similar to those asked for in Part 1 of this question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. There was no evidence gathered or any investigation conducted by the former Special Investigations Division

into the possibility of infiltration of the pay system in the Regional Pay Centres.
2.	The Regional Pay Centres have been audited both before the special Investigation Division was formed, during its life and after its disbandment. The audit function was carried out first by the Operational Audit of the Commission and later by the Audit Services Bureau of D.S.S. In addition, the RCMP have carried out audits of the physical security. No evidence of infiltration has been found.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Where were or are all files of the now abolished Special Investigation Division of the Unemployment Insurance Division (a) between the date of its abolition and June 28, 1976 (b) the date the answer to this question is prepared and what is that date?
2.	Have any files of the Special Investigation Division been destroyed since the decision was made to abolish the Division and, if so (a) on whose order (b) on what dates (c) what files (d) for what reason?
3.	Will the government agree to the preservation of any existing records of the Special Investigation Division indefinitely for possible future examination by a (a) Parliamentary Committee (b) Judicial inquiry and, if not (i) for what reason (ii) what are all reasons such files should not be preserved and eventually made public?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. (a) All master files of the former Special Investigations Division have been maintained at Head Office since inception of this unit and are still maintained. Working copy files were maintained at five regional offices, (b) The files are still at Head Office.
2.	No. Some working copy files were destroyed. However, the information contained therein is available on the master file at Head Office.
3.	All files are maintained and stored in accordance with Public Records Order PC 1966-1749 dated October 1, 1966. It would not be within the public interest to release information contained on these files as much of the information is of a classified nature.
Uic-INVESTIGATION OF RETIREMENT CLAIMS


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the Unemployment Insurance Commission been investigating three week retirement benefit claims at various offices across Canada and, if so, what is the total number found to be fraudulent during the past year and, in all such cases, how many persons involved are (a) outside UIC (b) employed by UIC?
2.	How many persons who had not actually attained the age of 65 years have either collected or applied for retirement claims representing themselves as being age 65 and what is the breakdown by various UIC regions across Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. In the normal course of their duties, benefit control officers investigate claims in this group to guard against the possibility of fraudulent claims; however, separate statistics on the number of such cases investigated and results obtained are not separable from general control statistics.
November 10, 1976

2.	See 1.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In 1975, did benefit control officers of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the Ontario Region complete 180,124 investigations of claims and, if not, how many were completed?
2.	In the same period, of the claims investigated, were there 107,303 disentitle-ments, for various reasons and, if so (a) did disentitlements represent approximately 58 per cent of all claims investigated in that period in the Ontario Region (b) does this indicate any possibility that the percentage figure of all improper claims, investigated or otherwise, would be approximately 58 per cent of all claims made in 1975 in the Ontario Region?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Two hundred one thousand six hundred ninety-three investigations were completed.
2. One hundred fourteen thousand five hundred ninety-seven disqualifications and disentitlements were imposed, (a) This represents 56 per cent of cases completed, (b) No, it only indicates that 56 per cent of those cases completed resulted in either a disqualification or disentitlement.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Between January 1 and April 30, 1976, did benefit control officers of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the Ontario Region complete 78,353 investigations of claims and, if not, how many were completed?
2.	In the same period, of the claims investigated, were there 41,235 disentitlements for various reasons and, if so (a) did disentitlements represent approximately 52 per cent of all claims investigated in that period in the Ontario Region (b) does this indicate any possibility that the percentage figure of all improper claims, investigated or otherwise, would be approximately 52 per cent of all claims made during this period of time in the Ontario Region?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. No, 84,395 investigations were completed. An additional 4,928 cases of Post Audit were completed by benefit control support staff.
2.	No. 44,516 disqualifications and disentitlements (D/D) were imposed. 3,968 D/D's were imposed on the Post Audit cases, (a) The D/D's represented 52 per cent and 80 per cent respectively of cases completed, (b) No. It only indicates that 52 per cent and 80 per cent respectively of those cases completed resulted in a D/D.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. C. L. R. Gray, Director, Legal Services of the Department of Justice for the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Ontario Region, write a memorandum dated August 13, 1975 to Mr. D. Brown, Regional Director of UIC for Ontario, on the subject of a UIC employee named Bernadette Pelletier and, if so, did the document deal with alleged falsification of an Application for Benefit by Ghislain Gareau on the part of Bernadette Pelletier?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Did Mr. Gareau receive more benefits than he was entitled to receive and, if so, has this overpayment been recovered and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date?
3.	Did Mr. Gray's memorandum state in part "We cannot prosecute the claimant unless we call Bernadette Pelletier as a witness. If we do that, she will testify that she made the "X" and that Ghislain Gareau did not know she made the "X". I suggest you do not want to have Bernadette Pelletier appear in court as a UIC witness who would probably declare the whole mess in public" and, if so (a) was Bernadette Pelletier prosecuted and, if not, for what reason (b) what is the exact meaning of the words "whole mess"?
4.	Is the memorandum an indication that the Department of Justice has a policy of advising the UIC against prosecuting its own employees who break the law in order that the public will not become aware of "the whole mess" and, if so (a) on what date was such policy established and by whom (b) was Bernadette Pelletier (i) dismissed by UIC and, if so, on what date (ii) transferred to another job within UIC and, if so, to what job and on what date?
5.	How many employees of the UIC have been prosecuted for infractions of the law pertaining to UIC in each of the past four calendar years?
6.	Are any figures available as to how many occasions the Department of Justice may have recommended that prosecutions against UIC employees should not take place for reasons that "the whole mess in public" would be undesirable?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	No. He received no benefit, (a) N/A. (b) N/A.
3.	Yes. (a) No. Success of prosecution under the Criminal code or U.I. Act was doubtful, (b) The expression "whole mess" referred to the circumstances surrounding the suspected attempted defalcation of funds by Bernadette Pelletier.
4.	No. (a) N/A. (b) (i) No. N/A. (ii) No. N/A.
5.	1973, 2; 1974, 0; 1975, 4; 1976, 2.
6.	Yes. There are none, other than the case referred to above.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total amount of all expenses including salaries of the Special Investigation Division of the Unemployment Insurance Commission from the date of its establishment to the date of its abolition?
2.	What was the date of its (a) establishment (b) abolition?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. The expenses for the Special Investigation Division were paid out of the total of the Benefit Control activity and cannot be identified separately.
2. (a) April 16, 1973. (b) April 30, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a memorandum circulated to all employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission across Canada entitled "Restriction on Involvement in Certain Claims" and, if so, was this decision made at the May meeting of the UIC executive?
2.	Was the memorandum dated June 30, 1976, sent to various offices in the Province of Ontario, signed by Mr. B. L. Murphy, Area Personnel Adviser?

Order Paper Questions
3.	Did the memorandum request all employees of UIC to sign and return it to their supervisors?
4.	Did the memorandum state in part "It is not permissible for employees to be directly involved in the recording, processing or adjudication of a claim for a relative or a friend or for one in which they have a personal interest" and, if so (a) for what reason was this type of instruction sent at that particular time (b) for what reason were such instructions not standard practice?
5.	Previous to June 30, 1976, were employees permitted to become directly involved in the recording, processing or adjudication of claims for relatives, friends or other persons in whom they had a personal interest?
6.	In each of the past four years, how many cases have been discovered of UIC employees involved personally in such claims and for what reasons were such instructions not issued until questions on the subject were raised in the House of Commons in May by the honourable Member for Leeds?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. No. The subject memorandum was circulated only to employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the Ontario Region. The decision to circulate the memorandum was made by the Ontario Regional Director General, but was discussed at the May meeting of the UIC Executive where its usefulness was generally agreed to. Other regions have since reminded their employees of this requirement but not necessarily on the same format.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes. (a) As a reminder to employees of the policy of the Commission in this regard, (b) This restraint has existed since the inception of unemployment insurance in Canada and has been contained in operational manuals since that time.
5.	No.
6.	1973, 1; 1974, 2; 1975, 3; 1976, 7. Instructions on conflict of interest in claims processing and adjudication are released periodically to remind employees of their responsibilities. The decision governing the release of the instructions in question was made at the UI Executive meeting of May 5th prior to the matter being raised in the House of Commons.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since Question No. 5,825 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament appeared on the Order Paper on June 28, 1976, requesting information on the whereabouts of files of the now abolished Special Investigation Division of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, has a search for the files been instituted under the direction of the Headquarters of UIC at 222 Nepean Street, Ottawa, and, if so, has there been difficulty in locating any of the files?
2.	Have any of the files been destroyed or are any missing and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Have any of the files been dispersed to various entities including the RCMP, benefit control officers, etc., and, if so, which files and on what dates?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes, the working files maintained by the regions were requested. No difficulty was encountered in locating the files.
2. All files are maintained and stored in accordance with Public Records Order PC 1966-1749 dated October 1, 1966.

November 10, 1976
Some working copies of files were destroyed, however the information contained therein is available on the master file at Head Office.
3. No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a document, dated June 29, 1976 Entitled "1977 Ontario Region Budget Guidelines" distributed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and, if so, what is the name and job designation of the highest ranking UIC official who authorized distribution of the document?
2.	Did this document state in part "when preparing your budget, a target of twelve prosecutions per year per Benefit Control Officer should be considered. This will include employer prosecutions. It is considered that eleven benefit fraud and one employer prosecution per year per Benefit Control Officer would be a good mix" and, if so (a) is it the policy of the UIC to prosecute fraud on the basis of quotas set down the year before rather than on the basis of all frauds as they occur regardless of number (b) what is the name and job designation of the highest ranking official of UIC who arrived at the conclusion "that eleven benefit fraud and one employer prosecution per year per Benefit Control Officer would be a good mix" (c) what are the reasons that it is considered "a good mix" (d) for what reason is no mention made in the so-called quota of prosecutions against employees of the UIC itself who contravene the law or is it the policy of the government not to prosecute in such cases (e) how many employees of the UIC were prosecuted in each of the past four years and in what regions did such prosecutions occur?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes. Director General, David Brown.
2. Yes. (a) No. The figures were not quotas but guidelines, intended for use in estimating the cost of benefit control activities in 1977. (b) Director General, David Brown, (c) The "good mix" or ratio of claimant to employer prosecutions was determined using historical data. The "good mix" criteria was sent to district offices for use as a guideline estimating the proportion of the Benefit Control Officer's time which ought to be set aside for work associated with prosecutions, (d) The prosecution of UI employees for contravention of the Unemployment Insurance Act is turned over to law enforcement agencies. There is no government policy of non-prosecution in such cases, (e) 1973, 2-Quebec 1, Ontario 1; 1974, 0; 1975, 4-Quebec 3, Ontario 1; 1976, 2-Ontario 1, Prairie 1.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. H. Williams now Chief of Security at the head office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission at 222 Nepean Street, Ottawa. Ontario?
2.	Was Mr. Williams formerly employed by the now abolished Special Investigation Division of UIC and, if so (a) for what dates (b) in what capacity?
3.	While with the Special Investigation Division, how many trips did he make to the Vancouver area (a) on what dates (b) at what total cost (c) for what purpose in each case (d) which trips included visits to the regional pay centre in Vancouver and what was the purpose in each case?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes.
November 10, 1976

2.	Yes. (a) March 1973 to April 1975. (b) Co-ordinator of Ontario, Prairie and Pacific Regions.
3.	Four, (a) March 31, 1973; September 21, 1973; November 30, 1973; January 9, 1974. (b) Expenses, S449.60; Air Fare, $1,024; Total; $1,473.60. (c) Organization, liaison, monitoring of operations, computer programs and selection of personnel, (d) November 30, 1973. Eamiliarization Tour of Regional Pay Centre in conjunction with other duties.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On or about May 19, 1976, did Mr. F. E. Leblanc receive a telephone call from the honourable Member for Leeds requesting information concerning the subject of alleged defrauding of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and also asking about charges laid against former UIC employee Mr. Gordon Gunn of Ottawa and, if so (a) did Mr. Leblanc decline to comment (b) did he refer the Member to his superior, Mr. J. Third?
2.	Are managers of UIC offices under instructions not to discuss any matters with Members of Parliament and, if so (a) for what reason (b) who authorized such a regulation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes. (a) Yes; (b) Yes.
2. No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. J. Third, Director of Operations, East, Unemployment Insurance 'Commission, receive a telephone call on or about May 19, 1976 from the honourable Member for Leeds concerning alleged defrauding of UIC and charges laid against former UIC employee Mr. Gordon Gunn of Ottawa and, if so, what was his reply respecting the furnishing of any details?
2.	Was Mr. Third advised by the honourable Member for Leeds that the matter would be raised that same day in the House of Commons and, if so, what was his reply concerning the significance of the case and the involvement of the so-called bogus company?
3.	Did Mr. Third, approximately thirty minutes later, telephone the honourable Member for Leeds and, if so, what was his advice respecting (a) the seriousness of the matter (b) the raising of the matter in the House (c) the involvement of the so-called bogus company (d) the lack of awareness by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration of the situation?
4.	Did Mr. Third state that within a few minutes of the matter becoming public in the House there will be a great burning of files and, if so, to what files was he referring?
5.	What were the reasons for the second call in a period of thirty minutes and what is the name and job designation of any person that he contacted to discuss the matter during the interval?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes. Mr. Cossitt was referred to the RCMP regarding the charges laid against Mr. Gunn.
2.	Yes. Details of the case were not discussed.
3.	Yes. (a) The case was not as serious as the honourable member seemed to think, (b) The raising of the matter in the House could jeopardize the on-going RCMP investigation, (c) It was suggested that the naming of a specific company at this time could jeopardize the RCMP investigation still underway.
Order Paper Questions
(d) Mr. Third had reported the case to his superior, however, he was not in a position to know whether the Minister had been briefed on the case.
4.	Yes. The files referred to were those of the bogus company.
5.	To re-emphasize that the success of the investigation would be jeopardized by premature publicity.-D. Brown, Director General, Ontario Region. U.I.C.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Are inmates in the penitentiary system being treated by aversive conditioning methods and, if so, how many?
2.	Are sexual offenders presently being treated with aversive conditioning, using electric shocks to the genitals as the aversive stimulus and, if so (a) how many (b) how is "informed consent" obtained from the inmates for these procedures?
3.	What review procedures are used to determine whether (a) consent is truly voluntary and informed (b) the treatment is effective and should be continued?
4.	(a) Does an Ethics Committee exist to consider, in each case, the use of the procedure and the nature of the consent considering the experimental nature of such treatment (b) does such a Committee have inmate representation?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: 1. Treatment for sexual offenders is available at the Regional Psychiatric Centre (Ontario). The program lasts for twelve weeks. During the first half of the program, aversive conditioning is given and in the second half of the program, the patients receive group therapy. Some fifteen patients are involved in each program.
2. Aversive conditioning using electric shock is not applied to the genitals as the aversive stimulus. It is applied to the index and middle finger, (a) and (b) not applicable.
Note: Re: "Informed consent"-The patient's file is first studied to ensure that he is not mentally ill or suffering from mental retardation. In other words, this is done in order to ensure that there is no problem with regard to his being able to give informed consent. Next he is given an outline of the treatment program to study and may, of course, not wish to enter it. The program is then discussed with him by a staff member and videotapes of equipment, etc., are shown. If he wishes, he may then sign the consent form and following this he may withdraw from the program whenever he wishes to do so.
3. (a) Review procedures are not presently in effect to determine whether the consent is truly voluntary and informed, (b) While those released are followed up by research

November 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
staff of the Centre, insufficient numbers have been so released to enable a decision to be made as to whether or not the treatment is effective and should be continued.
4.	There is no Ethics Committee as described in this question.
(a) Single Pensioners
Percent	5	10	15	20	25	30	35	40W.W. I	545	826	438	528	246	285	117	219W.W. II Special	3537	4481	1810	2268	986	1118	474	847Force	115	124	39	63	25	23	11	25(b) Married Pensioners	W.W. I	833	1494	764	905	477	559	228	375W.W. II Special	7541	11755	5163	6404	2996	3454	1324	2223Force	83	91	48	61	16	23	7	26


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many applications have been received since the implementation of the Prisoner of War Compensation Act?
2.	(a) How many have been processed for which payments have been sent out (b) are there any still on hand and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Has the Department of Veterans Affairs received letters from First World War prisoners of war complaining of their exclusion from compensation and, if so, what are their (a) names (b) disabilities?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	At October 21, 1976, 6,128 applications for compensation under the Prisoner of War Compensation Act had been received. Benefits were paid automatically by the Commission to 1,117 Hong Kong veterans and other persons imprisoned by the Japanese for one year or more.
2.	(a) At October 21, 1976, 4,953 claims had been approved for payment, (b) 853 applications are currently in various stages of processing. (322 applications were received from persons not eligible to receive compensation).
3.	A number of letters and phone calls have been received from First World War prisoners of war. Complete statistics on these inquiries have not been maintained by the Commission.


Mr. Hurlburt: For the fiscal year 1974-75, what was the dollar value of repairs and capital cost improvements to military bases in (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) Ontario (0 Quebec (g) Prince Edward Island (h) Nova Scotia (/) New Brunswick (j) Newfoundland?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: The
dollar value of repairs and capital cost improvements to mili-


Mr. Marshall: In graduations of 5%, how many (a) single (b) married war disability pensioners are there with disabilities between 5% and 100%?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 45	50	55	60	65	70	75	80	85	90	95	10015	237	35	97	16	59	31	232	34	82	16	38570	1059	169	454	104	215	109	247	50	93	36	9242	19	5	8	2	4	3	8	1	1	1432	436	72	188	41	118	60	433	53	158 28	615222	2936	547	1263	373	777	339	824	262	348 123	17866	27	4	13	3	4	8	4	1	2 -	16tary bases by provinces in as follows:	Canada for fiscal year	1974-75 wasConstruction	MaintenanceBritish Columbia	$7,534,338	$8,374,877Alberta	7,636,220	8,781,455Saskatchewan	1,407,425	2,244,618Manitoba	5,313,348	6,201,217Ontario	19,204,269	12,272,499Quebec	10,215,572	10,864,633New Brunswick	1,509,443	8,052,351Nova Scotia	9,694,030	15,025,638Prince Edward Island	566,165	2,513,402Newfoundland	212,989	579,173$63,293,799	$74,909,863
1974-75 BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the chart indicating percentage distribution of 1974-75 budgetary expenditures by function, indicate 3% for internal overhead expenses?
2.	What is the dollar make-up of this figure and to what departments are the amounts applicable?
3.	What criteria are used to distinguish between overhead expenses and the administrative costs of (a) general government services (b) departmental administration costs (c) programme administration?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.
Yes.
2.	1974-75 budgetary expenditures for the Internal Overhead Expenses function were $875.4 million. The amounts attributable to specific departments are presented in Appendix A.
3.	Costs are assigned to the Internal Overhead Expenses function when: (i) they are incurred by certain departments and agencies, as listed in Appendix A, in providing support
November 10, 1976

services for the operations of other government departments, and (ii) it has been found impractical to attempt to attribute them directly to the actual programs to which they pertain. All other overhead costs associated with the administration of government departments, programs and services, are attributed directly to the appropriate program.
1974-75 Budgetary Expenditures Internal Overhead Expenses Function ($ thousands)
Government Support Services
Accommodation, Public Works	434,355
Administration, Public Works	22,604
Professional and Technical Services, Public Works	25,197
Grants in lieu of taxes on federal property, Finance	71,930
Legal Services, Justice	13,016
Public Service Health, Health and Welfare	3,551
Public Service Staff Relations Board	2,975
Translation Bureau, Secretary of State	23,920
Records Management and Technical Services, Public Archives	3,025
Public Service Commission	53,960
Administration, Supply and Services	9,039
Services, Supply and Services	70,254
Canadian Commercial Corporation	6,423
740,249	740,249
Contributions to Employee Pension and Medical Plans
Public Service Pensions, Treasury Board	36,311
Public Service Insurance, Treasury Board	91,943
Public Service Employees Compensation, Labour	6,904
135,158	135,158
875,407
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many regional offices are maintained by the Department of Finance (b) where is each located (c) for what area is each responsible?
2.	On what date was each established and with how many personnel?
3.	What is the present personnel strength of each office?
4.	In addition to regional offices, are district or other sub-offices maintained and, if so (a) in what locations (b) how many?
5.	Are the duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa to the operator in the field, or do they have other functions to perform and, if so, what are such functions?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: In so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned: 1 to 5. Not applicable.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 
Mr. Herbert: Is it the government's intention to proceed with the construction of new facilities at the Veterans Senneville Lodge in Quebec and, if so, what are the details of such construction?

November 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Planning for the replacement of Senneville Lodge in Quebec has been deferred while discussion is continuing with the Province of Quebec with respect to the transfer of Queen Mary Veterans Hospital. When these discussions are completed, the Department will undertake definitive planning for the replacement of Senneville Lodge.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Did the US Federal Bureau of Investigation notify the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of the covert intelligence activities conducted in 1973 by Mr. Douglas Durham, a former FBI undercover agent, in Edmonton, Alberta and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the government give American authorities permission to let Mr. Durham into Canada for the purposes of conducting a covert intelligence operation?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1. On October 1, 1973, the Federal Bureau of Investigation notified the R.C.M.P. of Douglas Durham's intentions to enter Canada and on February 14, 1974, the Bureau reported that Durham had been in Edmonton, Alberta on or about October 4, 1973. The R.C.M.P. is not aware of any "covert intelligence activity" conducted by Durham while in Edmonton, Alberta.
2. No.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Did the RCMP list Mr. Gilbert Talma Lavoie in CPIC as "unlawfully at large" in (a) October 1972 (b) February 1973 following his escape from Stoney Mountain Penitentiary on June 17, 1972 and, if not, then by whom and on what date was he listed?
2.	(a) Was a warrant issued by the RCMP for Mr. Lavoie and listed on CPIC in late January or early February, 1975 for failing to appear for trial and, if not, then by whom and on what date was it issued (b) did the RCMP enter a notice of a warrant on CPIC for Mr. Lavoie's failure to appear at his January 26 trial and again on May 20, 1976 and, if not, then by whom and on what date was it entered?
3.	Is it common practice for police authorities to enter information into CPIC which had already been entered into the computer on an earlier occasion and, if not, for what reason was this done in Mr. Lavoie's case?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1. (a) No. CPIC became operational for Wanted Persons only in November of 1972. (b) Yes.
2.	(a) No. (b) No. A Canada Wide Warrant was issued for Lavoie for the original offence in 1972 under Section 133 c.c. (unlawfully at large) by R.C.M.P. Stonewall Detachment, Manitoba, on May 20, 1976.
3.	No. The original Stonewall Detachment entry of November 1, 1972, for Lavoie was removed from CPIC by Stonewall Detachment on August 8, 1973 following Lavoie's arrest by the Vancouver Police Department on August 3, 1973. On May 20, 1976, a new Canada Wide Warrant was issued for Lavoie for the original offence in 1972 under Section 133 c.c. (unlaw-

fully at large) and a new CPIC entry was made by R.C.M.P. Stonewall Detachment.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Has the Minister of Finance made inquiries arising out of his commitment as recorded on page 14758 of Hansard, of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, to determine whether the former Chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal reimbursed the public treasury for time spent on private business while on the public payroll or for the use of government-paid travel or any other government facilities for private business purposes?
2.	What was the amount, if any, that was repaid to the public treasury and what expenses did it cover?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. Yes.
2. In so far as can be determined, there is no evidence that would constitute the need for any restitution to be made to the Crown by the former Chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal in regard to conducting personal business while on the public payroll. Furthermore, all travel expenses paid to him by the Crown were in connection with Anti-Dumping Tribunal business and were in accordance with Treasury Board Travel Directives that were in force at the time of the audit of those travel claims.


Mr. Beatty: What individual or bodies within the government currently have a responsibility to make recommendations to the government relating to electronic payment systems and, in each case (a) who is the individual or members of the body involved and for which department or agency does he or she work (b) to whom are reports made (c) on what date was the responsibility for electronic payment systems first given to that individual or body (d) on what date does the mandate of the individual or body expire (e) what reports or recommendations have been made to the government prior to June 16, 1976 and, on what date (0 what action has been taken by the government as a result of the recommendations and, on what date?
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned: In April 1973, the Government published a Green Paper entitled "Computer Communications Policy, a Statement by the Government of Canada." That paper contained a number of statements indicating the government's "current perception" on various computer/communications issues. Statement 16 of this paper said in part: "Recognizing the critical and pervasive role of financial institutions in the functioning of the economy, it is very important that, in the rapid evolution of computer/communications involving the payments system of the nation and other Financial services, a competitive environment should be maintained and that developments be consistent with the general policies outlined herein." The Department of Finance, with the assistance of the Receiver General for Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Departments of Communications; Industry, Trade and Commerce; Consumer and Corporate Affairs; and others was given the task of preparing recommendations to ensure the continuing development of an
November 10, 1976

efficient and equitable payments system. The Working Group responsible for preparing these recommendations was chaired by the Director, Capital Markets Division, Department of Finance. The Working Group's recommendations were presented to Cabinet jointly by the Ministers of Finance and Communications. Subsequent to their evaluation by Cabinet, the government, in January 1975, published a position paper entitled "Towards an Electronic Payments system-A Statement of Government Policy concerning Computer/Communi-cations and the Payments System.'' In this paper, the government announced its support for a common user communications network for the payments system and the creation of four committees with responsibility to make recommendations relating to an electronic payments system: 1. Interdepartmental Steering Committee on the Electronic Payments System. This Committee, chaired by the Director, Capital Markets Division, Department of Finance, is responsible for the overall coordination of government policy on the electronic payments system, including the maintenance of liaison with Committees 2, 3 and 4 as described below, (a) In addition to the chairman from the Department of Finance, this committee includes representatives from the Bank of Canada and the Departments of Communications, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Supply and Services, and Justice, (b) The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Communications. In addition, each departmental representative reports to his or her Minister, (c) January 1975. (d) No expiry date, (e) No report to date, (f) Not applicable.
2.	The Canadian Payments System Standards Group (CPSSG), a private sector committee, whose mandate is to develop standards and performance criteria that would be used in a common-user communications network for the payments system, (a) The CPSSG is made up of representatives from deposit-taking institutions, common carriers and computer equipment manufacturers and others, as required, including retailers. It is chaired by Mr. Roger Charbonneau of L'ecole des Hautes etudes, Montreal, whose services are provided through the auspices of the Bank of Canada, (b) The CPSSG reports to the Interdepartmental Steering Committee on the Electronic Payments System, (c) January 1975. However, the chairman was not appointed until September 25, 1975 and the Group's first meeting was not held until April 27, 1976. (d) No expiry date, (e) No report to date. Interim report expected by December 31, 1976. (f) Not applicable.
3.	Justice Study on Legal and Consumer Issues. This Study is being conducted under the leadership of the Department of Justice and is charged with the responsibility to ensure that the legal and consumer aspects are considered and the legal framework for the payments system evolves in line with new payments methods. This Study is being conducted in consultation with interested parties, including the Departments of Finance, Communications, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Supply and Services, the Bank of Canada, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (a) See above, (b) The Minister of Justice, (c) January 1975. (d) No expiry date. Interim report is
Order Paper Questions
expected by December 31, 1976. (e) No report to date, (f) Not applicable.
4.	Committee on Credit/Payment Cards. This committee, chaired by an officer of the Capital Markets Division, Department of Finance, was established to examine the financial markets structure and composition policy aspects of generalized credit card systems and payment cards, (a) This Committee, in addition to the chairman, includes representatives from the Bank of Canada and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Department of Justice, (b) The Minister of Finance, (c) January 1975. (d) No expiry date, (e) No report to date.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What will be the nature of the participation of the government in negotiations and discussions which will take place during the next two and one-half years on the world commodity pact agreements which took place at the recent UNCTAD IV Conference in Kenya?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Canada will take an active part in consultations and negotiations both on the individual commodities which were listed for priority attention at UNCTAD IV earlier this year, and on a Common Fund or other financing mechanism. The extent and level of our participation in individual meetings will vary according to the significance for Canada and for the developing countries of the commodity concerned. We shall be guided by the principle that both producers and consumers should be represented in any commodity agreements or associations resulting from these negotiations, and we shall continue to support the principle of joint producer-consumer responsibility for buffer stock financing within commodity agreements which establish such stocks.


Mr. Fortin: What (a) are the names (b) were the description of duties (c) were the annual salaries of persons employed in the office of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (i) on July 8, 1974 (ii) since July 8, 1974?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-as at October 18, 1976:
(i) Exempt Staff in Ministers' office as at July 8, 1974 (Hon. H. Gray).

November 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
(a) Name	(b) Description	(c) Salary in
	of duties:	range of:
Aronson M.	Special Ass't	$15,000-17,500Connolly P.	Executive Ass't	$17,500-20,000Klie P.	Special Ass't	$10,000-12,500Sampson A.	Clerk	$9,280-10,146Sheffield M.	Clerk	$7,777-8,499Vienneau M.	Research Ass't	$15,000-17,500Wright T.	Special Ass't	$15,000-17,500Ages J.	Special Ass't	$15,000-17,500Lapointe F.	Private Sec.	$11,043-12,086(ii) Exempt Staff in Hon. B. Mackasey)	the Minister's offices since July 8, 1974 (Hon. A. Ouellet	Name	Description	Salary inof Duties	range of:Gilbert C.	Clerk	$4.75 per hourBeaulieu L.	Private Sec.	up to $14,500Dupre M.	Secretary	$10,532-11,519McCoy R.	Special Ass't	up to $21,000Burke T.	Special Ass't	up to $21,000McBride M.	Executive Ass't	up to $25,000Davidson J.	Special Ass't	up to $21,000Leblanc P.	Special Ass't	up to $21,000Bourgouin G.	Constituency	Secretary	$8,324-9,092Maguire L.	Secretary	$500. per monthLafontaine R.	Special Ass't	up to $21,000Grossman A.	Executive Ass't	up to $25,000Exempt Staff in the Minister's Office as at October 18, 1976 (Hon. A. Abbott)	Mills C.	Private Secretary	up to 17,900Moore, M. P.	Special Assistant	up to 22,900


Mr. Fortin: What (a) are the names (b) were the duties (c) were the salaries of the persons employed as special assistants to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (i) on July 8, 1974 (ii) since July 8, 1974?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Please refer to the answer to Question No. 693.


Mr. Munro (Esquiraalt-Saanich): 1.	Was "The Divine Light Mission", permitted to administer to the spiritual needs of prisoners in federal penal institutions and, if so (a) on whose authority (b) at which institutions was authority granted?
2.	Was the group or their representatives permitted to use the penitentiary chapels and, if so, on whose authority?
3.	Have any reports been received by the Solicitor General's Office relating to the activities of the group in the penitentiaries in which they are operating and, if so, is the general tenor of the reports neutral, commendatory or condemnatory?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1. Yes, on two occasions, to visit two inmates who have
(Mr. Abbott.]
since been released, (a) Institutional Administration, (b) William Head Institution.
2.	No.
3.	As far as the Canadian Penitentiary Service can ascertain there have been no neutral, commendatory or condemnatory reports received by the Solicitor General's office concerning The Divine Light Mission.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of tolls or fees collected by Parks Canada in the St. Lawrence Islands National Park, including the mainland section in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?
2.	(a) What was the total cost of operation of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976 (b) in each case, what percentage was covered by tolls or fees?
3.	If there was a decrease in the amount of tolls or fees collected between 1975 and 1976, what are the reasons accounting for such a situation?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 776 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	As at March 12, 1976, what number of complaints were received by the Anti-Inflation Board concerning price increases by (a) month (b) type of complaint (c) province?
2.	Have any such complaints been investigated by the Board and, if so (a) how many (b) in what manner (c) what was the disposition in each case?
3.	Did such complaints result in Board action which rolled back, reduced or eliminated the increase and, if so, how many?
November 10, 1976

4.	Did any complaints involve pre-notification to the Board in advance of the price increase and, if so, how many?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 1, 15 and 23?


[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. Paproski:: Stand.


[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.
John Edward Broadbent: Stand.


[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.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Restraint of Government Expenditures



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 8, 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.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments I would like to make about this bill-


Stanley Howard Knowles: With no restraint.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -with not too much restraint and a good deal of emphasis. 1 am particularly interested in clause 15 which, among other things, relates to the movement of grain and flour into the Atlantic ports. I hope anything I say will not be taken personally. This clause of the bill concerns the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in particular. I assure him I do not rise today to attack him. I think he is doing a sufficient job himself without any assistance from me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The bill in general is substantially an exercise in public relations. It is not that it does not affect anything. The clause I am discussing clearly has some very detrimental effects. For example, it has a substantial impact with regard to eliminating for the time being the indexing of family allowances. The point of the exercise, as I see it, is to try and pick out a few things that people will feel in order to try to persuade the Canadian public that the government is making a real effort to exercise restraint and control its expenditures.
I wish to say just a word about eliminating for the time being the indexing of family allowances. I can understand why that move by the government is so annoying to many members of this House. During the election campaign the government made a real point with regard to indexing family allowances. It now turns around a year or so later in an effort to convince the general public that it is trying to save money, and suspends the indexing. It will, of course, restore the indexing before it has to face the public again. In other words, insincerity runs throughout the whole of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The bill is insincere. It is designed to persuade the general public that this is only the tip of the iceberg, and simply indicates the kind of savings efforts the government is making. The fact that it is by and large a public relations effort does not mean that particular parts of the bill are not harmful or damaging. I refer in particular to clause 15 which relates to the Railway Act and which the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale)

November 10, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures and others have conceded will be very damaging to milling interests and others.
I have not been able to be in the House during the most of this debate, but 1 have read what has been said. 1 read the very able presentations by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


An hon. Member:: Any from this side?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, I read with great care the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. As far as I can judge, he seems to think this is really a question of whether or not we want to trade with Cuba.


Ralph Goodale: That was Horner.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The parliamentary secretary made a great point that the members of the Conservative party should decide whether we want to trade with Cuba. I say to the parliamentary secretary that I can understand why he might adopt such a myopic attitude toward this bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Good old tunnel-vision Goodale.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I can understand why he might find it difficult to see anything beyond the interests of his part of the country. He and his party are an endangered species in that area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) has the floor. I suggest we all listen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Besides all the things the parliamentary secretary said about Cuba, he indicated it was his understanding that the Minister of Transport would be making a statement with regard to the milling industry. He said, and I quote:
It is interesting to examine the kind of grain movement this particular section of the Railway Act-
He went on to talk about that and he said:
Bill C-19 proposes that section 272 of the Railway Act be repealed. It has been mentioned earlier today, and it is recognized by this government that such action would have an impact upon the Canadian milling industry. Various ministers of the government have been engaged in intensive discussions with representatives of the milling industry in the last few months in order to try to deal directly with the economic and industrial problems facing millers. The mechanism needed to provide the assistance they claim they require has been under intensive discussion inside government, and outside with industrial representatives. These discussions have borne fruit, Mr. Speaker. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), will, I understand, be participating later in this debate to explain to members opposite and to the industry the details which have been worked out to provide a more sensible, economic, and effective method of dealing with the problems of the milling industry.

I want to make two points in connection with this. First, this statement by the parliamentary secretary, and the concerns that he indicates the minister in charge of the wheat board has, do not go beyond the milling industry. They do not concern themselves with what this is going to mean to the Atlantic coast ports.
In particular, Sir, I want you to recall the history of this bill and its predecessor. We have been discussing this subject for many, many months. We were discussing it before the recess. In other words, the government put forward a predecessor to this bill, one which it now admits would do serious damage to the milling industry and which it now concedes should be revised so as to reflect proposals which the parliamentary secretary has said the Minister of Transport intends, some day, to disclose to us.
The point is that this arrogant government took us all round this subject in the course of the debate on Bill C-87 without once disclosing what its alternative would be. It asked us to accept the proposition that sections of the Railway Act be eliminated without giving us any indication of what the alternative would be. It did not even suggest it had an alternative. Now the second reading of Bill C-19 has been called. We debated it last Friday. We debated it on Monday. And we are debating it again today. This arrogant government has placed a bill before the House asking us to accept a proposition without even yet disclosing to us what alternative is necessary. And members on the other side wonder why they don't get more accomplished in the House.
Why has the minister declined to disclose his proposal? He and his parliamentary secretary knew perfectly well the degree of concern which has been felt by many of us and what is more important, by many of our constituents. Why did not the first speaker for the government on the second reading of this bill disclose quite frankly the alternative which the department intended to pursue? Why did the government take the time of the House if it did not propose to give us this information? I have to ask myself, of course, whether the Minister of Transport or the first spokesman for the government failed to put forward this proposal because they did not know what it was to be, or because they did not believe it would be effective, in any case. Or perhaps their attitude was: we intend to push this measure down the throats of the opposition, anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So what's new, anyway?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the minister has a concrete alternative to the section of the Railway Act in question as it affects the milling industry and the movement of grain and flour through east coast ports, I ask him again why he did not disclose it in the course of the first speech made from the government side so that we could debate government policy intelligently? As things are now, we have no choice but to oppose this bill until, at least, the minister puts forward his alternative and we have a chance to consider whether, by chance, it is a suitable one.
November 10, 1976

It is almost unbelievable that a government which purports to take parliament seriously, a government which pretends too much time is taken up in debate, should refrain from placing this alternative before the House so that we could assess it. After all, we might possibly decide that it is good enough and that it would take care of the situation. There is no way in which the government can excuse itself in this respect, no way in which it can expect us to agree to the passage of this bill on second reading. Incidentally, 1 understand that a press conference is going on outside this House at the present time- perhaps it is finished by now-concerning the vexed question of General Steel and Westinghouse.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shameful!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Nothing can justify this-this thoughtlessness; perhaps I should not use the word "arrogant". Nothing can excuse this ineffectiveness and indecision.
Let us see what the minister has up his sleeve. Until he discloses his alternative to clause 77 the government should withdraw the bill because, as things stand, it is simply wasting the time of the House. 1 cannot understand how the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the government House leader, a member of parliament from Nova Scotia, could let this happen. I cannot believe he takes such a light view of what might happen to the milling industry in the east, and to the milling industry in Halifax in particular; to the work of the stevedores in the east coast ports and to the effect of the disappearance of the apparatus down there on a viable feed industry. I find it impossible to understand how the President of the Privy Council, if he is paying any attention to the business of the House-I regret to say this in his absence, but it has to be said-could have let this bill come forward without insisting that the Minister of Transport should inform the House what the alternative is.


Walter David Baker: Right off the top!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It should have been done last Friday. Unless the minister is prepared, right now, to disclose in some detail what he has in mind, this bill should no longer be debated at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise after the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) to enter the debate on Bill C-19. This is a bill which was first seen in the House last session although it did not make progress then. It is my intention to follow the indication given by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader in the second speech made from this side on the bill that a specific proposal in relation to clause 15 would be forthcoming.
The fact of the matter is that we have conducted a whole series of discussions with the milling industry over a long period concerning the maintenance of significant flour exports, with particular reference to the ports of Saint John and Halifax. When the earlier bill was on the order paper 1 stated
Restraint of Government Expenditures it was our intention to do some serious work on the question of the movement of grain and flour which could and should take place after the old section 272 of the Railway Act was no longer in existence.
I should say first of all in a general way that the opposition is in the strange situation-and 1 heard the hon. member for Halifax again follow this pattern-of looking at those matters in the bill which were temporary restraint measures in nonspending, where in other words the specific item being cut was being cut for only one year, and labelling that somehow as a lack of sincerity. To save money in one year is a specific thing being done. Perhaps what he was highlighting was that many of these programs such as family allowances, which were created and improved by Liberal governments, are considered very important by us in this country and it was only with regret that we felt that the balance of fiscal restraint required any cut in that particular program for even one year. But when we come to other clauses of the bill which are permanent in their nature in terms of expenditure restraint, hon. members oppose them on a basis of the politics which perhaps originally made then exist without, I think, a very thorough investigation of their impact.
If the government on behalf of the taxpayers in this country wants to cut expenditures, as it does, one of the clearest places to go to work is where expenditures have unfortunate impact and where the spending is unwise or leads to extra cost than is otherwise the case. This is a general issue which, as hon. members know, I am facing in transportation from one end of the country to the other. It is a general proposition which we are having to follow in order to try to bring transportation to a modern state, in order to have the dollars to invest in transportation most effectively. We have to stop spending those dollars on transportation which in some way is ineffective.
One of the general propositions is that when costs are hidden by being charged to the taxpayer we actually quite frequently end up incurring more transportation costs than would otherwise be the case. We are apt to have a heavier movement of goods or over greater distances than would otherwise be the case. I notice that this theme is taken up in a very effective way by the spokesman for small business in this country, John Bullock, who emphasizes that the very costs of transportation will gradually, if they are indeed allowed to be borne in the sector where they occur, again encourage the development of small business and smaller enterprises. 1 think the theory he stresses is that while some economies of scale result from bigness one of the problems with that kind of single location production may very often be transportation costs, which result in the redistribution of processed goods rather than the direction of the raw materials as quickly as possible to a particular point for their production into final form and their use and consumption closer to that particular point. He talks about costs. But of course for people doing business, rates very often are the guiding principle rather than actual costs.
958

November 10, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
If the taxpayer is asked to bear part of the cost, then those rates are lower than the real cost, and the impact of regionalization of smaller businesses being developed is less likely to be felt. In other words it is not particularly because we want to adopt a principle of the shipper being the more appropriate person to pay the costs than the taxpayer, that we maintain that it is better if that is so, but rather the reason it is better is that when it is borne more directly by the person considering the shipment of goods it is likely that the least costly alternative will be followed, and the total amount spent on transportation will be lower. That really means it is not just a matter of who pays-between the taxpayer and the person who is asking for the service or using it-but whether the lowest possible amount is in fact incurred. That, in other words, says that we would want to protect against excessive costs being charged by any mode of transportation. I am talking about real costs which are incurred and which therefore have to be paid by someone if the goods are shipped at all.
I use the example in the travel modes of the contrast between the bus, the train, the airplane, and the car where by and large the bus pays more fully its own way while each of the others are subsidized to different degrees. Why should we encourage a particular person to choose one mode against the other if, left to his own devices, he would prefer not to spend the extra money in order to save the time that, for example, the airplane would allow him to save?
If you had been able to give a man $50 and give him his choice as to whether or not he pays it out on plane fare, or spends $15 to go the same distance by bus and have the $35 for other purposes, then it would be a fair choice for him in terms of the value he puts upon his time and on the other things he could have with that $35 which is left over. But if we put different levels of subsidies or taxpayers' money on different modes of transportation then we really say to him that he does not have the choice of the alternative use of that money. We put out taxpayers' money if he goes one way, but do not put out anything for him if he goes the other way. If we thereby induce him to take a method of transportation that he would not on his own choose, we end up also having to pay additional money for airports and facilities which become over-burdened, and for which of course great expenditures are required. That is an example which I think is particularly pertinent in any area where transportation methods are sufficiently mature, to use the term which is in use, so that a legitimate alternative and choice can be offered to individuals.
Where there are not enough people moving between points, such as in a remote area, or where for developmental reasons only two modes of transportation are possible, different arguments can apply, and of course we stress at all times that it is our hope as we see these changes of real costs being reflected and that remote and developmental areas and regions will be kept very much in mind. This example of higher costs being employed when money is paid out was outlined by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), when he described how the existence of the "at and east" rates meant that particular

money from the treasury was available for a very particular movement of grain and flour, and that that involved several more handlings of the grain and flour than might be required in other means of transportation.
To take grain as an example, it goes by truck to an elevator in the prairies, then proceeds by train to Thunder Bay, then is placed in an elevator, then is placed on a ship, then is transmitted to the bay ports of Georgian Bay and is there put into an elevator; then it is put on a train and is moved to Saint John or Halifax. That has to be compared with an alternative movement which would be direct by train from a prairie point, to Saint John or Halifax without another handling of the grain in between. So long as the subsidy is on one of the many handling methods it is obvious that that method may continue to be used where it is simply uneconomical in terms of cost and yet, because of the rate being important to the person shipping the goods, where with the subsidy it continues to make sense. We are aware, of course, that as changes are made from a system where subsidies exist to a system where charges are more adequately reflected, so judgments can be made on the basis of real costs, adjustment problems will be involved.
It will not always be possible simply to make a change having no regard in the intervening period for the effect upon particular industries, consumers or producers, individual human beings who will have predicated their practices on the existence of the pattern. Therefore, if changes in various freight charges are made and we find that industries were established on the basis of the artificial situation, we will be concerned about the impact in the intervening period on people accustomed to the old rate structures. That is why in this case, while we were satisfied that the retention of the rate was a cost to this country which was out of proportion to any benefit that flowed back to it because it was simply an encouragement to use additional labour and capital for non-productive purposes in moving grain to a particular place, and while it was desirable to change that, it was worth examining together with the flour milling industry the question of their continued ability to meet export commitments and the export sales which they would like to make. These discussions went on for a long period of time and have only come to an end now.
Today I received from the millers an indication that the proposal which we have been developing would be accepted by them and that they would indeed conclude that with it, at least for several years, the flour exporting business will be secure. The proposed plan makes available to the milling industry $9 million in the first year, decreasing it progressively over a five year period. It relates to flour for commercial export and for multilateral aid. We will work out the exact formula with the milling industry for the payment of this amount of money in relation to the hundredweights of flour exported in these two categories, considering, so far as we can, in proportion to hundredweight the impact that the removal of the "at and east" rate, or the removal of section 272 of the act, has upon the business of the particular miller.
November 10,1976

Many of the mills in Canada are working at full capacity, particularly in certain places in central Canada and in the east. This would ensure that mills in other locations which, in the short run, might have been threatened by the simple removal of this section, will continue to compete for the export market and for multilateral aid shipments.
I am confident that the method of moving this flour and grain will change in time, and that is the reason for the progressive reduction in the amount of money contained in the proposal. Adjustments can be made where the possible elimination of stop-offs, the extra handling of flour that is involved may allow direct shipments of flour from mills at a prairie location through to Saint John or Halifax, much as has been discussed in relation to grain. In any case the millers are confident that for two years their exports will be assured, and while they wish to reserve the right to reconsider the situation at that time, I am confident that we will find that the adjustments which are required will take place and that, to the extent that exports are possible at that time, they will be continued by the flour industry without the permanent existence of "at and east" rates.
In a similar way I should say we have continued our work on the concept of moving grain by train direct from the prairies to the elevators in Saint John and Halifax which, over the years, have done a significant winter handling of grain. While these discussions are not completed, I believe that they look promising. I have seen some of the cost analyses and I believe that there is a real possibility of the railways and the Canadian Wheat Board coming to an arrangement which will allow this movement to continue in future years. I will certainly encourage the Canadian Wheat Board and the railways to get trains into operation in this way for the good of the whole country.
I have had many expressions of concern from members in the House. Among my own colleagues I can think immediately of the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas), the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell), and the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers), who are concerned about flour production and export. In the case of the latter two, they are concerned about the movement of the flour through the ports in their provinces. I believe that this important action will tend to ensure that that will happen, but at the same time adjustments to the removal of section 272 will take place which will allow flour and grain to be exported from Canada at lower cost to the people of Canada in total. As I said at the beginning, that is the important objective in shifting the cost from the taxpayer to the user. The purpose is not particularly to reduce the burden of the taxpayer, who after all is another Canadian to be considered, but because the shift tends to mean that the costs will be lower because with all costs having to be borne by the person who makes the choice as to the method of transportation and the technique of developing business, he will tend to favour the lower cost alternative wherever one exists.
The interesting thing is that quite often as we look at the transportation system of this country we find that taxpayer subsidies instead of user charges have often had a counter-
Restraint of Government Expenditures developmental tendency, that is to say, they have actually, as John Bullock tends to say, discouraged small businesses and enterprise, and quite often they have encouraged the movement of goods out of Canada in bulk or unprocessed form. It would be better if these goods were processed in areas where, according to our policies aimed at developing remote areas such as the north, the west and the Atlantic area of this country, we would like the employment to be.
I therefore ask hon. members to recognize this problem as an assurance regarding the movement of our flour, about which they were concerned, and to see the advantage of taking this further step in removing an artificial subsidy on transportation which has had the impact of producing higher transportation costs than required for the movement of Canadian products, and therefore a net loss for all Canadians.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate on Bill C-19 1 want to say, first of all, that I lend my support to the very timely remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), especially those portions of his remarks that dealt with the history of this bill as it relates to Bill C-87. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), in making the remarks which he just completed, did not make the same comparison. I am sure that it would have been very helpful in sustaining a much more knowledgeable debate on this subject, and the remarks on flour milling which he just enunciated and which evidently related to a meeting with the Canadian National Millers' Association, I presume today, would have been very much appreciated by all of us who are deeply concerned about this subject if they had been made much earlier.
However, I want to proceed with my comments on this subject. This is a very important piece of legislation, if only because it was carried over from the previous session when it was known as Bill C-87. My remarks will be quite specific and about only two aspects covered by clauses 14 and 15 relating to the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the "at and east" freight rate for grain and flour. The western grain stabilization clause, to quote the explanation in the bill:
. . . would authorize the Minister of Finance to postpone crediting amounts in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Stabilization Account under Section 41 of the Eastern Grain Stabilization Act until a later time, at which time interest would also be credited.
Since this bill claims certain "restraints of government spending", the government obviously feels that this specific clause will indeed do just that. Surely it is quite clear that this device is only a bookkeeping entry which postpones the government's 4 per cent contribution. In the interim this contribution very likely will be spent elsewhere. At least, that seems to be the implied intent. Who knows, maybe it is for promoting the metric system for grain or for some other such project.
The grain stabilization program is a new program which has had its problems being accepted by western grain producers. In spite of the two for one contribution by the government over producers, there are still some 35,000 prairie grain producers
80001 -6 iy2

November 10, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures who have stayed out of this scheme. One of the reasons for this must be a lack of confidence or distrust in the concept and, of course, in the government. Certainly clause 14 seems to promote such distrust. Why should farmers not ask for the same postponement deal for them? Why not credit their 2 per cent share to their account and allow them to use the money elsewhere? I think that makes sense, if the other proposal does.
I want to devote most of my comments to clause 15 of this bill. There are only eight words in this clause which are: "Section 272 of the Railway Act is repealed". What a story there is behind those eight words! The clause would abolish the subsidy on the movement of export flour and grain through eastern ports and lift the freeze for grain rates set at 1960 levels, and for flour rates set at 1966 levels. If permitted, this action would strike very close to home for me.
The flour milling industry was one of the earliest in my home city of Medicine Hat, in southern Alberta. It was at its peak some 20 years ago, although it started in the early part of this century. There were three thriving flour mills in Medicine Hat employing about 300 people. There were also secondary jobs, mostly in transportation. Now, thanks to the falloff in export demand for flour, our local production is off by perhaps 30 per cent, and now the industry employs only about 150 people. One of the three mills has been closed for a number of years. It may or may not be significant that this mill which has been closed, is presently being converted into a combination hotel and pub. What a solid foundation and structure it will have! No doubt its name will include the phrase "Old Mill" or some other connotation of that. I am not downgrading Medicine Hat's newest hotel and pub, and I am sure it will be a successful venture, but the point is that, with the removal of these "at and east" flour rates, our two remaining flour mills may face this same option.
This proposal would hurt western flour mills the worst, since their products must be transported to the east coast for final export shipments, mostly to Cuba. Our western mills would be hurt on a year-round basis, not just in winter when the Seaway is closed.
Canada's flour exports have been dropping consistently for the last 20 years, in spite of an increase in world demand for flour. That increase in world demand is up by over 50 per cent. In 1954 Canadian millers were exporting about 20,142,824 cwts. of flour annually. By 1975 these exports were down to about 8,426,370 cwts., and that is considerably more than 50 per cent. During this same interval the number of active Canadian flour mills dropped off from a peak of 78 to the current 31. This dramatic downturn in Canadian flour production and export is due mainly to subsidy policies of foreign governments, especially the United States and the European Economic Community.
With the exception of these "at and east" rates Canada has chosen not to give further assistance to our flour milling industry. In addition, Canadian export flour always has had to contend with higher seaboard costs compared with our chief competitor, the United States.

The repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act represents increased railway rates from $17.64 to $22.05 per metric ton on flour exports, and that, in the opinion of the Canadian National Millers' Association, and I quote, "will virtually guarantee the speedy demise of Canada's already eroded export flour trade", and even more so, that of our western flour mills.
If this proposed action to bring an end to the "at and east" freight rates is an example of the user pay concept of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), then it is most apparent that this action will impose a cruel hardship on a small sector of our total Canadian industry, which is completely unwarranted and very shortsighted.
The 1961 statutory flour rates were established for four principal reasons: first, to encourage the continued use of existing eastern seaports; second, to help keep Canadian flour mills competitive in world markets; third, to complement, promote, and assist in the expansion of Canada's grain industry, especially in western Canada; and fourth, to benefit our entire Canadian economy with obvious spinoff benefits, not the least of which is improving Canada's balance of trade position with regard to our manufactured goods.
Fifteen years later these same reasons are still every bit as valid as they were back in 1961. Surely in its zeal for restraint of government spending this portion of the bill cannot really be considered as such because of the total net effect it will have on loss of production and loss of jobs to our entire economy, and let us not forget the loss of what is left of our export flour markets. That is why I say the policy is short-sighted. Russia has made it clear that in its opinion, even before this bill becomes law, Canada is no longer competitive in world markets. The Russians have also indicated they will look elsewhere for Cuba's flour supply or, as another alternative, will finance their own flour mills in Cuba. In any event, the result for Canada is less export demand for our flour which is produced by an industry that worked at only 76.6 per cent of its capacity in the 1975 crop year. I would think the biggest part of that shortage in capacity is in the flour mills in western Canada.
We should not overlook another aspect of the implications of this freight rate increase. The new higher rates will be commercial tariff rates, not subject to the same government scrutiny as are the existing compensatory rates.
In his contribution to the debate last Friday the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) said the Minister of Transport would be contributing to the debate later, and indeed we have just heard him. The parliamentary secretary said that the minister would explain to the opposition, and to the industry, the details which have been worked out to provide a more sensible, economic, and effective method of dealing with the problems of th milling industry. It is unfortunate that these remarks were not made at the beginning of the debate, for rather obvious reasons.
The minister has just finished saying that the net effect of these would be perhaps to lower the cost of transportation to
November 10, 1976

the Canadian people. I wonder at what expense. If it means the demise of the flour milling industry in western Canada, and I see this possibility, then it is a short-sighted policy. 1 am sure there are ongoing discussions on this important matter with the Canadian National Millers' Association, and the minister indicated that. 1 hope that when the bill goes before the standing committee the association will be called so that we can hear their evidence on why the Canadian flour industry cannot continue to compete with export subsidies offered by other countries when ours are being eliminated.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is appropriate to point out an inconsistency between the probable net result of clause 15, if implemented, and the recent proposal for future action by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) when he announced a $358 million program to stimulate future employment some time next year. Surely clause 15 would have just the opposite effect-that of reducing employment in the flour milling industry and other ancillary activities. I have to come to the conclusion that clause 1 5 should be deleted from the bill.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take much of the time of the House this afternoon, but I was prompted to try to get in a few minutes on the particular subject discussed by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) who just spoke. Before doing so, however, may I make a few general remarks.
I am continually amazed when hon. members opposite from all parties, but particularly the official opposition, speak with great expression of concern about government spending, overspending, waste, spillage, and so on. When we come to deal with that general question, however, as we do in a bill like C-19, they can see nothing right or proper in it. They speak with forked tongues, as the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) says.
This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker, and is of concern to all members regardless of their political affiliation. It is important that the tax dollars we spend are well spent. A bill of this kind affords an opportunity to review some of our programs. It is always painful to reduce or delete a government program, whether it is the Company of Young Canadians or any other. There are many good things to be said for the expenditures as well as the criticism of them.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat referred to two subjects that I should like to deal with briefly. One is the fact that through this bill the government's contribution to the Grain Stabilization Fund will be deferred. He was correct when he pointed out that there is absolutely no change in the government's obligation to make payments into that fund. I do not think it is a fair comparison to say, as perhaps farmers can justifiably say, "Why do you not do the same thing with our 2 per cent?" On the one hand we are talking about a government commitment in the legislation to double the total producer contribution into the fund each year and we are asking, in trying to find government revenues and put them to best
Restraint of Government Expenditures use, for the right to defer those payments. There is certainly no question about the government's obligation in this respect.
Perhaps my hon. friend would agree that the time may not be very distant when we might be making payments out of that fund in view of the current price of wheat. I am glad there is a stabilization plan in effect that will help meet that situation, when and if we run into it, as we have in the past. The clouds on the horizon indicate we might be back in that situation sooner than we would like. The government's obligation has not changed in any way, however.
I regret that more than 30,000 western producers have decided to opt out of the plan. I do not put that down to the fact that farmers are not prepared to accept the trust or confidence of this government; however, they have been listening to some of the chatter and nonsense in the discussions that led up to this bill, although I certainly cannot say that of the hon. member for Medicine Hat. Many members of the NDP and provincial NDP governments, however, have belittled the government's effort to shore up the grain farming industry in the west. If a number of farmers are opting out I would say it is due to the kind of negativism that preceded the debate on the grain stabilization bill.
The other point raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat referred to the "at and east" rates and what is happening to the flour milling industry in eastern Canada, and the downgrading of that industry that has taken place over the years in western Canada. I am sure he is much more familiar with this matter than I, but I have seen mills close in Saskatoon over the last few years and certainly that is a concern of the government as well as of my hon. friend. I do not see how the "at and east" rates could influence that one way or the other, however. It cannot in western Canada. I suspect my hon. friend had his speech written on the subject before he came into the House.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), in response to a question of legitimate concern raised by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) in his remarks, spelled out that a subsidy will be paid to the milling industry to make sure it will not be harmed. Further, I suggest that the present method of subsidy payment which involves several seemingly unnecessary stops in the movement of the grain from western Canada is not a method the hon. member for Medicine Hat would wish to see continued, since it rules out further possibilities. For instance, I am going to Rosetown on Friday to attend, with many others, the opening of a new inland terminal. I know that this subject will raise political arguments with my hon. friends opposite; but it represents a new, innovative approach, and a different way of doing something. We shall try using the new system and are looking at it. Under the "at and east" rates there is no room for that kind of operation to succeed at any point.
I hope the hon. member for Medicine Hat will review the remarks of the Minister of Transport this afternoon, reconsider his own position and agree with me that in deleting that

November 10, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
particular section of the Railway Act we are not harming the milling industry of eastern Canada or western Canada but are attempting to apply the subsidy in a different way, in a manner which will not rule out other methods of operation.
I suggest that members from western Canada on both sides of the House will support a concept providing for the direct shipment of grain to Saint John and Halifax during the winter months. The Canadian Wheat Board and the railways have such a concept in mind. If that kind of grain movement is viable, surely members on both sides of the House want to encourage the Wheat Board and the railways to bring the trains into operation, hopefully before the year is over. Let us try some innovations and try to get a better return for the subsidies we pay in transport. Hopefully we shall be able to do some new things which will bring better and beneficial results to users at the western end of the system, and shippers, and to receivers at the other end, be they domestic consumers or exporters.
I hope hon. members opposite will support the proposals put forward this afternoon. I am sure the hon. member for Halifax will after he reads Hansard, for I am certain the measures we are considering deserve his support.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of Bill C-19 on second reading gives us a chance to discuss specific recommendations the government has brought forward in this omnibus bill, and a chance to criticize government expenditures.
At the outset of my remarks let me say that the subsidy for flour is not well understood, one reason being the change in the rules whereby consideration of estimates was taken out of this House. I think this bill could have been discussed with greater accuracy and knowledge if the estimates had been considered in this House. As it is they are considered in committee, and the committee is a government organ. Further, in committee one cannot examine adequately all government spending, and it is impossible for the opposition to pin ministers or officials down in a way which was possible in previous years.
Remember, this bill deals with relatively minuscule amounts of money. This is all the more apparent if one remembers that the three levels of government in this country spend over 50 per cent of our Gross National Product. We hear much talk of emotional issues like bilingualism but forget that federal government spending is responsible for a great deal of the divisiveness apparent in the country at present. Government policies have harmed the financial stance of this country and imposed serious strains on confederation. As I say, much of our divisiveness is the result of Ottawa's attempt to impose a uniform level of health, welfare, and education on this country. There has been an attempt at income redistribution, as is evident if one examines the family allowances program. The government felt that in theory every person should be entitled to the same level of social services across the country. The theory has not worked well and has created stresses and strains in Canadian confederation.
(Mr. McIsaac.J
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has just returned from Japan, suggests that we need increased trade; he also suggested that after the government had laid the groundwork it was up to business people to take over. Considering that all levels of government take more than 50 per cent of our Gross National Product in taxes, some of which they try to redistribute, and considering that Crown corporations like Air Canada, Canadian National, provincial hydro commissions, Petro-Canada and others all have a big stake in how this country is run, the emphasis the Prime Minister places on what private enterprise can do is amusing.
It has been said that if any government of a country takes through taxes more than 35 per cent of Gross National Product the free market in that country will not function. We see an example in the United Kingdom where the standard of living has been forced down because of the breakdown of the economy. This in turn will lead to lower productivity which will be reflected in a still lower standard of living for all in that country.
If I may turn to family allowances, I note an article in a recent edition of the Financial Post datelined Ottawa which suggests that top people in the Income Tax Department, under the direction of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the deputy minister, are looking at the federal government's income transfer programs to decide which ones can be removed or transferred to the income tax system. It is hoped that this might curtail the large number of bureaucracies required to administer existing social programs. The idea is that Canadians would become their own bureaucrats, as it were, by virtue of a new set of deductions; and that those earning too little to pay tax would receive a direct payment from the government.
Although the article suggests that all aspects of transfer payments are being considered, it is obvious that the government has narrowed its consideration. For instance, perhaps through the tax system it could provide an oil subsidy for low income people; or money could be provided mainly for family allowances and old age pensions. Perhaps this amendment to the Family Allowances Act is the forerunner of some such provision.
When the white paper on taxation was debated, Ontario suggested tax shelters for poor people but the government of the day was not susceptible to such arguments or did not view them with favour. Theoretically, although such a program might slash several billion dollars from federal government spending, the program would not be without its costs. There might be some saving in reality, but the net costs of the program would still need to be met. The only saving that would come about would be a saving in bureaucracy. What the plan really looks at is whether there would be a form of guaranteed income or tax credit to give the impression that great savings are being made. This runs into problems at the time of elections when governments like to give out goodies in the way of new programs. At the present time the government is under fire for spending too much.
November 10, 1976

I want to detail some of the problems of a negative income tax or a minimum income such as has been proposed. In my town there was a joint dominion-provincial plan whereby the residents were given a minimum income. After careful analysis of families, the two governments paid a supplementary income to those who were employed in order that they might have an acceptable standard of living. This was an interesting experiment, and it certainly had its problems. According to newspaper reports, the federal government cancelled the program. There was also a pilot project in the north end of Winnipeg. Most pilot projects were cancelled after the government spent a reputed $ 17 million, according to press reports.
While there are many unfortunate social events flowing out of a minimum income, as I observed it in my community, it is too bad it was terminated before a final decision could be made and the test project analyzed as to the effects of giving a guaranteed income to a controlled group of people. A scientific assessment could have been made of the project.
It is interesting to observe a minimum income project. In the one which I observed there was a definite upgrading of the standard of living for those on low income. As I understand it, in order to qualify you could not be on welfare, but working a good part of the time. Some people left full time jobs for part time employment. Others, faced with the prospect of losing unemployment insurance benefits and a minimum income reduced the amount of their part time work in order to continue enjoying the benefits. Labour was somewhat scarce for unattractive jobs such as pick and shovel jobs, or other jobs people did not want because they were dirty, messy, or at the low end of the work schedule. It allowed people to have a higher standard of living without increasing their production or income.
One of the obvious problems in a rural area in particular was how to deal with the self employed. It seemed difficult. As I understood the official report, it was difficult to assess the income of self employed people. Money could be earned through the sale of produce. Income could be gained by making sales in the names of other members of the family and not reporting this. An enormous amount of administration was required. It is unfortunate that the program was terminated before the scientific results could be ascertained.
The financial outlook for this country, and indeed for the western world, is serious. This was voiced by Mr. Arthur Smith when speaking in Winnipeg last week. He suggested there is more than an even chance for a severe economic slump. The present upturn is weak and we could well slide back to an economic depression. He suggested that Canada would suffer more than most other countries because it is in a generally very weak domestic and international economic position.
Conflicting views of the economic outlook are causing growing uncertainties amongst consumers, businessmen, and government officials. Further, gloom is spreading in the business and financial centres of Europe over the prospect of the world economy to tackle the problems of debt management, sluggish
Restraint of Government Expenditures growth, and rising unemployment. Britain and Italy with their problems are little worse off than a whole series of industrialized countries such as France, Denmark, Ireland, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.
The poor nations of the developing world are in even worse shape with a mountain of $135 billion in debts and no one can see how this can be paid back. It has been suggested that if the debts to the private banks are not forgiven, there could well be a collapse.
I wish to speak for a moment about grain stabilization. This bill seeks a delay on putting money into the fund. It has been stated that 30,000 wheat board permit holders have opted out of the plan. This is because it has not been on a person-to-person basis. It can be said that any farmer likely to retire within five to ten years has little to gain by staying in the plan. That may be wrong, but I say to the parliamentary secretary that this concern has been voiced to me many times. The plan is seen as an over-all plan for communities and the economy at large.
If a farmer is not in a wheat growing area, and if wheat is not the main grain which he is growing, he is faced with the problem of payment for his grains, primarily barley, wheat and flax, which may be quite remunerative, being made on the basis of how the industry fares with regard to how much it grows and what it sells for, if it does sell.
If the plan had been for the individual, and I see no reason why it could not have been, many more people would have been willing to accept it. For those nearing the end of their farming career, the plan provides little way of getting their money out when they retire. This is one of the major difficulties in connection with the plan.
Second, stabilization plans are made in advance on the basis of past experience; when the time comes to use them they are often found to be deficient, circumstances having changed. We find this happening in the case of grain stabilization arrangements. The $25,000 limit applicable to an individual under grain stabilization is not nearly sufficient, and unless it is raised the reaction of many farmers will be less than favourable.
I should like to mention now a development in the selling of grain which is causing considerable comment in the farm community. The grain stabilization program is, of course, vitally concerned. The Wheat Board, in its assessment of selling prospects for the coming year, concluded that the opportunities available to us were pretty slim. In these circumstances the board made special sales to the private grain trade, there being few government-to-government contracts available-the outlook for sales to the Chinese and to the Russians did not seem very promising; perhaps the Chinese, preoccupied with the changes taking place within their political system, are waiting before they buy. In any case it is reported that forward sales covering 165 million bushels were made to private grain traders at a low price of around $3.75 a bushel. But the private grain trade has hedged. The grain is still in the elevators and

November 10, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
on the farms. The traders are betting that the price of grain will rise.
It is significant that the sales are made by Canada on the exchanges in Chicago and Kansas City, taking advantage of facilities in those places which are not available to the Wheat Board in this country. But it is not possible for dealers to hedge without a cost being incurred. The profit will be made by those who took the hedge. Supposedly the Wheat Board sold on the market to preserve the price. However, the action of the board had the effect of lowering the price of wheat on the Chicago market where prices are largely set.
I notice that Mr. Kristjanson, one of the commissioners, suggested that United States traders were too pessimistic with regard to the price likely to be paid for wheat on world markets in the coming year. But, surely the Wheat Board was pessimistic when it sold almost one third of its normal deliveries on the private market, an action which appears to contribute a significant departure from normal Wheat Board practice. The course followed by the Wheat Board is one of great interest. It means that the board is using directly, or more likely indirectly, the facilities of the Chicago and Kansas City grain exchanges. For those who are interested in orderly marketing this process seems to be at odds with the stated aims of the board. I am looking forward to hearing an explanation from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
Speaking of the flour subsidy I will say only that the events surrounding it are an illustration of what happens when we try to upgrade resources. According to what some people tell us, the best thing for Canada would be to export our flour in the form of baked goods and sliced bread. But we cannot do that, as we have now found out. We have gradually lost our markets for flour over the years because one of the first things countries do when they become industrialized is set up flour mills and grind their own grain. Some economists, as I have just mentioned, assert that we should export only products which have been upgraded. The lesson with respect to flour is a timely one. I followed with interest what the minister had to say on this subject and, for my own part, I hope we can keep our flour exports at a satisfactory level because, during periods of slow wheat sales, income from sales of flour has been of great benefit to western farmers.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us outlines various changes to implement the government's restraint program announced some time ago. I want to speak about a number of those changes, two in particular. I want to call attention to what I consider to be a blatant lack of leadership by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in ensuring restraint in this country and also to another one of his policies, namely, the subsidy referred to by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), the "at and east" rates.
We have heard a great deal about restraint in the last few years. There was the anti-inflation program brought down by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his now famous Thanksgiving evening address. There are now to be changes in a whole series of programs, the stopping of indexation in family allowances, the elimination of Information Canada, cuts in the

LIP program, the OFY program and the like. We also have a minister of transportation-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Minister of Transport.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We also have a Minister of Transport-and this is very relevant because it deals with the "at and east" rates and it deals with the farm stabilization bill-who is talking about the user-pay concept in the transportation field. He is saying that those who use a transportation vehicle, be it a train, a plane or what have you, should pay for it; they should not be subsidized. He is talking about scaling down the Crow rates which subsidize the movement of western grain. This bill eliminates section 272 of the Railway Act and would eliminate a subsidy called the "at and east" rates, a move which could hurt people in the Atlantic provinces.
All this comes from a minister who is not setting a very good example to the rest of the country, a minister who in the last three years has spent some $742,000 on government aeroplanes, a minister who has cost the taxpayers more than any other minister in the cabinet by flying around on government aeroplanes whether Viscounts or jet aircraft. That type of thing warrants a few words when we, are talking about restraint and about a bill introduced by a minister who intends to eliminate programs which affect citizens in my constituency and, indeed, right across the country.
I do not think the minister had to spend so much money in flying around the country. He, like other ministers and party leaders, possesses a first class air pass enabling him to fly anywhere in Canada if he wishes. He has not only flown long distances in government aircraft, he has flown short distances as well. Some people say, and I agree, that on long flights, from here to Vancouver, for example, the minister should perhaps travel in a government plane where he could confer with his aides or study something important in terms of government policy. I do not argue with that but I would think when a minister makes a short flight, such as between here and Montreal or Toronto, there is no reason in the world, provided commercial flights are available-and there are many between here and Toronto and Montreal-that any minister should have to fly there on a government Jetstar.
I wish to take a few minutes to place on the record these figures which I think are scandalous. I have here a return to the questions asked by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), who I think did the country a great favour in placing these questions on the order paper. There was a flight made on May 26, 1976, from Ottawa to Montreal on a Jetstar. This flight to Montreal and back cost $1,212. I heard the minister talking about buses and people travelling on buses. If he is going to advise the ordinary citizen to travel on buses why does he not do some of that himself between here and Montreal? Then on July 21, 1976, the minister went from here to St. Catharines on a Jetstar at a cost of $1,853. The next is
November 10, 1976

September in the same year when the minister flew from here to Toronto on a Jetstar at a cost of $1,940.


Walter David Baker: That is cash, not Chargex.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As the hon. member says, that is cash and not Chargex, and this minister has a pass on Air Canada. You no sooner get in the air and have a drink and a sandwich before you land in Toronto or Montreal. There is no reason why the minister would need a private executive jet to make that flight, especially when he talks about restraint. This minister shows the least restraint of any Canadian. I think that is totally repugnant.
There is another flight from here all the way to Montreal on a Viscount on August 1, 1975, at a cost of $1,235. Then there is another flight on November 10, 1975, between Ottawa and Montreal and Toronto at a cost of $2,745. Yet there are dozens of flights back and forth between these two cities, as well as plenty of trains and buses. We then have January 14, 1976. This time it is a flight from Ottawa to Montreal on a Viscount at a cost of $1,235.
Then we have the super flight which took place on February 25, 1976. I am sure all hon. members will be interested in this one. This is a flight from Ottawa to Toronto on a Viscount at a cost of $8,027. This is a flight to Toronto and back by the Minister of Transport when there are many commercial flights going to Toronto and when he could have saved the taxpayers several thousands of dollars on a 50-minute flight. I think that is totally scandalous and something every Canadian should be ashamed of in respect of a minister of the Crown who is supposed to be a leader in the country.
There then is another flight on March 24, 1976, from Ottawa to Toronto in a Viscount at a cost of $1,958. There is another on April 23, 1974, again from Ottawa to Toronto costing $2,105. Again on August 28, 1974, there is another flight to Toronto on a Viscount at a cost of $2,175. On November 22, 1974, there is a flight from Ottawa to Toronto on a Viscount at a cost of $2,105, and another on December 10, 1974, Ottawa-Montreal, again a ridiculously short haul, at a cost to the taxpayers of $1,375. On December 27, 1974, a flight is listed from Ottawa to Toronto at a cost of $1,810, and another on January 31, 1975 Ottawa-Toronto, at a cost of $1,620. Again on January 16, 1975, we have Ottawa-Toronto at a cost of $1,957.
These are actual expenditures as tabled in the House by the departmental people in the Department of Transport in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Leeds. Here is a minister who is telling us that the users should pay the cost of transportation, and who is saying to the farmers that the Crowsnest rates which are important to western farmers probably have to go, and who says in this bill that the "at and east" rates have to go in terms of shipments of flour and wheat from central and western Canada to the Atlantic provinces. I do not think that is good enough for a minister of the Crown. I think this minister is being very hypocritical and dishonest with the people of this country.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
Not only do we have these short flights which, as I said, the minister could have done on a commercial jet, taking his aides along with him and saving thousands of dollars, but we also have several flights taken by this minister which have cost the country over $10,000. First of all, on March 13, 1976, there is a flight from Ottawa to Toronto and Vancouver on a Jetstar at a cost of $1 1,233. We have another on July 15, 1976, from Ottawa to Saskatoon to Edmonton to Saskatoon on a Viscount at a cost of $12,180. The minister flopped around from Saskatoon to Edmonton and back to Saskatoon. One is only up in the air long enough to have a sandwich and a drink from the time one leaves Saskatoon until one lands in Edmonton, and the same thing going back. Yet the minister spent $12,180 of the taxpayer's money when he had a pass on Air Canada and could have taken his aides with him on a commercial flight and saved thousands of dollars for the people of this country. That is bad enough, but it becomes worse when this minister preaches restraint and suggests to the farmers that the user should pay the total cost of the transportation bill.
1 could go on and on listing the flights the minister has taken at public expense. We have one on August 24, 1975, when the minister flew from Saskatoon to Quebec City on a Jetstar at a cost of $13,900. As I said at the beginning, it has cost about three quarters of a million dollars in the last three years to fly this minister across the country. He is the most extravagant minister in the House of Commons. There are many ministers across the way who are very frugal in respect of the use of government aircraft. I have seen many ministers travel on Air Canada.


Mr. Orlikow:: The former minister of national defence always flew on a regular aircraft.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes. Other ministers often fly on regular aircraft. This minister thinks that his time is valuable. Perhaps it is valuable. 1 would agree with that, but I do not think the taxpayers should shell out a quarter of a million dollars a year for the minister's time even if it is valuable. I do not think he should spend $7,000 on a weekend in Saskatoon when he could use his pass to travel on Air Canada. If the government wishes the people of Canada to take it seriously, surely it should start showing some leadership.
The members of the government should set an example in the way they conduct themselves and their own affairs. I realize that most ministers across the House conduct themselves in this way.


Walter David Baker: In their private lives certainly they are very frugal.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, and I think most of them in their public affairs are very frugal. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), after going on a Seagram's plane, learned a lesson. I understand that now he mostly flies on commercial flights.
966

November 10, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
I wish the Minister of Transport would learn from some of his colleagues how to conduct himself. I want to point out that not only could he have flown to Saskatoon by air and brought a few aides with him and saved several thousands of dollars a trip, but for a $7,000 bill for travelling between Ottawa and Saskatoon and back you could go 75 times by passenger train from Ottawa to Saskatoon and back.


Mr. MacFarlane:: How many times have you gone by train?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I often travel by train. I am just drawing an analogy.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Nobody goes by train these distances since Stanley went 100 years ago.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would like to ask whether any member in this House can justify the Minister of Transport on any other minister going by Jetstar from here to Montreal and return. If any member can justify that, I invite him to rise and speak now. The Minister of Transport has done that time and time again. You could almost run to Montreal, and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) could do so in a couple of hours, or you could travel by bus in two hours, and certainly you could run in two or three hours.
Here is this guy who talks about restraint and who says to my farmers that the Crowsnest rates will probably have to go, and who tells them that the user should pay the total cost of transportation, setting the most extravagant example of any minister. I say to hon. members that Jimmy Carter, the president-elect of the U.S., had the chance to take a government aircraft to his vacation spot a few weeks ago, but he said that was not proper and he was going to pay his own way when on vacation because he was not going on official government business. If that is the practice in the United States, why cannot the ministers in this government set that type of example to our people? It is beyond me why they cannot.
Perhaps I could make one more point on that subject. Some of the trips that the Minister of Transport has made are not, in my humble opinion, on government business. Last weekend he addressed a meeting of young Liberals in Saskatchewan. I understand that that type of thing has happened in the past. When he addresses a partisan political meeting of either young or old Liberals, that proportion of the flight should be paid by the minister or by the Liberal Party of Canada. If he has four meetings and one is with Liberals, the party should pay for one quarter of the cost. That would be fair.
The other point I wanted to make is that under this bill there will be a repeal of "at and east" rates. This is the rate that deals with shipment by rail of grain and flour from the Georgian Bay elevators and other elevators in Ontario to the city of Halifax and the city of Saint John in New Brunswick. The movement involves about 30 million bushels of western grain per year at a cost, in the form of a subsidy, of about $11 million to the federal government. This works out to a subsidy of about 33 cents per bushel of wheat.

There are many effects this may have on both the prairie economy and the economy in the Atlantic provinces. First of all, the Canadian Wheat Board, because of the lack of a subsidy, may halt all rail shipments from inland ports to Atlantic ports during the winter months, and they will do it because of the straight economics of moving that grain.
Second, a loss of business and employment in the elevators in Halifax and Saint John will result. We all know that the Atlantic provinces have a high rate of unemployment. The Halifax elevator is owned by the government, but CPR which owns the Saint John elevator is expected to close it down.
Finally, elevators at Georgian Bay will be put out of business since the storage and forwarding of western grain is their major source of income. It will also create additional difficulties for the Canadian Wheat Board in meeting export targets.
While the federal government people say that the Canadian Wheat Board will off-set the discontinuation of shipments in the winter months through Atlantic ports by increased shipments through Vancouver, it is obvious that in years of high volume exports the west coast ports area is already strained to capacity. Second, it does not seem reasonable to ship western grains destined for Europe through Vancouver. It would seem therefore that from now on shipments of grain to Europe will be interrupted for three months or more each year.
For reasons such as these, reasons which I think will cause difficulties to the prairie farmers and the prairie economy, and which will cause unemployment in areas where these elevators are located, particularly in Halifax and Saint John, I hope the government will reconsider the provision in the bill which deals with "at and east" rates.
In conclusion I want to say that a number of other members in my caucus have talked about other aspects of the bill before me, or will be doing so in the days to come. But I want to say that if the government seriously expects the Canadian people to support the anti-inflation program, it must start showing leadership in the House. The Minister of Transport himself must start acting like an adult, not like a little child with a toy. He has to show some leadership in the House. If that is done, then perhaps more Canadians will have confidence in the government and will not be as cynical about the political system that we have in our country. It is the type of example set by the Minister of Transport that makes people really cynical about the federal government and federal institutions. This country is too important to me and to all of us in the House for us to allow it to fall apart for reasons such as I have stated today, for lack of leadership and lack of a good example.
There are many other things that could be referred to and about which other hon. members in my party will be talking. One of them is the unemployment rate which is very high. This means that there should be more stimulation in the economy and that the government should show leadership in that direction, which it is not doing.
My time is running out, Mr. Speaker, so I will take my seat and listen to the speeches of other hon. members in the hope
November 10, 1976

that the Minister of Transport will perhaps rise and apologize to the House for his conduct, and perhaps one of the members opposite will take up my challenge and speak up on whether or not he thinks the minister should be using a private government jet to fly from here to Montreal and back.


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to enter this debate to support this bill which seeks authority for the government in specific ways to restrain its own expenditure program and to reduce it in certain items. I do not propose to debate the relative merits of this or that item which is being restrained, nor the over-all size of the restraint program so far as it is expressed in government expenditures.
There is no doubt that the restraint and reductions by this government are important elements in the battle against inflation and in giving the private sector confidence that the total program is going to work, because government expenditures are one of the main elements that have to be brought under control in order to rebuild that confidence.
There is no doubt that the restraint in government spending is taking hold and 1 would like to give the House some evidence of that. First, there is the $1.5 billion of expenditures less than had been planned. Second, there is the holding of hirings in the federal civil service to levels well below the growth of total employment in our economy, levels of 1.5 per cent increase in this fiscal year and 1 per cent increase in the next fiscal year. These are evidences of a serious intent to reduce the size of the claims of this government on the economy.
Again, the total expenditures of this government in the current fiscal year are estimated to grow by 13 per cent. That is at the same rate as the general economy. That is a significant reduction over previous recent periods, and the total expenditures in our next fiscal period are scheduled to grow at an 11 per cent increase. That also will be at or, indeed, below the increase in the general economy. I cite these as evidences of the serious intent to get the government's share of the economy under control and to hold it under control.
The main points I want to make this evening are that these measures will not be sufficient in themselves to rebuild longterm confidence that the total size of the public sector, as reflected in government spending, will, over the long term, be contained and grow at no greater rates than the economy. To put it another way, confidence requires that the size of the government's claim on the economy will be of no greater proportion than the increase in the total economy; that is, it will have to come out of increased productivity. Why is there not that confidence today? If I can give a few figures, I think it will be somewhat clearer. What is the record of the past ten years? I want to cite only a few figures.
If we go back ten years to fiscal year 1965-66 we find that the total outlays of the federal government were $9.4 billion. Seven years later, in fiscal year 1972-73, they were $20 billion, and three years later, in the fiscal year just ended, they were
Restraint of Government Expenditures $37.3 billion. In the fiscal year in which we now find ourselves they are expected to be over $42 billion. There is here a 10-year growth from $9.4 billion to $42 billion.
How do we cope with these kinds of magnitudes? Let us relate these figures to the total economy. Let us consider the government's expenditures as a percentage of the gross national economy. Ten years ago, in the years I have quoted, the federal government was spending 17 per cent of total expenditures. That rose to 19.1 per cent three years ago and to 23.1 per cent in the previous fiscal year. Through this restraint program it is stabilizing at 23 per cent. However, over the 10-year period the proportion of the Gross National Product spent or taken by this government rose from 17 per cent to 23 per cent. That in itself is one of the factors behind the unwillingness to have confidence in the government, even though it has entered, in a short-term sense, into a restraint program.
The actual increases I have mentioned are readily accounted for. They do not come about just by slippage or lack of efficiency; they do not come about by lack of design; they are the result of deliberate policy choices that we in parliament made and which we on this side of the House supported. So the question is not simply one of not being able to manage. It is a question of deliberately letting the state, for certain policy reasons, take a larger share of the economy.
What were the basic elements in the increase? In the seven years from 1965 to 1972 the government's share grew by 2 percentage points of the national economy. That increase can be accounted for totally by the following three programs: hospitals and medicare, which grew by 0.9 per cent of the economy; old age security and guaranteed income supplement, where we did make the choice that we should increase pensions and index them to the cost of living, and that accounts for 0.7 percentage points of the 2.1 per cent increase; and the third major factor is the equalization payments to the provinces which increased by 0.5 per cent of the total 2.1 per cent increase.
Hospitals and medicare, pensions, and equalization payments to the provinces, which in turn go to the people, are the three programs which account for the growing size of this government's expenditures in that 7-year period. All those increases were payments to people, and not many of us would say that we should not have made them.
In the next three years, the three years which come down to the year which has just ended as a fiscal year, the growth in government spending was four percentage points, a much greater rate of increase than the 2.1 per cent increase in the previous seven years. The major share of this increase was taken by programs which are readily accountable for. We all know how oil transfer payments worked. The export tax on exports to the United States was levied. It flowed through this government's treasury and was paid out to equalize the price of imported oil into the eastern part of Canada, but it reflects a rate of increase in our expenditures. Family allowances accounted for another half of one per cent, and we know that those family allowances trebled in the 10-year period from
80001-62*/2

November JO, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures $600 million to $1.9 billion. We trebled those family allowances as a policy initiative, of which we are all very proud, and we indexed them to the cost of living.
Revenue guarantees to the provinces account for another major share of the increase, and the unemployment insurance program accounts for 0.5 percentage points of the total of four percentage points. Agricultural programs, the investments we had to make in energy exploration through Petro-Canada and other means, and the investments we are making in better housing for Canadians are all legitimate areas of concern, and they are readily accounted for.
I wanted to say these things because the matters I want to put before the House now are not related to the temporary or passing phases of stabilization effected by moving government expenditures up and down but are related more to the longer term assurances-and ways of giving credibility to those assurances-that this thing is not going to keep growing and growing and growing as a bigger part of the economy without cease, the assurances that even if we are now restraining, the general movement is not going to reassert itself. 1 want to mention three or four ways in which I think we could usefully address ourselves to that problem.
First, I will remind hon. members, if they will allow me, that on October 14 in this House I argued that we in parliament do not effectively control the growth of government spending.


Walter David Baker: Right on, Martin.


Mr. O'Connell:: We should not delude ourselves that in those standing committees where we consider estimates we are really controlling government spending. I have made proposals, and I know there is support on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has made some very interesting proposals with regard to how we might do a better job in this House. I remind the House that I suggested a 5-year expenditure forecast, that is, looking ahead, and a related five years review of the past so we can have an overview of what is happening over a 10-year stretch. Then we can consider whether we think it is moving ahead too quickly. I suggest a single committee to carry out surveillance over government spending rather than fragmenting our view of it in the 20 or more standing committees that now consider it. I will not dwell any longer on that role which I think parliament itself should be performing better.
Let me turn now to collective bargaining. The general advice that has been given to government by economists over the past generation, stemming from the economic theories of Lord Keynes, has been that government can act as the balance wheel in the economy; that it can move its expenditures up, then move them down, and by so doing can level out the fluctuations in the economy that have pervasive social and economic results. That theory has grave limitations. It is relatively easy to increase spending but very difficult to decrease it. There comes to exist a built-in growth factor and the level of increase continues. There is a built-in bias.
I think Lord Keynes and we ourselves neglect the role that collective bargaining, as we practise it, plays in leading the economy into inflation and therefore requiring this kind of reactive and unstable government activity which I think is wrong. It is as if the adversary system of collective bargaining operates outside the economy; as if it takes place on the margins and from time to time gets out of hand.
I want to consider one aspect of collective bargaining that is under our control, and that is public service collective bargaining. Seven or eight years ago we imported into public service bargaining the adversary conflict system that is practised in the private sector. I do not think that system belongs in public service bargaining. One reason is that the government is not an employer like any other. Governments cannot be put out of business. If they are pressed for higher salaries or better conditions and grant them they are not going out of business because they simply turn to the tax system to regain the revenues. They are not in the market where there are constraints that bring discipline to bear on collective bargaining, as is the case in the private sector. The services supplied are often monopoly or essential services and, when disrupted, there is grave injury to the third party, the public, in a sense that does not apply to the private sector.
The rate of increase in public service collective bargaining settlements has been such that recently they have been leading the private sector bargaining to ever higher levels. We must find some way of containing those elements in the inflationary spiral and not rely exclusively on fiscal and monetary techniques or raising and lowering government expenditures.
I should like to propose that we consider an alternative system to the adversary system; a system known as fair comparison with jointly selective outside analogues-that is, employees working in comparable employment in the private sector. I will not describe this in detail, but the principle is socially just and more economically sound than the adversary system now practised which we deliberately brought into the public service. Under the fair comparison principle, public service unions and the government jointly would agree that the compensation for public employees is not what they fight each other for or the maximum they can get, but they agree that what they are seeking is a fair comparison with what employees with similar responsibilities are getting from good employers in the private sector. A pay research bureau would make the comparison.
The system is socially just because our employees would be receiving what good employers are paying, no more and no less. If we pay them more-and we are likely to do that at present because we are not restrained by the market and when there is a disruption in service we are under very severe political pressure to concede-if we pay them more we are in effect taxing employees in comparable positions in the private sector. That means the public sector would lead the private sector to higher and higher levels of compensation, with adverse implications for our international competitive situation. I think I need say no more about the difficulties involved.

November 10, 1976

All I want to suggest as an anti-inflation measure which is socially just and economically sound, is that we move to fair comparison as a basis for collective bargaining in the public service.
Then what about the private sector? 1 do not want to talk about collective bargaining in the private sector in the same way, but I want to suggest that we will be intermittently in and out of controls and in and out of government expenditures if we do not use this year of the controls program to build the consultative institutions that will help us with consensus policies for the future and therefore prevent future blowouts in the economy.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) made some suggestions about consultative institutions and I think his are the very minimal proposals. 1 do not know if they have enough structure in the institutional sense to give credibility to the consultative process which he is proposing. I am going to take a few minutes to suggest that we need consultative mechanisms with more institutional structure to them than the minister has suggested, but since my time is expiring 1 shall just run through them rapidly.
What we require is social and economic consultative council in which business, labour, consumers, agriculture, the scientific and other communities are included, but not the government because the government is going to consult that body. These are the main elements in the economy that should be brought face to face with the facts. But where do they get those facts? Before going on to that, Mr. Speaker, I should say that by law the government should be required to consult such a body and to lay before us in this House the results of that consultation. All these lines should lead back to parliament and not just represent some powerful, organized bodies that are carving up the pie, so to speak.
I suggest that we amend or change the structure and role of the Economic Council of Canada; that in future it be an agency of forecasting and of analysis of the economy; that it include government representation and, by invitation, include provincial government appointees. Looking at the economy as it is performing, considering the policies that are in place, and looking at the potential of the economy, this body would provide data and advice to the consultative council but not necessarily to the government. The Economic Council of Canada now advises government and 1 am suggesting that we alter its position, increase its role, and make it an adviser to the consultative council by providing it with the basic data. It would become a workshop and provide data at which all parties could look.
Third, to return to my basic theme, the public sector is not sufficiently co-ordinated to play its role in a consultative process. Similarly we, in parliament, are not equipped to control government spending; nor are governments able jointly to play their role effectively in the Canadian economy. I say that because of this. We, in this parliament, could adopt one course, the provinces could adopt a contrary course, and each
Restraint of Government Expenditures side could frustrate the programs and policies of the other. Meetings of finance ministers are not enough; the ad hoc meetings of other ministers are not enough. Therefore if we are to make the consultative process credible and enter into dialogue with business, labour, consumers and others, we need to obtain a consensus and then undertake commitments.
Mr. Speaker, we in the public sector are not in a position to fulfil our commitments because we do not have all the levers of government at our disposal. Some of them are dispersed among our provinces. I therefore propose the setting up of a federal-provincial stabilization and growth committee whose members would be senior economic ministers. They would consult among themselves, be the main elements representing government in its dealings with the consultative council, undertake commitments, and seek to co-ordinate the responses of the public sector with those commitments made in the consultative process. Only if we establish some such structure will consultation bring substantive effects.
Hon. members may ask, why consultation? 1 suggest that unless we adopt that kind of approach we shall see collective bargaining driving the economy in various directions, with prices mainly going up; we shall see the government over-utilizing fiscal and monetary policies to cope with that situation; and we shall see government expenditures moving upward and downward. We know that if the economy sags we push expenditures up for economic and social reasons. Once expenditures have risen it is hard to bring them back down. That game is becoming obsolete. If we are to correct it we must adopt the refinement and stabilizing effect of a credible consultative process. At present, any such proposed processes lack structure. I am merely suggesting a few ways in which we can be helpful.
Let me add that I am not discussing tripartism. I am discussing only consultative and not decision-making arrangements. I suggest, however, that there is a place for tripartism in the administration of some of our programs and agencies. For example, the Unemployment Insurance Commission might well be administered by government, business and labour; the same applies to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I could name other programs and agencies with respect to which this could be done.
The question is, why do it? By participating in the implementation of such programs all parties concerned would come to have confidence in themselves. After all, they would be administering that which parliament has already enacted and with respect to which guidelines exist. They would not be making fundamental decisions. By working together the parties would come to know each other and understand the need for restraint.
Again, I suggest that the proposal of the Minister of Labour for more collaboration in the work place is sound. I refer to such things as works councils, co-determination, the making of decisions jointly by labour and management, and sharing in managements' decisions at certain levels. Why is all this important? It would involve the grass roots, where the parties can enter into relationships other than adversary relationships.

November 10, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures At the grass roots all the parties concerned may collaborate for greater productivity. That is where the labour side of the equation takes an interest in the success of an enterprise and where the management side gains some understanding of the concerns of labour. As 1 say, this would happen at the grass roots level where both sides would learn to place confidence in the consultative process and allow central bodies representing them in the major consultative council to negotiate on their behalf.
I am suggesting ways in which consultative institutions and mechanisms could be developed, to give future economic activity greater stability and help to avoid the kinds of destabilizing activities in which we are currently engaged.
My final point is this. The public sector has grown to its present size because in some cases the private sector has not been able to perform certain functions. The greatest challenge we face is giving scope, stability, confidence, and strength to the private sector. Only if that sector grows, prospers, provides jobs and incomes, will we be able to restrain the growth in the public sector. Therefore our policies must encourage productivity. Consultative institutions are the best path we know to increased productivity. They mitigate adversary relationships. They arouse interest in both parties in productivity; they are our means of escaping from an ever-growing public sector.
We cannot afford the notion of slow growth in Canada. Slow growth will mean increasing public sector involvement, something we must face. We need high, sustainable growth if we are to restrain our own roles. We should reject slow growth. I would only add that we are on the wrong tack-1 was going to say pursuing the wrong trade policies, but I will not put it so bluntly. We will need to reexamine our economic policies and focus attention on the private sector, because only if the private sector prospers will we restrain our own role.
In my view the greatest source of economic growth in Canada lies in the west. I am not unsympathetic to those across the aisle who complain about specific items in this restraint program. To me they reflect a basic difficulty in the government's perception of economic opportunities in western Canada. In the processing of commodities for example we see value added. There is an interface between transport and processing. For instance, why do we ship oil seeds to Japan? We shipped 15 million bushels and the Japanese processed the oil seeds and made end products. Are we subsidizing Japanese employment? We ship seed to Japan because it is cheaper to send seed than to send the oil. And in this regard one can discern the interface between raw materials, processing and transportation.
Transportation is the key to unlocking economic development in the west and raising "value added." The same may be said for livestock which is turned into meat, grain which becomes flour, and other commodities. We can consider an entire range of economic policies which would be good for Ontario and good for all Canada. Such policies would increase the size of our internal market and trade between our regions and so fulfil the aims of policies designed 100 years ago when our transportation system was established.
* (1750)
However, the destiny that was allowed to western Canada was a resource destiny. That is passe. All the frustration in the west is not psychological. The frustration is transportation and certain trade and tariff policies which do not permit the western economy to rise from the resource destiny to the secondary manufacturing and technological industries that are available today. That is where the private sector could find its greatest expansion. That is where our economic policies should be focused.
I conclude as I began by saying that the temporary measures that came about for stabilization reasons will not rebuild confidence in the long term that the public sector is being restrained. We need longer term measures. I have suggested a few.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Edmund McRae: It has to do with a debate he and I have had for some time. In his desire for greater growth does he foresee great difficulties because of energy shortages and the cost of energy, making necessary a different kind of growth, a slower growth?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The answer is not all that difficult. I am suggesting that we can have high sustained growth by shipping less oil and more petrochemicals. That would not use up our energy resources any faster than at the present time. In fact it may be a slower use.
What we need is the highest values. That is where the growth is. I am suggesting, for example, the growth would come out of processing oil seeds. A bushel of rapeseed is worth $5 shipped out as rapeseed. It is probably worth $30 shipped out as oil. That is growth, from $5 to $30. What have we expended in energy? Some, yes, but we have gained a lot in terms of income and we can redistribute some of that income.
At the rate we are going, we hear people say let us accept slower growth. I agree you have to protect the environment. To do so contributes to growth. That is an industry in itself. It will come back to us in revenue if we do it. We have to respect the ecology and conserve resources. I say we move them to higher values. That is all I am saying. That is growth. The Gross National Product would rise very rapidly if instead of $5 being added by a bushel, $30 were added by oil. That is growth. That is what we are looking for.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, possibly my colleagues will agree that we have just had a very thoughtful speech. It is now four minutes to six and I would prefer not to break the train of

November 10, 1976

Restraint of Government Expenditures
my carefully prepared notes. Therefore I would like to call it Mr. Deputy Speaker: It being six o'clock, this House stands six o'clock.	adjourned until Monday, November 15, at two o'clock, p.m.,
pursuant to order made Thursday, November 4, 1976.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, until


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.	Monday, November 15, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, November 15, 1976