1976-11-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the necessity that parliament remain as the centre of political debate in Canada, particularly when questions concerning the future of confederation are at issue, I ask leave of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield):
That this House categorically affirms its right to debate matters of national importance, and therefore urges the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions respecting his government's views on the Quebec provincial election before appearing on national television to do so.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that Liberal members said no to that very sensible and desirable motion which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns the government for insulting the Auditor General of Canada by refusing to accept his principal recommendation for the immediate establishment of a Comptroller General who would report directly to a cabinet minister and thus reinforce the principle of ministerial responsibility for financial administration; and further, for establishing a totally unnecessary royal commission to look into government financial management, which would not report back until after the next election.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the large number of jobless young people, most of them holders of a diploma which qualifies them on the labour market, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House call upon the government immediately to introduce legislation to lower the optional retirement age to 60 years to give job opportunities to young people and to make any applicant aged 60 who would apply for old age security pension eligible for benefits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, this motion may not be put.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing importance to the freshwater fishermen of northern Manitoba. In view of the fact that the Canadian National Railways have issued instructions to the effect that no more fresh fish is to be picked up from commercial fishermen who bring their fish to stations on the "Bay" line, the Lynn Lake line and the Chisel Lake line, and further in view of the fact that the CNR is the only means of transportation in these

November 23, 1976
Finance
communities, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masnuik):
That instructions be issued immediately by the minister to have this unacceptable situation rectified.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. It arises also out of the Auditor General's report tabled in the House yesterday citing highly questionable payments totalling over $10 million paid to agents who negotiated sales of nuclear generating stations to foreign countries on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the government immediately launch a public inquiry to investigate thoroughly these highly irregular financial activities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the new situation arising from the results of the recent Quebec elections, the somewhat imminent referendum on separation, and the necessity for all Canadians to be objectively provided with statistical data so they may better assess the circumstances, favourable or not to creating a sovereign state in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the government establish an objective and precise balance sheet of all federal incomes (taxes, levies royalties, etc.) originating from each of the Canadian provinces and territories, as well as the expenses (operation, invest-
|Mr. Smith (Churchill).J
ments, grants, pensions, etc.) incurred within the geographical limits of each of these provinces and territories.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the Auditor General's statement to the effect that taxpayers' dollars demand that something be done right now, and since the royal commission could delay necessary corrective action for two or three years, would the minister not consider it advisable at this time to implement the most important recommendation of the Auditor General, namely, the establishment of a chief financial officer and a fundamental restructuring of the Treasury Board secretariat, particularly during the long period between now and the time the royal commission reports, since this in the mind of the Auditor General is crucial to the establishment of an adequate financial management and control system in the government of Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I tabled a comprehensive progress report on all the measures I have implemented and am about to implement to reassure hon. members and ourselves of the very serious consideration given the concerns expressed by the Auditor General. I tried my best yesterday to indicate to the House, and I reiterate, that the establishment at this stage of a comptroller general, as recommended, has certain appeals and attractions to us, but it does unquestionably-and I think some hon. members when they reflect upon this will agree-begin to change the accountability picture.


An hon. Member:: There is none now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Maybe for the better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 23, 1976


Robert Knight Andras: This would begin to change the accountability picture, not in straight terms of financial management and control, as significant and as desirable as those are, but it could possibly challenge the whole structure of parliamentary responsibility, ministerial responsibility to parliament and the rights of members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: It is for that reason we believe that the royal commission now has to objectively address itself to the interrelationship of this very appealing recommendation and the complexities it creates in that process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, since the Auditor General has stated in his report that the system he proposes is fully compatible with maintenance of the decentralized authority of deputy heads as proposed by the Glassco Commission, is the minister now saying he disputes the Auditor General and is challenging the analysis and recommendation of the Auditor General in this very important area?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that if the hon. member reads what I just said in answer to the question a minute ago he will see that the answer is no. The answer is that a very profound recommendation has been made to us along a certain line, and that it obviously and desirably is based on clear accounting and financial control.
However, it does have other implications which the Auditor General was not required or called upon to consider, nor did he address them, and that is the interrelationship between the accountability in this House and the whole system as we now understand it. That has to be examined before we take action. I would say that I think we could accomplish almost all the required changes and improvements within the structure which now exists and, indeed, when we get the findings of the royal commission about this other matter then we can take whatever steps are necessary to study it on a wide basis.


An hon. Member:: Another study.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the minister has obviously admitted that the government has failed to incorporate the recommendations of the Glassco Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSSIBILITY OF ACTION TO IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUDITOR GENERAL PRIOR TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the President of the Treasury Board, who has now announced what in effect is a three-year stall of any dramatic change in the procedures of accounting of this government, procedures which the Auditor General has
Oral Questions
called, using very deliberate language, "grossly inadequate". I want to ask the minister what action the government intends to take, during the three-year stall when he tries to have this matter taken out of public debate and out of the hands of Parliament, to correct the procedures which the Auditor General of Canada has described as grossly inadequate.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I suggested yesterday that I could take an hour and a half in the House to lay on the record what I tabled the other day. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that his time and the time of this House might be better used if he would take the time to read this progress report.


SUGGESTED ADDITION TO TERMS OF REFERENCE OF COMMISSION INQUIRING INTO RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUDITOR GENERAL
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, instead of taking an hour and a half of the time of this House, the time span in which the minister is interested is three years of stalling and delay to get away from this important question. Since he will not tell us what he intends to do, and since he will not allow any kind of reform until the stall is finished, will the minister tell us whether he is prepared to add to the terms of reference of this royal commission, with which we appear to be stuck instead of the kind of action and reform which is needed, a specific term of reference which will ensure that the question of parliamentary and public access to all information necessary to ensure proper and true accountability is included. Will that be done?


Robert Knight Andras: That is further evidence that the hon. gentleman has not read the progress report because in that progress report-


An hon. Member:: Bureaucratic jargon.


Robert Knight Andras: If it is bureaucratic jargon, some of it comes from the hon. member because part of it is the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee which we are honouring. Let us call a spade a spade. Of all the recommendations made by the Auditor General, 98 per cent with which we agree and are implementing, there is only one issue and that is the one which gets into the area of accountability, the whole process of reporting to Parliament and the responsibility of ministers. If hon. members want to take away from ministers the responsibility to answer to this House then they had better make that decision.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let us call a stall a stall. Will the minister now give us a firm commitment that there will be added to those terms of reference of that royal commission a provision which will ensure there will be adequate access by the parliament and public of Canada to the information that is necessary to ensure a true accounting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is the question the minister just answered.
1274

November 23, 1976
Oral Questions


REASON APPOINTMENT OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL WOULD VIOLATE PARLIAMENTARY TRADITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister on the same subject. I say to the minister first of all that no one has questioned his obligation to come before parliament on these matters. That is not the issue.
The question to the Prime Minister is: considering that one of the first responsibilities of cabinet in our system of government is to maintain financial control over the government's operations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -and since the recommendation of the Auditor General was to appoint an official whom he called the comptroller general who would report to the President of the Treasury Board, would the Prime Minister explain to the House why this would be some kind of violation of our parliamentary tradition?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there would be a question of whether the deputy minister had two bosses, one being his own minister and the other being the comptroller general.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question was asked in order to get an understanding of this. I am trying to elucidate it. I would add that this decision to set up a royal commission was arrived at after a very lengthy period of discussion with the Auditor General


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -who recognizes the complexity of the issue, which some members of the opposition do not seem to want to see, and who agreed with the setting up of the royal commission. It is of course true that it is in conformity with his job that he would want to see the action take place sooner, but he did agree to the establishment of a royal commission because he sees the complexity of the question in terms of running parliament and running a government department.


John Edward Broadbent: Since the Treasury Board has many obligations and responsibilities in addition to the one maintaining financial control, and since other provincial governments in Canada have already seen fit to establish a position such as the one recommended by the Auditor General for the obvious reason of giving the government as a whole a supervisory control over the spending of all its departments, why does the Prime Minister not think that the sensible precedent set by other governments, which are operating well and are not wasting hundreds of millions of dollars, should not be duplicated at the federal level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is the post of deputy secretary within the Treasury Board. He fulfils part of the function which is recommended here. If, as stated by the President of the Treasury Board, we are meeting some 90 per cent or 98 per cent of the Auditor General's concerns, it seems to be reasonable for parliament to not necessarily take a partisan view on this


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but to look at the very real problem that this can pose for parliament and for its operation.


Mr. Fairweather:: Don't get it mixed up. The survival of the government is not the same thing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I disagree with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. We are talking of this particular government, Mr. Speaker. I think that is relevant. If the hon. member is talking about government in the parliamentary form of democracy, then obviously he will have to do his homework and look at the implications.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I have one last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps more of us will have to do our homework.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Since no one is recommending the abolition of the position of the Auditor General who reports directly to this parliament but the recommendation is for an additional position which would reinforce the responsibilities of the cabinet to exercise control over its financial operations, would the Prime Minister make clear to the House what kind of violation of parliamentary rights he is concerned about in this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps I could express the answer in another form. The Auditor General approaches these problems from the point of view of accountancy. He is a chartered accountant. He has been advised by many chartered accountants, and he is proposing ways of running the government. I respect that, but those proposals come from a professional in his particular field, and they are based on experience of how to run big corporations and how to run the private sector.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What an insult to the Auditor General.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to me that any parliamentarian should be able to understand that our institution does not necessarily have to be run the way accountants say it should.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It should be run honestly and efficiently.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You should follow the rules.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: However, there are questions here which go beyond mere accountancy; they are questions with regard to
November 23, 1976

the civil service which involve political science and which involve the parliamentary system. That is why in setting up the royal commission we made sure it was composed not merely of accountants but also of people who have knowledge of government departments and how they are run, as well as people who have knowledge of the parliamentary system, and in our view this is pretty important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: No accountant would take a Jetstar.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY IF PRIME MINISTER RECOGNIZES RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION FOR QUEBEC
Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the very bad impression made on Canadians generally, and on Quebecers specifically, by the attitude of the right hon. Prime Minister and some of the members of his cabinet towards the recent Quebec election, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he recognizes that each one of the Canadian entities has the right to self-determination as recognized in the United Nations Charter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as put the question seems to indicate that each province is a distinct people which are entitled to self-determination. If I understand the premises of the question correctly, it seems to me that its logic is in complete contradiction with our system. As far as I know, Canada is not made up of ten provinces each one of which claims to be a people, and claims the right to self-determination.
If, on the other hand, the hon. member claims that his logic applies solely to Quebec, which would constitute a people, I then put this question to him: If Canada is divisible, why then would Quebec also not be divisible? Are there within Quebec more than one people as he claims there are within Canada? If he can answer those questions, then I should like him to a put supplementary.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I am very honoured to see that the Prime Minister condescends to ask me a question. I should be very pleased to answer him but I think that, according to the rules of the House, he is the one who should answer questions. In any case, on November 6 and 7 last, the Prime Minister should have understood exactly what I meant. Therefore, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us, as he said on many occasions, by which democratic process he intends to counteract the aspirations of Quebec towards independence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; this is a hypothetical question.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will have listened with interest to the Prime Minister giving his views on parliament, an institution that he has tramped on ever since-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I was interested in his views that chartered accountants have different views-


An hon. Member:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: -from those of members of parliament. A man holding the position-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the right hon. member for Prince Albert has a question would he please put it forthwith?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have been here a long time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I have found out that truth travels slowly, particularly to those who are stupid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Is not the position that Mr. Macdonell holds one that makes him responsible to parliament and gives to him the right to say whether or not the government or any part of the institutions of government, are going astray? Does he say that a person holding Mr. Macdonell's position does not have that right? I ask him, therefore, why is it that having regarded members of parliament as nobodies and even worse over the years, he has not had his government carry out the 150 recommendations made by a committee of members of parliament over the years? Why is it that these recommendations are treated with that supreme contempt that he has toward parliament at all times?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the question is somewhat loaded. The hon. member suggests that I trample on the rights of parliament but it seems to me that nine times out of ten when he rises to ask a question he is breaking the rules of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
80005-131/2

November 23, 1976
Oral Questions


Mr. Paproski:: You will never become an elder statesman.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You will be out on Harrington Lake, fishing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems also ironical that in the very question wherein the right hon. gentleman reminds me about having called members of parliament nobodies, he finished by calling members of parliament stupid when he said that truth travels slowly.


An hon. Member:: Smile, you are on candid camera.


Mr. Alexander:: On that side of the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: It travels fast in a Jetstar.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As his neighbour, the hon. member for Hamilton West says, he is referring only to other members of the House, not to himself.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With justification.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very important subject on which I am sure all hon. members and the public are interested in getting some clear information. However, we are getting into areas with very antagonistic questions and correspondingly antagonistic answers which are not getting us anywhere. I wonder if we can get back to the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would point out-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


SUGGESTION BY AUDITOR GENERAL PARLIAMENT LOSING CONTROL OVER SUPPLY-REASON FOR ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF INFORMATION
John George Diefenbaker: The right hon. Prime Minister says that one should not ask questions here. That is exactly what happened. I therefore ask the question: what has he got to say concerning the considered opinion of the Auditor General that parliament is losing control over its supply and, by inference, it is being appropriated by the cabinet and the civil service? Why should parliament not be entitled to information? Why should there be such concealment on the part of the Prime Minister as, for example, in connection with hiding the identity of those people who provided the pool at our expense?


An hon. Member:: Jump into that one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board made a statement yesterday and he made an announcement on Friday, I believe, which provides the answer to a lot of the justified criticism by the Auditor General, and which indicated the remedies that have been taken and which will be taken. If the right hon. member is returning to the other subjects about the competence of the Auditor General, of course he is competent-


An hon. Member:: Why not follow him then? He is an officer of parliament.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He expresses a point of view and it does not seem-


Charles Joseph Clark: Convenient.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -it does not seem inconsistent that the government would want to make sure that parliamentary institutions are not only run from the point of view of accountancy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN FORM OF MAIN ESTIMATES- AGREEMENT OF AUDITOR GENERAL TO ESTABLISHMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Auditor General as follows:
I am deeply concerned that, on the evidence of the two-year examination carried out by the Audit Office, parliament-and indeed the government-has lost or is close to losing effective control of the public purse.
Further, by the references made to the Auditor General with respect to the fact that no satisfactory progress has been made regarding recommendations on the form of the estimates by the Public Accounts Committee, can the minister tell the House before the main estimates are tabled, what effective reforms he intends to implement so that this House can at least know the extent of government extravagance in the estimates?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that before but I will do so again. There is a commitment, and it is in the progress report I tabled on Friday, that clearly indicates our desire, our willingness, our commitment to place before the Public Accounts Committee, in answer to a commitment to the Public Accounts Committee, the draft proposals and guide to the elaboration of information governing the estimates. When the Public Accounts Committee has had an opportunity to look at that and advise us whether it is acceptable, then it is our intention to implement this; that is, to meet the commitment made to the members of the Public Accounts Committee, a non-partisan committee made up of members of the House of all parties.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister by the establishment of a royal commission has effectively repudiated the Auditor General and consequently this House,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: -I ask the minister, in view of the catalogue of uncontrolled extravagance contained in the Auditor General's report yesterday, and in view of the failure to make any
November 23, 1976

progress on the recommendations with regard to improvements in the form of the estimates to this House, can he tell the House if he is prepared to undertake, on an interim basis, improvements in the form of the estimates before the main estimates are tabled so that this House at least can inform itself as to the extent of this uncontrolled government extravagance?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General was consulted about the royal commission and he said he welcomed it so I hardly see, unless this opposition desires to bring it into the political arena, where the justification for suggesting repudiation is. He joins us and welcomes this initiative. With regard to the change in the form of the estimates, I wish the hon. member would get together with the hon. member for Vegre-ville who clearly reminded me when I took over this portfolio not to make these changes until they had been referred to the Public Accounts Committee.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he is trying to tell the House that the Auditor General, who has in fact been repudiated by the establishment of this royal commission, agreed to setting up a royal commission? Is that what the minister is trying to tell the House?


Robert Knight Andras: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


ALLEGATION PROGRESS REPORT ON IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCOUNTING METHODS FAILS TO SATISFY AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Auditor General.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are right on. Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board who would like to usurp the position of the Auditor General. My question concerns the Treasury Board. From time to time the Auditor General has laid before this House reports of his findings with regard to the accounting of the government, and many discrepancies have been pointed out. The President of the Treasury Board suggested today that all the corrections were included in the progress report tabled in the House on Friday. If they are all there why-and this is my question-did the Auditor General have this to say in part:
... government officials directly concerned, suggest in some cases a failure to grasp fully the significance of the major deficiencies and to identify effective ways of correcting them ...
I could read the whole paragraph, but enough is said in that brief sentence quoted to show that the progress report does not satisfy the Auditor General.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Auditor General has made a recommendation to establish the office of the comp-
Oral Questions
trailer general. We are not negating this; we say that it has a certain appeal and attraction, but that the question begins to bear on other important questions to do with the whole process of parliament and accountability. That is the sum and substance of it. As to all the rest of the matters he has recommended, we appreciate them and are taking them seriously. Indeed, we took that one suggestion so seriously that we want to go beyond the basic recommendation and make sure that whatever action we ultimately take fits into the other important trends coming within the parliamentary process.


ALLEGED INABILITY OF TREASURY BOARD STAFF TO PERFORM FUNCTION OF CONTROLLING EXPENDITURES-PUBLICATION OF BOARD PROCEEDINGS
John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that the Auditor General is concerning himself with management and control? However, the Treasury Board secretariat is more concerned with resource allocation. If such a resource allocation secretariat has the right to manage and control its own expenditures, how can there be a proper auditing of its expenditures? May I at this time ask the minister another question about that same secretariat? Why has such secretariat only 20 members on its staff? How can they do the work which the Auditor General says is greatly lacking and which he wants to take over?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in full recognition of the seriousness of the question and the requirement for improved financial management and control, this year there was established an organization within Treasury Board which did not exist previously. There was the appointment of a deputy secretary, with full responsibility to develop and take upon himself those functions which the Auditor General would assign to the proposed comptroller general.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, but they do not make their reports public.


Robert Knight Andras: All those functions have now been established. That branch is in its first phase now. I appeared before a committee this morning with supplementary estimates designed to beef-up the facilities available to that branch. Indeed, if I may speak about another area involving the same kinds of controls, the Auditor General's staff itself is going to be considerably enhanced, as will be noted when we deal with second reading and final resolution of the Auditor General's Act.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a quick supplementary question? Will the reports of the new secretariat which the minister has set up be made public and available to the House and country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General himself indicated that the proposed comptroller general should be an umpire. He indicated at one stage that he should be an umpire upon whom both parliament and the government can rely. Now he recommends that that function should be within the

November 23, 1976
Ora! Questions
Treasury Board. Therefore whatever measures would be taken with respect to a comptroller general within the ambit or orbit of the Treasury Board will apply to the deputy secretary. All we are talking about at this stage is a deputy secretary reporting to the secretary, the President of the Treasury Board and the board, as opposed to another deputy minister reporting to the President of the Treasury Board. That is the difference right now.


Walter David Baker: You don't know what you are talking about.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But the proceedings will not be made public.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question also relates to the report of the Auditor General, but I wish to direct it to the Solicitor General. In view of the seriousness of the statements made by the Auditor General in his 1975-76 report with respect to the fee paid to AECL agents, would the Solicitor General ask the RCMP to launch an immediate investigation into these charges of financial mismanagement on the part of AECL?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will have this matter looked into and probably report further at a later stage.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board? Will the Treasury Board instruct Atomic Energy of Canada Limited not to continue payments until their agents provide specific expense accounts for fees? 1 ask this since the matter concerns one of the basic criticisms of the Auditor General with respect to this specific matter.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, essentially that is what the instructions have been, yes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Raynald Guay (L6vis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the Prime Minister knows, a young Canadian has been detained in India since July 9, 1976 in conditions which are not quite satisfactory and without any charges being laid against her. I would like to know once again if the Canadian government could not go directly to the Indian government, for humanitarian reasons and because of worries on the part of Marie-Andree Leclerc's parents, to lay charges against her. I do not ask that she be cleared of charges but rather that she be given the opportunity to defend herself and prove her innocence if that is the case. Given the circumstances, I would like to know again the intentions of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question. Unfortunately I must confess that I could not obtain other details than those communicated a few days ago to the House by the Secretary of Sate for External Affairs. However, if I can get other answers which I could add to those already given, 1 will be pleased to do so, either personally or through the hon. minister or the parliamentary secretary. I am grateful to the hon. member to draw once again the attention of the government on that matter.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the President of the Treasury Board also deals with the matter which was just raised concerning the payment of agents of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Can the minister say why Treasury Board approved an initial 5 per cent contract price payment to agents acting on behalf of CANDU sales to the government of South Korea, amounting to some $20 million, and why this amount was later reduced to 1 per cent of the contract price? Has the reason anything to do with the Auditor General, or with second thoughts on the part of the new president of AECL? Can the minister give an indication of the nature of this change, and on what policy these matters are based?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Auditor General's comments, and since the report has just been made available, as the hon. member knows, I want some time to review all these discrepancies which have been pointed out and give a thorough answer to the House, perhaps through the public accounts committee; or, I can do it here.
November 23, 1976


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about the payment by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited of some $15 million to an agent for negotiating a CANDU sale to South Korea? Since $8 million of that sum was paid, in the words of the Auditor General, without adequate documentation with respect to expenses incurred, will the minister assure the House that no payments whatever are to be made by AECL to agents in Korea, to any Korean government officials or their relatives?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am most concerned about the inferences which can be drawn from the reading of the Auditor General's report with respect to those payments to which the hon. member alluded. 1 hope that this matter can be dealt with at an early date by the public accounts committee. I spoke to the chairman of that committee this morning and expressed the hope that the public accounts committee might meet at an early date and call the Auditor General or his officials-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: And the minister's officials.


Alastair William Gillespie: -my officials and, yes, officers of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the only way we can clear up the situation is by dealing with it as soon as we can.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How about the Argentina situation?


TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT ON AGENTS' FEES-POSSIBLE USE OF AGENTS IN PURSUIT OF OTHER SALES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would consider telling this House how much money his department or AECL has spent on agents' fees in the area of nuclear generating stations and other nuclear hardware made available to foreign countries? Would he tell us whether payments as high as $15 million, as in the case of South Korea, are customary and can he indicate whether agents are presently active in pursuit of such sales in countries such as Indonesia?


Alastair William Gillespie: As the hon. member will note from the Auditor General's report, these fees have only been paid on the consummation of a contract.


Some hon. Members:: Argentina!


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, the Argentina contract and the Korean contract. As to the scale of fees, AECL has negotiated with agents who may at this time be representing the agency in attempts to secure foreign business; I would be happy to provide the hon. member with that kind of information.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Can the hon. gentleman reconcile for me the repeated assurances given by his own predecessor as well as by the Prime Minister that the government was exercising stringent control over expenditures; exercising restraint, cutting back, and supervising expenditures very carefully-how can we reconcile such statements, which we have heard many times over the past year or so, with the statement of the Auditor General that the government has virtually lost control over expenditures? If the hon. gentleman cannot reconcile what appears to be a flagrant contradiction, how can he expect any of us to have the slightest confidence in the assurances he is giving us today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: With regard to the budgetary process, the approval of the allocation of resources to various departments, budgetary and non-budgetary, I can absolutely guarantee that this is being brought under control and that the expenditures for fiscal 1976-77 will be within the commitment made by my predecessor and that there will be further reductions in terms of the GNP and the other commitments we have made with respect to the budgetary and non-budgetary process. I do not detect that the Auditor General was questioning this in his comments. His concern, as I understand it, relates to procedures after the authorization of budgets for the various departments, the control of cash expenditures thereafter, effectiveness, and so on. This is an area where we have frankly indicated we share the concern expressed by the Auditor General and in which we wish to make improvements. We are in the process of implementing many measures in this regard. Again, I would refer the hon. member to the progress report for guidance as to what we are attempting to do in this field. I think one has to make a distinction between the budgetary process and day to day operations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the President of the Treasury Board telling me this afternoon that the Prime Minister, and his own predecessor in office, have not repeatedly given this House the impression that they were exercising the tightest control not only over the budgeting but over the actual spending of the money? Is he denying that members of the government, from the Prime Minister down, have repeatedly given the House and all Canadians that kind of assurance during the last couple of years?


Robert Knight Andras: The hon. member has heard what he wants to hear. What I have said is certainly correct. The budgetary allocation of resources is very much being brought under control. We recognize, by the very actions we are taking and which I have been talking about, that a great deal of improvement is required with regard to day to day expenditures and so

November 23, 1976
Oral Questions
on. There is no denial of that. But the hon. gentleman has been in government for some time, probably longer than I have, and if he could stand up as head of a government anywhere, particularly one of this size, and guarantee that there would be no discrepancies anywhere at any time, then, of course, his credibility would suffer badly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The whole thing has been a con job.


DATE AUDITOR GENERAL INFORMED OF INTENTION TO APPOINT ROYAL COMMISSION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, as the resident historian, I want to get my perspective sorted out. On what date was the Auditor General apprised of the government's intention to appoint a Royal Commission?


Robert Knight Andras: I cannot give the precise date.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Knight Andras: I know that when I took over this portfolio 1 met with the Auditor General within a few days thereafter, ten days, perhaps. I know that this question of accountability, the whole area of the concern I have been expressing, along with our desire to improve financial management was the subject of considerable discussion. The Auditor General himself made reference to those discussions in his report. I talked to him about ten days afterward and phoned him later about the different ways in which we might proceed. I cannot give the hon. member the precise date upon which he indicated his agreement, but it was within the last month anyway.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am reading a book entitled "The Civil Tongue" which discusses just the issue the minister raises-


An hon. Member:: Read it. You need it!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Well, it is a pity a good many ministers wouldn't read it because it talks about plain language. It is part of the problem that nobody believes this government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Good afternoon!


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


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


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Am I not to be allowed a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: I was distracted by some comment which the hon. member for Fundy-Royal directed toward the Chair, I thought. I was not sure what it was.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Oh, no. 1 am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am the last one ... I was wishing you a happy afternoon. I

was. It's a funny custom in Fundy-Royal. Courtesy, it is called.
The Auditor General, as it happens, is a person who reports to parliament, not to the ministry, and that is why I am interested in knowing at precisely what time the Auditor General knew it was the government's intention to pass the buck and appoint a Royal Commission to try to extricate the government from the dilemma in which it finds itself.


Robert Knight Andras: I am not sure as to the inference of the hon. member's preamble with regard to the Auditor General being an officer of parliament. Is it that the Auditor General, being an officer of parliament, is not entitled to talk directly to ministers-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Read the blues and figure out a better answer.


Robert Knight Andras: He indicated in his report that he has had many such discussions, and I think that is very constructive and very proper. I regret I cannot give the hon. member the exact hour and date when that decision was discussed. I know I have had discussions with him; I know that my predecessor and other Ministers of the Crown had discussions with him. But he did welcome the suggestion.


Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all members of this House. It has to do with misleading statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on November 16 during the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will be aware that in order to raise any question of privilege which does not arise out of circumstances which took place during today's sitting, he would have to give the Chair notice, in conformity with the provision of the Standing Order.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning a subject about which I have given Your Honour notice. I do not take this course lightly; I have raised a question of privilege on very few occasions during the eight years in which I have been here as a member of parliament.
In my view, the principal justification for a question of privilege is that an act has taken place which impinges upon the capacity of members of parliament to do their job. In my view, that is the essence of a legitimate question of privilege- not that a member is unhappy about something or disagrees with a particular decision. I might say, in passing, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might be interested in what I have to say since my question of privilege pertains to actions taken by the Prime Minister himself. The crucial point is that the rights and privileges of members of parliament to exercise their function have been trespassed upon.
November 23, 1976

What are those rights and responsibilities, Mr. Speaker? Members of parliament are elected by Canadians who expect us to deal in parliament with the political problems that are faced by the nation. The government of the day has the principal obligation to propose, to initiate and to act. Other members, and of particular importance in a parliamentary democracy, opposition members, have the obligation to question, to criticize and to respond. The appropriate forum for all these actions, long recognized in the history of parliament both here and elsewhere, and of equal importance to members on both sides of this chamber, is the House of Commons.
It is expected that the government initiates action in this House and that the opposition responds to that action in this House. It is anticipated that the government of the day must explain, justify and convince in this forum. This constitutes its right and obligation in a parliamentary democracy. It is anticipated that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will probe, question and demand in response to government action in this chamber. This constitutes its right and obligation.
According to an announcement from the Prime Minister's office yesterday, the Prime Minister intends to speak on television and radio tomorrow night-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -giving his reaction to the important election which took place in the province of Quebec. He has no intention, I am informed by reports from his office, of bringing this matter first to the Parliament of Canada. I say most seriously, Mr. Speaker, that in so acting the Prime Minister has violated in a most serious way the obligations of his office and has trampled upon the equally important rights of the opposition in this parliament. If ever a matter required the direct attention of the elected representatives of the people of Canada, it is the election of the Parti Quebecois as the provincial government of the province of Quebec. If ever a matter required the sober, serious and public debate of Canada's parliamentarians, it is the question of the very existence of Canada itself.
We support and consider wise the Prime Minister's decision to wait more than a week since that election before making a sober and serious statement on the consequences of the election for Canada. I think an earlier response would have been inappropriate. It is a serious matter requiring delay and serious thought, so we support the delay in time. We also support the intention of the Prime Minister to take his message at some early time directly to the people of Canada on television, on radio and through other forms of communication. That, too, is important in a democracy. However, what is at fault here is the deliberate decision, made calmly more than a week after the event, to bypass parliament entirely. What is at fault is the Prime Minister's ignoring of the essence of parliamentary democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent


John Edward Broadbent: I wish Liberals would listen to the argument. Even if they ignore the rights of parliament, Mr. Speaker, they should hear my argument. I was saying that it was the obligation of a government to bring before parliament its plans and to subject itself to the scrutiny of the opposition. Had the Prime Minister decided to do what he ought to do, namely, make a statement on motions, he would have his opportunity, as the Prime Minister of the country, to state his views on this serious issue. Then, with equal right, leaders of the opposition parties in this House, and indeed other members of the House, would have the opportunity to comment on and question the Prime Minister regarding his particular decision.
The Canadian Prime Minister is not elected directly by the people of Canada, as is the President of the United States, for example, in the kind of electoral system that resides in the country to our south. The Prime Minister, in our system, is the head of the political party which happens to have the greatest support in the parliament of Canada and as such, in our system, the Prime Minister has an obligation to deal directly in parliament with public matters. To bypass parliament is to ignore his constitutional responsibilities and to deny the right of those of us in opposition to exercise our responsibilities.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you decide that I have a prima facie case for a question of privilege, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that this House calls upon the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions in the House of Commons tomorrow on the important matter of the Quebec election before he makes any general statement on this subject on television or on radio, or in any other way before the public.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, the essence of the remarks of the leader of the New Democratic Party is that I am bypassing parliament. 1 can assure parliament that that is not the fact, nor is it my intention to do so. There have been several questions asked of myself and of members of the government in this House since the Quebec election and I have attempted, as they have attempted, to answer those questions which showed the concern of members opposite.
In so far as having a particular debate on this subject is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to have that debate, or a series of statements on motions, at a time to be decided by the various House leaders. It seems simply strange to me that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), in his earlier motion under the Standing Orders, and now the leader of the New Democratic Party under a point of privilege, should have suddenly discovered their interest in debating this subject after they had learned that I was going to speak to the Canadian public on the media.
There have been opposition days-at least one-since the Quebec election, and I did not observe the opposition that anxious to debate this subject that it would want to set a date in its own time to discuss the matter. There have been some seven or eight days when, under the Standing Orders, the opposition could indeed have raised this subject for debate, or for adjournment as an important and urgent matter.
1282

November 23, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent


Mr. Grafftey:: You are worse than Mackenzie King ever was.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member-


William Heward Grafftey: Playing with national unity.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that I have no hesitation in continuing to make this case, which seems to be a very calm and rational one provided the hon. member is prepared to listen to reason, which is not very certain. I repeat that we are prepared to discuss this subject, but there has been no demand from the opposition that we do so. There has been a great deal of demand every day, and several times a day, from various representatives of the media that 1 speak to them, and I have accepted their invitation. Now the opposition parties in the House, in a sudden awakening of their interest in what happened in Quebec, are raising these phony issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If they want to debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are on a very narrow issue here, from a procedural point of view. The issue is not whether it is desirable or undesirable or permissible that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) make a statement on television tomorrow. We are concerned with a narrow procedural point, which is whether or not there is a case for indicating that the privileges of the members of the House have been offended in such a way that this matter ought to take precedence over other business which is before the House at the present time in order that a decision be taken by the House, if such is the case, which would be dealt with in some way. The discussion ought to be confined to that narrow point only, rather than attempting to debate the larger question of whether it is appropriate for the Prime Minister to make such a statement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that if members of the House had felt some of their privileges were infringed upon by not having this subject debated earlier, or even today, then I express my astonishment that they waited to show their anxiety until they realized or learned from the media that I was going to speak to the people of Canada through the media.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege raised by the leader of the NDP, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), a question of privilege which I believe to be well-founded in response to an action, and not the first, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to try to derogate the authority of parliament and take away from this chamber the responsibility which appropriately belongs to members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important-and even the Prime Minister, finding a moment of fairness, will recognize this-that leaders and spokesmen of all the parties on this side of the House have been both careful and active in speaking on the quetion at issue. The matter here is not, as the Prime Minister would like to suggest, whether this particular subject is newly important. The question at issue has to do, not with the subject matter of the Prime Minister's remarks but with the right of this institution to be the place where these remarks are first stated if they are of significance to public policy and the governing of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister has said he finds it strange that the leader of the NDP should raise this matter in his question of privilege and I, in my motion under Standing Order 43, should express an interest in the matter. Sir, I find it strange that the Prime Minister should be surprised at the interest in the effectiveness of parliament, as an institution, of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and myself and our colleagues on this side of the House, because that is the issue here. The issue is quite clear. If the Prime Minister has a major statement to make of consequence to the country, the place for him to make it, as the first minister of parliament, is here in the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If he does not have a statement of significant importance, if it is only in answer to the inquiries of journalists, then he has no right at all to command the air time of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That action, sir, calls into question-and this is a matter of very real concern to us on this side of the House- the capacity for the retention of independence and integrity in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation particularly, and the broadcasting media which is subject to regulation by this government and should not be subject to undue pressures by the government. I repeat the point, sir: if the Prime Minister has something of importance to say to the nation, he should say it here in the House of Commons. If all he is doing is answering inquiries by journalists, he should change his practice and begin to meet those journalists face to face and not try to command and pre-empt time on the broadcast networks which the government regulates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) both want to speak, presumably in support of the proposed question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: 
Mr. Speaker:: I will hear them, and I propose to do so. However, I felt 1 should first bring to the attention of the House the rather clear precedents that have been enunciated on this matter in the past, particularly by my very distinguished predecessor on October 30, 1969, as recorded at page 269 of Hansard for that day. This concerned a similar question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), having to do with a very similar question about the necessity for ministers to make statements in the House as opposed to making them to the public, and whether that constituted a question of privilege. 1 am sure that rather clear precedent is in the minds of those hon. members who wish to participate in the discussion.
Before calling on those two hon. members to participate, I would only want to make sure we are keeping that clear precedent in mind when considering whether, in fact, there is a question of privilege in this particular instance.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, whether this matter is a question of privilege or a point of order is really only of interest in terms of the House of Commons. What we are really talking about is the propriety of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) making an announcement outside the House, an announcement that by reason of its significance ought only to be made here. Let me just say that I would hope the government leader of the House, wherever he is, or the acting government House leader, whoever that is today, will convey to the Prime Minister, if we have not been able to do so, the importance of this question.
I am sure 1 speak for all members of this House of Commons, at least on this side, but 1 would hope on the other side as well, when I say we are prepared to give our consent, with your permission, sir, to setting aside this evening or tomorrow immediately after calling orders of the day an appropriate time for the Prime Minister to make whatever statement he would wish to make in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has indicated that he would prefer this to be done during the question period. I do not want to prevail upon your good humour, Mr. Speaker, but 1 would suggest that is a facetious suggestion in light of the operations of the question period in this House. It was not designed for that kind of thing.
The alternative would be a statement on motions. That would certainly be appropriate, and we would be prepared to give our consent to such a statement tonight or tomorrow. I am sure the Chair would be able to prevail upon the House to provide more time for questioning if that became necessary.
As to the use of an opposition day, 1 realize there is concern in this country, but surely there is a duty on the government not to ask the opposition to move a motion to explore the matter but, rather, for the government directly to explore the matter here in this House of Commons and, hopefully, to show the leadership which the situation demands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There is one other matter, sir. The question raised by the Prime Minister would leave the
Privilege-Mr. Broad bent
impression that we had never been interested in this. I think the public record will show otherwise. The fact of the matter is that the leader of the NDP brought the matter to this House at his first opportunity after the public announcement. He raised this question with respect to infringement at the first opportunity, and to imply-as the Prime Minister did a few minutes ago-that this is an issue in terms of merely procedural matters in the House is to lend credence to a charge that anyone might be prepared to make, that the Prime Minister is acting irresponsibly in terms of this House. In order to change that, I want to say now that we are prepared on this side of the House, in this party, to set aside the public business for a period of time this evening, or tomorrow if that should be necessary, on any reasonable terms the government might wish to propose, in order that the Prime Minister can make his statement here, a statement he perhaps should make on television but which should be made first here in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I respect the fact that in so far as Your Honour is concerned, this is a matter that has to be looked at in procedural terms. I want to suggest to you that in all our history there is no precedent for this situation. Never before was a provincial government elected representing a party which proposes that confederation, itself be brought to an end. 1 suggest you will find nothing in the history of this parliament to correspond to the present situation.
I agree with Your Honour that we have to concern ourselves about the narrow procedural point, namely, have the members of this House had their privileges overridden by the action of the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau) in announcing, that he will make a statement to the people of Canada by radio and televison tomorrow night. Our point of privilege is that the place where this statement ought to be made first is here on the floor of parliament. For the Prime Minister to say there have been opportunities to ask questions or to raise the matter on opposition days is entirely beside the point. It is not the opposition but, rather, the government which decides what business will be brought before parliament.
The Prime Minister complains that this sort of question was not raised yesterday, the day before or any time last week. It was not until today that it was made clear from the Prime Minister's office that he is going to go on radio and television tomorrow night before he makes his statement on the floor of the House.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, despite the precedent of October 30, 1969, to which you referred, that this is a brand new situation. The issue touches confederation itself. If there is anything about which members of parliament should be concerned, and
80005-141/,

November 23, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
have the right to discuss, it is the very existence of this country and this parliament. I submit, therefore, that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
Reference has been made time and time again to what Your Elonour's predecessor said, and what you have said, about a matter of dispute or grievance not being a question of privilege unless it is based on something which infringes on the capacity of members of parliament to do their job. One of the jobs about which all of us in all parties, are concerned is to hold this country together. That issue has been brought before us, and I suggest the place for that to be discussed is here on the floor of this Elouse. I, therefore, reject all the spurious arguments of the Prime Minister and his suggestion that there have been opportunities to ask questions and all that; but so far as the procedural question is concerned, the fact is, as my leader put it, that our rights have been infringed upon.
I believe this is a serious matter and one in respect of which there is no precedent in the history of this parliament. I think Your Elonour should find there is a prima facie case of privilege, and decide that we ought to have the right to debate and discuss the proposition that before the Prime Minister goes on television he should make a statement on this issue here on the floor of the House of Commons, not later than tomorrow prior to his public appearance tomorrow night.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the previous speakers, but may I make the following point. It is quite obvious that even though it is maintained that Quebec is like any other province, facts show quite clearly that when something happens there people realize that that province is not quite like any other.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think furthermore that the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-the fact, for example, that he has left the House, his arrogant behaviour after the almost ridiculous statements he made right after the election which we are now discussing-shows how anti-democratic he is and that it is about time we came back to certain parliamentary principles. It is quite obvious that if the Prime Minister refuses to endorse the motion introduced by the leader of the New Democratic Party, it is because he seems to fear some reactions even from the elected representatives.
I do not think that as an existing parliament we can bear such an attitude from the Prime Minister and the government. True, it is a serious question and we must know specifically the intentions of the government, as I said during the question period. I already foresee the rather unorthodox steps which will be taken to thwart the eventual yearnings of Quebec as a result of the government elected on November 15 last.
Now if the Prime Minister and members of the government have always considered Quebec has being easily subdued, and if a year ago the Prime Minister himself stated that he had settled the matter, it is not because he is frustrated today that we will conveniently disregard the privileges of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself for a brief moment to the very narrow, specific point before Your Honour. The danger here is that we as a parliament may become totally irrelevant. We saw an example of that today during the discussion on the Auditor General's report. I submit to Your Honour rather briefly that the precedent set out by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in 1969 is no longer relevant because since that time parliament has addressed itself to the problem of ministerial statements in the House. This, of course, was only adopted by this House since last December, less than a year ago. However, there is a rule in our proceedings, Standing Order 15(3), which we never had before, which makes provision for ministers, which includes the Prime Minister, to make statements in the House when parliament is sitting.
There is also provision in the same Standing Order for opposition parties in the House to have an opportunity to respond to such statements. I submit that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and this House in its wisdom, since it adopted that Standing Order, obviously saw a need when parliament is sitting for ministers to make statements on major issues in this House and not outside the House.
I submit very respectfully to Your Honour that there has never come before this parliament an issue more important to the country than the issue the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) intends to address himself to tomorrow night outside parliament. Unless this House is to become totally irrelevant, I would appeal to you, sir, as the guardian of this House and as the custodian of our rights and privileges, to rule that this statement, in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders laid down by this House, should be made in the House before it is made elsewhere.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in rising on this question of privilege I want to underline for the second time the remarks and the points so ably put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), when he stated that in respect of the case before us it should be underlined that we are now involved in a parliamentary system of government and not a presidential system of government. Of course, on many occasions the president is given free television time by all the networks when there is a question of national interest. On these occasions, as chief of state he addresses the public at large. I suggest that in this instance, in the instance of the question of keeping Canadians together in the Canadian union after what happened a week ago, this is a role for the Governor General of Canada and is not a role for the prime minister of a political party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: I will tell members opposite why I say this. I reiterate for the second time that on the question of keeping the union together, if someone should speak for all Canadians as chief of state, that speech should be made, if at all, by the
November 23, 1976

Governor General tomorrow, and not by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau.) The Prime Minister this afternoon, in replying to this question of privilege said that for the last week or ten days members of parliament vis-a-vis the problem in the province of Quebec had kept their silence. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we kept out silence.
1 represent in the House of Commons a Quebec constituency whose electors are 75 per cent French speaking and 25 per cent English speaking. 1 have remained silent because I do not wish to make a political issue of the matter.

If, as the Prime Minister suggested, 1 and many of us on this side of the House have kept our silence, it is because we realize that questions of national unity, the question of keeping the Canadian federation together, should not be plunged into the political arena. I resent what the Prime Minister said in the House this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: If ever the Prime Minister needs bipartisan co-operation from all sides of the House, it is now. Keeping the Canadian union together does not mean there will only be a Liberal response, a Progressive Conservative, an NDP response or a Social Credit response. Before I sit down, I want to say if members on this side of the House are excited it is because of the frequent times we have heard the Prime Minister say, on the vital question of national unity and of keeping this country together, that the only party that is indispensable is the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I simply want to remind the hon. member, before concluding the discussion, that the hon. member is not debating the motion as a question of privilege, but the only subject for discussion at the moment is, as I have said before, that of privilege. If privilege exists, it would pre-empt any other business and would cause the Chair to put the question which ordinarily would not be put except on a substantive motion. The hon. member is clearly debating the merits of the motion as to whether or not the Prime Minister's statement should be made on television. The only relevant question here is whether or not the privileges of the House are offended, and I must ask the hon. member to keep to that question.


William Heward Grafftey: In terminating, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: -1 would simply say that I concur with the leader of the NDP and other speakers on this side of the House that on a question of national unity, a question which is of vital interest to everyone in the House-there are no precedents for this, since we are talking about the continuation
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
of the Canadian family-surely the Prime Minister should be informed by every member of the House, be he Liberal, Progressive Conservative, member of the NDP or of the Social Credit party: this question should not be put into the political arena.
I know you warned me on this question, Mr. Speaker, but we on this side of the House are rising this afternoon for one reason, namely, that up until now, the Prime Minister has played politics with national unity and we do not expect him to change tomorrow night: that is why we feel he should be made to make the statement in the House, before the elected representatives of the people, before he speaks on national television.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made a contribution to this discussion.


An hon. Member:: Then he left the chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: We have tried repeatedly to return to the narrow confines of the procedural matter before us. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) gave the Chair notice, pursuant to the Standing Order, of his intention to raise this matter as a question of privilege. That gave the Chair the opportunity to examine the relevant precedents. The precedent to which 1 have referred, and I will read it to the House, is a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on October 30, 1969. At the conclusion of Mr. Speaker's ruling, he said:
The question has often been raised whether parliamentary privilege imposes on ministers an obligation to deliver ministerial statements and to make announcements and communications to the public through the House of Commons or to make these announcements or statements in the House rather than outside the chamber. The question has been asked whether hon. members are entitled, as part of their parliamentary privilege, to receive such information ahead of the general public. I can find no precedent to justify this suggestion. Hon. members will remember that there was an interesting and somewhat protracted debate on a question of privilege raised in the last session by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). The arguments which were advanced at the time were studied closely and the precedents were discussed in a ruling of the Chair reported at page 869 of Votes and Proceedings of March 31, 1969. The precedents which were quoted at that time are in my view applicable to the circumstances outlined by the hon. member for Hillsborough. There may be, in such circumstances, a question of propriety or a question of courtesy.
I stress those last words. The arguments put forward today constantly referred to whether or not it was proper for the Prime Minister to make a statement on such an important matter outside the House instead of in it, whether he was being discourteous or arrogant, and whether he was disregarding the rights and the importance of parliament. That is not the question as referred to in the precedent. The question is whether there is a requirement inherent in the privileges of members of the House, individually or collectively, that statements of this nature be made in the House before they are made to the general public. That matter was considered rather fully by the previous Speaker on the occasion to which I have just referred. If hon. members wish to pursue that and examine the precedent to which Mr. Speaker Lamoureux alluded, there is an even more amplified discussion of exactly the same arguments that were put forward here today.

November 23, 1976
Order Paper Questions
For the reasons that were applicable at that time, I have to conclude that while this forms an interesting debate, and while it may very well be valid to make a good deal of the comments-and I stress the word "may"-as to the importance of the subject matter or as to the courtesy and propriety that may be involved, it is clear, upon the understanding of parliamentary privilege as it relates to this matter, that it does not extend and never has extended to compelling a minister or a prime minister to making a statement in the House under any circumstances, regardless of the importance of the subject.
Accordingly, adhering to that precedent which is crystal-clear, and to the nature of parliamentary privilege, which is very narrow in scope, 1 have to say that this does not constitute a question of such a nature that it should interrupt the preceedings at this time for the question to be put to the House.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of National Revenue with regard to discriminatory practices in the imposition of duty on automobile parts entering Manitoba. Yesterday the minister said she would obtain the exact data and give the House an answer today. However, the minister made no attempt whatsoever to give me an answer today or to request permission of the Chair to provide such an answer. It is most important to me to have this answer from the minister today because I am taking part in the adjournment debate tonight, and it is an injustice to me for the minister to promise in the House to give an answer and then to vanish. I want it to appear on the record that the minister promised she would provide an answer, but the following day she left the House after having made no attempt whatsoever to provide an answer to the House and to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is not here at the moment, and during the question period, for obvious reasons, there was certainly no opportunity to get into any other subject except that of the report of the Auditor General and related matters. I did see the hon. member trying to get the floor during the question period, but because of the pressure of questions on one subject it was impossible to recognize him. The question he raises is an observation to which he is entitled at the moment, but it does not constitute a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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 ques-

tions will be answered today: 112, 301 to 309 inclusive, 311, 335 and 773.

QUESTION NO. 3,240-FIRST SESSION OF 30th PARLIAMENT


Mr. Cossitt: Did Ihe Department of Agriculture find the answer to Question No. 3,240 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament embarrassing and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Executive Director of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. (a) Mr. R. Johnstone; (b)(i) SX-3; (ii) $35,500-547,500.
2. (a) Executive Interchange from (i) Bank of Canada; (ii) no change.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Associate Executive Director of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. (a) Mr. D. R. Yeomans. (b)(i) SX-3; (ii) $35,500-547,500.
2. (a) Assistant Deputy Minister (Operations) Department of Supply and Services; (b)(i) SX-3; (ii) $35,500-$47,500.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Director General, Compensation, of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. (a) Mr. W. F. Nelson; (b)(i) SX3; (ii) $35,500-547,500.
2. (a) ADM-Industry, Trade and Commerce; (b)(i) SX3; (ii) $35,500-547,500.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Director General, Administration, Finance and Personnel, of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. (a) Mr. R. C. Blackwell; (b)(i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-536,500.
November 23, 1976

2. (a) Chief, Planning and Special Projects Division, PSC; (b)(i) PE7; (ii) S25,200-535,300.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Director General, Communications, of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. (a) Major General L. C. Morrison (Seconded); (b)(i) SX2; (ii) $31,500-541,500.
2. (a) Brigadier General, Department of National Defence; (b)(i), (ii) Seconded at no increase in salary.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Director/General, Prices and Profits, of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1.	(a)	Mr.	R.	Scowen;	(b)(i)	SX3.	(ii)


[Stage Direction]
2. He was not in the Public Service.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Director/General, Economic Research, of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1.	(a)	Mr.	D.	Dodge.	(b)(i)	SX2.	(ii)


[Stage Direction]
2. Mr. Dodge was not a Public Servant.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Deputy Director, Policy Analysis, of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: compensation branch: 1. (a) Mr. A. Gagnon. (b)(i) ES4. (ii) $31,299-534,691.
2. (a) Deputy Director, Policy Analysis Planning & Interpretation Branch. (b)(i) ES3 (CAP), (ii) $28,034-531,377.
prices and profits; 1. (a) Vacant Position. (b)(i) SX1. (ii) $27,500-536,500.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Director, Policy Planning and Interpretation Division, of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
Order Paper Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. (a) Mr. G. Lucas; (b)(i) SX2. (ii) $31,500- $41,500.
2. (a) Group Chief, Advisory Services-Consumer and Corporate Affairs; (b)(i) SX1. (ii) $27,500-$36,500.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Director, Monitoring and Analysis Division, of the AntiInflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. (a) C. Barrass; (b)(i) PE7. (ii) $25,200-$35,300.
2. (a) Director of Planning & Research in the Human Resources and Communications Branch, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; (b)(i) PE7; (ii) $25,200-$35,300.


Mr. Herbert: What time schedule does the Minister of Finance envisage for the complete removal of all effective subsidies in the retail price of imported gasoline used by private automobile owners?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I assume that the hon. member is referring to the Oil Import Compensation Program, which was put in place in April, 1974, to ease the transition to higher costs of imported oil. The government's policy is to move domestic oil prices toward international levels; the July 1 increase of $1.05 per barrel was a step in that direction. As Canadian oil prices approach world levels, average compensation payments for both crude and product imports will diminish. In considering at what rate domestic prices should be permitted to rise, the government must, of course, bear in mind the inflationary impact of higher prices and their effect on our international competitive position.


Mr. Herbert: What is the present time period for the issuance of insider trading reports?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Generally speaking, the law requires an insider to report his interest or change in interest in the securities of a distributing corporation within 10 days after the end of the month in which he became an insider or in which his interest changed. The law further requires the information reported to be summarized in a periodical available to the public. It is the policy of the Department to summarize all information reported for a given month in the Corporate Affairs Bulletin identified by the same month, though issued as soon thereafter as normal processing and printing operations permit.

November 23, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 188 and 903?


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Does the New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture receive funds from DREE and, if so, has the Federation requested that consideration be given to a one-year extension of the funding under the DREE-N.B. General Development Agreement-(Agricultural sub-agreement)?
2.	Has a decision been reached and, if so, on what date will an announcement be made?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: Mr. Speaker, the reply from the department to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) is in two parts. To parts (a) and (b) of question No. 1 is yes. The answer to question No. 2 is that a negative decision was reached by the joint federal-provincial management committee on September 8, 1976. The New Brunswick department of agriculture transmitted the decision to the federation within the week following the September 8 management committee meeting.


Mr. Woolliams: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1976, how many cases under the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code were reported to the Attorney General of Canada?
2.	In each case (a) what were the circumstances (b) what were the names of the accused (c) were any charges laid (d) where there any convictions and, if so, what sentence or sentences, if any, were imposed?


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice does not possess the information sought in so far as the provinces are concerned. Pursuant to section 281.1 (3) of the Criminal Code, consent to prosecute in such a matter must be obtained from the Attorney General of the province where the offence took place. There is no obligation to report any such cases to the Attorney General of Canada. The only applications for consent which would be requested of the Attorney General of Canada would originate from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The records of the department do not indicate that any such applications were received or consented to during the period in question.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I should inform the Flouse that pursuant to Standing Order 26 I have received notices from two hon. members on identical topics, the first being the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the second being the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). Before I render a decision, I feel that I ought to let each of them at least read the notice they gave the Chair earlier, and then I could make a disposition.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under the terms of Standing Order 26 for which I have given appropriate notice. The Auditor General in his annual report yesterday recommended fundamental changes in the accounting practices of the government and urged their immediate implementation. He also stated:
I am deeply concerned that, on the evidence of the two-year examination carried out by the audit office, parliament-and indeed the government-has lost or is close to losing effective control of the public purse.
The matter has been thoroughly considered by the public accounts committee, and the committee has already made recommendations to the House, which have not been satisfactorily implemented. In view of this, Mr. Speaker, I believe the matter must be considered immediately by the House, and if you agree, I would move the appropriate motion.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 26, and I have given the Chair prior notice. 1 ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the statement of the Auditor General of Canada that parliament, and indeed the government, has lost, or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse and that strong, appropriate and effective measures are required to rectify this critically serious situation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I wish I had said that.


Mr. Speaker:: As 1 indicated, both hon. members gave the Chair notice as required by Standing Order 26. As is easily seen, the subject matter of the two motions is certainly identical, and the motions are very close to being identical. The provisions of Standing Order 26 require the Chair, in deciding whether a matter ought to be given the consideration proposed under the rule-that is to say, that the business of the House be set aside or, alternatively, that within a day some time be set aside for a special debate on the subject matter-to bear in mind two very well-known considerations, one being the urgency of the matter itself, and the second being covered by subparagraph (5) of the Standing Order which requires the Chair to decide whether other opportunities might be available to discuss it if in fact the matter is of such a nature as to require the consideration of the House pursuant to the terms of the Standing Order.
[Mr. Abbott.)
November 23, 1976

In terms of its applicability under the rule at the moment, the nature of this matter is unclear, and in that sense is similar to some other urgent matters, particularly work stoppages which have been addressed to the Chair pursuant to the terms of this Standing Order in the past. That is to say that at the moment it is difficult for me to decide if inherent in the nature of the complaint of the Auditor General and the situation to which the Auditor General has alluded, as referred to in these two motions, there is a difficulty which is so imminent as to require a special session of the House of Commons.
The fact is that it is my inclination at this time to decide in the negative, but that is not an indication that the decision will always remain so because, indeed, the matter is certainly going to be discussed and considered at some length; and that is another part of the decision I have to make. In other words, what I am saying with respect to the inherent nature of the matter is that I have the view at the present time that it is not self-evident that this urgent matter is so imminent that we ought to set aside special hours to debate it tonight. That aspect of the matter may become clearer in the days which follows. Therefore, I do not preclude another application if, in fact, evidence leads us to believe that the matter referred to by the Auditor General is in fact so imminent a difficulty that we ought to set aside some time and debate it at once.
However, I am more concerned about the second aspect of the consideration under these applications, and that is the language in this particular Standing Order, which is as follows:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action and he also-
These are the important words:
-shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
It is certainly quite obvious that the matter was brought before the House by some other means today, and undoubtedly it is not going to stop being brought before the House for a short while in that way; but I do not want to suggest for one second that that is a satisfactory way to deal with a subject of this importance and of this amplitude. However, the fact of the matter is that it is also well known-and by order of this House only a day or two ago-that the subject was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and that opportunity for discussion of this subject will certainly be extensive and in many ways, at least initially, ought to be more meaningful than the kind of debate which takes place in this House. That discussion before the committee ought to be with the minister and his officials and the Auditor General and his officials, and it ought to provide the most excellent forum for the discussion of the difficulties referred to by the Auditor General. If that is not the case, the nature of the matter may be such that another application might be considered by the Chair at a future time.
There is, of course, the suggestion that there remain some opposition days, and while that is not a suggestion I like to
Restraint of Government Expenditures come back to frequently, this particular subject is certainly one which, while others cannot be said to lend themselves very conveniently to discussion on opposition days, it would be very difficult to put in that category, and therefore I would have to consider that as a possibility.
However, my major reason for rejecting this application under Standing Order 26 at this moment is based on the opportunity which now exists in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and unless that proves valueless I feel that should be an excellent opportunity. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 26 (5) I feel that I ought not to grant the applications made by both hon. members under the Standing Order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 22, 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.
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask your leave and the consent of the House to permit me to defer to one of the all-time great parliamentarians, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). I ask this because I took only about a minute last night when I called it ten o'clock. In an attempt to persuade hon. members opposite to agree, I should like to remind them of a remark made by Mr. Jack Pickersgill, a former cabinet minister and head of the CTC, when he referred to those who put themselves in the position of speaking ahead of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. He said it was like unto a banjo-player warming up before the Boston Philharmonic.


Mr. Speaker:: With the permission of the House, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very generous words, and Your Honour and the House for giving me the privilege of speaking at this time. I have not been around here as much as I should have liked in the last two or three weeks, but now circumstances are such that 1 can and will be here.
I was very much interested in the discussion that took place here this afternoon about parliament, the House and the people. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by virtue of his position, naturally possesses abundant power to assure that the

November 23, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
House of Commons shall in fact be a parliamentary institution worthy of the tradition of parliament and, above all, able to carry out the mandate parliament has of maintaining freedom. I have been a long time in this House, but I have no recollection since 1956 of having seen parliament flouted as it was today by the arrogant and insolent remarks made by the Prime Minister of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Indeed, it is unbelievable that anyone occupying the position he does, of high honour, should treat the House of Commons as though it were simply a group of members designed to carry out his wishes and forget the larger responsibilities that rest on all members.
As the hon. member for Brome-Mississquoi (Mr. Grafftey) pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we do not yet have the presidential system. I have never before known a prime minister who would not take the House into his confidence, would not ask for the views of the House but would simply arrogate to himself the right to speak to the people of Canada, giving the impression, as he does, that by being Prime Minister he is speaking for the parliamentarians in this institution. I have never known anything like it before. He has no business whatsoever to speak to the Canadian people and point out what he believes should be done, without having the viewpoint of parliament as a whole. To do otherwise is to arrogate to himself a power that comes of speaking over the broadcasting system of this country. I say it is wrong; it is dangerous.


An hon. Member:: People are dangerous.


John George Diefenbaker: He is going ahead, however, because for parliament he cares nothing whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Therefore, while in no way accepting his right to speak to the Canadian people without having consulted parliament in advance, I say the same period of time that he will receive should be made available to members of the opposition in the House of Commons so that their views will be placed before the Canadian people as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Have you ever heard, Mr. Speaker, anything to equal the condemnation of a government as is contained in the report of the Auditor General? I am not going to quote it because I do not want to run over my time, but summarized it is this: Management is grossly inadequate. Mr. Macdonell criticized the federal government for not even beginning to reform the way it presents its yearly estimates, despite 150 recommendations from the public accounts committee. He outlined in detail the degree to which this government has gone contrary to every democratic principle and has allowed the expenditures of this country to mount to a degree never reached before.
When I was prime minister, the total expenditures amounted to some $6 billion. Today they amount to some $42 billion. As far as the deficit is concerned this year, I estimate it to be some $5 billion, and the interest on borrowing that amount will cost the Canadian taxpayer $1,100,000 per day. Yet there is no endeavour whatsoever to meet the situation. Today the Prime Minister showed his complete contempt for this institution. He is in a position of having a mathematical majority in the House and pretends that he can disregard the rights of members of this House-indeed, not only pretends but does.
What is the attitude of the Canadian people to this government, Mr. Speaker? They do not believe the Prime Minister when he speaks. They have lost their faith in the credibility of a government which has continued to take one stand and then, when criticized, the Prime Minister contends he never said what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That happens over and over again. 1 am not going to quote what the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) said in his letter to Liberal members, Mr. Speaker. Courageous in war, he was even more courageous to produce this letter because his future is very uncertain. He set out in detail what happened and he criticized the Prime Minister directly and indirectly.


Walter David Baker: Not fair.


John George Diefenbaker: The Hon. John Turner, a fine parliamentarian who left here a year ago because he could not put up with the attitude of the Prime Minister-1 think it would be fair enough to point that out as the reason-spoke the other day in Toronto. Whenever Liberals today want to look toward Mecca, they seem to turn to Toronto and the Hon. John Turner.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Speak to the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: I will be very happy to have any interruptions at any time as long as the individual stands so that he can be identified.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Turner said:
Canada has reached the "bottom of the line" as a credit risk in other countries.
He went on to set out in some detail what he thinks in this regard. Mr. Turner was in Europe recently, before the election in the province of Quebec. As we saw, the Prime Minister used recent events as a smokescreen to hide the fact that the government has been on a spending spree never before equalled in this country. When Mr. Turner was in Europe recently, he found that not only is Canada at the bottom of the line for credit among other countries, but that now we are on the list of countries of political risk. I wonder what that means. Has it anything to do with Castro and Cuba? I ask the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
November 23, 1976

question without making further observation, it not being necessary.
What is wrong with the nation? One hears all kinds of explanations. Sir, this government could not win a by-election today even if it tried its hardest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It has made two or three attempts recently to win by-elections, and the results have been a disaster which made Waterloo look like an amateur performance. In the constituency of Ottawa-Carleton, the previous large Liberal majority was reversed and electors in that constituency elected with a large majority a remarkable lady to represent them in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The electors of St. John's West sent to this House an outstanding parliamentarian with a reputation for standing up for that in which he believes. Sir, he was not overwhelmed by Smallwood or Pickersgill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: i challenge the Prime Minister to announce immediately the holding of by-elections in constituencies made vacant in recent days. Give the people the opportunity to express their views with their votes.
As one goes across this country speaking to average Canadians, what does one hear them say? They ask, where are we going? What is going to happen? What is the future of Canada to be? What has the Prime Minister done to our parliamentary system? What does he plan, if he ever brings about what he calls the patriation of the constitution? Sir, the Prime Minister gave the game away last March when he spoke to the Liberal federation in the city of Quebec. He said that when we bring back the constitution from a foreign country, England, we will then be in a position to decide whether we want a monarchy. Then he said, and I have his exact words before me, we will then have a president, and the first president will be the present Governor General of Canada. He said that he will be the one to choose that first president.
There is the plan; it is as clear as it can be. That is what he has set out to do. You can follow the Machiavellian sinuosities of his course. He is going on national television tomorrow and will be heard on radio; he hopes to wrap himself in the garments of political purity. Sir, I recall his using the same facilities in 1970 when he talked about the terrible danger facing Canada because of the kidnapping of a member of the Quebec government and a British consular agent. 1 said at the time that the government's action was unnecessary; the criminal law was enough. Now he has frankly admitted that there was no such danger as he placed in such pious and lachrymose terms before the people of Canada.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
Sir, when you try to influence the Canadian people by conjuring up smokescreens, I say they will not be fooled. The present government, and you may as well face this fact, falsifies facts when it reveals any suggestions which show how wasteful it is. The latest revelations of waste are contained in the recent report of the Auditor General. This institution has been so degraded from the position it occupied between 1968 and 1972 that people no longer believe in this government. It is clear that the only ones believing in this government sit opposite us. They know that if an election were called now, they would not be back. There is no question about it. What is the reason?


An hon. Member:: Put your hatchet down.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish the hon. member would stand up and identify himself, if he wishes to intervene. Sir, it is music to my ears when the little folk interrupt. I now come to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mange le boeuf.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is super-bull.


John George Diefenbaker: Some in this country say the government does not know where it is going. The sensibilities of others have been shocked by this spendthrift government. Still others say that the government does not know where it is going and would not know where it is after it got there-but not the Minister of Agriculture. He made one of the most remarkable speeches ever made by a minister. I have never known such bovine wisdom. I thought it was said in fun, but it was not; it was all serious. He explained it. He said that eating beef makes people bully. The people of Canada may not be eating beef, and I know what they feel about this government. The minister said that Canadians are divided; they are discouraged and downcast about their country. He said that the increasing consumption of certain foods, particularly blood meats such as beef, makes people ferocious and will lead to dissension within the country.
We are not eating much beef now. Would there be more dissension if we ate more beef? Then the minister gave an example of how deleterious is the effect of beef eating. He said, "You know, those South American countries are at war with one another because they eat too much beef." That is the only part of his statement to which he does not wish to refer. 1 am sure the South American countries will be asking whether the Minister of Agriculture spoke for Canada or for himself.


Eugene Whelan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) says 1 made that statement in the course of a speech. That is not the case. It was made around a table, among a group of press people. I want to make it clear, too, that I never used the words "bloody meat" at all in the discussion. It was an off-the-cuff, jovial type of discussion which took place. But I will repeat again, for the benefit of the right hon. gentleman and anyone else who wants to listen, "You are what you eat."

November 23, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures


An hon. Member:: You must eat a lot of baloney.


John George Diefenbaker: I have heard all kinds of explanations. But can you see a picture of the Minister of Agriculture sitting with a group at the round table, like King Arthur who has been commemorated throughout the years, whether he existed or not? What do the South American countries say about that ejaculation on the part of the minister? A caller from one of those countries asked me, "Who is this fellow?" 1 had to explain that he was the Minister of Agriculture for Canada.
We were talking about waste and extravagance. How could anyone expect it would be otherwise with a Prime Minister who has been on a constant spending spree? There is 24 Sussex Drive. There is the home in the country. The Taj Mahal has nothing on that! If the Prime Minister is a waster of public money, as he has been to the extent of spending $400,000 to beautify the surroundings in which he lives, do you expect the cabinet to behave any differently? What is his attitude toward parliament? I do not want to resurrect anything from the past, but I think of that pool-$200,000 was the original cost. He said it was donated by certain philanthropic Canadians. He himself apparently contributed something, because one of the ministers reporting on the subject said he had. But what sum did he contribute? It could have been $25 or $30. Why should parliament be denied this information?
Mr. Speaker, it was not philanthropy which was shown here, it was cupidity, because before they made their contributions those philanthropists got in touch with the Department of National Revenue and it was agreed that whatever they contributed would be deductible as an expense in the determination of their income tax. So if you and I paid for it, Mr. Speaker, why should not the Prime Minister, with the love of parliament he spoke of today-I have never known him speak in such feeling tones-


An hon. Member:: Why not?


John George Diefenbaker: He was trying to teach the rest of us how parliament should be conducted. He, who has done everything to destroy it, dares to try to teach the rest of us how parliament should operate. Again, you get the picture. I had hoped that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) would be here today. He was for a while. He has established for himself a most unusual record. He flies through the air with the greatest of ease-at our expense!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: He flies to Calgary, because there is no government representative there, just as the Grey Cup game was on. That cost $8,000. He spent $750,000 in three years. But this does not tell us how much he spent prior to that, because the records have disappeared. He says he believes the western farmer should recognize, as far as the Crowsnest pass rates and other freight rates are concerned, that the principle to be followed is that of "user pays". He believes he can use and we can pay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
(Mr. Whelan.)


John George Diefenbaker: I want to go on to a statement he made on Sunday on "Cross-country Check-up." He was explaining the unexplainable, unscrewing the inscrutable, and he came out with this observation: he said, "There are other ministers who have spent more." I had hoped there would be quite a number of them here today, because I would like to give them an opportunity to stand up and identify themselves. This is an example of what the government has done all across the country. People are asking, "What about Lang?" Having been out in the west, I can tell you that his song after the next election will be "Auld Lang Syne."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Its a lang, lang way to trick the prairies!


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman were here, I would say some more. I should merely like to add that there will be no aircraft fast enough to get him out of the way when members opposite go to the people in the next election and receive their condemnation. In the old days, during the days of depression and drought for the farmers of western Canada, conditions the like of which have never been seen before or since, those who had little cars could not operate them, so they simply hitched them up to a horse or two, and because the government of Canada was under the prime ministership of Mr. Bennett they called them "Bennett buggies." I think there should be a name given to these high-class jets the minister uses-Otto-mobiles because he deserves to be remembered in history as the man who flew away three-quarters of a million dollars worth of the Canadian people's money. I should like, also, to know the names of the other ministers who were big spenders. I know the Minister of Agriculture would not be one of them. He spends his time at round tables. But who were these people? Can we get any information about them? Oh, I see the minister is going to provide it.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to remind the right hon. member that he bought the first two jet planes. I am sure he did not buy them to leave at the airport terminals; he bought them to serve the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I see that what remains of the ministry is applauding. The hon. lady from British Columbia is applauding. The point I am making is that the government has been using these aircraft in a way which cannot be justified, that is, taking them for personal use.
There is the position of affairs. No amount of water from Neptune's ocean will ever wipe out the blemish of the Minister of Transport, because what he did was totally unjustifiable, even though he said the other day by way of Calamai that there are others in the same position. No one has any objection to the use of an aircraft, though I am not one who would choose a high speed jet, provided however it is used on
November 23, 1976

government business. But today aircraft are being used simply as a personal perquisite of ministers who get the Canadian people to pay the bill.	.
There is one further matter 1 want to deal with very shortly, Mr. Speaker. The members of this House might as well stay at home in so far as having any of their views listened to in connection with anything, but in particular external affairs. All through the years and in the days of war Prime Minister King gave opportunities to members of the House of Commons to debate for a couple of days foreign affairs, not on opposition days but on government days.
Where do Canada's present foreign affairs policies come from? Do they come from the House of Commons? We have never been consulted. These policies originate in the head of Ivan Head and the Prime Minister. If we had the right to speak, would we be permitting what has happened in Cuba? Instead of coddling Castro, would we not be pointing out the danger to world peace of his having his troops in Angola today crushing those who believe in freedom? .
Why is it that Canada is unpopular internationally, as the Hon. John Turner said? All over South America and Central America they are saying "There stands Castro with an army which he is ready to use at any time at all in any country". I should like to know what happened to the two planes that were provided Castro by the Canadian government. Were they used for the shipment of soldiers from Cuba? 1 ask that because apparently the minister knows, even outside of the round table. Where are those aircraft today? What compensation did the government of Cuba pay Canada for those planes?
Has any member of parliament been given the opportunity to speak out concerning the tremendous danger to world peace today as the U.S.S.R. moves forward everywhere, protected as it is by the agreement that was entered into in Helsinki? I spoke out against it; I said it was wrong, that it was dangerous. It would simply mean that the western nations would approve of the diabolical cruelties perpetrated against Ukrainians and Baltic peoples and others behind the iron curtain. Did we have the opportunity to speak about this, Mr. Speaker? Did the government of Canada have the right to decide to support the Helsinki pact without asking parliament at least for an opinion? Today, in this country, external affairs are not in the control of the trained people in the department. They are merely the machinery. What Head and the Prime Minister decide becomes Canadian policy, and that is too dangerous.
I now suggest to the government-and I will have the Minister of Agriculture pass this on to those in authority- that we be given a couple of days periodically for the purpose of expressing our views, because as things are continuing, more and more this nation is finding itself turning its back on nations that preserve freedom and is turning in the general direction of countries which today are under the domination, directly or indirectly, of the U.S.S.R. and communism.
Never in all the years has this been more dangerous to freedom than today, and NATO nations are beginning to realize this. The Kremlin has built up the most tremendous two armies on earth, as well as the largest navy which moves
Restraint of Government Expenditures down the Mediterranean as it has tried to do since the days of King Peter the Great. In the last week there has been the suggestion of fear at the degree to which the U.S.S.R. is building up atomic or hydrogen instruments of war. We do not get the chance to talk about that, because where Head is there is Trudeau also. Experienced members of external affairs might just as well keep their mouths shut, because Canada's policy is being determined by two individuals. That is too dangerous to the peace of this country and of the world.
I am not going to say more today, Mr. Speaker. I have never known a government that fears there might be some control in parliament over expenditures as this. We have none at all. In the early days of parliament, members of the House would be all together in committee of the whole dealing with the estimates. I know how some ministers have sometimes been concerned. When I was prime minister they would say, "My department's estimates are coming up and I think I have something to explain". I said, "If you have, explain it". There is none of that today. The way the administration is today, the government of Canada could hide away $100 million without this parliament or any member of it having the right to object, because they would never know anything about it.
I listened to the hypocritical remarks of the Prime Minister today who pretended that suddenly he had developed a love for this institution. I can only recall that on one occasion he said that many members of parliament in the Liberal party were bums, and I do not want to disagree with that because he would know, Mr. Speaker. He said, "We will get rid of them at the next election". The rest of us were nobodies. He is the individual who tomorrow night, as Canada wonders where the nation is going, will be speaking to the Canadian people. No one is more responsible for the divisions that have taken place in Canada than the Prime Minister-no one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Tomorrow he is going to tell us what is good for this nation. Let me tell you that I hold no brief for Mr. Levesque, but I never heard a word of criticism from the Prime Minister during the election campaign when there was more at issue than the provincial election. There was a host of members of the Liberal party in this House who went down to tell the people of Quebec what was wrong, but the people of Quebec told them through their vote where they could go. This country is divided, and the man who is responsible is the Prime Minister of this country. I have no hesitation in saying that, none at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That is a fact, and even that hon. member from British Columbia knows it. When she goes back to her constituency she will have difficulty explaining that that is not so. People are aroused, and they are aroused because this man has taken it upon himself to determine the future of the country. Is it not an interesting revelation that in the last couple of days Levesque has decided to restore the oath of

November 23, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures allegiance to the Queen in respect of ministers of the Crown in Quebec?


An hon. Member:: Are you supporting him?


John George Diefenbaker: There is another chap that does not even know what it is all about. This oath was taken away by a Liberal government, and Levesque is going to bring it back. This would seem to indicate that he realizes whatever happens in the future that he should now stand for the monarchy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has already indicated in very clear-cut tones the general behaviour of this government and its great and growing unacceptability to the people of this country having regard to its general performance and, in particular, its management of the financial affairs of Canada. As you know, sir, a substantial part of this day has already been spent in dealing with the government's willingness to deal with the specific and direct suggestions put forward again as recently as yesterday by the Auditor General concerning how this government should resume or assume some measure of responsibility for the financial affairs of this country which have fallen into such a sorry state.
It is more than a touch of irony that at this point, in addition to the matters presented to us by the Auditor General, this House should be seized with Bill C-19 which purports to be a bill having to do with government restraint. One wonders how the government can have the incredible gall to pursue this particular piece of legislation in the face of that kind of direct and basic condemnation presented to it in the latest report of the Auditor General.
My colleagues have already suggested a number of instances in which this government has shown its increasing incompetence and, perhaps, its unwillingness to manage properly the financial and economic affairs of this country. I have no hesitation in suggesting this afternoon, as has been suggested by other speakers in the course of this debate, that the measure we are presently considering is primarily a sham and a fraud. It presents itself as a bill having to do with national restraint. There is no doubt that there is a certain impact in this bill on those who can least afford to protect themselves, but the description of this legislation as having to do with restraint is obviously so far from the mark as to be absolutely ridiculous.
Even at the time the previous president of the treasury board presented his statement on December 18, 1975, he was unable to indicate to the former leader of my party and other members the exact application of this so-called $1.5 billion. Members will recall that the shopping list provided by the then president of the treasury board dealing with budgetary and non-budgetary items was not clearly understood even by the minister. When we asked on the night of December 18 to have some active comparison between the statement and the ongoing estimates of the department, the minister quite candidly admitted it would be impossible until the new estimates were presented in February of this year.

We have had those estimates and we have had supplementary estimates since, but the news goes from bad to worse. It is estimated now that there will in fact be an increase in government spending this year of some 16 per cent, representing an increase, in absolute terms, of $5.8 billion. When one begins to look at that figure of $5.8 billion and compares it with the kind of possible, probable, maybe, or could be things, the then president of the treasury board talked about on December 18, we realize what kind of sleight of hand was being practised by this government. We realized that this list of a strange assortment of items to be reduced or eliminated altogether not only was not significant in terms of a legitimate restraint program, but it was, as the House leader of our party suggested yesterday, simply a piece of cosmetics in an attempt to create an impression in the public mind that this government was serious about restraint.
In a sense, it is no longer necessary for a member on this side of the House really to make the case, because the case has been made abundantly and conclusively by the Auditor General. I do not plan again to make a case in respect of the ridiculous situation this government has itself in at the moment with this sham of a bill; but, as I said a few minutes ago, there are elements in it which, because of the indiscriminate and haphazard way in which the measure was drawn together, are having a real impact in areas on those people who can least afford to protect themselves.
At the time this measure was brought forward by the then president of the treasury board, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), I made it very clear that I was very much concerned about the nature of these reductions and the kind of criteria that were used to make the decisions involved. That concern, as I mentioned when the minister made his statement on December 18-and have mentioned since-is that there was no basic framework, no basic acknowledgement that in some areas the government's financial management was not under control, there was no evaluation in terms of priorities, and no criteria had been established as to the major and minor responsibilities on the part of the government.
Mr. Speaker, it does not take anyone with a very long memory to recall the last time the government embarked on a so-called restraint program. In the years 1969-70 the government decided it had to enact such a program because it had said the economy was overheated. It referred in particular to parts of central Canada and the far western part of Canada where the economy had to be dampened because of the fires of inflation. That was before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made his first statement about the fires of inflation having been extinguished. But what those of us who live in the regions of the country where the health of the economy is in a delicate situation discovered is that in attempting to deal in an inflexible way with the inflationary situation, to which the government had partially contributed, certain regions and provinces in this country suffered inordinately.
November 23, 1976

We saw there the effect in terms of the very rapid rise in the unemployment figures and the growing disparity which existed between incomes and the prices that were related to them. So some of us here tried to head this off at the outset last December. We tried to make the government realize that it was in the interest of the restraint program that two things be clearly understood. One was that the program would have to relate to an over-all plan of goals, of priorities and of financial administration-some of the things that were talked about by the Auditor General. Without some kind of an over-all plan within which such a program would operate, it was obvious that the indiscriminate assortment or gathering together of cuts would be meaningless, and very often counterproductive.
The second point some of us were trying to make was that in addition to having a clear-cut framework within which these expenditure cuts would be allocated, they should also bear some relationship to the economic strength of the regions. This is something that is very difficult for this government to understand. I know I do not have to make the point overly strenuously, perhaps, to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), who is from Prince Edward Island, because he understands the situation in a place like Prince Edward Island compared to some of the larger urban areas of this country. This government has never clearly understood the situation, and did not understand it last December when we pressed both the then president of the treasury board and the minister of finance to indicate very clearly that in dealing with a restraint program it would equally affect all parts of the country.
Of course, if the minister was here he would say that is exactly the kind of program that is being put into effect. What he does not understand, however, is that if a program is to deal with all parts of the country equally, decisions have to be taken with respect to the regions themselves. This requires flexibility and a relationship to a framework in respect of expenditure reductions. That, of course, is what did not happen. We have, for example, the sorry situation before us at the present time. One of the announced reductions was in respect of the indexing which had formerly existed with relation to the manpower adult occupational training allowance. It was estimated that by removing the indexing the government would save something like $27 million. The government would save a saving, but it was not going to reduce the allowances as such. In some cases they might have to be increased to provide people with a basic income during training periods. It would mean they would have to close down the number of opportunities there would be for occupational training in respect of those who are presently unemployed. By implication, it would confine more people either to welfare payments or unemployment insurance.
With reference to actual reductions, of course it means that the heaviest burden of the reductions takes place not evenly across the country but in those areas where unemployment is the greatest. Of course, in the Atlantic regions-which 1 know best-this program will fall disproportionately heavily upon the shoulders of those who come from that area who normally receive 16 per cent of the moneys allocated to this program, when in reality there is only 9.5 per cent of the population. I
Restraint of Government Expenditures raise this matter because we are having a repeat, again, in the five eastern provinces, of the situation which occurred a few years back with the government's previous so called restraint program. In December of 1975, when the government announced its program, the Atlantic provinces had something like 81,000 unemployed people. By October of this year, from the latest figures of Statistics Canada, we discover there are now some 99,000 people, or 11.9 per cent of the labour force, looking for employment. That is the figure for October.
I think, without fear of contradiction, that when we receive the figure for the end of the year and make the yearly comparison with a year ago, hon. members should not be surprised to discover that the unemployment rate has risen substantially at the very time the government has been reducing assistance to those who are looking for alternatives in order to become active and productive members of the work force. The same situation applies to the province of Quebec. The attention of members has been focused in recent days on the political situation in the province of Quebec. The economic situation should not be ignored. In fact, we ignore the economic situation in Quebec only at our peril. Last December there were something like 7.9 per cent of the people in Quebec unemployed-214,000. By October of this year the figure had risen to 276,000, or 10.1 per cent of the labour force.
In total, in the five eastern provinces, which have something like one-third the population of this country, roughly half the people, some 375,000, are presently looking for work. This is a fact this government seems to find impossible to comprehend, that is, the fact that at the very time the government is supposedly exercising a restraint program which exists primarily for cosmetic purposes, some element of it-not large in terms of the $l'/2 billion the government referred to in its press releases of last December-are having a considerable impact and creating very grave hardship for people in the five eastern provinces.
My colleagues, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), and others, have already indicated the grave seriousness with which they regard the situation concerning the transportation subsidies on the movement of grain out of eastern ports. I have said far too often in this House on previous occasions how important it is not to destroy the impact of regional economic policies by undercutting them with totally counterproductive transportation policies. Yet clearly that is what this government has done. It has done this in a way in which it has become completely insensitive to the transportation and industrial needs of the flour millers who operate at our east coast ports. How can this government justify, on the one hand, having a regional development policy while, on the other hand, it exercises a restraint program which basically hits at those who are unemployed, unorganized or regionally disadvantaged? That is beyond my comprehension.
I have saved for last the one program which seems to me to be most serious of all. It involves a significant amount of money. It is not just a few million dollars, as in the case of the

November 23, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures Company of Young Canadians which was extinguished simply because the government found it to be a public relations embarrassment. It had nothing to do with any kind of evaluation of its cost-benefit aspect or its worth-while qualities. 1 would like to have had an opportunity to say more about the Company of Young Canadians, because I think that if ever there was an action on the part of the government indicative of a kind of overwhelming cynicism, it has to be in the destruction of its own child, the Company of Young Canadians. It was introduced by the former prime minister and the former member for Ottawa-Carleton in glowing tones less than a decade ago, and has now been put out of misery by a government which could no longer understand or explain something valuable that in fact it had done. I have no hesitation in saying that about the Company of Young Canadians which I actively supported at the outset and since, and those hon. members who will take the time to read the record will know that.
But there is one area that I cannot ignore, because it seems to me that it reflects the ultimate cynicism of this government. I refer to the government's announced decision to terminate for this year the indexing of family allowance payments. On the face of it, this does not sound like such a serious proposal. Surely, people in various stations of life and in various situations of economic ability are affected to the same degree, and therefore at the outset people would not be overly troubled by this action on the government's part. But, as was pointed out by our House leader, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) yesterday, there is a fundamental difference with respect to family allowances now and their previous version- and that, of course, is the aspect of taxation.
Since taxation of family allowances has been introduced, it has been very clearly understood that the impact of this form of family assistance is directed at those who need it most, those in the lower income groups who, quite naturally, do not pay much or any income tax and can benefit from the full amount that is disbursed on a monthly basis. Those in the middle and higher income brackets who, in effect, do not need the family allowance find that for the most part it is being taxed back to the federal treasury. That is why the element of seriousness exists with respect to this measure.
I have already indicated the extent of unemployment which exists in the five eastern provinces. Let me also indicate the loss of income to a very high proportion of low income people who live in these five eastern provinces, the roughly eight million people who inhabit the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec. The loss of income this year, because of the removal of the indexing of family allowances means, in the case of Newfoundland, some $6,625,000; in the case of Prince Edward Island, some $1,213,000; in the case of Nova Scotia, some $8,209,000; in New Brunswick, some $6,928,000; and in the province of Quebec, some $58,420,000.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How much in Ontario?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would be delighted to provide those figures if I had time, but I am trying to indicate to hon. members-and I know the parliamentary secretary does not disagree with me-that a much higher proportion than the national average of low income families live in the eastern provinces and they are affected by the government's measure to the extent shown in the figures which I quoted a moment ago, apart from the figures on unemployment which I also quoted.
The point I am making-and I hope the parliamentary secretary understands it clearly-is that the people who are most seriously affected are not those who are contributing to the inflationary situation in the country. I hope the parliamentary secretary is not trying to suggest in his question that the people who rely heavily on monthly family allowance payments are in any way contributing to inflation, because the money they spend is not money spent on the kind of luxuries that middle and upper middle class people very often provide for themselves. We are talking about the bread-and-butter situation which exists for people on very low incomes and often at subsistence levels.
I think it would be incredible for any individual-and that is why I found the action of the government last December, and in its announcement since, so unthinking and so insensitive-to believe that there is some merit in reducing the very payments that more than any other in this country helps to alleviate some of the economic injustices that exist, particularly in regions of the country where there are not as many employment opportunities or where the employment opportunities and incomes are at such a low level as not to support satisfactorily individuals and families with the necessities of life. I believe that when we are thinking of the economic disparities which exist among individuals or in regions, programs of income equalization which are basic to families, such as the family allowance program, should be beyond the range of government-even of this government-to tamper with in this fashion.
I have not yet heard the minister, the Prime Minister, the parliamentary secretary or any member on the other side give an adequate explanation as to why the termination in 1976 of the indexing of family allowance payments was justified, particularly for the individuals in regions which so desperately need them. 1 know that the government, apparently feeling conscience-stricken, announced in its most recent Speech from the Throne that indexing of family allowances would be reintroduced next year. What a great and generous move for this government to make, when legislation had already been passed establishing this as the normal way in which this program was to be administered! The shocking thing is that this House should be asked to remove this added form of income equalization in the face of a program of government restraint which, from all points of view, has simply not held up in terms of credibility or accountability.
November 23, 1976



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canada Pension Plan-Proposed extension of coverage to all homemaker spouses; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Customs-Alleged discrimination in imposition of duties on automobile parts entering Manitoba-Government action; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Fisheries-Reason for delay in assistance to Irish moss harvesters.
[ Translation]
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The bill stands at the request of the government. Order No. 3, in the name of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The bill stands at the request of the government. Order No. 7, in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin).


RAILWAY ACT
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West) moved: that Bill C-207, to amend the Railway Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the essence of the bill that is before us this afternoon is to upgrade by a small notch what might be referred to as the social responsibility of a major segment of a
Railway Act
Canadian industry which is really by nature, a form of public utility-I am referring ot the country's railways-toward the public that it does indeed serve. Specifically, this bill would require the railways to seek approval of the Canadian Transport Commission, which is the regulatory authority which oversees matters relating to the operation of the railroads in this country for all major construction programs which may be undertaken by them, with particular reference to programs in urban areas where it is proposed that additional tracks should be laid.
At the moment the provisions of the Railway Act require this independent review for new branch lines, but it seems to stop there. It concerns me, and I know it concerns the residents of my riding and the residents of many other ridings across the country, that ordinary citizens must individually seek specific approval of their particular municipality for the most minute construction program they may undertake in their own backyards, yet one of our major railways this past summer was able to proceed in my area of Scarborough with major expansion plans without any requirement to seek approval of the regulatory body and without even an obligation to notify citizens living as close as 100 feet from the construction area.
The mere fact that the railroad owns a segment of land in a given urban area, commonly referred to as a right-of-way, surely in this day and age should not give it the automatic right to construct facilities on this land to its heart's content without any obligation to refer such plans to the federal regulatory body which is set up to oversee its affairs. In fact, it was only owing to the fact that part of the expansion plans required the purchase of a small piece of the borough of Scarborough land that the matter was highlighted, and this resulted in numerous public meetings where the residents of the area registered what I consider quite righteous indignation over this whole matter, and particularly over the way it was handled.
I submit that in this day and age any expansion of our railways involving, as in this instance, transforming a single and largely unused track located just behind a 20-year old subdivision into a five-track major marshalling yard should receive an independent assessment by the regulatory authority parliament has established for this very purpose. There is no question that this substantial increase in tracks and railway activity will produce considerably more noise pollution and danger, particularly to younger children, yet the first official knowledge the residents in the area received was to see at first-hand the bulldozers arrive behind their homes to commence the necessary grading and levelling prior to installing the tracks.
On referring this matter to the Canadian Transport Commission I was informed that it simply has no jurisdiction whatsoever over expansion plans unless a new or extended branch line is involved. I suggest that this is simply not adequate. There is no question but that the comfort and value of these homes will be affected by this major use change in the

November 23, 1976
Railway Act
area adjacent to their homes, yet the frightening aspect of it is that this kind of thing can go on without any involvement whatsoever of those directly affected.
This bill has been carefully reviewed and has received the complete endorsement of the mayor, all members of the board of control and the entire 12-man council of the borough of Scarborough. I suggest that the purpose is not to frustrate the operations of our Canadian railroads, but simply to make them more responsive, in their public utility role, to the public they serve.
Under the bill, the railways would be required to submit expansion plans to the CTC for approval, and at the same time the bill would require advance public notice to be given in the community directly involved, exactly as now applies in the case of new branch lines. The bill does not propose something new; rather, it proposes an extension of existing legislation to encompass significant areas of construction other than specifically branch lines where equally justified concerns may exist as to the various ramifications of those programs.
The result of passage of this legislation would be to make the public aware of proposed expansion plans in advance. Community residents would have an opportunity and a mechanism by which their objections-or support, in some cases- would be registered. The CTC, an independent body of specialists, could choose either to hold or not to hold public hearings, probably depending on the nature and extent of the plans.
This is not an extreme bill; it is not one which makes unreasonable or impractical demands. It simply allows for community participation and is a logical extension of society's increasing concern for people and their communities. 1 solicit the support of hon. members of this House to enable this bill to move beyond second reading.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my observations with respect to Bill C-207. There are one or two points I want to make, and 1 will preface them by saying that it is refreshing once in a while to see coming up in private members' hour suggestions with respect to public legislation which are useful in social terms. It is useful and encouraging when private members can come into this chamber and bring forward measures of this nature which merit the support of all hon. members of the House. In that connection it will be our intention, after a few brief comments from one or two of my colleagues, to let Bill C-207 proceed to the standing committee for further review, and hopefully at some time incorporation into the laws of our country.
As I mentioned a moment or two ago, what the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) attempts to get at is one of our social evils. We are all perfectly aware of the difficulties residents face as a result of the actions of massive institutions such as the railways of this country, and perhaps this bill will give people an opportunity to express their concern.
Beyond the merits of this bill, which merits the favourable consideration and support of all of us, there is also the principle of private members' hours of which 1 think we ought not to lose sight. Traditionally, the principle has been to treat all matters which are private, in the sense of being backbenchers' legislation, during private members' hours. It is somewhat regrettable that individual private members have to bring forward amendments to major bills which in the traditional sense are not private but public. Notwithstanding that, we still intend to let this bill go through, and before resuming my seat I would like to commend the hon. member for Scarborough West.
I hope other backbenchers in the House will take this as an example of the seriousness with which we treat the opportunity backbenchers have to bring forward matters of consequence to the people of this country. In that light, we will acquiesce to this motion. I simply remind government backbenchers that this is a transport matter and I hope the committee will be able to deal with it. The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications already has before it at least one very important matter which has not yet been dealt with: I am referring to the matter of an independent commission of inquiry into incidents or accidents which must be dealt with under federal legislation with respect to all transport in Canada. I would hope that the very commendable private motion of the hon. member for Scarborough West for the establishment of an independent inquiry commission could find its way to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications before too long. I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this matter forward, and hope it gets speedy approval at second reading stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a sensible bill. It strikes me as being well drawn and it certainly meets a social need. I should, therefore, like to join with the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) in supporting it. I hope it will be unanimous and that within a matter of a few minutes we will actually be sending a private member's bill to one of our standing committees.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) for introducing such a public bill whose purpose is to give residents of a community the opportunity to voice their objection against certain steps being taken by railway companies. I feel the required time in this bill is not exaggerated.
On behalf of my party, I would like to call the attention of the government on these bills called private bills which are allowed to be debated between five and six o'clock and which are always killed by the clock. Of course, they are killed by the government which refuses to pass bills introduced by opposition members. 1 feel greater consideration should be given to these bills which often are very important for some communi-
[Mr. Martin.)
November 23, 1976

ties. Others are of national scope, but because some bills are introduced in the House by opposition members, they have to be killed, and it is done by government members.
We in our party are much more polite than they are, and when they introduce sensible bills which we feel are in the public interest, we make it a duty to support them. As far as we are concerned, we are happy that this bill will find its way to the committee for further study and ultimately for passage in the House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to enter debate on Bill C-207. I notice the explanatory note reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to give residents in the vicinity of a railway where a change, deviation or alteration (including the creation or expansion of a marshalling yard)-
The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) has laid emphasis on marshalling yards. 1 should like to suggest that he should have included piggy-back terminals. They are just as objectionable and noisy as marshalling yards. The explanatory note continues:
-is proposed to be made the opportunity to voice their objections by requiring the company to give four weeks public notice of such change, deviation or alteration.
It is unfortunate that a private member has to introduce such a bill when in the last parliament the government stated they were going to introduce rail line relocation plans. If their proposals were genuine, they would have consulted the people, the cities, the municipalities and the provinces about the placement of piggy-back terminals and marshalling yards. This all falls under rail line relocation, but it has all been pushed aside. A private member has had to introduce a bill to try and get some sanity into rail line relocation and the placement of marshalling yards, piggy-back terminals and the like.
I have had a similar problem in my riding, Mr. Speaker, where the CNR, a Crown corporation, placed a piggy-back terminal adjacent to a residential area. They could not have picked a more idiotic place to put it. I fought this for a year and a half, unsuccessfully, and the city of Winnipeg did everything possible to oppose it and try to get the CNR to change its mind. Citizens groups and the like got absolutely no co-operation from the federal government. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) refused to co-operate with the citizens of Winnipeg and myself and allowed the CNR to shove this piggy-back terminal down our throats and adjacent to a residential area in Winnipeg. The main artery is 80 per cent or 90 per cent congested now, and huge trucks have to come down to get to their destination, while the Minister of Transport flies over it every weekend in his Jet Star when going home.
Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 1975, I raised this matter in the House in the adjournment debate. At that time I said:
There are now two additional reasons why the terminal should not be located on Wilkes Avenue. Last week the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) announced a $436,000 loan for the Manitoba Housing and Renewal
Railway Act
Corporation for the purchase of land for housing west of the proposed piggyback terminal.
This is the key point. The locating of this piggy-back terminal involved three federal government departments. The Minister of Transport was responsible for the CNR. The Department of the Environment did a so-called detailed study into the location of the piggy-back terminal in Winnipeg. It was the first such study done by this new branch of the Department of the Environment, and you would think they would have taken the time to do it properly; but they came up with a half-baked proposal which allowed the terminal to be built adjacent to the residential area. As 1 pointed out, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs allowed grants for housing adjacent to a piggy-back terminal. There is absolutely no co-ordination between the three departments. As 1 pointed out during the adjournment debate:
A housing development and a piggy-back terminal adjacent to one another are in no way compatible. There will be heavy truck traffic in the area as well as diesel engines shunting box cars, and no doubt the terminal will have to expand in the future, thus compounding the problem. Second, the city of Winnipeg agreed last Thursday to send a telegram to the federal government to register the city's position and to ask that an order in council permitting the construction of the terminal be rescinded.
This was completely ignored by the federal government. The mayor of Winnipeg tried everything, for approximately a year, to get the Minister of Transport to listen to reason and have this ridiculous approach stopped. At one time the minister and the mayor almost came to blows at the Winnipeg air terminal over this ridiculous proposal. We are supposed to be servants of the people, and the CNR, as a Crown corporation, should have been listening to the people in this case.
In my riding, some proposals have come from Canadian Pacific Railway for a marshalling yard adjacent to a residential area. 1 corresponded with them and they eventually decided that was no place for it. It was comforting to discover that the CPR. a private corporation, would listen to people, listen to reason, and not place a marshalling yard next to a residential area. On the other hand, the CNR, a Crown corporation, absolutely ignored the people and shoved the marshalling yard down their throats.
It is interesting to read news reports concerning the piggyback proposal shoved down the throats of the people of Winnipeg by the CNR. One headline reads, "Juba awaiting answer on meeting with Lang." The minister refused to meet with the mayor and council to discuss this question. They had to confront him at the airport, and it almost came to blows- all because he would not meet with the mayor. That shows how members of this government behave. A paragraph in another news report on this matter reads:
Winnipeg works and operations commissioner Nick Diakiw is on the spot on the issue of whether to reinforce a city watermain on the site of the new Canadian National Railways piggy-back terminal in Tuxedo.
Clearly, the people of Winnipeg did not receive the co-operation of the government and the CNR. Another article, headlined "What about public interest", mentions a game reserve in the area of the proposed marshalling yard. Evidently the

November 23, 1976
Railway Act
proposed location for a piggy-back centre is ridiculous and will interfere with the game reserve. But that does not bother either the CNR or the government opposite. Another news report is headlined "Airport meeting fails to move Lang position on terminal site." Evidently the Minister of Transport is not the least bit interested in defending the Canadian people against proposals of this kind put forward by CNR. The last news report to which 1 shall refer is headlined "Problems with terminal inevitable, CN testifies." It reads in part:
Two proposed Canadian National Railways crossings on Wilkes Avenue in Tuxedo would be hazardous and cause public discomfort and inconvenience, but the same is true of all railway crossings, a CN official told a federal committee Tuesday in Winnipeg.
Although it was admitted on all sides that the location of the proposed terminal was ridiculous, the project was to go ahead. I suggested alternate sites for that particular piggy-back terminal. I suggested that it should be placed in northwest Winnipeg, which is a commercial area. The CPR has its terminal in northern Winnipeg. Trucking companies operate from northwest Winnipeg. Consequently, that area would have been the ideal location for the proposed marshalling yard. But no, the CNR wants to put it next to a congested, residential area in the wrong part of town. What kind of planning is this? I can understand the difficulties the hon. member for Scarborough West encountered when the ridiculous proposal affecting his area was shoved down the throats of the people he represents.
We are debating a wonderful bill, but 1 think it is wrong that a private member should need to bring it forward. After all, the federal government has said that it will bring forward plans for rail line relocations. Where are those plans? Also, we were told to expect consultation. The authorities should have consulted in Scarborough West and in Winnipeg South Centre; but we saw no evidence of any consultation. Instead, we saw confrontation on the part of this government. 1 say that it should not allow a Crown corporation to force marshalling yards on people in residential areas, as proposed.
I support the bill, but suggest the hon. member should raise the matter in his own caucus. Let him ask when the government will bring forward its plans with regard to rail line relocation. It should insist on the CNR consulting with provinces and municipalities on matters pertaining to the proposed location of piggy-back terminals or marshalling yard facilities.


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on the bill and a pleasure to support the proposal put forward by my colleague from Scarborough West (Mr. Martin). 1 think we agree that railways are among this country's most important service industries. They have been important in our history and have bound us together. On the other side of the coin, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) suggested, they are formidable opponents, reluctant to divulge information about changes, the location of piggy-back yards or proposed rail line relocations. Actually, the Ministry of Transport, to anyone seeking information on railway changes, is a formidably complicated maze. Historically, railways have barged their way across the coun-

try. Often the public was presented with a fait accompli-the railways had put down their rails before the public had a chance to voice its feelings.
I do not know if anyone has ever tried to discover what dangerous goods railways carry over certain tracks. I have tried, and I can tell you it is a formidable task. I was most interested in knowing what the railways carry, because railway tracks bisect Niagara Falls, the town in the constituency I represent. Mr. Speaker, the railway lines run right through the middle of our tourist and commercial developments. On those lines the railways at times carry very dangerous goods. Our fire chief dearly wants to know what goods certain railway cars contain, because he wants to know what method to use in fighting a fire if one should break out as a result of derailment or other accident. I suppose everyone who has tried asking the railways to pay even a small percentage toward the cost of a new bridge or overpass will know how formidable the task is. The railways are difficult to deal with, notwithstanding the powers of the Canadian Transport Commission and the House of Commons transport committee.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre talked about rail relocation, a subject of which I have some knowledge. For 25 years the people of Niagara Falls have tried to get the railways to move out of the city rail tracks which were once owned by Canada Southern, then by Michigan Central, New York Central and Penn Central. Finally, they were taken over by Con Rail. I can tell you that it is most difficult to secure the co-operation of the railway companies. I hope that plans for proposed rail relocations will move ahead. I sympathize with those other areas facing difficulties similar to ours. I say that it is important to move ahead quickly with rail relocations in this country. The bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West to amend the Railway Act is a step in the right direction.
We need further evidence of co-operation between the railway companies and the public. Too often have the railway companies ignored the ordinary people, the people who must sometimes wait between 25 minutes and 40 minutes to cross a railway crossing to go to work, school or home. I therefore hope that the Ministry of Transport will soon implement plans with regard to rail line relocation. I hope that the Premier of Ontario, together with his Conservative colleagues, especially the provincial minister responsible for housing and development, will be able to reach agreement with those at the federal level to relocate some tracks in Ontario. If such difficulties can be ironed out in Ontario, there is hope that similar difficulties elsewhere can be straightened out. Perhaps some day we shall be rewarded by seeing "The first spike" ceremony when tracks which bisect urban areas are removed.
1 commend my hon. friend from Scarborough West. I thank him for the opportunity of seconding his bill and making a few comments. I believe the measure should go ahead to committee; perhaps this is one small step we should take toward revitalizing the transport system of this country.
November 23, 1976


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is laudable, as has been pointed out by speakers on both sides. But it is my submission that it would be a much better bill were it broader in scope. The purpose is to give residents in the vicinity of a railway where a change, deviation or alteration is proposed to be made, the opportunity to voice their objections by requiring the company to give four weeks' public notice of such change.
This is good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough, because far more than that is needed to cope with the actions of the CNR today. The purpose should be to force the CNR to give notice of any change in policy or attempt to discontinue or downgrade services, so that the objections of the public can be heard. Such protection is particularly needed in the province of Newfoundland where, for the last three or four years, the NCR has adopted a policy of downgrading services in an attempt to eliminate the railway completely.
Hon. members will recollect that a few years ago the CNR was permitted to discontinue railway passenger service in Newfoundland. We had a narrow gauge railway along which ran a train known as the Newfie Bullet. This train was somewhat slow but the atmosphere aboard was extremely convivial, as anyone who has travelled on it will know. One was never at a loss for entertainment.


An hon. Member:: Or for a little scrooch.


John Carnell Crosbie: A little screech-the hon. member's interjection sounded to me somewhat unparliamentary. In any case, that service was discontinued and a bus service was substituted in return for federal help in the paving of the trans-Canada highway-a little two-lane asphalt cow path which now crosses the province.
Since then the CNR has been downgrading its freight and express service. The people of the province, in government, in chambers of commerce and many other groups, including the railway unions of Newfoundland, have asked for a public inquiry. But no public inquiry has yet been conceded by the government. Mr. Speaker, the CNR is a Crown corporation and 1 was always told by legal experts that a Crown corporation is a creature of the government which sponsors it. However, it appears that the CNR is not subservient to anyone. It does not appear to be a creature-it is a creature, all right, in that it is unmentionable, but it is not a creature responsive to the government of the day. Either that or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) does not care about what the CNR does.
The CNR was originally established to hold this country together. If it continues as it has been doing in Newfoundland, it will surely tear this country apart. 1 can assure hon. members that this is a much more important issue there than is bilingualism. There are 3,900 people employed by the CNR in Newfoundland and not one of them knows how long his job is going to last in face of this constant process of attrition. Management of the railway is no longer located in Newfoundland. The local manager no longer has complete control. The system now operates from Moncton, and the step to Moncton
Railway Act
was a nefarious one, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker. They are now in the process of cannibalizing our railway.
Look at it from the point of view of energy consumption alone. Read the background documents produced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and note the constant refrain running through them that freight and cargo should now go by rail rather than by truck because of the energy saving involved. Even this government will realize the good sense of that advice as the price of oil continues to rise. Suppose, though, that some miracle happens, that some lady of the angels saves the government and gives it another five years in power.


An hon. Member:: Heaven forbid! That would be no angel.


John Carnell Crosbie: True. That would be the prince of darkness. But if that should happen, there would be no railroad in Newfoundland to use unless the schemes of the present management of the CNR are stopped. It is up to the Minister of Transport to stop them. What we want is a public inquiry in Newfoundland. Mr. Bandeen is due to visit Newfoundland shortly to meet with the authorities and with the unions-he will need a lot of band-aids unless he can give us some satisfactory explanations of what the CNR is up to in the province. We are not going to accept this state of affairs any longer.
If the bill before us were broader in scope I could support it with more enthusiasm, with more optimism, with more loquaciousness, with a great deal more conviction. But it is narrow in its scope. The hon. member has his eyes fixed on marshalling yards. He should have his eyes fixed on Marshal Lang.
I should like to point out further that the gentlemen in charge of transportation are removing the radar station in Placentia Bay-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to limit the hon. member unduly but I hope he can stay closer to the bill. I know he has the good intention of serving his constituents, but because of the limited time available for debate and the fact that a number of members are interested in speaking I think he should stay closer to the subject matter.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad you have brought that to my attention, Mr. Speaker, because I want to be relevant. I shall close by saying that I am pleased to support the bill although it is restricted in scope. The whole field is one which requires a lot more attention. What I should like to see is a requirement in the Railway Act that where a railway plans major changes in its operations it has to come clean-it has to advise people what it is proposing to do so that the people concerned may make their objections heard in the course of a public inquiry.
[ Translation]


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like at the outset to congratulate my hon. colleague from Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) for saving brought forward this motion in the House of Commons. This initiative reflects a spirit of good citizenship

November 23, 1976
Railway Act
that 1 am happy to emphasize today with the introduction of Bill C-207.
Some citizens have already opposed some railways projects to change or alterate their facilities. Others have protested when the railways were going ahead with their projects, because they had not been informed sufficiently in advance, and it so happens this legislation is aimed at getting concerned citizens informed in advance.
In certain cases, the railway company could, under its obligation to provide certain services, either change its project to take into account the citizens' objections or take no notice of them and meet its own needs and interests, and this was not likely, as hon. members who intervened in the debate said, to create a spirit of mutual understanding. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we fully agree with the principles of this legislation.
In closing, 1 should like to emphasize once again that the principle of the bill is laudable. The hon. member for Scarborough West has done a great service for his constituents, indeed for all Canadians, in bringing this bill forward. It addresses an important problem and I know the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) shares the hon. member's concept. I thank all hon. members who have participated in the debate and I too recommend that the bill be sent to the appropriate committee.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too would like to commend the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) for introducing Bill C-207. As has been indicated, many members wish to see the bill go to the appropriate committee, as I do. However, if I may I suggest to the hon. member that when the bill reaches committee there are two or three matters of significance in it and that he should be prepared to respond to some questions respecting the wording of the bill.
As I read his proposed amendments to the Railway Act, he contemplates that a group of residents may make oral representations to the Canadian Transport Commission after the four-week notice period has been given, and that the commission may make an order provided it "does not in any way decrease the use or enjoyment that residents in the immediate vicinity of the railway may make or have of their residences".
I draw the hon. member's attention to that wording and I wonder whether it has to be that wide. I can understand the problem that he is trying to solve, namely, that if a railway unilaterally makes a change that is to the detriment of surrounding residents, this would be objectionable and these residents must be given a fair chance of hearing. If they have a complaint, their complaint must be relieved before the railway is allowed to go ahead with the project in question.
I should like to emphasize two matters, Mr. Speaker. It would be most unfortunate if inadvertently, as a result of this amendment, small groups of residents who happened to be

near or adjacent to a railway, are able to resist developments which for the general good of the area should be completed.
Let me refer to two specific instances. In my area, as in many areas of Canada, we have a great number of level crossings. Indeed, I believe the hon. member had a level crossing accident in his own riding fairly recently; it was somewhere in the Scarborough area. There was a level crossing incident in my riding, and in both cases of course there were fatalities. I believe it is very much in the interests of these areas that level crossings be eliminated as much as possible, or at least properly signalled. I would hate for us inadvertently, by amending this act, to give local residents almost a veto power to stop any worth-while level crossing improvement.
Secondly, in the Toronto area there is a great need for more urban commuter rail transportation. Thousands of people would like to use the rail facilities if such facilities were more readily available than they are at the present time. The public's preference for train and bus facilities in our area is borne out in the Toronto area transit operating results. In the first eight months of this year, Mr. Speaker, total carryings were up about 16 per cent. Some 9.2 million passengers were carried on the Go service, with over six million of that number carried by train.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Why don't you speak to Queen's Park about that?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The hon. member asks why do I not speak to Queen's Park, and I am pleased he raises that. The fact is that Go transit in the Toronto area cannot be expanded without extensive rail facility alterations, especially downtown. Queen's Park has committed $58 million to make these extensive alterations to as to enable more commuter train traffic to operate in the Toronto area. To date the federal government has not offered to contribute one nickel to the re-routing of trains so that they can more properly serve commuters in Toronto.


Mr. Ellis:: Despite their policy to help.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, despite their policy to help. In attempting to give the people of Toronto more commuter train service we must take care not to give, inadvertently through passage of this amendment, to small groups of residents who do not wish to have more trains pass their homes the power to resist any increase of commuter train traffic in Toronto. This would, I suggest, frustrate the wishes of millions of people who wish to use this train service in Toronto to a greater extent than is the case at the present time.
We do not want to delay this bill, Mr. Speaker. While the intent is good, and while we must ensure that those residents who live near a railway are properly considered if that railway decides to make some change, I would re-emphasize that in no way should we put those residents in a position to veto any such change as would relieve, say, the situation at a level crossing, or to resist the expansion of commuter train service either in the Toronto area or any other urban area of Canada. This is one of the key needs of urban dwellers in Canada.
November 23, 1976


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, following briefly in the footsteps of my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), in addition to his qualifications I should like to suggest that in a couple of areas the wording of the bill is a little vague. The word "vicinity" to the best of my knowledge is not used normally in preparing legislation of this kind because it does not really define any specific area. 1 would think that some of the wording of legislation used by the Ontario municipal board in its planning processes, and so on, today might well be applied to this legislation.
I intend, along with my colleagues, to allow this bill to go to committee, rather than talk it out as is usually the case with most of the bills presented by the opposition. But I do intend to watch for it when it gets before committee and to ask that some changes be made. For example, four weeks' notice does not seem to be ample enough to me. At certain times of the year four weeks' notice may well be sufficient; but if you put a notice in a newspaper in the second week of July, for example, until the second week of August, a lot of people would be on holiday and would not see the notice. 1 think there are times when much longer notice than four weeks is required.
I have had a bit of experience of matters of this sort, Mr. Speaker. Not long ago I was directly involved, as mayor of the city of Belleville, in the removal of a major rail line from the centre of the main street of Belleville, a line that had been there since time began, as near as I could tell. The track was very old, and I must say that the sight of a CN locomotive and a number of cars going down the main street past the main offices and the main hotel in town had to be seen to be believed. We took this track up and, as a matter of fact, I have a slice of it on my desk today as a memento. But we are faced in Belleville with another problem, and this is the relocation of the CP track along the waterfront of Belleville. It is a very beautiful waterfront except for the scar placed there by the Canadian Pacific. That rail line, as someone else mentioned, but I forget who, was put there at a time when the railway companies used an awful lot of muscle to force their way into areas where they were not really wanted and certainly could not go now.
If the relocation legislation of the federal government were at all worth while we would have that track out of the south end of Belleville and the entire south end would be that much better for it.
I want to comment briefly on two things. I was disappointed by the cheap shot taken by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) at the Ontario government in this regard. I have found in the past in dealing with that government that it has been most co-operative in having this sort of thing looked after immediately. I find that it is the relocation legislation of the federal government that is at fault in this area.
I could not help but take a little bit of a look at the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) who says he has the support of the entire 12-man council of the borough of Scarborough. I have spent a good many years in municipal
Railway Act
councils, and when 1 last looked there were at least two attractive ladies on that council and I am sure they are not going to be very happy about being dealt with in that very chauvinistic manner by the hon. member for Scarborough West.
As the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has said, this is a substantive matter and one that we intend to allow to go to the committee. 1 think the opposition party has shown some leadership in respect to this matter that has not been obvious in respect to private members' bills of an equally substantive nature in past years. To my knowledge, in the short time 1 have been in this House this is an unprecedented step. 1 shall be interested to see what government action follows this action on the part of the opposition taking a positive step to allow a private member's bill through the House. This is a matter that will obviously be of some benefit to a particular section of the country, in the riding of the hon. member for Scarborough West, as well as of benefit to all the citizens of Canada in that it does relate to all Canada.
Mr. Speaker, 1 see the time moving toward the normal hour of adjournment so I am going to sit down and allow this matter to be referred to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member. Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member I might bring to the attention of the House the fact that although the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) began his speech last night and spoke for one minute it is my understanding and interpretation that when he sought consent of the House this afternoon to yield to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and when that consent was given, it was on the understanding that he would take the floor again to make his speech. I am ready to recognize him at this time unless hon. members disagree.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and my colleagues for permitting me to say a few words on Bill C-19 at this time. I should like to say a few words relating to the transportation aspects of the bill and the worries that plague the people in the eastern part of the country.
In particular 1 would like to say something, as many members have already in this debate, concerning clause 15 which purports to remove the provision maintaining at the 1960 level the rate for moving grain, and at the 1966 level the rate for moving flour for export to an eastern port, and to remove the subsidy paid to railway companies which allows them to move the grain or flour at those rates. The basic thrust of this section goes all the way back to Confederation when the eastern part of what is now Canada was pledged the completion of the inter-colonial railway as one of the reasons for joining Confederation. The removal or repeal of this statutory provision naturally causes many people in my part of Canada some considerable concern.
The removal of this statutory provision jeopardizes future exports by east coast ports, and when one looks at the natural progression of the philosophy of the government as expressed recently it may well be, as some members from the western part of Canada have expressed it, that there is a fear, through this course of action, that perhaps the Crowsnest Pass rates will eventually be affected. I hope not, but I think it is a reasonable assumption to make at this particular time. By taking this guarantee of which I speak out of the statutory context and putting it in an Order-in-Council sort of scenario we are now legislating in effect by Order-in-Council, or operating by whimsy, rather than by a more permanent and visible guarantee encompassed in the statute.
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
It is pretty difficult to divorce transportation problems involved in moving commodities on the export level, from transportation problems that affect maritime livestock raising and domestic agricultural requirements. I think it would be in order very briefly to outline some of the concerns on this particular aspect of the bill. For example in May, 1976, the freight rate on coarse grain from Thunder Bay to the Atlantic Provinces was increased by 12 cents per hundredweight. In December, 1976, the rate on Ontario corn was increased by 12 cents to the maritimes, and by 15 cents to the Annapolis Valley in particular. The net effect of the foregoing is an increase in the transportation costs of approximately $900,000 per year for the region.
The freight rate equalization program which subsidizes the cost of bringing grain in has not been increased to cover these costs. The livestock industry in the Atlantic provinces will have to pay the increase. This will seriously erode the competitive position of these producers vis-a-vis central Canada and indeed other parts of North America.
The primary producers are also concerned about the report of the Darling Commission. These concerns have been expressed in this House on many occasions. I want only now to remind the minister that we must not implement some of those recommendations without making certain this will not damage to an unfair extent the position of the primary producers. The rates for moving grain from Thunder Bay by rail to the Atlantic provinces are based on competitive rates for water haul. Importers have relied on foreign ships to bring grain down to Halifax, for example, and if they have to go to Canadian vessels it is difficult at this time to find such vessels, and of course a higher price will have to be paid to move the grain. No assurance has been received from Ottawa that feed freight equalization will be matched to meet these increases, and some assurance in this regard will be most welcome as well.
As I mentioned very briefly last night at the outset of my speech, it is rather fortuitous that this bill is being discussed in the context of the Auditor General's report which, by its very nature and import, seems destined to create a great deal of interest across the country. A year ago the Auditor General said that the present state of the financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness. Shortly thereafter he went on to say that in the majority of the Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control are weak and ineffective and that, moreover, co-ordination and guidance by central government agencies of financial management and control practices in these Crown corporations are virtually non-existent. These were the first two conditions that he enunciated, leading inexorably to his conclusion that, based on the study of the systems of departments, agencies and Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, the financial management and control of the Government of Canada are grossly inadequate. Furthermore, he stated this is likely to
November 23, 1976

remain so until the government takes strong, appropriate and effective measures to rectify this critically serious situation.
Faced with the Auditor General's analysis and his conclusion, the government's answer has hardly been one of great expedience or alacrity. Its answer has been to appoint a royal commission which, in all likelihood and based on past experience, will not report for probably two years, and in the meantime one of the very key recommendations made by the Auditor General for a financial executive officer or a comptroller general is not receiving a very favourable response, to say the least, from the government. They are as unhappy with it, as I can possibly imagine any administration to be.
The mess in which we find ourselves now, in so far as lack of financial restraint is concerned, goes far beyond the implications of Bill C-19. We face a situation that has been inevitable so far as members of parliament are concerned who have taken the time to study what has been going on regarding the nation's financial management. It has been inevitable ever since the executive branch of our government took unto itself all the responsibilities and prerogatives to spend without the scrutiny, in a meaningful way, of members of the House in all parties. Ever since the estimates have been taken out of the House of Commons, about all that we have left to safeguard the financial integrity of this country is that strong and impartial officer of the House, namely, the Auditor General.
By not implementing the Auditor General's suggestions immediately and at least paying some attention to the very studied and constructive suggestions that he has brought forward in an urgent manner, the government in effect is not discharging its responsibilities as outlined by this very responsible officer of the House. It now appears as if, instead of acting in a constructive way at least on a trial basis-and the Auditor General indicated he would like to see some of these recommendations at least experimented with-the government will hide behind a royal commission.
We have seen in the past how the reports and recommendations of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts have been largely ignored. We have seen how the Treasury Board has had its original role within the government distorted from the allocative function to administering programs which have no specific connection with the original responsibilities with which the Treasury Board was entrusted. Anyone who has tried to extract information, for example, from this government which is obsessed with secrecy, knows that to expect a committee of the House or the committee system to function under the rules under which members have to operate at present is expecting something that is not realistic.
There are so many horror stories in the Auditor General's report that it is very difficult for a member of parliament to comprehend the magnitude of the government's incompetence. However, one does have to single out, for example, the $8 million paid to an agent to obtain the sale of the $500 million nuclear power reactor to South Korea. That is on the international scene, but one could just as easily look at the situation at Mirabel, for example, where in the short time since that airport has been operating, something in excess of $40 million
Restraint of Government Expenditures has been lost, and it has been more of an embarrassment to the airline industry and to the transportation system of this country than anything else.
Also one has to consider some of the manifestations of financial accountability that the government has exhibited in the supplementary estimates at which we are looking on a current basis. In at least two categories of spending entitled "Purchased Repair and Upkeep" and "Professional and Special Services", spending increases proposed in Supplementary Estimates B are not indicative of expenditure restraint.
Nine programs within seven departments seek supplementary spending authority under the heading of "Purchased Repair and Upkeep". Compared to expenditures authorized in the 1977 main estimates, these nine programs seek an average 16 per cent increase in spending authority. The largest percentage increases are sought by the AIB, that is, 460 per cent; in the Department of Agriculture under the heading "Health of Animals", 52.6 per cent; under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Combines Branch, 25 per cent; and under the Department of Manpower and Immigration, development, 113.6 per cent.
Considering the magnitude of spending increases in this category I would like to put a question tonight: has the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) ascertained whether there has been a failure of advance planning of expenditures? Are large increases in this category consistent with the policy of expenditure restraint? I would say that on balance the answer would have to be no.


Mr. Breau:: I don't agree.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I would not expect the hon. member to agree, but I hope he will be able to show me why I am wrong.


Herb Breau: I already spoke before you.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I will read your speech.
Twenty-two programs within 14 departments are asking for additional spending for professional and special services. They seek an average 6.7 per cent increase through Supplementary Estimates B over the 1977 main estimates. Although the average is small, the amount of the increase is large. It amounts to $34.2 million, and there are some very large increases. In view of ihe fact that expenditures on professional and special services should be one of the more controllable and predictable objects of expenditure, I should like to ask how the minister accounts for the $34.2 million increase in spending in this category.
Noting the commitment in the December 18, 1975, spending restraint announcement that expenditures on consultants would be severely curtailed, can the President of the Treasury Board explain whether this commitment is still operative or whether government policy has changed? In other words, how can we on this side of the House believe that the government was serious in its previous commitments when we see these large increases in areas which could have been planned and controlled in advance?
1306

November 23, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
Many members so far have made reference to the fact mentioned in the bill that research and development in the private sector in this country on a ten year average lack a great deal of the emphasis that has been given them in the economies of our principal competitors on the world scene. In the private sector in Canada less than one third of one per cent of our gross national product is used to encourage research and development. The U.S. spends about 1 per cent of its GNP, and Japan and West Germany about 1.4 per cent. 1 say to you, Sir, that if we used even a portion of the $ 1 billion plus what is used to pay for the services of outside consultants and diverted some of that money to encourage research and development in scientific, medical and other badly needed programs, it would be of tremendous advantage to this country. However, to our sorrow we on this side of the House have learned that this type of restraint or good financial management has not received very much priority.
The Auditor General made reference to the fact that Canadian taxpayers' money should be regarded as trust funds. This is hardly a very strange revelation; it is a rudimentary fact of life to anyone in business who has to handle other people's money. On too many occasions in the administration of public affairs in this country we have seen that members of governments, and indeed perhaps all of us, have been unduly generous in spending other people's money. It is interesting how poor an example has come to us from the very top in this respect. When the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was prime minister of this country and when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister, the small expenditures they used to administer their offices, their conveyances and things which were necessary to them as prime ministers, were a matter of considerable pride. They revelled in their frugality, as it were.
In those days an expenditure of perhaps $100,000 would have been ample to run the prime minister's office, and prime ministers in those days used taxis or their own cars. Now there are twin armour-plated Cadillac limousines. I also understand that in those days it was a source of pride to cabinet ministers and to prime ministers that occasionally they would go from place to place by very humble conveyances to show that they were not necessarily addicted to the trappings of power.


Mr. Brisco:: They were humble men.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Unfortunately this practice has long been abandoned, and these excesses, although they may not be very much in the total picture, provide such a poor example and raise so much antagonism in the country at large when people become aware of what is going on that a very poor type of atmosphere is created, and that is hardly conducive to the types of sacrifices and the type of self-restraint the government has been asking the people of Canada to exercise.
There is also a problem in terms of consistency. The government is asking the people of this country to do one thing and doing something else itself. For example, last year around
{Mr. MacKay.)
Christmas time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in a much publicised speech, was quoted as saying that the government was going to take a larger share in running institutions, as it was then doing with its anti-inflation controls, and that it would probably be even more involved after the controls ended. There is evidence that the government is retreating from the interventionalist stance it had been previously talking about. The Prime Minister was quoted at the Financial Post conference on controls as saying that the government will increase its reliance on the individual enterprise system to stimulate investment, production and growth, and that this reliance precludes detailed management of the economy by the government. So once again people who are studying the philosophy, economic or otherwise, at the highest levels of the government are left confused as to the government's sincerity in introducing a policy of restraint.
Such flip-flops are not uncommon for the government, however, and I feel that this change of heart perhaps illustrates a better reflection of its concern about popularity polls than its realization that it has governed badly and unwisely, and that this has had a damaging consequence to our economy.
For nearly two years the Toronto stock exchange has lagged behind New York. It was up just 9.9 per cent against a 38.3 per cent surge by the Dow Jones industrial indicator. Consumer prices rose 10.9 per cent in both 1974 and 1975 before slipping into a single digit rate this year. This drop was due to the falling of food commodity costs, and these of course, as has been pointed out many times, are not covered by the anti-inflation program.
The real GNP-provided we can trust the figures of "Stats-Can"-in 1976 is predicted to rise no more than 4.5 per cent, and unemployment will be, at the very least, in the 8 per cent range. That is hardly a performance level of which to be proud, and it may very well be a less impressive figure than that which I have just indicated.
Our competitive position in international markets has been dangerously declining. Exports account for 20 per cent of our national income. However, between 1970 and 1975 our share of world exports dropped from 5.4 per cent to 3.8 per cent, and in the same period imports rose from 26.1 per cent to 32.9 per cent of all Canadian spending on goods. These shifts were sufficiently drastic to plunge us deeply into the red with our balance of payments, which again makes it more difficult for the government to manage the economy and to refrain from unwise expenditures at the current account level. We have very serious economic problems, and the present government is part of the problem, unfortunately, and not part of the solution. The growth in size of the Canadian government's intervention in the economy has been a contributing factor towards inflation, and therefore the root cause of many of our problems.
What is now required is a revision of government financial expenditures. There are very serious questions about the philosophy of the government and the competence of the government to restrain its expenditures and to manage the economy wisely. Recently there have been a number of ques-
November 23, 1976

tions asked about the reliability, the performance, and indeed the management of Statistics Canada, and I am sure there will be more questions in this respect. It is interesting to realize that the hiring of contractual personnel rather than relying on full time services provided by regular employees has been a contributing factor to unnecessary expenditures there and a circumvention of the Treasury Board rules. However, I will possibly be dealing with this in question periods in days to come, or perhaps in committee.
There are many examples of government bungling and unnecessary expenditures. We know that capital expenditures of an unnecessary type are all too common. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has been very conscientious in pointing out the inappropriateness of some of the planning which led to the construction of Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere in Hull, which at the present time would appear to be not only an unnecessary edifice but also one which will be extremely costly, involving hundreds of millions of dollars of projected expenditure of taxpayers' money over the next 30 to 35 years.
There were a great many illustrations of poor planning and lack of foresight involved in the construction of the $600 million plus Mirabel airport and, without labouring this to death, I think it would be interesting by way of illustration just to put on the record a couple of other things which have happened over at Mirabel. When the cold weather set in it was the plan of the Department of Transport to de-ice the runway once a day. It was anticipated that the traffic would be sufficient to keep the ice down and make only one de-icing necessary. The department was wrong again. As we all know, traffic has not been up to projections, and some of the pilots landing planes wondered whether they were on the runway or on a skating rink. Because of the poor planning of the government we will have to absorb the burden of de-icing the runway more than once a day or risk safety standard violations. That is another expensive and unnecessary piece of poor planning.
When the system for de-icing planes was designed, there was supposed to be a tank set up to collect the toxic material used to clean the planes in order to re-use it. Not only is this toxic material not being re-used, but instead it is being put into the Montreal sewage system and has environmentalists very concerned. That is another example of needless expense.
To shed light on the government's business activities, I will give one more example with regard to Mirabel. Amid much fanfare the government introduced passenger transit vehicles to Mirabel which are supposed to take passengers from the waiting rooms to airplanes. With its usual foresight the government had its vehicles tested in Los Angeles which, as everyone knows, is not notorious for its snow and cold winters. After these vehicles received the sunny California brand of approval and were checked out, they were brought to Mirabel where they proceeded to freeze up and malfunction, again at considerable expense.
It becomes pretty obvious that this government, and indeed all members of this parliament must re-examine their spending habits. If we continue to have a cavalier disregard for the way taxpayers' money is spent, if we are prepared to say one thing
Restraint of Government Expenditures and do another, if we are prepared to talk restraint and by our actions do the opposite, we will never succeed in getting the people of this country to take us as parliamentarians in general, and the government in particular, very seriously.
In the days ahead when Bill C-19 is being debated and when the Auditor General's report is being discussed, I would urge the government for once to take very seriously the suggestions made for meaningful restraint. In particular I would urge the government not to treat the suggestions of the Auditor General from the point of view indicated by the Prime Minister this afternoon as those of an accountant, or someone only concerned with the business aspect of running parliament. It should keep in mind that the Auditor General is not just a glorified accountant and is more than a bookkeeper; he is a very, very important officer of this House.
Until the rules are changed and parliament is given more control over its own spending and that of the country-which was the raison d'etre for the creation of parliament in the first place-the Auditor General is probably the only independent safeguard the people have to make certain the financial direction of the country does not degenerate into the kind of chaos he feared was imminent. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that unless some of his suggestions are taken seriously, his worst fears may soon be realized.


Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-19 known as the government's Expenditures Restraint Act. After the summer recess I expected to return to parliament and see a refreshed government aggressively throw itself into the job of governing this country. I thought that at the very least in this House we would see a reinvigorated Liberal party and government with a little bit of rekindled enthusiasm and rededication among the party faithful. After the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) public soul-searching during the summer and the party caucus's much publicised consciousness-raising sessions at Meach Lake and other places this is the least I expected to find, but I was disappointed and even that modest expectation was not realized.
The Speech from the Throne was a pedestrian exercise which could not excite even the most dedicated Liberals in this House. Contrary to the usual practice it did not contain a list of proposed government legislation. After about six weeks of this new session and a similar number of bills tabled by the government, it is now clear why this was not done. None of the bills is new or original, and some have actually been promised for years. I suppose we should be glad that they are at least seeing the light of day. Government members are having as much difficulty being enthusiastic about them as they were about the Speech from the Throne.
Bill C-19 certainly has not broken this pattern, Mr. Speaker. It is a very negative bill. It is also a defiant bill-not positively defiant but rather negatively defiant. It is on the defensive. This is amusing because during this new session I have heard very often from members opposite the retort, "Tell us what
8000S-i5y2

November 23, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures you would do then". Are these not the words of someone on the defensive, Mr. Speaker, of someone who is no longer quite sure of himself and what he is doing? No confident or selfassured person or government asks this defensive question so often and so plaintively of its opposition as have members opposite during this session.
As I have said, Bill C-19 is a negative bill. It does have the commendable purpose of restraining government expenditures, however, but the way it attempts to do this is unfortunate. It abandons, terminates, freezes, repeals, and in one way or another it hurts someone whether it be a mother trying to feed her family, the Canadian wheat grower, the Canadian manufacturer trying to develop a new industry or manufacturing process, or an unemployed young person. If spending restraint means that some people will have to bleed a little, as was the philosophy of the former president of the treasury board, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), then this bill accomplishes that. The one party which all of this government's exercises in cutting expenditures never seems to touch, however, not even brush, let alone draw any blood, is itself.
Government spending in itself now consumes more than 40 per cent of the gross national product. Out of every $10 that the government now spends, four dollars are spent on government. We in the Conservative party quite frankly do not think that it should take more than $ 15 billion to govern a nation of some 22 million people. Members opposite should stop asking us what we would do and what is our policy. How could we possibly do worse than this government has in eight years, Mr. Speaker? It is obvious what we would do, what any rational person would do at this stage of our history. A new government would stop spending money. It would stop spending money on more and more government. It would stop spending money on its own aggrandizement.
The Prime Minister's office presently employs almost 500 people and spends just slightly under $20 million annually. Yet in this entire country there are less than 25 million people. We are not one of the big powers of the world. We are not a super power with a population in the hundreds of millions, like the United States, the Soviet Union or China. How can such a huge PMO with such a large expenditure possibly be justified for a country this size, anytime, least of all when we are supposed to be practicing restraint?
In eight years the present government has succeeded in making Canada the most bureaucratic, regimented state in the entire free world. There are probably some countries today with bigger government bureaucracies than Canada, but I doubt if there is one other country anywhere that has as much government per capita as this one. Visitors who come here from such countries as West Germany and Brazil and who have reason to be familiar with the heavy hand of government, are absolutely astounded at the extent of government control and regulation over the lives of Canadians. No matter who we are, where we live, or what we do, the heavy, unfeeling hand of government intrudes into our lives.

The list of government bureaucracies, for instance, is practically endless, and I doubt that it could even be matched by the Soviet Union, a country with more than 20 times our population and one which has never made any secret of its desire to control its citizens. We have the AIB, the CRTC, the CTC, the CMC, CMHC, DREE, the Canadian Wheat Board, Customs and Excise, Environment Canada, the NEB, the NCC, DOC, EMR, FIRA, MOT, Revenue Canada, Statistics Canada, and the UIC. These are only some of the bureaucracies which presently regulate our lives.
This government's sudden belief in a less interventionist style of government as suggested in the throne speech is very commendable but, quite frankly, I just do not believe it. Such declarations of good intent by this government clash with the harsh reality which is that almost any bureaucracy one picks as an example, whether the AIB, the DOT or the CRTC, is daily growing bigger and intruding more and more into the activities of Canadians.
These bureaucracies spend money, massively, by the millions. I really wish it were possible to say that the lives of Canadians are the better for it, but that does not appear to be the case. Federal bureaucracies seem to be particularly adept at being insensitive and inept. Maybe they cannot be otherwise, but we in the Conservative party think that they can at least try. It has been Conservative policy for a long time that we should try to make the heavy and unfeeling hand of government more sensitive to the real needs of the people of the country. There really is no mystery about this policy and the leader of our party has been saying this since he was chosen leader last February; the Progressive Conservative party has been saying this for at least as long as I have been a member of this House, since 1972.
DREE provides a good example of a sometimes insensitive bureaucracy. A particular case occurred in my constituency this summer when a large national food chain received a substantial DREE grant to establish a food processing plant in the city of Portage la Prairie. Of course I am pleased that a new industry was located in the southern part of my riding. However, the northern two thirds of my riding, one of the most economically depressed areas in Manitoba and one of the most disadvantaged areas in the whole country, has not received any DREE assistance in many years. My party has a policy in the field of regional development, as in every other field. Our regional development policy is to have the instruments of such a program operate in a way more appropriate to what is supposed to be its goal, the alleviation of regional disparity.
An appropriate and related topic in any discussion of government spending cutbacks and one which is very important to western Canada certainly, and really to all Canadians, is that of transportation. This is one area in which any criticism from the other side about our supposed lack of policy certainly smacks of hypocrisy. The government does not have a transportation policy and has not had one for years. Its approach to the whole subject has been a series of reactions to what it
November 23, 1976

perceives from time to time to be the prevailing attitude among Canadians toward various modes of transportation.
The transportation situation in the west has not, unfortunately, been helped very much by having a transport minister from the west. A certain former member of this House, while he was transport minister, was at least candid enough to admit that the transportation situation in this country was in a mess. But now regrettably, a patronizing "we'll tell you what's good for you" attitude seems to prevail in that portfolio. The minister's most recent innovation, the user-pay concept, sounds fine in principle but will be most unfair in practice.
The government's methods of spending restraint are extremely unjust and not a little hypocritical, as well. It is all right for the Canadian traveller to be paying more and more for less and less transportation services! The cancellation of the At and East rates through the repeal of parts of the Railway Act, provided for by clause 15 of this bill, will mean the same for the western grains producer-paying more for less. To this government that is a legitimate way to reduce expenditures. Apparently the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) thinks it is perfectly all right to spend over $10,000 on a single flight in a government Jetstar for some sort of holiday or special social affair. Incredibly this same minister defends his actions and then has the effrontery to tell Canadians that his services came cheap at that price. Politicians with such high opinions of themselves and their worth very often get a nasty surprise at election time when they discover that the electorate does not have the same opinion.
This country, in particular western Canada, is in desperate need of a transportation policy. Fast, efficient and inexpensive modes of transport are vital to a country like ours in order to pull the nation together, to increase understanding among the regions, and to preserve national unity. We must have an over-all, comprehensive transportation policy with clearly defined priorities and appropriate and clearly developed roles for every mode of transport, road, air and rail. Each has its capacities and its limitations, and each has its contribution to make to a comprehensive transportation policy. Unlike the Liberal party, we have such a transportation policy. We believe that there should be consultation and co-operation with the provinces as to the real transportation needs of the country. A Progressive Conservative government will co-operate with the provinces in providing the transportation which they want and need, not what others may think they should have.
The people of southwestern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan badly need and want an air service, and the governments of my province, Manitoba, and of Saskatchewan were ready a year ago to provide it. It does not exist to this day and perhaps never will, principally because this federal Liberal government does not want the provincial governments of these two western provinces operating these types of ventures. In the meantime the residents of Brandon, Dauphin and Yorkton do without an air service, and at Brandon's McGill field there sits an ultra modern, fully equipped air terminal and control tower, at which a regularly scheduled commercial flight has never landed.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
The centralizing tendencies of the government are not only insensitive and heavy-handed; they are unrealistic and completely inappropriate in a country like Canada. This country is not Luxembourg or Monaco, and as desirable as that might perhaps be, from the point of view of administrating and governing it just is never going to be like those small, homogeneous, unitary states. It is big, diverse, fragmented and regionalized. The Prime Minister has travelled a lot in this country, so he should understand it better than he does. It cannot be held together through tight compression. It can only be held together by long, flexible bonds tying the regions, which are not any less secure because they are flexible.
The Prime Minister's rigid insensitivity and lack of understanding seemed, at least to me, to be particularly evident on the night of the Quebec election. The Prime Minister's curt message to Mr. Levesque did not offer him any congratulations, which is perhaps understandable, but it reminded Mr. Levesque, in a most unnecessary and patronizing way, I thought, that he had not won a mandate for separation, a fact of which Mr. Levesque is certainly aware. Whatever else Rene Levesque may be, he is not a stupid man, and the Prime Minister's curt note was an unnecessary and rude insult to the intelligence of the new Quebec premier. Ottawa-Quebec relations will certainly be difficult enough in the next few years, as will the federal government's relations with all the provinces. The way the Prime Minister handled this first bit of federal-provincial relations with Quebec does not augur very well for the future of federal-provincial relations.
We in this party do not think our commitment to federalism or our belief in one united nation is diminished or compromised by being flexible. Flexibility and understanding are part of our program of decentralization and they are what will make it work. We believe that decentralization means more than just moving government departments out of Ottawa. Decentralization means nothing it if does not also mean a change in attitudes and a more understanding, more accommodating, more flexible approach to governing this nation.
Bill C-19 is a relatively short bill although some of its provisions will have a great impact on certain groups in Canada. But it is not so much the specific provisions of this measure which are so objectionable-though they are-it is rather its lofty intent. The government is offering this bill as proof that it really is restraining spending. It is a hypocritical act by a government which in eight years has become one of the most inept, insensitive, arrogrant, spendthrift governments we have ever had, totally out of touch with every group, every region, every part of this nation. Every time a choice faces this government it does the wrong thing, as if it were programmed to do so. And all Canadians watch, as a mother watches her child deliberately reach for a hot stove, stunned at the government's ineptitude. Government members say to us, "What would you do?" Mr. Speaker, how could we possibly do any worse?

November 23, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
One hon. member, I forget his constituency, suggested that we should make no further speeches. I hope other hon. members will carry this debate on for as long as possible.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in this House in spite of the fact that one must wonder about the sincerity of the government when it talks about a restraining bill, namely, C-19, in the light of the record it has put before the country during, eight to ten years of this administration.
The act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures may be cited, according to the short title as the government expenditures restraint act. Nothing could seem more hypocritical than for the government to bring forward a bill such as this based on the record it has placed before the country during the past decade, and members opposite must surely feel embarrassed even to have the bill brought before the House. The very fact of a piece of legislation like this coming before the people of Canada implies that if there is to be a restraining bill before parliament, there must have been some reason for restraint. That happens in any kind of human situation. If we are trying to hold something back it is obvious we are recognizing that something has been going in the wrong direction. We have to analyze the situation. If the government requires a bill to cut back on expenditures, it is an open admission that it has been too liberal with public funds.
The placing of such a bill before parliament raises three fundamental questions. The first is: what were the mismanagement practices which led to the necessity of this bill? The second: does the bill have a significant impact on the resolution of the problem? Third: what are the other steps the government might have taken following admission of gross mismanagement of public funds?
I would like to review each of these questions. A year ago the Auditor General of Canada warned Canadians, and I quote him, that the day may some day come when he could "no longer give his approval to the financial management of the Government of Canada." If any business in the private sector were to receive such a shaky report from its auditor the fact is it wouldn't be receiving a true audit. Here is the Government of Canada being told by the Auditor General that he must serve warning on parliament that the accounting of its fiscal policies was so poor that the day might some day come when he could not give his full sanction. Then, yesterday, the Auditor General of Canada placed a further spectre before the Canadian people. Mr. Macdonell said at that time, "I am deeply concerned, on the evidence of two years' examination carried out by the Audit Office, that parliament and indeed the Government of Canada has lost or is close to losing the effective control of the public purse." If there is anything which ought to shatter the confidence of Canadians it is the fact that the Auditor General of this country says to the Canadian people that the government has lost effective control of the public purse. That ought to threaten the stake we have in our nation far more than any of the other threats to this country.

Mr. Macdonell further states:
Based on the study of the systems of departments, agencies and Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control in the Government of Canada is grossly inadequate. Furthermore, it is likely to remain so until the government takes strong, appropriate and effective measures to rectify this critically, serious situation.
That was the message of the Auditor General. Yet what do we find in Bill C-19? We could not have been given a more band-aid program if we had tried with that objective in mind. The fact of the matter is that there is no real restraint in the restraint program put forward by Bill C-19. In light of such sweeping statements as were made by the Auditor General, condemning the government and this administration, it is like taking a cup of water out of the ocean and pretending to remove the danger of a flood.
Let us take a look at some of the proposals put forward under the guise of doing something in the name of restraint. They talked about abolishing the Company of Young Canadians. Whether right or wrong on the basis of public merit, this is merely a fly speck in federal expenditures. True, the Company of Young Canadians cost the taxpayers $5,800,000-but I would say "a mere $5,800,000"-because that represents the removal of only .13 of one per cent of our gross national expenditures. When we consider the $42 billion that this government is spending the removal of such a small and insignificant amount as $5,800,000 is almost insignificant. But then, to show the cynicism the government has for a real restraint policy, what they did, in fact, was to offer all the staff people which belonged to it jobs in others departments. So though they talk on the one hand about removing a whole department or agency of government it would be naive for us to accept such a statement because all the staff members were simply relocated in other areas of government.
I am not trying to maintain that the CYC ought to have been retained or to to have been dumped, but rather to call attention to the hypocrisy of the government in claiming significant restraint by that measure alone. While we have a budget of $42 billion in Canada, if the government wants to talk about restraint it has to talk in terms of billions. If we cannot slice $2 billion off the federal government's expenditure, there is something grossly wrong. Coming forward with legislation that cuts something of the order of several millions of dollars from government expenditure is tokenism in terms of real restraint. Where is the restraint, Mr. Speaker, when the staff of CYC are offered jobs in other federal agencies? In truth, most of the costs are still there; they are simply hidden in other departments.
May I now turn to another aspect of Bill C-19. The minister may at his discretion cut back funds under the Adult Occupational Training Act. This is another attempt somehow to disguise what is happening. The Adult Occupational Training Act comes under the authority of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). Cutting back occupational training funds is no saving at all. The Manpower Department interlocks with the operations of the Unemployment Insurance
November 23, 1976

Commission. When people come to the department unskilled, with no adequate training to find a job in society, unemployment insurance expenditures increase. So where is the saving, Mr. Speaker? You are taking money from one department and giving it to another.
To say that you are exercising restraint by cutting back on adult occupational training is hypocrisy because you are increasing the expenditures of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Since Canada today spends $970 million more on unemployment insurance than it does on national defence, I suggest Canadians ought to tell the government it is high time it recognized the fact that its administration has been so inadequate that it has created a level of unemployment that should not be tolerated in a country with the human and natural resources of Canada. If people need to be retrained in order to find employment, that is one thing; but in shifting the cost of this training to another department, the bill proves it is merely cosmetic and does not in any way signal true restraint on the part of the government.
One of the real failures of Bill C-19 has been its accent on increased productivity. If we had offered Canadians incentives to send their goods to international markets there would be some significance to this whole package. Giving incentives to increase the gross national product would have been of real merit and would have assisted Canadian competition in international markets.
I suggest it is important to look at the record of the government since it took office in 1968. Although the government speaks of restraint, as well it should, the fact of the matter is that Bill C-19 is not a restraint bill. The horrendous record of the government should be laid very clearly before all Canadians. Government expenditure has increased 400 per cent since 1968, a record that every Canadian should be ashamed of for permitting it to happen. Government expenditure in 1968 was $9 billion, and this expenditure has increased in 1976 to in excess of $40 billion. In 1950 governments at the two higher levels claimed 20 per cent of the gross national product. Today governments claim 42 per cent of the gross national product.
The government has brought in a bill to do away with the Company of Young Canadians, to freeze baby bonus payments, and to do a number of other things. By the time you go through the list, Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to recognize that the government is attempting to demonstrate that it is cutting back a few million dollars. To the average Canadian it sounds big, but the truth is that government expenditure has increased from 20 per cent of the gross national product to 42 per cent in two decades and a half. If there is to be real restraint the government had better quit talking in terms of millions of dollars and talk in terms of billions of dollars, in view of the growth in expenditure on the part of this government.
Moreover, the government has utterly failed to inject any sense of accountability into its spending program, which simply makes it a shambles. When you look at the way government has expanded on the one hand, and when you realize on the other hand that the government has failed in
Restraint of Government Expenditures terms of its accountability, the situation is such that all Canadians ought to demand accountability from the government.
In this regard I should like to quote an extract from the Auditor General's report which was tabled yesterday. He says:
Most disturbing of all: at the central level only a relatively minor organizational change has been made and the additional resources and man years commensurate with the needs have not yet been allocated to ensure the restoration as soon as possible of adequate financial management and prudent and effective control of public funds throughout government.
The report of the Auditor General goes on to say:
I firmly believe that public funds are, in effect, trust funds and must be treated accordingly. Financial controls and safeguards in the public sector should be at least as reliable and strong as those in the private sector.
So we have proof from the Auditor General that the government simply has not got a grip on the handle of government spending. Its spending has increased at a rate unparalleled in any other period of Canadian history. Government expenditure under this administration has increased by 400 per cent. The percentage of the gross national product taken by the upper two levels of government has doubled within the last two and a half decades.
We should ask then, what might have been done to ensure restraint. One small example has been given this evening. One measure of restraint that would have been very symbolic for the Canadian people would have been for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), that great advocate of user-pay, to have used Air Canada or CP Air, rather than the Jetstar which ran up a bill of $240,000 for his own personal visits to his constituency.


An hon. Member:: It was $740,000.


Arnold John Malone: I stand corrected; the figure is even higher, $740,000. Surely that is a disgrace. The motto of the minister is: I use and you pay. That is what he is really telling Canadian people.
Just as shameful is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the second most travelled minister in the Trudeau cabinet. In Calgary a few nights ago, at a press conference, he had the audacity to undermine another facet of Canadian productivity when he stated that eating beef makes people ferocious. I should like to give some background to that statement of the minister.
Many people in this country do not recognize that the meat industry in Canada is the country's third largest manufacturing industry; the first is automobiles, and the second small appliances. It comes down to the fact that beef producers in Canada are entering the fourth year of production with a return of less than the cost of production. At the same time we must recognize there is a surplus in domestic production in Canada. We must also realize that at this time we have a high importation of meat from offshore, from Australia and New Zealand, to the extent that Canada is now the fourth largest importer of beef in the world, and the largest importer on a per capita basis.

November 23, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
The Minister of Agriculture is busily trying to sell agricultural products abroad, but travels to the heart of the beef producing country and tells the people there that beef consumption makes people ferocious, and as an example refers to the people in Argentina where there is a high consumption of meat and everybody is killing each other. How can we have a viable agricultural industry when the minister is out undermining the very confidence in this industry?
It is important to know that this year we are importing 90 million pounds of offshore beef into Canada. This is a record that is certainly causing some concern in the western part of Canada. This is of particular concern when we know that the Minister of Agriculture was also instrumental in initiating a cattlemen's war with our American neighbours, while at the same time telling people to eat less beef because its consumption makes people ferocious.
The fact of the matter is that our meat industry in Canada is our third largest, of the order of $2.5 billion per year. It ranks second in cost of materials used, it employs a work force of some 31,000 people, and contributes in tax dollars $20 million a year. The government talks about restraint on the one hand, while on the other hand the minister in charge is out undermining confidence in our third largest manufacturing industry. That is what the Minister of Agriculture is trying to destroy.
Let me remind hon. members of increased Canadian importation of pork, poultry and beef over the past two or three years. I suggest that this has not occurred without some deliberate intent. It is my view that the Minister of Agriculture is losing out in this regard to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), and I suggest that in view of the last negotiations of GATT held in Tokyo.
This has been explained very well on a couple of occasions by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he spoke in the maritime provinces, again in southern Ontario, and later on CTV, telling the Canadian people that the anti-inflation program of his government was working, and demonstrating that by the fact that food costs a year ago had risen 10 per cent and this year have only risen 6.2 per cent. Everyone in this House knows that when food costs are itemized out they are in fact as high this year as a year ago, except in respect of meat products. Those products are cheaper only because of the excessive importation of offshore meat. In this way the Minister of Agriculture is undermining and destroying confidence in the beef-meat industry in this country. I suggest the minister has done this in order that the Prime Minister and his government can demonstrate to the consumers in the large cities in Canada that the anti-inflation program is working.
Some talk about the government being divisive. That is obviously demonstrated by the fact that the government is willing to trade one part of Canada off against another part. It is easily understood how those greedy for power would adopt such a position, particularly when you recognize that there are more members of parliament from Montreal and Toronto than there are in the maritimes and the Territories. This govern-
[Mr. Malone.)
ment will make such a trade-off as it believes it is better off if it can count on the consumer vote in the large cities. It is about time the government faced up to the fact that if the country is to be held together there must be that sense of fairness from sea to sea based on the kind of principles set forth when this country entered confederation.
' If the government really wants restraint why does it not do something about abolishing the excessive spending by Crown corporations? I would compare the record with the United States where there is considerable efficiency in terms of domestic production, yet there are no Crown corporations there unless you consider Amtrac as a form of Crown corporation in the United States.
Had the government really wanted to save money it could have done away with its concept of Petro-Can. In that way it could have saved $5.5 billion. Let me quote what the Auditor General said in his report in this regard. The government came up with the idea that it could run the oil business more efficiently than the oil companies. Let us just look at what has happened with the post office. This government has not got the ability to run anything efficiently, yet it introduced the Petro-Can program. At that time in my province, because of a flip-flop in tax regulations, approximately half of the Canadian owned independent drilling companies left to go to the State of Montana because they had no confidence in what was happening in respect of the tax regulations here.
The Auditor General said this in respect of Crown corporations:
In the majority of the Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control is weak and ineffective. Moreover, co-ordination and guidance by central government agencies of financial management and control practices in these Crown corporations are virtually non-existent.
That is what the Auditor General says about Crown corporations, yet the government has the audacity to come forward with a concept like the Petro-Can concept of a year ago, and then talks about a restraint program, fixing family allowances at last year's level and doing away with the Company of Young Canadians. If that is what the government feels is a good restraint policy then I would ask members of the government to talk to the people and find out whether they think this is genuine restraint.
The government wants the same efficiency in the oil industry in this country as it has in the Post Office. This government thinks that Petro-Can will provide some means of finding more and greater sources of hydrocarbons in both the solid and fluid form, yet in fact the government is unwilling to initiate general restraints on its own spending. The government's restraint, little as it is, is heaped upon the people.
The government intends to save some $230 million by putting a freeze on family allowances. This means that the people of the country are being restrained, not the government. Bill C-19 will freeze family allowances. Just a short time ago the government changed the rules and made family allowances taxable. I do not dispute that concept, but the fact of the matter is that at a time when inflation is increasing the people who will bear the burden of the government's restraint pro-
November 23, 1976

gram are those who can least afford it. The government has no restraint program. What it calls its restraint program is a shifting of restraint to the public sector, asking those who can least afford to bear the burden to practise restraint. The government is holding out Bill C-19 as a red herring to the Canadian public, attempting to show that it is practising restraint.
The government does not really know what restraint means. Between 1968 and 1976 there was a 24 per cent increase in the growth of the public service. I might add that our public service is the highest paid public service in the whole of the western cultured world. We might also note that a deputy minister in the Canadian government is paid considerably more than Henry Kissinger in the United States. When we take these things into consideration it is obvious that the government does not know what the word "restraint" means. Yet the government comes in with a bill and talks in terms of holding back a few million dollars when it has increased its expenditures from $9 billion to $40 billion in a decade. This is an insult to all Canadians.
In 1968 personal income tax represented 34 per cent of the federal government's revenue source. Today, in 1976, personal income tax represents 53 per cent of the federal government's revenue source. I think that very clearly demonstrates who is paying the burden of the excessive spending by this government.
When we look at Bill C-19 and ask where the restraint is, the fact is that any analysis of it shows that the restraint is hidden by a shifting of the moneys from one department or branch into another department, or that the restraint has been accomplished by putting the burden on the back of the taxpayer through the freezing or fixing of family allowance payments, which hits those who are most in need, those on fixed incomes. That is a sham.
The government's record of disaster is embalmed in its performance in respect of the foolish Mirabel airport which one day may have to be closed down simply because it was put forward as a political carrot in an attempt to try to gain some support in a part of Canada. Then we have the stumbling reckless proposals regarding the proposed Pickering airport where there was no regard for the agricultural land and the people in the community. Again we must ask where is the restraint in a government which has such a foolish record of financial administration? 1 would also point to the moonlighting practices in StatsCan, the dredging contracts, and the car rental situation which give the appearance of tendering to friends rather than concern for economics.
All these things indicate that there is no evidence of restraint on the part of the government. The fact is that in respect of Bill C-19 we cannot ask the Canadian people to have a sense of confidence that the government is exercising some kind of restraint through economic and fiscal policies. The government will demonstrate to Canadians that there is some restraint only when it is able to do so through a reduction
Restraint of Government Expenditures of the income tax, when there is a renewal of confidence by the small business community which must know what are the rules of the game and how they are to be played, and when there is a clear-cut demonstration through a freeze in the growth of the public service.
We must get down to the fact that the private sector should represent the largest share of the gross national productivity and that this is not a country which will be run 42 per cent by the federal government. When there is growth in personal income taxes, when the highest wages are paid to public servants, when we have phenomenal increases in expenditures, and when we see what the government places on the backs of the Canadian people, it is obvious that the government is not able to demonstrate that it is exercising restraint.
I think it is time we recognize that Bill C-19 is in no way a restraint program. It is to be marked for its hypocrisy. As the hon. member who spoke before me said, it is the hope that many members will speak on this bill until it has become clearly recognized that the bill is simply a disguise and does nothing to meet the challenging and very important recommendations put forward by the Auditor General in his report for the period ending March 31, 1976. As one hon. member pointed out, any attempt to call upon a royal commission to take a look at the financial spending of the federal government is simply a method to detract the public's attention from the sorry spending record of the government. An attempt to delay any action for a period of two years I think is the clearest example that there is no sincerity on the part of the government that it is truly interested in restraining government expenditures.
In conclusion I will say that if the government has any intention at all of assuring the Canadian people that it is sincere about the restraint of government expenditures it should forthwith accept one of the major recommendations of the Auditor General. It should establish a comptroller general for Canada who would have the power and authority to investigate the financial expenditures of each department of government and report periodically. He should have the power even to call for a public investigation of the expenditures by any government department. If the government is not willing to accept that fundamental recommendation of the Auditor General then I think it behooves all Canadians to recognize that this government is simply unfit to manage Canada, and I would hope the Canadian people would be given that test as quickly as possible.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it might appear to some people that it is sheer coincidence that we are debating a bill on the restraint of government spending just as the Auditor General delivers his scathing indictment of government spending and waste. A similar coincidence is the fact that the government already had a royal commission set to roll when the report of the Auditor General came down.
Certainly, there is something unusual in the fact that just as the Auditor General's report came out, containing a very scathing indictment of the government, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) conjures up the idea and makes
1314

Restraint of Government Expenditures the generous suggestion that a royal commission be set up. I understand that the people have even been named who are to constitute the commission. This commission is supposed to go over what has already been gone into in detail by the experts who were involved with the Auditor General in preparing his report. It would appear that the government was given some choice bits of advance information on this.
One look at this bill will prove that it was put together in a hurry and was not carefully studied, or in fact designed to curb government spending. The idea that this bill will cut $l'/2 billion from the government's spending estimates is just too ludicrous to consider. That is the reason why we are debating Bill C-19.
For a government that is spending more than 40 per cent of the gross national product a mere billion dollars is petty cash, hardly enough to pay the personal travel expenses of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and possibly some others. This is peanuts, and rather than save money in areas where spending should be cut, passage of this bill will do untold damage to our milling, grain and flour interests, particularly in the Maritimes and in the western provinces.
The President of the Treasury Board said, when he introduced this bill on November 5, that it is an omnibus bill. What else is new? The government does not seem to know how to table anything but omnibus bills. It is a good way to force this House to approve bad measures in order to see a good measure pass. What other government would link the Company of Young Canadians with a measure to cut off subsidies now being paid under the Railway Act? What other government would ask us to help wipe out that massive boondoggle called Information Canada in the same bill that would eliminate the present adult training?
I should like to ask why the government did not simply table the bill to get rid of the Company of Young Canadians once and for all? There is hardly a member in the House who would not have welcomed the opportunity to send that outfit packing. We could have accomplished that simple act long ago, but for reasons of its own the government decided that it would be more expendient to lump that into a bill which would do irreparable harm in areas where more, and not less, assistance is warranted.
While I am at it I should like to ask who authorized payment of $185,500 in severance pay to the so-called volunteer members of the Company of Young Canadians? The Auditor General stated the other day in his report that the CYC Act did not give the company authority to make such payments. These payments were made at a time when the CYC was supposed to be in the process of being dissolved, and I think that parliament should be informed as to who authorized the payment of that money and why it was authorized. I know that the government does not place much store by accountability where the public is concerned, but perhaps we can make a start in that direction by having someone tell us about that $185,500. Just clearing up ten of such cases would

go a long way toward making up a good deal of the money that the government hopes to save in this bill. I believe the estimate is $1.5 billion. Possibly it should be developing some healthy habits of accountability among some of our senior public servants, or should I say public spenders.
We could easily have passed a bill in this House putting a merciful end to Information Canada, but I suppose the government needed time to find cushy jobs for those who would be displaced by the demise of that ill-conceived agency. Of course the government that created Information Canada would not consider it ill-conceived. The plain fact is that it was established in the first place to provide jobs for Liberal party faithful, people who had served their masters well in many ways and who were promised appropriate rewards. Some of them performed admirably in such endeavours as the B and B Commission. As it happens always, Information Canada grew like Topsy. It became an expensive bureaucratic monster, duplicating functions assigned to other people and agencies, functions being performed better than Information Canada could undertake them.
All of us at this time would like to see the CYC and Information Canada get a decent burial, and yet here they are again, coming back to haunt us in an omnibus bill that seeks to disrupt the whole pattern of transportation subsidies for the grain, flour and milling industries. On November 10 the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) chided the Minister of Transport for proposing that certain sections of the Railway Act be repealed without telling us what the alternatives would be. That is not new, Mr. Speaker, and that is why these proposals are locked into an omnibus bill, a bill that contains a couple of items which most if not all of us are interested in coming to grips with at this time.
We might well ask what the alternatives are to the proposals in this bill dealing with adult training. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) must have some plan or program in mind to improve the training of unemployed adults. There are so many of them now, about three quarters of a million I believe, that the minister surely has some plan to deal with the problem of adults who are unemployed because they lack the skills they need to find jobs.
Are we going to continue concentrating on training adults to perform tasks for which there are no job openings, at levels of pay that are below the welfare levels? Are we going to continue to peck away at adult training as though we hope that the problem will go away after a while if we just ignore it, or that perhaps various provinces will come up with solutions of their own? This is not a problem that will go away. It can only get worse, and the provinces cannot be expected to solve the problem on their own.
At the very bottom of page two in Bill C-19 we find the following words:
But in no case shall the weekly allowance be less than $20.00 per week.
Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, this quotation refers to the allowance authorized to be paid to an adult occupational trainee under the present regulations. Naturally that does not
November 23, 1976

mean that that is what all trainees receive, but it does show what the minimum allowance is for a single adult in occupational training.
We are not told what the alternative is to the elimination of this clause. The wording in Bill C-19 dealing with this simply says that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will set the allowance levels, and that these rates will relate to the family circumstances and living costs of the adult in training. This section lends itself to a broad range of interpretations, and these interpretations can be related not only to the circumstances of the adults but also to their allegiance to the Liberal party and to their geographical location or province.
A regulation that lends itself to so many interpretations also lends itself to widespread abuse, and we have found that that is all too often true where this government is concerned. I do not want to give any such options or latitude to any member of this government, or to any official appointed by this government. The latest Auditor General's report is full of examples of wasteful and even illegal expenditures of public money by members of this government and by senior officials in the public service. I do not want to make it easier for them to repeat these acts, 1 want to make it tougher on them. I want to make it as nearly impossible as we can make it, and yet we have before us the provision in Bill C-19 to allow the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to disburse public funds at his or her own discretion. This loophole must be plugged, not after this bill is passed but before it is passed.
Over and over again, as in the case of the anti-inflation legislation, to cite only one of dozens, we were told to approve the legislation and the government would fill in the blanks afterwards. I think that it would be a good thing to start right now and have the blanks filled in by the government before the legislation is passed by the House. Perhaps we can have this done at the committee stage when there is time for the government to work out the details that are lacking in the legislation, such as in this bill which we are presently debating. If the government minister involved with a bill cannot, for any reason, fill in the blanks, then the bill should be set aside until it can be done. Surely a minister knows what he or she plans to do in a particular situation, such as setting levels of training allowances as proposed in Bill C-19. The government should let us know what those allowances should be, and then ask us to pass them.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee for nearly four years I have more than a passing interest in the Auditor General's report, which came out yesterday. I suppose it is the subject of conversation in the homes of nearly all Canadians because they now see the way the government has been spending money, and more important, the way it has been wasting money. The damaging and almost damning statement made by the Auditor General has been quoted and will probably be quoted for weeks and months, if not years, and that statement is that parliament and, indeed, the government have lost or are close to losing effective control of the public
Restraint of Government Expenditures purse. That is something which causes us all a great deal of worry and concern.
In many meetings of the Public Accounts Committee we have heard witnesses, various government ministers and their deputy ministers. Time and again we have heard the Auditor General tell us about various infractions of the rules of good accounting and good financing, and he has told us that the government has acted illegally. He was not talking about hundreds or thousands of dollars but millions of dollars. He recited only a few infractions because with his present staff the Auditor General cannot do more than just scratch the surface. A great many of us on this side of the House, and probably a good many government members, would be staggered if we were informed of every infraction.
I have been considerably interested in office accommodation and the alarming amount spent on that. Much of the space which has been purchased has not even been used. As hon. members are aware, the deputy minister of public works is the greatest landlord in Canada.


Mr. Huntington:: He is a big spender too.


Stan Darling: That is quite right. He was before the committee, and when we learned the amounts of money which were being spent on office space, we were amazed. I feel that employees are entitled to very fine office accommodation, but I think of private office buildings and of the small office building in my own town where I did my business when I see some of these grand mandarin palaces which are under construction at a time of restraint. All we have to do is look across the river to Hull and see $1 billion climbing up to the sky. The great majority of that space, if not all of it, is to be government space, whether purchased or leased.
The public service occupies approximately 39 million square feet of office space, and that costs $249 million. It has been proved that there has been inefficient use of space and overly generous accommodation. I suggested that this was the case last year, but we did not have time to consider it because my suggestion came just before parliament rose. I am hoping that this year the Public Accounts Committee will make a point of inspecting some of this office space. We know that as yet a great deal of it is vacant and that a great deal of it is the plushest accommodation in the world, and to me that is a wanton waste of money. I feel that there should be a more realistic formula for calculating office space requirements. The Department of Public Works is currently developing guidelines, and this time I hope it will be a little more strict.
Last year certain expenditures were approved, and they were exceeded by more than 30 per cent. I am wondering how this came to pass. As I say, I am well aware that many government agencies have grown like Topsy. The Anti-Inflation Board came into being about a year ago, and it was projected that it would need a staff of, I think, 300. I understand that the number of staff now is 1,200.


A. Daniel McKenzie: They are going to build a skyscraper in Hull for them now.
80005-16y2

Restraint of Government Expenditures


Stan Darling: I was not aware of that. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) says they are building a skyscraper. Skyscrapers are under construction there now; we are all well aware of that.
The Auditor General's statement is certainly deserving of comment. I was at the meeting yesterday morning when we were locked in to look over the report, and we were not to make any comments on it. I was also present at the first meeting of the Public Accounts Committee when the Auditor General appeared before us, and all hon. members have read what he stated. Everyone has heard him on television or on radio, and he has stated categorically that a great many changes have to be made. He concedes that the government is going to make some changes, and more power to it. It would be crazy if it did not agree to do so, but the one thing the Auditor General is pleading for in this time of restraint-and I cannot understand why the government, and especially the President of the Treasury Board do not accede to this request-is the appointment of a comptroller general, a watchdog over the government, to see that spending is carried out properly. Deputy ministers would be answerable to him. The government is trying to say that this is an impossibility, to whom would he be responsible, and who would be higher up on the totem pole?
The Auditor General says he wants a comptroller general to be the boss over many deputy ministers-and ministers-who are squandering taxpayers' money. I feel that that request should be acceded to by the government and that the government should appoint a comptroller general.
A royal commission has been appointed. I am darned sure that the report of the royal commission will not be available to the public until after the next federal election. If there are any takers, I would be willing to bet $10.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will go higher than that.


Stan Darling: To my way of thinking it is most important that a key official of this nature be found, and he could be found if the government searched for him. If the government cannot find one, I am sure that the Auditor General could.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-19, an act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures. I do not know whether to laugh or cry when I hear that coming from this government. The only reason the government is presenting such a bill right now is that the Gallup polls and the opinion polls show the government to be down, so it figures it had better come up with some of its old Liberal camouflage to cover up for the time being.
It was most discouraging this afternoon in question period to listen to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) cover up for the bungling of the government and for its absolute extravagance. He said that accounting for the government is different than for business, and all that hocus-pocus, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) did no better. My reason for making these statements is that for many years the Auditor

General has been making recommendations suggesting that this Liberal government make improvements to its accounting
system.
I would just like to quote from the Auditor General's report. In respect to matters dealt with in previous reports he states at page 28:
It is a policy of the audit office to encourage prompt remedial action on deficiencies and irregularities identified in our examinations. To this end, the staff of the office maintains constant liaison with officials in government departments, agencies and Crown corporations to assist them in introducing corrective measures and to monitor the achievement of improvements. When our monitoring activities reveal that appropriate action has not been taken on matters disclosed in my annual reports, we report our findings to the House of Commons.
My point is that we have the Prime Minister saying that the government is doing a great job and that it is very difficult under our parliamentary system to have a proper accounting system. That statement coming from the Prime Minister is completely false.
The Auditor General continued:
The following matters have been raised in part 19 of my 1976 report:
In my 1975 report, it was noted that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce intended to sell its interest in Radio Engineering Products Limited as soon as the company had become sufficiently stable to attract a suitable buyer. This did not occur, and in late 1975 the company filed a voluntary declaration of bankruptcy. At the time of bankruptcy, it was indebted to the Crown to the extent of $6 million. No significant recovery of this loss is expected.
It would be very interesting to hear the Prime Minister or the President of the Treasury Board explain why no effort was made to recover $6 million. All we got was some smart aleck comments.
The Auditor General continued:
My 1973 report referred to deletion from the accounts of Canada of income tax revenue that could not be collected because the taxpayers were no longer resident in Canada. In 1976, such deletions amounted to $850,000 owed by 161 taxpayers. The Departments of Justice, National Revenue, and Finance are considering the question of confidentiality with respect to possible publication, as a deterrent measure, of the names of taxpayers whose accounts are written off.
That is another large amount, Mr. Speaker, $850,000.
He continued:
Also in 1973, my report drew attention to the substantial amounts of income tax remaining unpaid at March 31 of each year. We recommended that late-payment penalties be increased beyond the 6 per cent rate currently in effect. This proposal is still under consideration and no change has yet been introduced.
Nothing was mentioned by the Prime Minister or the President of the Treasury Board about that today, Mr. Speaker, or about why nothing has been done about this.
The Auditor General continued as follows:
Since 1962, we have reported annually that a high rate of error exists in calculations of retirement benefits and related contributions in the Public Service Superannuation account. In recent years, there has been some improvement in the determination of benefits, but the quality of data provided by pay offices of the Department of Supply and Services and by departmental personnel branches has deteriorated.
November 23, 1976

This goes back to 1962, Mr. Speaker. The government has been in power since January, 1963. It has had lots of time and its ministers are supposed to be such a brilliant group of administrators, so why has nothing been done about this?
The report goes on:
The department is engaged in a continuing effort to improve its information control system and to upgrade the quality of data supplied. The audit office is co-operating with the department in monitoring the effect of any changes that are made.
You can see that they simply have not been tackling any of the recommendations in the Auditor General's reports. The only reason they are getting around to doing something about it now is the old Liberal camouflage-because the Gallup polls are down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: I saw a perfect example of this last night.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, you are losing control of the House. I am on the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 would refer hon. members to Standing Order 35 which reads as follows:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
I would suggest to the hon. member that he is skating a very thin line.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am only quoting from the Auditor General's report, and I should like to quote some very recent statements made by the Prime Minister outside this House. He said that in the last federal election they lied to the Canadian people. He made that statement in Saint John, and recently in Montreal he said "Sure, we blundered." I am just quoting from the Auditor General and statements made by the Prime Minister outside the House.
Before ten o'clock I should like to give an example of what is happening within the Liberal party. The Retail Merchants Association of Canada invited a number of members of parliament to a reception last evening after their annual meeting here in Ottawa. Over the last four years when any organization of this size sent invitations to members of parliament they were only accepted by Conservatives. Last night, however, at this meeting six Liberals showed up-a cabinet minister, four parliamentary secretaries, and a backbencher. It just floored me when this group showed up, and besides they read out a speech from the Prime Minister saying what a wonderful bunch of people is the Retail Merchants Association of Canada. The word is out from the Prime Minister and the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, to all the boys and departments that when they get such invitations they had better show up.
Adjournment Debate
At the meeting I explained that it was something unique for a group of Liberals to show up. From now on we will be watching, and the Liberals will be showing up at these little receptions. This is how devious they are. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker? I will continue tomorrow afternoon.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, yesterday as recorded in Hansard at page 1224, I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) regarding the government's proposed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. I prefaced my question with a reference to the spouse's allowance. In doing so I expressed the hope that the government would not make a mistake in its amendments to the Canada Pension Plan similar to the mistake it made when it brought in the spouse's allowance.
What I had in mind in making that preface was that the spouse's allowance has proved to be a matter of great disappointment to many Canadians because it provides pensions to persons between 60 and 65 years of age-true, on a means test-but only to persons who are married and living with a spouse of pensionable age. The result is that a great many persons in the age bracket between 60 and 65, spinsters, widows, bachelors and widowers, are left out. That is the mistake I had in mind in the opening words I used in my question yesterday.
My concern is that when one amendment in particular is brought in to the Canada Pension Plan, a similar mistake is going to be made in that a great many persons will be left out. I know that the government plans to introduce two types of amendments to the Canada Pension Plan affecting women in particular. I am not taking time this evening to discuss the one which has to do with the splitting of benefits in the case of marital breakdown. Rather I am discussing the proposal for giving some benefit to married women who stay at home for a while to raise their children. This has led to the notion, and the impression was actually created by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) in her speech of October 14, that something generous is to be done in response to urgings that greater benefits should be provided for housewives or homemaker spouses, as we prefer to call them, under the Canada Pension Plan.

November 23, 1976
Adjournment Debate
The difficulty with the proposed amendment is that it will only permit the wife and mother who was previously a contributor to the Canada Pension Plan and who stayed home for some time to look after young children before returning to the work force to leave out of her Canada Pension Plan calculations those years she was at home looking after children under seven years of age. That is all the proposal would do, and this was clear in the announcement that the government made.
Sir, that in itself would provide no increase in benefit for the mother who stays home for a few years to look after children. That proposal would merely say that she will not lose some of the benefits she has already built up; in itself it would provide no benefit at all, not one cent. Even more serious is the fact that there will be no benefit, no provision under the Canada Pension Plan for the wife and mother who stays home throughout her married life to look after the children and family and in that way contribute to the well-being of the family and the well-being of the country.
I know there are arguments about how we can provide Canada Pension Plan benefits or the equivalent thereof to housewives or homemaker spouses. I believe those difficulties can be overcome. What I am most concerned about tonight, and I am sticking to the point I raised in my question yesterday, is this: there is a danger of an oversight, a danger that a mistake will be made. Let us not have another of these half measures-even that is a generous description. They are quarter measures, decimated measures.


Walter David Baker: Do not exaggerate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I am not
exaggerating. The government is exaggerating.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is exaggerating by suggesting it is doing something generous. Let me make my plea, Mr. Speaker. Having made a mistake in the allowances for spouses between 60 and 65 by covering only a few persons in that age bracket when many others need the coverage, I hope the government will not make a parallel mistake when it amends the Canada Pension Plan by doing only the little bit indicated in the Speech from the Throne and in the speech of October 14 made by the minister from Skeena.
What is needed is not just the right for the mother who stays home a few years not to have those years counted against her Canada Pension Plan credits; what is needed is a pension benefit for those who make a contribution to Canada by being homemaker spouses, housewives and mothers, equivalent to what is available under the Canada Pension Plan for those out in the so-called labour market.
The only thing the minister said yesterday which I welcome was his assurance that he would still be open to any suggestions when the bill gets to committee. However, once a bill is brought in, it is difficult to change it. I therefore hope the parliamentary secretary tonight can say that this bill has not

been finally drafted or the doors closed to making it a better bill. Let us have a benefit for homemaker spouses which is really worth while.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member, whose allotted time has expired.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to the hon. member's concern regarding the proposal to make provision for spouses who work at home under the Canada Pension Plan.
I should first like to note that the purpose of the "special drop-out" provision, as it is technically known, is to ensure that a parent who remains at home to care for young children will not be penalized, from the point of view of the CPP, for that period during which he or she may have low or zero earnings. In other words, the provision is intended to protect the eligibility for, and level of CPP benefits earned by such a person before, and perhaps even during, the period devoted to raising young children. In this sense the proposed provision gives some economic recognition to work in the home.
Basically, the proposal would allow a contributor to drop out months of low or zero earnings within the "child rearing" period from the calculation of lifetime earnings on which basis CPP benefits are calculated. I should also mention that any CPP contributor or potential contributor would be eligible for the "special drop-out" provided that he or she has children under age seven in his or her care.
I should mention here that there are three drop-out features currently contained in the CPP legislation, that is, one for periods of disability; a general one for periods of intermittent unemployment or sickness or other similar contingencies; and one to allow substitution of contributions made after age 65 for earlier periods of low or no contribution. In our view these drop-out features are not sufficient.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: An additional feature is needed, like the one proposed, to meet the special needs of parents whose choice of whether or not to stay in the labour force is severely influenced by the presence of young children. This feature would give recognition to the fact that the raising of children constitutes a substantial contribution to Canadian society.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That won't be sufficient, either!


Paul Edmund McRae: To extend the spouse's allowance to widowed or single persons 60-65 years of age raises some fundamental concerns. First, such an expansion of our public retirement income programs would have significant implications in terms of costs, effects on investment and earnings, the labour market, the private pension industry, and so on.
Second, this would generate considerable pressure for lowering the eligibility age for the regular OAS pension and for
November 23, 1976

CPP retirement pension leading to pressure for a lowering of the "normal" retirement age.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear! That's the idea.


Paul Edmund McRae: The costs associated with this would be in the order of $2.0 billion now-and would increase rapidly over time given the age structure of our population.


CUSTOMS-ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION IN IMPOSITION OF DUTIES ON AUTOMOBILE PARTS ENTERING MANITOBA- GOVERNMENT ACTION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on November 1 I introduced a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 calling upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) to take immediate action to rectify the unjust and discriminatory import duties being levied against automotive parts coming into the Manitoba region.
I introduced that motion, Mr. Speaker, because it had come to my attention that the Customs and Excise Branch of National Revenue has refused, and still is refusing, to allow entry into Manitoba of automotive parts at the import duty rates being allowed elsewhere in Canada and cleared in the Manitoba region. Naturally this puts the automotive replacement industry in Manitoba at a disadvantage with similar businesses elsewhere.
Until recently I had always presumed that the Customs and Excise regulations were standard right across Canada because of the federal nature of the Department of National Revenue. When I received a letter from the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, Manitoba Division, stating that they have detailed documentary evidence that the tariffs on automotive parts entering Canada are not standard in all parts of the country I began to wonder what type of a bureaucracy we have in the Department of National Revenue that allows such variation in the application of customs regulations.
When the local Customs and Excise officials in Winnipeg were told about the variations in the interpretation of customs regulations they stated that they were only following directives received from Ottawa and that uniform interpretation is being made at all ports. I contend that this is not the case.
For the record I would like to cite some examples of the variations with regard to the import duties on automotive parts. However, before doing so I should like to touch briefly upon how this discriminatory action against the automotive replacement parts industry in Manitoba commenced.
Over the past many years tariffs relating to importation of replacement parts for automobiles, trucks, industrial vehicles and farm tractors have been interpreted on more or less a uniform basis. While some parts are duty free, some are dutiable at IVi per cent, some at 12 'h per cent, and some at 15 per cent. Generally the end use or type of vehicle in which the
Adjournment Debate
part is finally used is the determining factor in establishing the duty rate.
In the past few months Customs and Excise in the Winnipeg area has taken the position that all parts, regardless of end use and regardless of whether made in Canada or not, must be dutiable at the highest possible rate, namely 15 per cent, which normally applies to vehicles used for industrial purposes.
While these changes have been made in the Manitoba region of Customs and Excise it has not been the case in the rest of Canada. As I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, I will cite some examples. In Saskatchewan there is no duty on solenoid switches, while a 15 per cent charge is in effect in Manitoba. In the same province of Saskatchwan there is a 1216 per cent charge on automotive parts, while in Manitoba it is 15 per cent. In southwestern Ontario and Toronto, while there has been no duty on carburetor parts, in Manitoba the duty charged has been from IVi per cent to 15 per cent. One large automotive parts firm with branches in various parts of Canada has reported that in each case of goods being imported into Manitoba they were assessed at higher rates than in other provinces.
I could, Mr. Speaker, cite a considerable number of examples of the higher duties paid on automotive parts by Manitoba firms. In the short time I have that is not possible, but I can honestly say that automotive parts firms from various locations in Canada, along with firms in Manitoba, have supplied me with documented proof to substantiate this discrimination.
In light of the problems the automotive parts industry in Manitoba faces because of higher customs duties, I would urge the Minister of National Revenue to investigate this matter personally to determine why there is not a uniform application of customs regulations on automotive parts, and indeed to determine how widespread the variation on the application of duties might be on other goods being imported into Canada.
It is absolutely imperative, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Revenue take the necessary steps to guarantee that uniform interpretation and application of customs regulations and tariffs take place all over Canada. If this does not take place we will see the development of a bureaucratic quagmire with regional Customs and Excise branches empire building. This could have a severe effect not only on the automotive parts industry but indeed on all businesses engaged in importing. Such discrimination must stop.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Manitoba based automotive parts manufacturers and importers should be compensated directly by the Department of National Revenue for the additional duties they have been assessed in the past few months. They should not be subjected to the burden of going through the red tape of an appeal procedure that takes forever and a day.
When one takes into consideration that the staff size at National Revenue increased by 40 per cent over the past eight years, and that their total salaries increased by 324 per cent, then surely we should be able to expect this department to carry out customs regulations efficiently and uniformly. If this

November 23, 1976
Adjournment Debate
is not the case the minister should take immediate action to rectify the situation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Revenue should make it a policy to help Canadian industry as much as possible and not hinder and hurt it by discriminatory practices such as the Manitoba automotive parts industry is presently experiencing.
I should like to point out that yesterday the minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I say first of all that what the hon. member charges against the department is, according to the information I have, in fact not the case. The customs department's procedures for the administration of tariff items containing provisions for parts have evolved over the years. While the number of such items has increased significantly in recent years, the basic administrative policies have been in effect for decades and have always been applied uniformly across the country.
Due to the construction of the customs tariff the classification for interchangeable parts is admittedly complex. For example, starters for engines may be classified under one tariff item when for tractor use, under another tariff item when for incorporation into agricultural implements or agricultural machines, under another tariff item when for machines used exclusively in the operation of logging, under another tariff item when used for certain engines used in the repair of motor trucks, motor buses, ambulances or hearses, and under another tariff item when for general use. Other tariff items may also be applicable depending on how the starters are used.
Ordinarily where end use cannot be determined the department requires that entry of goods be effected under the tariff item applicable for general purpose use. If the importer can subsequently establish that the use of the article qualifies it for a lesser rate of duty a refund claim may be filed under Section 113 of the Customs Act for recovery of the duty overpaid. Such claims must, of course, be supported by evidence of use. I would stress, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a new policy but is one which has been in effect for many years in all provinces of Canada.
Finally, if an importer wishes to contest the tariff classification of any goods, parliament has provided an avenue of appeal under Sections 46 and 47 of the Customs Act. These appeal procedures may, of course, be taken advantage of by any firm which considers that it has not been properly dealt with under the law. We will certainly investigate the information the hon. gentleman has, and follow up with the Automotive Industry Association of Canada.


FISHERIES-REASON FOR DELAY IN ASSISTANCE TO IRISH MOSS HARVESTERS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that a little more than a month ago, on October

21, I raised the matter of an appeal by the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) for assistance to the very seriously jeopardized Irish moss Fishery of Prince Edward Island. Perhaps members of this House and members of the Fourth Estate were not absolutely sure what the Irish moss industry was, and I received some fascinating questions and comments at that time. I want to assure members that I am sure the parliamentary secretary is well aware that this is a very significant part of fisheries which is the largest resource industry in Prince Edward Island.
In July the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association wrote the Minister of Fisheries requesting assistance for Irish moss harvesters whose loss of income they said, and I quote from the letter "threatens severe economic depression" to their area. The thing that particularly disturbed me was the length of time it took to get a response, first from the regional office which seemed to take almost two months, and even longer-I believe it was almost three months-before in fact a visit was made from the Department of Fisheries to the people responsible for the industry in Prince Edward Island. They were told at that time it would take at least another month before they had some indication as to whether action would be forthcoming.
I want to indicate to members of the House the importance of this fishery. Let me quote from a letter that was sent on July 16 to the minister from the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association. It states:
The fishery represents a large share of total fish landings and total shore value of fish. In 1974, total fish landings... for P.E.I. were 111,616,700 lbs. with a shore value of $11,976,705 (Irish Moss figures included). Irish Moss landings for 1974 represented 76,036,100 lbs. or shore value of $3,109,744 which represents 24 per cent of shore value of P.E.I. fish landings. In 1975, figures for total fish landings were 72,231,500 lbs. or $12,415,823 shore value (Irish Moss included). In 1975, Irish Moss landings represented 40,318,200 lbs. or $1,609,788 shore value which represents more than 12 per cent of total value of fish landings. The harvesting of Irish Moss is presently at an all time low. Landings are down and so are prices which are the two major problems presently facing the harvesters; the latter being more of present significance.
P.E.I. is one of the world's largest suppliers of Irish Moss and had always been praised for its high yields in the extraction process. The harvesters, however, beginning in latter 1975 and extending into 1976 have had difficulty in marketing their product and receiving a price necessary for profit. Since 1974, costs have been escalating 12 per cent per year while prices have dropped roughly 20 per cent within 1974-1976.
The P.E.I. Fishermen's Association have been requested, by the Irish Moss harvesters, to request a subsidy of one and one-quarter cents per pound for wet moss and 5 cents more per pound for dry moss, to offset losses in income now experienced. The harvesters feel that since the subsidy system is now present in other sectors of the fishery experiencing difficulty, the request is reasonable.
The P.E.I. Fishermen's Association Board of Directors have unanimously voted in favour of this request and are now officially presenting it to you and your department.
We feel that the Irish Moss harvesters are facing a serious loss of income which will have a serious effect to fishermen and the general economy of P.E.I. The subsidy stated previously does seem fair and could be implemented until the present marketing problems are solved. We also request your department to initiate a program of research into market conditions and potential for the Irish Moss industry so the problems would be solved and the subsidy thus granted.
November 23, 1976

At the same time I was questioning the Minister of Fisheries about when there would be a response and the reason for the inordiante delay, I also indicated there was need for an increase in expertise in respect of the long-term problems with regard to the actual production of the raw product as well as the enhancement and expansion of the market for carrageen.
The minister indicated this is a new industry. It may be new to the minister, but it certainly is not new to the fishermen of Prince Edward Island who have been at it for many years. I was a little shocked by the minister's reference to it as a new industry. I had some reason to believe, because the minister in a sense shares boundary waters with me across the Northumberland Strait, and since he has some fishermen in his own area who are directly involved in this same industry, that he would be favourably disposed to increasing the competence not only of his own department-and there has been some excellent work done at the Resource Station at Miminegash by his own fisheries officers-but to increasing the expertise of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
It seems to me this is an opportunity for us to develop an industry in an area which at the same time would not jeopardize existing industry in other parts of the country. The parliamentary secretary represents a constituency which certainly is not directly involved with the Irish moss fishery and I would hope that would not jeopardize his own concern and conviction. As I understand it, the recommendation has now gone forward to Treasury Board and I would hope we would have a favourable answer shortly and that the subsidy would be implemented in time to alleviate some of the economic hardships referred to by the Fishermen's Association when it wrote in July.
I wrote a similar letter on October 27 which I will not impose upon the House this evening. I simply elaborated in some detail my own investigation and the further justification for the position taken by the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association. I would hope therefore we would have a speedy response on the request for a subsidy, a much speedier implementation of the subsidy itself and equally, and perhaps even more important in the long term, some indication of a commitment that the government will take seriously the potential in relation to Irish moss so that the industry will be able to expand its own capacity. I hope the government will assist in the full development of the potential market which I think is there for this very important industry on the east coast.


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time available to me tonight to respond in some detail to the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). I do know, however, from my checking into this particular situation in order to prepare for my response tonight, that the Department of Fisheries and the minister are very well aware of the work
Adjournment Debate
the hon. member has done on behalf of his constituents in respect to this problem, and the very real contribution he has made in developing and encouraging an active role by the Government of Canada through the Department of Fisheries.
I think perhaps when the hon. member expresses some concern about the Minister of Fisheries calling it a newer industry, it is all a matter of perspective. Fishing goes back many thousands of years and the Irish moss industry goes back in any size in Canada to the 1950's. I think it was only in 1974 that it peaked as an industry in Canada. I think the hon. member mentioned some statistics. In total in the maritimes there were some 131 million pounds harvested. There are more than 1,700 Irish moss harvesters in this industry so indeed it is very important, as the hon. member for Egmont pointed out.
I should add that in parts of Prince Edward Island we know, and the hon. member is aware of the fact, that more than one half the income of the fishermen comes from the harvesting of Irish moss. Of course there was a slump in the market in 1974 and I think that is what led to much of the problem today. The demand has now gone up but the prices have not, and in turn some of the people involved in the harvesting, some of the fisheries workers, face added costs in transportation from the dock to the drying plant. So indeed they do have serious problems.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The slump was in 1975.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: It followed the peak in 1974, and the problem has continued. I do think the department has played a lead role through the industrial development branch of the Fisheries and Marine Service in helping the expansion of the industry. Certainly they were helped in the 1960's in developing drying techniques which have been useful, since Irish moss must be dried and shipped to other countries for distillation into carrageen. But I agree that there is a serious problem and I am certainly pleased I can tell the hon. member, as he seems to know himself, that the Department of Fisheries looks sympathetically on the request of the people involved in this industry for a subsidy because of their current plight.
The department is also very concerned-and that has been part of the cause for the delay-with doing further studies and investigating what can be done in the long range to determine how this harvest develops and how it is affected by other environmental aspects. That has been part of their thinking in trying not to reach a conclusion only on subsidies but also on the long range program for research to assist the industry.
I can say to the hon. member that the department will be reaching a decision shortly which, we are optimistic, will be positive both with regard to the subsidies in the short term and also in the long term with regard to planning and assistance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, November 24, 1976