1976-11-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing importance to Canada's beef cattle industry. It arises from the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture in Calgary last Friday, accompanied by a press statement, in which he warned that "increased consumption of blood meats, especially beef, could lead to dissention within the country." "Beef makes people ferocious", he stated. He even involved sex by suggesting that excessive beef eating means "you love more".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Further, he continued-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a motion to propose would he please do so?


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 will get to my motion at once. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That if the Minister of Agriculture was attempting to joke, he immediately apologize to the Canadian people and especially to all cattle producers, and, if the minister was serious, that he immediately substantiate his ludicrous and ridiculous remarks with concrete, scientific evidence or be prepared to resign his portfolio immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Consideration of such a motion would require unanimous consent under the terms of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: There is obviously something less than unanimous consent.


SUGGESTION MINISTER BE CONSULTED ABOUT MENUS FOR RESTAURANTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to deal with a similar topic. Having regard to the statement made by the
Minister of Agriculture over the weekend that "if you eat better you love more" and that "beef eating makes you ferocious", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House invite the Minister of Agriculture to appear before the Parliamentary Restaurant Committee to discuss an appropriate menu for this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: No!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43, and I hope that hon. members will give this motion serious consideration because I believe it is one which can receive the support of all parties in the House.
In view of the fact that an atomic cloud from the Chinese nuclear detonation of last week, a cloud some 400 square miles in area, is now circling the northern hemisphere, and in view of the fact that the Atmospheric Environment Service of Canada predicts that precipitation may drive the radioactive cloud below the 10,000 feet level considered to be the safe level by Canadian health standards, thereby creating the possibility of health hazards for Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House go on record as condemning this latest atmospheric test by the People's Republic of China, and further that a formal diplomatic protest be lodged by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with the Chinese ambassador and with the government of China.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80005-10y2

November 22, 1976
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Further to the minister's statement in this House on Friday that he had found some room for flexibility in terms of the government's $43 billion plus spending program, would the minister indicate the magnitude of this flexibility? Is it $1 billion or $2 billion? What precisely is the amount of the flexibility?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House, my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will be finding an occasion to make a statement to the House on this subject within the next 10 days.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of this flexibility, which represents excess federal funds, would the minister indicate why he is reluctant to give a tax cut to Canadians as suggested by this party last May? Such a tax cut could be in addition to any pinprick job creation program that the government may have in mind and certainly would act as an over-all stimulant to the economy, which even the minister agrees is lagging.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this question in my statement on Friday. I indicated that the immediate concern had to be the level of employment this particular winter, for which a direct employment program was the best assistance.


FORECASTING MECHANISM USED-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION NOT TO INTRODUCE NEW BUDGET NOW
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the minister. Bearing in mind that the May 25 budget has proven wrong in its estimate of the number of jobs that will be created this year, of our unemployment level, of our real growth, and as to the amount of the federal expenditures and revenue, would the minister indicate what forecasting mechanism he is now relying on, and would he reconsider his decision not to introduce a new budget as early as possible so that these miscalculations may be corrected and the economy revived without further delay?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman makes reference to forecasting but I draw a different conclusion from it. Obviously, the capability to make accurate forecasts is difficult, not just for the advisers to this government but for the advisers to all OECD countries. It is for this reason that the government has, over the long run, rejected the notion that a long-run forecast should be put out, bearing in mind the fact that economic
(Mr. Speaker.)
circumstances not now foreseeable by anyone and which may be beyond the control of this government may affect the forecasting.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his May 25 budget speech the Minister of Finance indicated that some 250,000 new jobs would be created. Would the minister indicate how many new jobs have actually been created as a result of the May budget, or is he now prepared to admit, as the Minister of Finance did on Friday, that the government has again failed to meet yet another economic target?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, until the final decisions on work in the LIP program are made, I think it would be inappropriate to do any guesswork on the number of jobs actually created.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. It is our understanding that about half of this number of jobs has actually been created. In the May budget debate we pointed out that even if the government created 250,000 new jobs there would still be a shortfall of 50,000 jobs. Let me ask the minister a question with respect to the new program that he is going to announce within the next 10 days, according to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister inform the House of the number of new jobs to be created by the new program, and are these jobs included in the budgetary target of 250,000 new jobs or additional to this target?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has indicated, this statement from my office or by myself will be made within the next ten days. I hope to meet that particular deadline, and I think I would be scooping myself if I put the answer on the record at this time.


UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL FOR BALANCE OF 1976 AND FIRST HALF OF 1977
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker,
1 would not mind if the minister wanted to scoop himself. Given the fact that the Minister of Finance has indicated his concern about levels of unemployment this winter, and given his statement of November 19, last Friday, in which he indicated that we are looking at a rate for the month of October of 7.6 per cent or a variation upwards of between 7 per cent and 8 per cent, and now that the minister has had an opportunity of analyzing the situation and intends to bring in programs to meet this high unemployment rate, and particularly in view of the minister's silence about the unemployment

November 22, 1976

rate for the balance of this year and for the first six months of 1977, will he now give us some indication of what his analysis has shown in terms of the unemployment rate for the balance of the year and for the first half of 1977? Surely, he is not bringing forward programs without having this information at hand?


An hon. Member:: Nice speech, Link.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Oh, shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it seems it is not only the Minister of Defence who finds it a little more difficult than usual on Mondays. I would say to the hon. member that obviously we have forecast information on which we base our judgments, but I think it would be inappropriate to put this up as a target for the opposition critics to shoot at. We have our forecasts, and it is on that basis that we indicate the amount of money we feel should appropriately be spent on a project, given the range of funds available.


REASON FOR NEW PROGRAMS TO CREATE JOBS AND NUMBER OF JOBS TO BE CREATED
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I should say at the outset that my questions have nothing to do with the absence of the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I understand they are holidaying together in the province of Quebec. I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, since it is a month ago that he announced his exciting and imaginative new full-employment program and indicated he would not be making any further changes, will he indicate to the House what has caused him to show this unaccustomed flexibility which has led the government to announce it is going to bring forward new employment programs within the next ten days, and would the minister indicate how many additional jobs he expects to create with these new programs?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the enthusiasm and support of the leader of, not quite the opposition yet, but the New Democratic Party, and for the adjectives used. They, in fact, were used to describe the direct employment policy which is the 1977 direct job creation project. On that basis, as on all bases, this government is in fact flexible in order to meet changing circumstances as they arise.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the next time the minister will answer the question. I asked the minister, given the fact that the government has finally recognized we have a serious unemployment problem, will he inform the House about the number of additional jobs the government expects to create with the programs it is now going to bring forward?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West has apparently already given the answer. In point of fact,
Oral Questions
I have indicated that in view of the funds being made available, as just recently announced, it would be inappropriate to make any comment at this time.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of this new flexibility that has become apparent in the front benchers on the government side, will the minister indicate that this tendency has spread to his office, and that as part of this new government recognition of the serious unemployment problem he will be bringing forward a budget before Christmas that will contain major proposals to alleviate the situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to that question several times. The answer is that we do not propose to bring forward a budget before the end of the year.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
A couple of years ago, Quebec's former justice minister Jerome Choquette made a precise request to the federal government to obtain compensation concerning expenditures incurred in other provinces. Mr. Choquette wished to get for his province some monetary compensation instead of services by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Is the minister prepared to reconsider that issue? If so, will he make soon a statement in the House about it?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a question which was indeed thoroughly considered by my predecessor, and the then justice minister of the government of Quebec received at that time an answer from the government of Canada. There has been no change since that time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question.
I would like to ask the Solicitor General whether, if need be, he would be prepared to reopen this file to look again into this matter and take a decision about it before we will be forced to take action?

November 22, 1976
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, in our answers to the request addressed to my predecessor by the government of Quebec, it was clear that, as far as the solicitors general were concerned, this issue was closed and that if it was to be raised another time it should be at another level.


AGRICULTURE
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's Calgary statement that "beef makes people ferocious" and that "increased consumption of blood meats such as beef could lead to dissension within the country" and further in view of the minister's continued downgrading of our Canadian cattle industry by his attacks on our marketing system, when the problem is clearly one of excessive supply directly related to offshore beef imports, will the minister indicate if he was attempting some form of crude humour in these ill-timed remarks? If he was serious, will he immediately substantiate his remarks with appropriate evidence? Will he further explain why he deliberately encouraged a 65 per cent increase in offshore beef this year, a fact that has contributed materially to this increased consumption of blood meats such as beef in light of his assertion that such consumption makes people ferocious and is therefore bad for Canadians?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the comment the hon. member is referring to was made at a press conference with a group of good-natured press people and we were talking about "you are what you eat". That is what I said. It is obvious to me that the Tories at that Quebec convention were not eating right. I just want to say we know that a proper diet of nutritional food, mixed properly, means you will be a better fed individual. That does not mean you should eat that much more. Statistics show that if you eat better and not more you love more; and that is what I said.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, if what the minister said is true, I should be the most ferocious person in Canada. Further to the minister's ill-advised and completely uncalled for remarks in Calgary on our Canadian cattle industry which have already done great harm to this industry will the minister explain how he can justify the cost to Canadian taxpayers of trips such as this Calgary one in view of the ludicrous and ridiculous statements he made there and also in view of the fact that he is the second most travelled member in the cabinet?


REMARKS OF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE CONCERNING EFFECTS OF EATING BEEF-REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask him whether or not he has any evidence or statistics from his department making the same claim as the one asserted by the Minister of Agriculture, namely, that the eating of beef has negative behavioral effects on human beings, because this is most serious to the beef industry which is the third largest manufacturing industry in this country.
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, all I could gather last weekend is that the Progressive Conservatives were having a hard time of it in Montreal. I have no other comments to make on this matter.


AGRICULTURE
Arnold John Malone: I should like to address my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. If he has any belief at all in these statements, will he forthwith stop imports of all offshore beef and ensure that no more beef comes into Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we know that even in the past Canada has not produced a sufficient amount of meat for consumption in Canada. We are negotiating with Australia and New Zealand the forms which quotas will take, and how the meat will be priced in Canada. I should also like to ask both hon. members that if they think we should produce beef, then hope to God that someone will eat it, they are wrong. We want people to have a nutritious and balanced diet of meat, fish and everything else that is produced in our country.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that today the hon. member for Central Nova placed several questions on the order paper, including a substantial number this morning, with reference to Statistics Canada in an attempt to assist the minister in defining the issues, will the minister undertake to have these questions, including the ones placed this morning, properly answered before the witnesses, including, we hope,

November 22, 1976

Mrs. Ostry, are examined by the relevant parliamentary committee?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as usual 1 shall take all the necessary steps to have these questions answered as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, I intend to go before the committee with chief statistician Dr. Kirkham just as soon as possible. With regard to Mrs. Ostry, I do not believe it is necessary for her to go before the committee, because under ministerial responsibility, it is the present deputy minister who must give account to the administration.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Will the minister inform the House as to precisely when his predecessor was first informed of the complaint with respect to the peddling of Statistics Canada data, and can he also tell the House the precise date many weeks later when the RCMP finally retrieved, in a raid on the premises of the principals of Alan Jeffery Associates, the data and supporting documents? Perhaps he could also tell us whether we would be able to examine the precise nature of the data transmitted to the Decision Sciences Corporation?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the kind of questions put by the hon. member at this time clearly proves the validity of the proposal I made to the House last week, to discuss all these questions before a committee. I am not ready to answer questions as specific and as detailed about incidents which took place over four years ago, but we hope we shall be able to give the hon. member satisfaction when we are before a committee of the House.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this kind of evasion has been going on for some time now. 1 would ask the Solicitor General, who has by now had an opportunity to acquaint himself with his portfolio and has heard the questions raised, if he could at least confirm the precise date in April of 1974, approximately two months after the matter first became of interest to the RCMP, when they conducted their raid. Was it on April 27 or on April 28, or does the minister know?
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 missed the foreword to the hon. member's clever question.
As the hon. member knows, he has been asking very specific questions about criminal inquests lately. The standard practice is, of course, not to disclose bit by bit the contents of the files on criminal inquiries made by the Royal Canadian Mounted
Oral Questions
Police, for obvious reasons of which the hon. member is surely aware.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. According to recent surveys, sufficient quantities of swordfish exist off the Nova Scotia coast to provide a viable fishery, but there are no markets. Since 99 per cent of Canadian swordfish were exported to the U.S. prior to the introduction of mercury limits some three years ago by the Canadian government and by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have there been any tests made lately to determine the mercury level in swordfish at present? Swordfish are still being caught by Americans and are marketed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York and New Hampshire.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if tests were conducted recently. I know some were conducted roughly a year ago. However, the exporting to the United States is limited by the entrance requirements of American customs and excise legislation. Inside the boundaries of a given state, whether a state will allow its own citizens to eat swordfish is a matter which, I understand, escapes the control of the national government.


COD-QUOTA ALLOCATED TO FRANCE AND TO CANADA
Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, the House will recall that I undertook to answer my hon. friend's question of a couple of days ago about cod quotas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The hon. member's question had to do with the limits for 65 foot boats and over. That quota is under that which is allocated to France. The quota is 16,000 tons as against 18,000 tons. However, the total Canadian quota for boats both over 65 feet and under is 55,000 tons, so in fact the news stories on this question did distort the facts.


SWORDFISH-PROPOSED INVESTIGATION OF TOLERABLE MERCURY LEVEL
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in light of the need for further expansion of fisheries in Atlantic Canada, would the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment undertake further investigations into the question of mercury contamination in swordfish, either directly or by contacting American and Japanese scientists, since people in these countries are still catching swordfish, in the hope of securing the removal of the American food and drug ban on this particular

Oral Questions
industry if mercury limits are found to be within tolerable levels?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if we find a nation which will accept swordfish with a mercury level higher than the level Canada accepts, we would, of course, allow the export of that fish. In the case of the United States and Canada, we have kept in very close touch on this matter because of the amount of international trade between our two countries. If I could have that level changed, I certainly would.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF SPANISH FOREIGN MINISTER
Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing another questioner, 1 call attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor marking the first visit abroad in his official capacity from his own country and the first ever visit to Canada of a foreign minister of Spain. That occasion is marked with great pleasure by all of us, and I call attention to the presence in our gallery today of His Excellency Marcelino Oreja Aguirre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the very deep disappointment still being felt because the spouse's allowance is available only to spouses, there being no equivalent benefit for others in the same age bracket, will the minister be careful not to make a similar mistake when he brings in his amendments to the Canada Pension Plan, and particularly, will he consider extending his proposal to provide coverage for wives who stay home to bring up children for a few years by making that coverage apply to all homemaker spouses?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated on various occasions the government's intention to propose amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. These amendments will hopefully be introduced shortly in the House so that the hon. member will soon have the opportunity to ascertain whether we have met the needs he has just indicated. I hope that the forthcoming bill will gain his full support.
(Mr. Crouse ]


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that the statement about this legislation in the Speech from the Throne makes it clear that the coverage proposed is to be very limited, will the minister keep this question open so that, as I said before, he will not make the same kind of mistake he made in the other legislation?


Marc Lalonde: I shall not readily admit that an error or a mistake has occurred, but if one has indeed occurred, I shall certainly do the utmost to correct it. As to the hon. member's specific question, he may rest assured that all options remain open and that I will consider most attentively any reasonable proposal he may care to submit.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to return to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him a question. He is reported to have said that Canadians are getting restless because of their eating habits. Why does the minister use food as a whipping boy instead of having adequate government policies which will enhance the situation of beef producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if you advertise a product enough, people will become aware of it. Hon. members will remember all the controversy which took place about eggs and egg sales, and consumption of eggs have increased.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In view of the statements made by the minister about the eating habits of South Americans, I wonder if the minister would express to this House why he made those statements, which reflected on those people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. Jarvis:: What about drinking milk; is that okay?


ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF &quot;A&quot; VICTORIA INFLUENZA VACCINE-ACTION TO STIMULATE DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder whether the minister could indicate to the House what he plans to do about the reported shortage of A Victoria 75 'flu vaccine.
November 22, 1976


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the developments the hon. member is referring to. If there is a shortage of vaccine in some areas, we shall examine the situation. According to the information I have received, however, the vaccine is available in sufficient quantities, and even in larger quantities than last year, to meet the Canadian demand. It will be available on the market progressively between now and the end of December. 'There may be shortages of vaccine in some provincial areas just now. But as the supplies arrive on the market they will be provided to the provinces which are fully responsible for administering them.


Paul Yewchuk: In response to a question last March the minister indicated that there would be no shortage in Canada because we could rely on a certain percentage of the production of the United States being exported to this country. In view of the fact that this source has proved to be less reliable than the minister suggested, can he indicate what action he intends to take now to ensure that our own production facilities are beefed up so that we will not face a situation of this kind again in the future?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to provide for all eventualities for tHfe production of all vaccines which Canada could need in various circumstances for various viruses. We must specialize in the production of some vaccines and depend on the production of certain other countries for others. We are considering the matter within my department. However, I surely cannot let the hon. member hope that in the near future Canada will be in position to produce every kind of vaccine which might be needed.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the President of the Treasury Board or in his absence the Minister of Supply and Services.


An hon. Members:: He is here.


J. Michael Forrestall: In the award of the contract of the Department of National Defence to the Vickers yard on the St. Lawrence River for the repair of four destroyer helicopter ships did the government or the Treasury Board take into full account the extreme situation facing shipyards, particularly the Halifax shipyards, on the east coast?
To avoid a supplementary, will the minister indicate whether the government in awarding this tender took into full account the cost of moving those four ships from the port of
Oral Questions
Halifax to the river yard as well as the cost of maintaining- albeit a skeleton one-the crew who must remain with those ships during this two year overhaul program?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, these factors and others were taken into consideration in the process of calling for tenders which were public tenders and based on the thorough examination of those by the Department of Supply and Services and then by Treasury Board, the decision was made as announced.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services particularly because we faced this in the Atlantic provinces before, of the government awarding contracts without taking into account the moving of the ships. Could the minister indicate whether the government has taken into consideration the full cost of moving those ships from the Port of Halifax all the way up the river, particularly at this time of year when we face the closing of the river because of freeze-up?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we have called tenders from all shipyards concerned, but the only tender sent by a shipyard from the Maritimes was not acceptable to the government. We were calling tenders for four ships and their tenders were for only two ships.


HOUSING
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is behind the curtain and in the absence of both the minister and the parliamentary secretary who is also behind the curtain-


An hon. Member:: Here they come.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I should like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that he indicated in his speech on Thursday last that his department will have reached their goal of 50,000 homes under the native and rural housing program by 1978, how that squares with the perspective of his own officials that it will not be met until 1981?

November 22, 1976
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that such was our goal. There can be differences of opinion about the date on which it will be reached. As for myself, I think that with the co-operation of the main parties concerned, we will reach that objective on the target date.


ESTABLISHING OF TASK FORCE TO STUDY LAND COSTS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Minister of State for Urban affairs a supplementary question. A week-end news report stated that the minister had announced he was establishing a task force on land costs. May 1 ask if this is a new task force or was it merely recycling a statement made by his predecessor at the last conference of provincial ministers of housing?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I was praising the excellent work of my predecessor and, in fact, I was referring to the task force which was established at the recent Habitat conference, further to the excellent work of the now Minister of Defence who, along with his provincial counterparts, provided for the establishment of this task force.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that the government has been offered 40 to 50 Grumann F-14 fighters at the knock-down price of $7 million each?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Not
to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister has not heard of this offer can he tell the House when the CF-lOls will be grounded, considering the increasing difficulty the air force is having maintaining them in flying condition?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, they are maintained very well. I cannot give any more information at this time.
(Mr. Brisco.]


CUSTOMS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the fact that discriminatory import duties are being levied on automotive parts entering Manitoba and that Manitoba manufacturers and importers are being levied duties on certain products as high as 15 per cent and yet in other parts of Canada there is no duty on the same product because the customs and excise branch has not been uniformly applying customs regulations across Canada, will the minister investigate these variations and take the necessary action to make sure that customs regulations and import duties are uniform and at the same time check to see if there are variations in import duties on other imported goods entering Canada?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, following the hon. member's representation I already made sure that the duties will be equally applied within Canada, and the point he is making as regards Manitoba undoubtedly falls within the category of equal justice for all. However, his question is complex and I would ask the leave of the House to reconsider it and give a more complete answer tomorrow or later.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that we are going to receive justice, and since automobile parts manufacturers and importers in Manitoba have paid out thousands of dollars more in import duties than have other parts of Canada, will the minister take the necessary action to see that these people are duly compensated for excess duties they have paid?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I will not have to take that action. I think perhaps I was not clear enough in my first answer. There is no discrimination. The question is very complex and I should,like to have the exact data to give to the House. I will do that tomorrow.


AIRPORTS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister indicate to the House whether any progress has been made in regard to providing customs officers at the two Saskatchewan major airports, so that charters may originate and terminate without inconvenience?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, an announcement some time ago stated the structural renova-


1


November 22, 1976

tions which would be made at the Saskatoon terminal in order to allow the processing of large numbers of people so that customs clearance could occur. Some minor renovations in Regina would allow a smaller number to be cleared. We have been dealing with the current situation and trying to get as much opportunity to accommodate flights as possible but circumstances are difficult unless the renovations are completed which we expect to happen in a number of months.


FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. Now that the minister has acceded to our demands to lower the interest rates of the central bank, have he or his officials had an opportunity to assess the effect this action will have on the inflow of foreign capital and the foreign exchange rate of the Canadian dollar?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should inform the hon. member that under the Canadian Bank of Canada Act it is the Governor of the Bank of Canada rather than the Minister of Finance who decides on these interest rate questions. Of course, it would only be by a written direction of the Minister of Finance which would direct the governor in this regard. This is well known in law and I am glad to have the opportunity to set the hon. gentleman straight. It is anticipated that there will be a continuation of the strength in Canadian bonds on the foreign market. I would draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the foreign exchange market where the Canadian dollar is down by about one cent since last week.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the Northland subsidy. Can the minister tell the House why Rivtow is being paid $1,600 per day subsidy for a launch when the president of the company stated in the pre-subsidy withdrawal period that the company could perform the same service as Northland without a subsidy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the earlier statements were in relation to freight services which are being handled by existing carriers, and not only one of them, without subsidy. The problem of passenger service was always seen as remaining to be solved with the co-operation of the government of British Columbia. The initial work done
Oral Questions
with that province was to engage in a temporary way, a vessel owned by Rivtow or associated with it in ownership and chartered by the province of British Columbia with a costsharing arrangement between the two governments.
There is another temporary arrangement in place in relation to Northland traffic to and from the Queen Charlotte Islands, but the longer-term question of how to carry passengers most effectively is still being discussed between the two governments. The current circumstances are simply temporary until a proper and appropriate vessel can be put in place.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the minister for his answer. Is the minister aware that Rivtow tried to purchase Northland and when the offer was refused Rivtow apparently took the inside passage through senior Department of Transport staff to apparently arrange the political assassination of Northland?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of any such offer but there would be no reason why I should know about it. Of course, the hon. member's allegations are the sort that hardly deserve an answer.


CONDITIONS SURROUNDING SALES TO AGENTS OF WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister will remember the question I asked a week ago concerning the price of Canadian wheat. In the meeting the minister attended with the Canadian Wheat Board and the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board and the establishing of the approval of the sales to the agents of the board, was it made clear in those discussions that these agents of the board did not have to pick up the grain until August 1, 1977?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the usual Canadian Wheat Board selling practices were followed, as far as I know, which means that if grain is not taken at a particular time, having been purchased at a fixed price, the storage and carrying costs are borne by the purchaser. What the hon. member seems to be criticizing is sales of grain by the Canadian Wheat Board to international houses at prices higher than are in existence today. I find it strange he would take that approach.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question was whether the advisory board and the minister were aware that under this particular contract, the agents of the board did not have to pick up the storage and interest charges but could take delivery at any time up until August 1, 1977.

November 22, 1976
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact details of the transactions were not outlined while I was attending the meeting. We did have an indication from the board about major sales having been made. We did know they were being made to agents without that grain having been placed by those agents and that there would be a time period involved.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the recent explosion in the atmosphere by the People's Republic of China of an atomic bomb which has created a health hazard to Canadians. Does the Prime Minister intend to make a formal protest to that government and the Chinese ambassador as a result of this environmental aggression?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have made protests in previous cases, not only to the Chinese government but other governments which followed this course. I have yet to speak to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to see if anything is underway.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment who was asked a question on this matter last Friday by the hon. member for Vancouver South. In view of the fact the radioactive cloud may descend to the 10,000 foot level, will any specific action be taken by the minister's department or other departments in terms of warning Canadians about the health hazard in the event the radioactive levels rise, with regard to milk consumption and so on?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen anything on this issue which would allow me to share the hon. member's pessimism about the effects as they are detected at the present. The involvement of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment is through its weather stations collecting data. This is given to Health and Welfare for their analysis. They assume the lead responsibility from there on.
(Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain).]


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries.
Over four weeks ago, specifically on October 20 last, I put a question to the Minister of Fisheries concerning the Howay, the fishing patrol ship which was standing idle in the Victoria harbour for lack of funds to operate it. Does the minister know that this patrol ship is still there?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, not only am I aware of it but I can say to the hon. member that the reason for the ship's being still there is not only the lack of funds to operate it but a shortage of funds for extensive repairs to enable it to be certified by the Department of Transport for navigation on the high seas. At the present time, it can be used only to patrol along our coastline.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
What does the minister intend to do to improve the situation seeing the fishing season will open in coming months?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we will have to decide whether we can allot sufficient funds to repair the ship and enable it to meet the standards required by the Department of Transport. Otherwise it will have to be replaced.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that 25 year old canner horses are worth more than young dry fat cows, a market difference that has never been experienced in Canadian history, and in light of the fact the Minister of Agriculture has the power to stop oceanic shipments of beef, will the minister inform the House if the complete disregard for the cattle industry is going to continue until such time as the industry accepts his supply-management and marketing board concept?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, finished cattle prices in Canada are based on finished cattle prices in the United States. Canadian prices are still several dollars ahead of what they are in that country. The Canadian Cattleman's Association asked for, and I believe the hon. member did also, an open and free border between Canada and the United States. The President of the United States saw
November 22, 1976

fit to trigger import controls in his country. He, too, is trying to bring in a supply-management system in his country.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, it was the efforts of my party that prompted the stoppage of shipments of horses to Europe, making a viable industry out of horse production. Is the minister not concerned about the fact that this is the first time in our history there has been this difference between horse prices and the price of young cows off a ranch?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I take it we are getting this from the horse's mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. It relates to the capital cost allowance for purchasers of anti-pollution equipment. Has the minister completed his discussions with the Minister of Finance and can he tell us today whether this program will be continued beyond December 31, 1976?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might refer the hon. member to my speech on Friday in which I indicated there would be that continuation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jack Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Assuming that statements which were printed on the weekend were true, can the minister tell us when these new helicopters will be in place and whether the men who are away from the Canadian Forces Base Trenton will be back by the end of the month or at least by Christmas?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the hon. member is referring to. I just returned. The helicopter had returned from Cold Lake to Trenton before I left. There were two Huey helicopters from Petawawa at that time. 1 understand they were supposed to be left there.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question to clarify this. I am speaking of those members of the Canadian Forces from Trenton now on the east coast who are staying there with two Voyageurs. I understand that new
Privilege-Mr. Herbert
equipment will be coming into play. Will those men be back home for Christmas?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question at this moment, but I will get the answer.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from a motion under Standing Order 43 proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on Friday of last week.
Appearing in both English and French national newspapers on Friday were articles commenting on a letter which I had addressed, in confidential envelopes, to the members of the government party caucus on Monday, November 15, 1976, prior to the receipt of the Quebec election results. A newspaper is entitled to report its interpretation of a letter or statement of an individual. However, there is a responsibility to ensure that any direct quotation or anything that can be inferred to be a quotation be factual.
Unfortunately, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, when he rose in the House on Friday last, demonstrated a reaction to the newspaper articles and the interpretations rather than the actual wording of my letter and of my verbal statements. The implications, if I were to leave the motion by the hon. member without answer, are sufficiently serious that I must respond. The Hansard record of the deliberations of this House would indicate a reference to my personal allegiance and motivation which is totally inaccurate. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am using this, the first opportunity open to me, to state categorically and without reservation that at no time, whether in writing or orally, have I asked for, suggested or included any reference which was intended to imply "that the Liberal party seek a review of the leadership of the Prime Minister", as was stated in the hon. member's motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: No action is proposed, inasmuch as no motion is put forward consequent upon the hon. member's question of privilege. The matter appears to be one involving disagreement between two hon. members with respect to interpretation, rather than a question of privilege.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before making my decision on the question of privilege, I looked carefully to see whether anybody wished to intervene, having in mind particularly the hon. member involved. I waited a respectable period of time before closing the subject. The matter is now finalized.

November 22, 1976
Financial Organization and Accountability


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, then: following the hon. member's comment, I think members in all quarters of the House would be disposed to welcome the tabling of the letter in question.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: We concur, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1976. If the House would give unanimous consent, I would be glad to move the reference to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts right away.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the annual report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, tabled earlier this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, the text of the order in council establishing a royal commission of inquiry on financial organization and accountability in the government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the circumstances which led the government to establish a royal commission of Inquiry on Financial organization and accountability, and to comment on the terms of reference of that commission as laid down in the order in council which I have just tabled.
Hon. members will note that the mandate of the royal commission has two distinct but, in the government's view, closely interrelated objects: Financial organization, namely, the structure, systems and procedures whereby financial management and control are exercised and should be exercised at all levels and in all departments and agencies of the government of Canada; accountability, namely, the structure, sys-
[Mr. Speaker.)
terns and procedures required to ensure the effective administrative accountability of deputy heads of departments and heads of Crown agencies to the government and, where appropriate, to parliament.
The first object of inquiry reflects the extent to which the government shares the concerns expressed by the Auditor General in his report to this House for the fiscal year 1975-76, as well as during his numerous appearances before the public accounts committee, that the highest attainable standards be met in the administration of public funds. The second object of inquiry reflects the government's determination that the complex of issues, both technical and political, raised in considering certain specific recommendations of the Auditor General be clarified or resolved as swiftly and as effectively as possible.
Hon. members will recall that in his statement of March 9, 1976, to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, my predecessor expressed the full agreement of the government with 22 of the 34 recommendations made last year by the Auditor General, and agreed with some qualification to accept ten others, so there were only two recommendations of a somewhat technical nature which the government did not accept. Among those we fully endorsed was recommendation 10.40 of the report on the Auditor General's financial management and control study which stated that a single agency should be responsible for unified central direction and leadership to departments in all matters relating to financial management and control. Accordingly, the then president of the Treasury Board announced the establishment of a financial administration branch within the Treasury Board secretariat under the authority of a deputy secretary. My predecessor also announced that steps would be taken, through legislative action and administrative changes, to ensure that the Treasury Board would have all the authority and responsibility required to make it the single agency sought by the Auditor General, and that internal resources devoted by the board to financial management and control would be considerably increased.
In so doing, we felt at the time that we were meeting one of the key requirements for improved financial administration identified in the Auditor General's financial management and control study. But later developments indicated that this was not the case. In the course of his appearance before the public accounts committee on April 6, 1976, the Auditor General went further than he had done in his annual report. He argued not only that a single agency be made responsible for all aspects of financial administration, but that this agency be segregated from the Treasury Board secretariat and placed under the authority of a new officer reporting directly and independently to the President of the Treasury Board. Allow me to quote, Mr. Speaker, from the Auditor General's remarks:
This man should be the umpire, the umpire on which parliament and the government of the day can rely-
Later in his remarks the Auditor General indicated that an appropriate designation for the new office he envisaged might be that of comptroller of Canada, and I understand, from recent discussions with the Auditor General and a cursory
November 22, 1976

reading of his annual report for the fiscal year 1975-76, that creation of this office has now been formally recommended by him. 1 emphasize that the government has not awaited the report tabled today to give serious consideration to the views expressed last April by the Auditor General, but in view of the fundamental nature of his proposal, the complex issues it raises, and the numerous questions related to it which remain to be clarified, the government believes that a thorough review of these issues and problems is required.
The main reason for this is quite straightforward and is one which will be easily grasped by parliamentarians. The appointment of a comptroller general as a sort of "umpire", to quote the Auditor General himself, calls into question not only fundamental aspects of government organization but also some basic tenets of our parliamentary system of government. Hence the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry on financial organization and accountability. Needless to say, the government's decision in this regard has been motivated by numerous other factors: An unwillingness, dictated by prudence and experience, to introduce untried and unprecedented changes in the over-all government management system which has emerged from the gradual implementation of the recommendations of the Glassco commission and which, despite its occasional failings, is considered to be one of the most advanced in the world; the need to give due consideration to the necessary and unavoidable interrelationship between financial management and control, on the one hand, and other equally important dimensions of management, such as resource allocation, personnel management, performance evaluation and the wide range of other administrative functions, on the other hand; a determination to avoid the recentralization of management in government in the guise of a tightening of monitoring and control by the Treasury Board; the need to take fully into account the specificity of the government environment in any review of present structures, policies, systems and procedures for financial management and control, and so on.
However, I wish to make it quite clear that the overriding factors which have led the government to establish this royal commission are twofold: the first is the government's commitment to our parliamentary system of government and its resolve to protect the duties and prerogatives of parliament against bureaucratic encroachment. As I stated in the conclusion of the progress report on financial administration which I tabled in the House of Commons last Friday:
In our parliamentary system, the ultimate responsibility for financial control rests with parliament, and with parliament alone.
This ultimate responsibility can only be exercised if the principle of collective and individual responsibility of ministers of parliament is upheld; yet, given the magnitude and complexity which now characterize government operations, it may be that ministerial responsibility can continue to be real only if deputy ministers and heads of other federal agencies can effectively be held accountable for their administration. Such is the quandary on which we expect the royal commission to
Financial Organization and Accountability enlighten parliament, the government and, of course, Canadians all across the country.
The second overriding factor has been the government's desire to examine whether the management structure and process that have emerged from the gradual implementation of the Glassco report can be pursued one step further-in effect, to what we consider its logical conclusion. The essence of the management philosophy advocated in the Glassco report was that managerial responsibility should, in a word, be "decentralized". Under this philosophy, managers at all levels of public service have been permitted to exercise managerial discretion through the formal delegation to them of both the responsibility for the accomplishment of specified tasks or functions, and of the authority which they must hold properly to fulfil their responsibilities.
However, the management philosophy of Glassco was "tripartite" in that it not only recommended the need to delegate, first responsibility, and second authority, to managers, but also recognized the need to establish some system, or systems by which these managers could be held accountable for their actions and decisions. Although the need for this safeguard- "accountability"-was recognized, the identification of any system which a parliamentary government might adopt to fulfil this need was unfortunately regarded as being beyond the commissioner's terms of reference. But it was noted that the growth and increasing complexity of government had caused, and would undoubtedly continue to cause, new problems of accountability as evidenced by experience in other parliamentary systems.
In dealing with the political character of public administration, the Glassco report concluded as follows:
In the last analysis, there cannot be any precise formal division of authority between ministers and their officials. Their partnership must depend on the existence of suitable working arrangements for which no legislative blueprint can be drawn.
It now appears that this view was overoptimistic; indeed, perhaps simplistic. The difficulties that have been encountered in attempting to develop, in the post-Glassco era, the concept of managerial accountability in the government environment are, accordingly, one of the factors which have prompted the initiative I just announced. The Treasury Board and its officers have discussed their concerns in this regard with the Auditor General; and 1 was pleased to note, a few minutes ago, that he has acknowledged these discussions most positively in the report tabled today by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote from section 2.26 of this report:
The officials concerned, and both ministers, have assured me that they share fully my concern about the present state of financial management and control in the departments, agencies and Crown corporations audited by my office. They have indicated that positive and significant steps will be taken to rectify the situation in a context compatible with related aspects of administrative accountability by officials.
i have just announced, Mr. Speaker, one such step, namely, the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry on financial organization and accountability. Let me assure the House that the existence of this royal commission will in no way inhibit

November 22, 1976
Financial Organization and Accountability
the Treasury Board's implementation of the master plan which we have developed to improve financial administration in the public service, the details of which 1 tabled in this House on November 19.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 at the outset thank the minister for providing me with an advance copy of his text prior to his announcement in the House this afternoon. I particularly want to say I appreciate the hour at which he was able to release the document to me; it was certainly most helpful on this very important subject. The action of this government in announcing the establishment of a royal commission on financial organization and accountability in the government of Canada constitutes at this time, in my view, a stalling tactic in a crisis situation, if not a deliberate cover-up. 1 am surprised that the minister was not blushing with embarrassment when he read his statement setting up this royal commission.
It is a two down, one to go situation. The first round started last year when the Auditor General initiated and reported to the House on a financial management control study, which had been undertaken under his direction, which study stated:
-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.
The public accounts committee substantiated that finding unanimously and endorsed all the recommendations that were contained in that report in its sixth report to the House tabled, I believe, in June. The second round is this year's Auditor General's report, which concludes:
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.
Mr. Speaker, in the face of the expert and, indeed, the in-depth analyses and evaluations of the office of the Auditor General, 1 can only repeat the words of the Auditor General himself in this year's report, wherein he states:
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 facts are abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker. In his report last year, the Auditor General clearly and categorically stated that the accounting and control practices and systems of the government of Canada, its departments and agencies, are clearly in a mess. He went on to outline some 34 recommendations, of which, as the minister stated a few moments ago, 32 were accepted in principle by the government. These recommendations, 1 reiterate, were formulated after one of the most in-depth analyses and studies ever undertaken in Canada since the Glassco commission.
Not only this, Mr. Speaker, but this review was the most objective, most comprehensive and professional undertaking, one which received public recognition by the professional accounting and business community of Canada. The Auditor General engaged the services of some of Canada's foremost professional accountants. As a matter of fact, over 100,000

professional man-hours were spent on this study. Thirty partners and managers of 16 public accounting firms across Canada were seconded for the purpose of this study over a two-year period.
Some of the members of this study-and this is worth putting on the record-included Robert B. Dale-Harris, chairman of the study group and partner in Coopers and Lybrand; N. Glenn Ross, who was deputy chairman and also partner in the firm of Coopers and Lybrand; Thomas C. Dowson, partner in the firm of Touche, Ross and Company; and Glenn D. J. Grosset, partner in the firm of Peat, Marwick and Partners. Then we have Ronald Moore of Woods-Gordon and Company; and Edward Netten, a partner in the firm of Price Waterhouse and Associates. Mr. Speaker, I ask what additional expertise or independence the parliament of Canada needs? In my view, if there was ever a clearcut case in which we did not require a royal commission, surely it is in this area at this particular time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The situation has been adequately and properly diagnosed, and the treatment has been clearly prescribed. All we need now is a government that is willing and prepared to act in implementing the necessary corrective measures as outlined. It is very clear that this government has failed to implement the necessary and corrective actions recommended to the House by the public accounts committee and, indeed, by the Auditor General of Canada. I say this in spite of the document tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) last Friday. The fact is that there has not been progress of any significance in this area, and I substantitate that statement by quoting from the Auditor General's report of this year in which he states:
The follow-up reviews in the Treasury Board secretariat and departments, and agencies conducted more than a year after most of these situations were brought to the attention of the government officials directly concerned, suggest in some cases a failure to grasp fully the significance of the major deficiencies and to identify effective ways and means of correcting them, coupled with a lack of action or even of plans to remedy them.
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 been allocated to ensure the restoration as soon as possible of adequate financial management and prudent and effective control of public funds throughout government.
What a damning indictment! We could go back a little bit further, as this situation did not develop overnight but, rather, has evolved progressively under Liberal administrations. In testimony before the public accounts committee, to be found in volume No. 45, at page 66, Mr. Dale Harris stated:
-virtually all of the observations and recommendations in our report were provided for, to a greater or lesser extent, by the Glassco commission in 1962. Our recommendations are consistent with Glassco in that they vary only in emphasis and degree of detail. The evidence indicates that those responsible chose not to emphasize or implement most of the control-oriented recommendations. There does not seem to have been any effective force or influence to ensure that this type of control was implemented in concept and in practice.



November 22, 1976

Indeed, I would go even one step further. The evidence presented to us clearly indicates that those responsible for government have found themselves inadequate and lacking in their ability to implement sound and reasonable recommendations into actions and results which this House and the country require of them. What does this spell out, Mr. Speaker? It spells out nothing more than incompetence and contempt for parliament. Furthermore, 1 suggest that it spells out contempt for the watchdog of the public purse, namely, the Auditor General of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I say the establishment of this royal commission of inquiry on financial organization and accountability in the government of Canada casts a grave reflection on the office of the Auditor General, an office which this House wishes to strengthen and consolidate as parliament's guardian of the public purse. In my opinion, this announcement today constitutes a backward step in the evolution of re-establishing parliament's accountability and control of public expenditures.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, this government by its actions has, in my view, illustrated very clearly that it has now lost the confidence of Canadians as being a worthy trustee of the public funds of all Canadians.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House this afternoon to reply to the minister's statement with a feeling of great indignation. As the minister and this government are aware, the historic traditions of parliament dictate that parliament should have control over the expenditures of the land, not only those of civil servants but those of cabinet ministers and others. This has been traditional over the centuries. If we go back to the origin of parliament, we will find that this is the reason parliament came into being, that is, to control the expenditures of the executive, which at that time was the monarchy.
As a result of the excellent work of the Auditor General and his staff, we have very important recommendations, many of which were emphasized by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who preceded me, and I refer specifically to the creation of the office of a comptroller general. Instead of adopting or accepting that recommendation, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has decided to establish a royal commission to look into the expenditures and business practices of government. This is something that has been done over and over again in this country.
Why did the minister insist on the establishment of yet another royal commission? I would suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, that because things are getting a little hot on the other side, this is an excellent way of pushing them under the table for an additional two, three or perhaps four years. If you look at the terms of reference of this new royal commission, you will see that it will take at least two, if not three years and, hopefully for the government, the recommendations of this royal commission will not be tabled before the next election.
Financial Organization and Accountability As long as the tabling of these recommendations can be put off, things will be safe for the government in office.


An hon. Member:: Be factual.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I am being factual, Mr. Speaker. The point is that there was a general feeling in the House, which the minister and his department apparently supported, that the recommendation for the establishment of a comptroller general's office would be accepted. In this way we would have someone to look into government expenditures on at least a month to month basis, if not on a week by week or even day by day basis.
One of the problems we have in the committee-and certainly this is a problem faced by the Auditor General-is that we are always reflecting on government errors a year late when there is not much we can do about them. The establishment of a comptroller general's office would ensure that ministers, deputy ministers, heads of departments and agencies are held accountable to this House for their expenditures. We do not need a royal commission to consider the suggestion that we should appoint a comptroller general.
Let me put on the record two quotations from the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976. At page 9 we find the following statement:
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.
When we got this report last year-I am quoting from the 1975 report-we felt that was fairly temperate language for the Auditor General to use. The committee investigating the problems within the government and its expenditures had worked very hard. I had the personal impression they were being very easy on the government and were not hitting the government that hard in their report.
However, let us come to 1976, a full year after the committee hearings, after all the witnesses had been heard and all the questions had been asked by members of the committee. I am very happy to be a member of that committee. Despite my remarks today in this House, it is one of the most impartial committees. Members of that committee are all concerned about government expenditures. It has been my experience that members from the government side, from the official opposition, and myself, have worked harmoniously ,on this committee. I want to compliment the Auditor General for the excellent job he has done. Let us come to the 1976 report. This is what we find:
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.
Mr. Speaker, never in my brief 5V2 years in this House have 1 read a more damaging indictment of the government from any official source. That, to me, is a most damaging indictment of the mishandling of public funds coming from a very

November 22, 1976
Financial Organization and Accountability esteemed and noted professional chartered accountant, our present Auditor General. I shall conclude by saying that so far as I am concerned, the postponement of the establishment of a comptroller general is nothing but a cheap, political, Liberal cop-out.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 would not want to expand my comments on the minister's statement. However I must say that I am fairly surprised by the news of the establishment of a royal commission, as announced this afternoon.
As to the first objective, they say the inquiry reflects the extent to which this government shares the Auditor General's concern, as expressed in his report to the House of Commons for the year 1975-76. Unless I am mistaken the minister stated that his predecessor said that he agreed on 22 of the 34 recommendations of the Auditor General on March 9, 1976 and that he would have approved 10 other recommendations afterwards. So this would be 32 out of 34. Since the commission has been established, must we conclude that the two points which have been retained by the government are so important that they do not want to implement them and that the commission will be established to play for time?
In my opinion, the Auditor General makes a very good job, as I already said, but he is not provided with enough tools to do a better performance. To avoid the difficulties the Auditor General meets in his job, he suggests the appointment of a Comptroller General of Canada, not the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry.
In my opinion a royal commission is needed when we are faced with a major problem and no solution is known. It is not so in the current situation because I think the Auditor General of Canada, given his authority under an act of Parliament, has the necessary powers to make an efficient audit in any area of the public administration. But it happens that it is the habit of the government to establish inquiry commissions to investigate the reports of commissions making reports on such and such matter.
We recall for instance the Senate Commission on Poverty in Canada which cost millions of dollars. They went everywhere in Canada to find out if there were any poverty. Finally the chairman and his colleagues made a report which is well known in the House and within the public, a very important report which contains excellent recommendations which are not being implemented because this government does not share the commissioners' views. If after the inquiry launched today the government does not share the views of the Commission this report will be another one which will stay in the parliamentary library and remain unused.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am a little amazed about that and I felt I had to mention it. While the government is imposing a restriction program, while it wants to save and reduce expenses, I think that this commission will add to government expenditures, that it will cost a lot since we have already a service which could do exactly the same thing and
[Mr. Blackburn.)
arrive at the same conclusions if the government wanted to apply the recommendations of the Auditor General's report.
Did the minister have faith or not in the statement he made to the House about structures he wanted to implemented in the public service and about work standards to get more efficiency from it. If he had faith in this statement and in measures he announced to Parliament, I think it would be wise to wait for results from these new structures before setting up other organizations to investigate high officials to see if they really do their work honestly and efficiently.
In my opinion, we are then working on two plans. We do or we do not rely on the standards announced last week. In his statement of today, the minister says, and I quote:
... is the government's commitment to our parliamentary system of government and its resolve to protect the duties and prerogatives of parliament against bureaucratic encroachment.
We agree with that. We absolutely want that Parliament be the supreme authority and that it always be aware of any expense of public funds, that it know how the taxpayers' money is spent, but unfortunately it is not always possible to get all the reports on time, and thus we learn the facts once the damage is done and once the alternatives are proposed. We are said to be making non constructive criticisms, when any parliamentarian must assume some responsibilities and has the right to make positive propositions. It is not enough to criticize the government, a member of the House must also accomplish his duty which is to work conscientiously. It does not matter if, in doing so, he bothers the government, our duty is to say how we really consider the situation.
In his statement, the minister says the following:
As I stated in the conclusion of the progress report on financial administration which I tabled in the House of Commons last Friday: In our parliamentary system, the ultimate responsibility for financial control rests with parliament, and with parliament alone.
On this point, I agree with the minister, and I would like to take the means at our disposal, which are absolutely legitimate and legal according to the legislation, to fully assume our responsibilities.
In closing, the minister said something else that is very important and with which I agree. This is what he says:
The main reason-
-for establishment of the commission, I would say the main reason to give more power to the Auditor General and to follow his recommendations-
-is quite straightforward and is one which will be easily grasped by parliamentarians: the appointment of a Comptroller General as a sort of "umpire", to quote the Auditor General himself, calls into question not only fundamental aspects of government organization, but also some basic tenets of our parliamentary system of government.
This is a warning by the Auditor General. He is saying: Since I cannot do what the legislation empowers me to do, I suggest that you name someone else who could be called "Comptroller General". This is the conclusion reached by the Auditor General. He did not say: Establish a royal inquiry commission; he suggested the appointment of an official who
November 22, 1976

would be specifically responsible for completing the work of the Auditor General.
As I understand the situation, it would have been better to study first very thoroughly the report tabled today, and afterwards, the conclusions reached would perhaps have been different from those reached by the government. The establishment of a royal commission would surely have been avoided.
Mr. Speaker, these are the few comments that I wanted to make concerning the statement of the minister, and 1 hope that in the days to come, we shall have the opportunity to examine further the report and to proceed as economically and efficiently as possible for our country. This is the efficiency that the minister demands from the public servants. Canadians demand the same qualities from Parliament and the government.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister. In view of his statement that a royal commission of inquiry be informed on a matter which, 1 respectfully suggest to him, through you, sir, has been inquired into enough, has the minister reviewed all the diagnoses of the illnesses affecting the public accounts which have been carried out by highly-regarded, internationally-based accounting firms? Also, is there anything in their recommendations that would have caused him to recommend an inquiry by way of a royal commission into this matter, when there are so many other matters that could constitute the subject matter of an inquiry, such as Statistics Canada, the dredging affair, the Mirabel airport. Sky Shops, and a few others, which might transcend this matter in importance, something that must have been made obvious to the government as a result of the studies that already have been carried out by the accounting firms?


Robert Knight Andras: I have sufficient respect for the hon. member and his colleagues to be sure that when they reflect on this matter in a non-partisan way, and when they look down the path, they will not be making comparisons between an inquiry into such matters as Sky Shops and the dredging affair-as desirable as some might think them to be-and this fundamental approach. I do not suppose I have looked at every word written or stated on the subject over the years-obviously, that would not have been likely or possible-but I have looked at it sufficiently to state my deep agreement with the necessity to go through with this inquiry. It is significant and important enough to look at in order to improve efficiency in financial matters, and we agree with almost every one of the Auditor General's recommendations pertaining to this.
It is the ultimate question of how it is to be done in its final form, and fundamentally and primarily who is responsible in the end and how that responsibility, or imputability- which might even be a better word-fits into the structure of the parliamentary process as we understand it. Does the comptroller general play the role of umpire between parliament and the government? Is he the umpire between the President of the Treasury Board and the secretary of the Treasury Board? Is
Financial Organization and Accountability he the umpire between the President of the Treasury Board and other ministers of the Crown? Is he the umpire between the deputy minister and the minister? These are very deep, important and significant questions which we must try to get answers to for the sake of the smooth process of parliament. It is a much broader issue than simply looking at some precise account that is out of order or has been mishandled. That, of course, is the Auditor General's role. It is for him to see whether or not money has been properly spent.
I do not think we are as much in disagreement as might appear on the surface. Most certainly, I am not in disagreement with the Auditor General's recommendations. In fact, we want to go further than the precise recommendations he has made and see how that fits in. He looks at various roles played by the comptroller general and the different implications flowing from his authority and accountability. I think that what we need now is this examination 10 or 15 years after the report of the Glassco commission to fill in some gaps with respect to which I believe the implementation of the Glassco commission's recommendations has left all of us with some frustrations.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point with respect to the parliamentary process, but let us assume for the moment that the royal commission of inquiry goes even further than recommended by the Auditor General, and that they recommend, in fact, the establishment of an independent agency, accountable only to parliament, which would be working side by side with the Auditor General. Is the minister prepared to say today that this government would accept such a recommendation?


Robert Knight Andras: Without consultation with my colleagues on such a major issue, I would say that that would be a fundamental change in terms of ministerial accountability and responsibility to parliament for everything that happens in their departments, and accountability of the cabinet collectively to parliament for everything that happens. I think this is a hypothetical situation that the hon. member puts forward. I do not want to pre-empt what the royal commission might or might not do, but in fact we are close to doing that now. I speak only personally as minister, but I think this would be such a fundamental change that the government and parliament would want to look at it very carefully. This might look attractive at the beginning, but I am not sure that down the road it would not change the whole process of parliamentary democracy.


Mr. Baldwin:: Given the fact that the true pith and substance of accountability is responsibility to parliament, and that this government and its immediate predecessor, whether deliberately or not, over the last 10 or 12 years have virtually destroyed the principle of accountability to parliament, would the minister give serious consideration to at least having a parallel form of measured reform by rapidly altering the form of the estimates to make them intelligible and understandable; by changing the practice of the House so that these estimates will not be passed until there has been adequate opportunity to

November 22, 1976
Financial Organization and Accountability examine them and ventilate grievances; and by compelling the government and its officials to tell the whole truth about spending?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think this goes back to your ruling on a question the other day. 1 am not going to drag Your Honour into this, but much of the question the hon. member has put to me really falls within parliament's own prerogatives and within the procedures of this House with regard to the examination of estimates, and so on. That is fair game. But hon. members should not look to me as the minister to make that change. That is a parliamentary decision.
As to information and the form of estimates, I think hon. members will have noted, if they have had the opportunity- and if not, I invite them to read the progress report I tabled in this House on Friday, which clearly indicates that we wish to improve the form of estimates and the information accompanying the estimates-that it is all for the purpose of better and more enlightened examination by hon. member under the procedures of the House. We have developed a guide, in draft form, which we will place before the public accounts committee at the earliest possible opportunity for its examination before it goes any further in terms of becoming a formal commitment, and it is with respect to honouring a commitment that I understand has been made to the public accounts committee.
So on the one hand I think procedures are another matter, but on the other hand 1 am saying that we are committed to proceeding down that path and we are following exactly the line the public accounts committee requested us to follow in placing the guide before the committee before finalizing it.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate that at this time hon. members can only ask questions. 1 do so, not in the guise of being a private member of the opposition but, rather, as a disappointed chairman of what I consider to be the most important standing committee of this House. Until now that committee has been quite non-partisan and impartial. I refer to the public accounts committee.
I realize that I can only ask questions and that I cannot make points, but my first question to the minister has to be: Why today? The government has had the Auditor General's report in its hands since last Friday. It has been no secret at all that the government had made up its mind to table that report today.
In his statement today-of which I had no advance copy and no knowledge of the announcement at all-the minister indicated that the Auditor General had had conferences with the minister and with at least one other of his cabinet colleagues months ago respecting the implementation of the recommendations in his last year's report. I must be honest with the House and with the minister when I say that the full implication has to be that the government and the minister are trying to steal the thunder of the Auditor General. There can be no other implication. The government knew about these
[Mr. Baldwin.)
things. It looks like a one-upmanship, PR move, and I would ask the minister: Why today? That is question number one. Is it merely a coincidence that today is the day the Auditor General-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has put his question rather clearly.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I continue with two other questions, while I am at it, and perhaps when the minister is on his feet he can answer all of them?


Mr. Speaker:: It would probably be just as easy to have the hon. member put all three of his questions at once.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The second question is this: As the minister knows, and as I hope the House knows, late last week we reconstituted the public accounts committee. The committee has a new chairman. There already have been changes in the procedures and methods of that committee. My hope had been that as time went on there would be further changes in that committee, as far as methodology was concerned, with regard to tackling any alleged waste or inefficiency in government as well as looking at the public accounts and the Auditor General's report. I am really disappointed in this move today.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Does the minister feel that setting up a royal commission can, in any way or will, restrict the operations of the public accounts committee? Are we on a parallel course? If we call witnesses and the royal commission has to call exactly the same witnesses, who is paramount in this? Is this not a blow against the supremacy of a standing committee of the House of Commons?
My final question to the minister is simply this: As I understand it, the standing committee is there to look for inefficiency in the administration of the government, and to look for waste in government expenditures. If the public accounts committee is to do its job in a worthwhile manner, what would the minister think if we said we considered setting up this royal commission a gross waste of government expenditure?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the first question was: Why today? I think that is a legitimate question. First, I think the implication of the hon. member's comment is that this is some kind of dodge or insult to the Auditor General. I absolutely dismiss that. We share his concern about the need, post-Glass-co and following the massive decentralization which took place in implementing the Glassco recommendations, somehow to get the pendulum back. It should not go back to where it was pre-Glassco, because I think the government would collapse, because of the complexities involved, if every request for a pencil or a paper-clip had to be approved by the president of the treasury board. With this, I think hon. members would agree. Goodness knows, we get accused now of slowness and red-tape and we have felt real concern. As candidly as I can, I am trying to express my concern in response to the question
November 22, 1976

about the matter of accountability. These matters have been in our minds.
The report last year of the Auditor General has been continually discussed, and this has heightened concern in the matter. We have been searching for the proper vehicle, in light of this concern, to avoid an over-reaction in bringing the pendulum back, and there had to be a new look. Incidentally, it has been 15 years since Glassco examined government organization in these matters. For all these reasons we thought, having looked at the various ways this could be done, there should be a royal commission. Out of courtesy to the Auditor General, however, and with the knowledge that the report would be tabled at or about the end of the month, or just about now, we decided that we would wait until the report had been made public and available to the House before we announced the royal commission. It is that simple. There was no plot to restrict the public accounts committee. I do not see how that could be the interpretation. Perhaps I have missed the point of the hon. member's presentation.
Certainly, the examination of accounts, the examination of the systems and the whole range of these things will go on. The public accounts committee is master of its procedures, and there is nothing in the setting up of the royal commission which will inhibit it. The royal commission will take an objective, stand-back look, and if the hon. member reads the terms of reference it will become apparent to him that this is a wise move.
The last two questions asked by the hon. member were really one and the same, if I understood them properly. 1 gather the new public accounts committee for this session had its organizing meeting last Thursday or Friday. I was informed of the results of that today, and 1 congratulate the hon. member for having been made chairman, and another hon. member from this side, who is not now in the House for having been made vice-chairman. I understand that the committee arranged a new and interesting procedure for a lock-in. That is an indication that the public accounts committee is in command of its own procedures. The possible implications of the changes are very interesting to me, but 1 must say to the hon. member that I do not know what they are yet. 1 look forward with great interest to knowing what they are.


Mr. Speaker:: There are now four other hon. members who want to ask questions, and we have been going for quite some time on this statement. However, in fairness 1 will see the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden). 1 think that ought to conclude the questions, and I think those are all the hon. members who have been seeking the floor.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have two big questions. First of all, I share the minister's concern that by establishing an office of comptroller general there might be the possibility of even further removing parliamentary responsibility or some
Financial Organization and Accountability kind of control over government expenditures. If and when a comptroller general is established and is directly responsible to a committee of this House, would that not be the same thing as an auditor general or any other top government official who would be directly responsible to the House of Commons through a new standing committee?
Now my second question, Mr. Speaker, and I do not wish to misinterpret anything here. 1 saw the name, Oliver Gerald Stoner, mentioned. I do not know the gentleman, and I am not imputing anything improper, but I am wondering about the propriety of choosing a man who has been so closely linked with cabinet and is at the present time apparently deputy minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I wonder if it was a wise decision by the minister and the government to choose this man, however capable, competent and effective he may be.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the first question is wrapped in some of the others and the answers I have made. 1 think the hon. member illustrates the dilemma. He suggests the possibility of the comptroller general being an officer of parliament, reporting to a committee of parliament. That is one version, and it is a version which in my conversations with the Auditor General, limited as those have been because of my short sojourn over there, I think he and others have been working on. The report before us today, however, talks about the office as being a deputy minister equal to the secretary to the Treasury Board, reporting to the President of the Treasury Board.
That is quite a different version than was suggested by the hon. member, and I think it illustrates exactly what our dilemma is-where this officer fits in terms of his responsibilities. It highlights the dilemma and the need to get this matter properly defined, not in a straight line of efficiency, important as that is, but in relation to parliament and the whole accountability system of deputy ministers and, interdepartmentally, to the various agencies.
With regard to Mr. Stoner, in my personal view he is extremely competent. At the moment he is deputy minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I think it would be a very serious lack if there were not somebody on this commission fully experienced within the government of Canada who is able to identify the practical situations that one must face in government in this area of accountability of deputy ministers to minister, minister to the Prime Minister and his colleagues.
Mr. Stoner is one of four gentlemen, and 1 think an examination of their biographies will show there is a wide range of compatibility and ability to work together. They are fairly well selected and I think will make a good royal commission. 1 do not think I can go further with regard to the individuals on the commission at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the minister pointed out that there had not been a comprehensive review of government operations since 1952 but, as the Auditor General pointed out,

November 22, 1976
Financial Organization and Accountability
many of the recommendations of the Glassco commission and the recommendations advanced by the Auditor General had not been implemented or complied with to any significant degree. In the face of the establishment of a royal commission of the nature and magnitude outlined today, how does the minister rationalize and ensure that those people who are charged with the control mechanism will adapt and implement the recommendations that may flow from this commission? Frankly, it seems to me that it is a matter, not of getting more regulations and guidelines, but of enforcing the guidelines presently in place.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are talking at two levels here. 1 am not arguing with hon. members about the need to make sure that directives are widely developed and distributed for control. Based on allocation of resources after the exercise of budgetary approvals, the improvement of the flow of cash or issue of cheques and expenditures, and so on, is not what I am arguing at all. Indeed, as the exchanges up until now have indicated, I want to make sure, after the directives have been examined to see they are sound, they are carried out. But that is not the objective in setting up what we consider to be a very much needed re-examination, on a broader front, of the financial management and structure of government. Those things must go on, and I submit that much of the evidence in my recent sojourn in Treasury Board indicates that we recognize and accept that and it shows that we have to improve our operation. We want to do this, Mr. Speaker.
While you can always say the measures we have taken are not enough, many of them prove that point. That does not, however, resolve the fundamental issue of accountability to which Glassco addressed himself, which is the same thing the Auditor General has mentioned, but ten years later the final issue has not been resolved. In effect, Glassco said "decentralize", that is, put the programs and authority out where they could be most effective and not in a central agency in Ottawa; shove them out. We did that, Mr. Speaker, and now the reaction is that the pendulum may have swung a little too far, particularly with regard to post-budgetary approvals and the flow and control of cash and expenditures. There is no argument about that.
To come back and still avoid a pre-Glassco situation which the Auditor General himself warns against raises some very fundamental questions. All the flow of travel directives, administrative measures, taxi slips, and so on, will have to be tightened up. But 1 do not think the fundamental question was answered by Glassco, and we are saying that the royal commission should try to answer it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your indulgence. In light of the fact that the minister agrees with Glassco and with the Auditor General, is the issue we are trying to sort out the appointment of a comptroller general? Is that the inherent purpose of the appointment of this royal commission?


Robert Knight Andras: Most certainly it is one of the most significant recommendations of the Auditor General that leads to opening

up and recognizing that the issue of accountability has not been resolved. It hits it head-on. Please do not take that comment out of context, in the sense that it really raises the very serious issue that I have been trying to register here today. We think it is time to grapple with that, but we think it has to be done on a more proper basis than the desirable objective of having an exact, clean accounting system. That is desirable, but something else is involved. This is not General Motors.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, at the moment there is only one question I should like to ask. Is the President of the Treasury Board not fearful that the royal commission will really be investigating what the Treasury Board ought to be doing and ought to have been doing for the last 15 years? Is this not a problem? Is he creating a royal commission in order to investigate the Treasury Board?
Is it not possible that the Treasury Board has taken on more functions, and 1 think particularly of the function of collective bargaining which has taken the Treasury Board out of its normal role of watching government expenditures, checking budgets as they are being presented, and that sort of thing, and now we need a royal commission to ensure that the Treasury Board gets back to what it should be doing?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is bootlegging in some other issues on which he probably has strong feelings, and very interesting ones, I might add. We very much respect the recommendations of the Auditor General, the office and the person. He recommends that the operations of Treasury Board be expanded dramatically. In the report, the hon. member will find-and I know this by discussion with him- and I believe it was in the Auditor General's previous report, that it is to add on this particular function.
It might be that the comptroller general would be something apart from the secretariat of the Treasury Board. I think the hon. member knows the distinction between the board and the secretariat. In any event, it would be reporting to the president of the treasury board and, therefore, part of the Treasury Board operation. There is no suggestion in his comments that this be put out somewhere else. He lists all the things we are now doing and suggests that it be larger. He even suggests that the payroll function of the Department of Supply and Services be looked at as being operational under Treasury Board, and these kinds of things.
The hon. member asks whether I am afraid. I suggest that he read the terms of reference. I am afraid that in the end we will have to say, "Let the chips fall where they may."


Mr. Bawden:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very shocking and damning report of the Auditor General, which clearly proves that a great many aspects of this government's financial management are in a mess, I wish to ask the minister a
November 22, 1976

question. For years the Auditor General has been making numerous reports over and over again. Is the minister satisfied with the progress made by the government in the last year or two as a result of the suggestions made by the Auditor General? Can the minister tell the House his intentions with regard to getting after those things which clearly should be done right away without waiting for all these long processes to take place? Perhaps at the same time the minister could state what the time limit should be on this royal commission and give us his estimate of the cost.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the terms of reference of the royal commission which I tabled in the House a few minutes ago. he would get the answers to most of his questions. With regard to the time-frame, it is to be as expeditious as possible, with a request that there be an interim report at least by the end of December 1977, and so on. It is all in the terms of reference which I tabled. With regard to the cost, I must say I do not have a precise budget. We want to meet with the chairman now that the order in council has been signed. I will try to get the hon. member some information on that.
With regard to what we are doing, this really has to be classified as the old question: Have you stopped beating your wife? The hon. member may not accept it, but on Friday there was tabled in this House a comprehensive progress report which answers most of the questions he posed. I am prepared to take an hour or an hour and a half, if that is what the hon. member wants, and if Mr. Speaker will permit it. 1 have the document here and I could detail it in this House. I could do it on another occasion.
There are many things. Short of one or two final recommendations to which this royal commission must address itself because of the complexity inherent in those recommendations, we are moving and have been moving on all fronts to shore-up. I will never be able to say, with regard to an organization as large as the government of Canada, that all financial matters are totally and finally under control.


STATUTE LAW (METRIC CONVERSION) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 AMENDMENTS TO WHEAT BOARD ACT TO FACILITATE CONVERSION TO METRIC MEASUREMENT
Robert Knight Andras: for leave to introduce Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 186, 628, 690, 801, 866 and 881.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many pounds of butter did the Canadian Dairy Commission convert to butter oil to sell to Algeria?
2.	What was the dollar value of the Canadian butter converted to butter oil?
3.	What was the agreed selling price to Algeria for the butter oil?
4.	Was the butter oil acceptable to the Algerian government and, if not, what final disposition was made of it and where was it dumped ?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Five million, four hundred seventy-two thousand, seven hundred fifty-seven pounds.
2.	$5,351,404 Canadian.
3.	The Canadian Dairy Commission sold 2,176,588 pounds of this butter oil to a Swiss Trading Company, Agrex S.A., for onward sale to Algeria, but was not party to any selling price agreed between Agrex S.A., and the Algerian Government Agency involved. The Canadian Dairy Commission selling price to Agrex S.A., was U.S. $1,096 per metric ton free alongside ship at the port of Saint John, New Brunswick.
4.	The butter oil was not acceptable to the Algerian Government Agency to whom Agrex S.A., had intended to sell it. The Canadian Dairy Commission has no direct knowledge of any Final disposition of the butter oil sold to Agrex S.A., but understands that the butter oil has not been destroyed or dumped and is at the port of Algiers and may be offered for sale by its present owners. The butter oil not purchased by Agrex S.A., has since been sold or committed by the Canadian Dairy Commission for export through other purchasers.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many pieces of the Olympic literature, Olympic Coins-1976/Mon-naie Olympique-1976 were mailed out?
2.	What (a) were the mailing costs (b) is the cost of the prepaid return postage?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. Five thousand.
2. (a) Approximately $500. (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government taking any steps to ensure that feed containers carry a complete list of the digestible ingredients?


Eugene Whelan: No. The
technology of determining digestibility and energy in mixed feeds has not yet developed to the stage that these factors can be made mandatory for feed labelling purposes.

November 22, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Epp: Were any support funds granted to Cercle Moliere by the government in the years (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Fiscal Year	Amount
1969-1970	$16,800
1970-1971	14,500
1971-1972	15,500
1972-1973	24,000
1973-1974	20,000
1974-1975	15,000
1975-1976	10,000


Mr. Herbert: Has a design team been selected for the new building that is to be constructed in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island by the Department of Veterans Affairs and, if so, what is their name?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: No.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	In each of the past five years, have any animals from Europe been examined at the Grosse-lle, Quebec Quarantine Centre and, if so, how many?
2.	For the same years, did the Department of Agriculture buy Canadian bred animals for use in the Grossc-lle's laboratories and, if so (a) how many (b) from whom (c) at what cost?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes. 1971-72, 234; 1972-73, 227; 1973-74, 239; 1974-75, 241; 1975-76, 241; Total, 1,182.
2. Yes.
(a)	(b)	(c)1972	45	L. Carron, l'abattoir de Montmagny, Montmagny, Quebec	$922.1973	Nil	1974	Nil	1975	3	Dwight Joynt, Low, P.Q.	$5251	G. Lusk, Luskville, P.Q.	$2002	B. Seabrooke, N. Gower, Ont.	$2501976	6	Walter Foster, RR No. 1, Richmond, Ontario	$1,020


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 17, 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.
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, last week when it was necessary to terminate my contribution to the debate on this bill I had discussed certain concerns with regard to the outflow of Canadian dollars into the United States. Having said that, I would like to move on to continuing complaints, perhaps more of a keening and wailing from the Liberal benches such as we are hearing right now-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: -that we oppose, as we should; that we criticize, as we should. If hon. members opposite have a sensible contribution to make, I suggest they wait until they hear what I have to say. I do not mind criticism as long as it is constructive, but when one has the floor and has to listen to aimless drivel from the other side it is not particularly enjoyable.
One concern advanced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), that the official opposition does not offer credible alternatives, is a pack of rubbish. I suggest to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, as I suggest to all members on the Liberal backbenches, that he read the speeches made in this House by members of the opposition on Bill C-68. I suggest that he look at the constructive criticism and the amendments that were in fact accepted by that government and introduced by the opposition.
1 also suggest that members opposite look at the constructive criticism which was so effective with regard to Bill C-83. That died on the floor of this House because the criticism forced the minister to hold back rather than continue during the month of July. If the Minister of Justice was anxious to see that bill go through in the form in which it was presented, it would have gone through at that time. If the government really felt it was right, we would not have adjourned. It is not a question of the opposition wanting to spend more-as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni maintained in his speech on Bill
(Mr. Whelan.1
November 22, 1976

C-19-but, rather, to spend less and to spend it in the right direction.
I draw Your Honour's attention to the farce, the shocking misuse of funds in the Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project, a name which has a very unpleasant odour in this House. It will cost $16.7 million in annual rent, when in other forms it could be done for $7.5 million. In addition, it will cost $54 million to purchase, plus $1 per year to lease the parking lot, shopping centre and hotel areas. One is permitted to ask: Just how much is somebody getting out of this? Whose pocket is being lined in this peccadillo? I predict that eventually this project will be shot down and subjected to full investigation, as it so richly deserves.
The Department of Public Works can get into this kind of deal, but it cannot afford to spend $15,000 or $20,000 to rebuild a couple of wharves which it constructed 20 years ago and then allowed to go into disrepair. There are some classic examples of this neglect on the west coast, in the maritimes and right in Kootenay West. Why should Public Works need 8,966 employees in what is nothing but a real estate division of government-employees who are demoralized because their department is no longer following its mandate and because the work force is no longer able to fill a meaningful role? Only last week 1 had the opportunity to discuss with a civil servant working in the department the problems he faces. Insufficient funds are provided for the work which the department normally carries out, the work it traditionally carries out, because the money needed is being channelled into a real estate division.
We hear talk about funding priorities. When I look at some of the programs which have been implemented by the CBC, some of the wasteful expenditures this outfit has perpetrated on the Canadian people, 1 am saddened almost beyond expression. Yet it is impossible to get three thousand lousy dollars out of the CBC for television service to 700 people in my area who stand no chance of receiving any communications, whether by radio or television, in my riding for another eight years. What kind of priorities is the corporation working on in British Columbia? We are told by the CBC that under the accelerated coverage plan 99.9 per cent of Canadians will have coverage available to them in the near future. That is rubbish. Their priorities are garbled and mixed up and they cannot even come up with three thousand bucks. That is the equivalent of the cost of a one-year lease for a four-wheeled drive vehicle, complete with mag wheels and wide tires, such as the corporation uses to drive around the streets of Vancouver; it never gets up into the hills where its capability could be utilized.


Mr. Blais:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Hylton Brisco: As soon as 1 have completed my speech. With crime on the increase, I am concerned that in its strange mixture of priorities the government should have seen fit to cut two classes of the RCMP in Regina. What kind of a move is that? It is insensitive; it is stupid.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
People over there have got their priorities all mixed up. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni said of the new member of parliament for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) that he did not know what he was talking about when in his maiden speech he complained of the failure of DREE in Newfoundland. This instant expert from Comox-Alberni who claimed, by inference, to have a deep understanding of the DREE program, does not even serve on the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion. He shows an incredible lack of credibility. As recorded at page 999 of Hansard, he says he cannot get a sou from DREE. Then at page 1000 he is reported as saying:
I do not think the public are getting a fair deal from the official opposition at this time. 1 suspect they are taking money under false pretences.
Mr. Speaker, I consider that remark to be in contempt; I consider it to be scurrilous. I believe the hon. member for Comox-Alberni shows total lack of understanding of the role played so effectively in the constituencies by members of the official opposition.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: I challenge that statement as being close to contempt. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has no idea how DREE operates. Let me assure members on the government side that I have done my homework as far as DREE is concerned. I know where the problems are in British Columbia. They do not arise with the provincial government, but with the federal government.
I said last week that in one grant the government provided sufficient funds to establish one industry in the province of Quebec. I do not begrudge the province of Quebec the jobs which that industry will generate. But, as an indication of priorities, let me remind hon. members that the government provided an amount of $6 million for the establishment of that one industry, and that this one expenditure, this one grant, exceeded by $300,000 the total amount of DREE money that has ever been put into British Columbia to help establish industry or expand existing industry there from 1969 to date. What kind of a record is that? Is this not an indication of the government's spending priorities?
I should like to express briefly my concern with regard to the removal of section 272 from the Railway Act. This aspect of the debate has been admirably covered by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). The history of the government indicates that this is the precursor of further changes and that the abolition of the Crowsnest Pass rates is really what they have in mind in repealing section 272. The clause in Bill C-19 which would bring this about involves the lifeblood of the nation, that is to say, transport.
This brings me to the reprehensible conduct of the Department of Transport in dealing with the people who live on British Columbia's west coast-the people of Bella Bella, the people of Ocean Falls, the people of Stuart, among other coastline communities. According to the newspapers recently, the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) said of her fellow Liberal, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall) that he was emotionally overwrought. The hon.
1242

November 22, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures member for Coast Chilcotin had charged that there was a "sweetheart" deal which had been made between Rivtow and the minister's department. Well, Mr. Speaker, there are many attitudes which can be used to describe the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin-tenacity, integrity, political honesty, forthrightness. But "emotionally overwrought", never. I note some chuckling from the backbenches on the Liberal side. Perhaps they do not have the same perspective of the hon. member as I do.
Mir. Condon: We are laughing at you.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Well, I do not mind being chuckled at, when I consider the source.


Mr. Condon:: Get your priorities straight.


Robert Hylton Brisco: It can never be said of the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin that he is emotionally overwrought, but after listening to the comments of the hon. member for Skeena on the Jack Webster show, I have come to the conclusion that she is the one who is emotionally overwrought; she is the one who was filled with ascerbic vituperation. Look at the reports in the press. Look at what appeared in the Vancouver Sun and in the Vancouver Province and see what is happening to the credibility of this government among those who live on the west coast. It is disappearing by the moment, if it is not already gone. In a vain attempt to bolster it up, we see one member, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin, supporting the residents of that area of Canada. The Vancouver Province, in its issue of November 5, states as follows:
Pearsall said he suspected a sweetheart deal after Ministry of Transport officials Rogers Marshall and Alan Campbell were sent from Ottawa to Vancouver last weekend ostensibly to renegotiate the subsidy for Northland.
But, Pearsall said, Marshall and Campbell met first with Rivtow and B.C. government officials before conferring with Northland.
Capt. Louis Fleming, Northland's manager, said his impression of his 40-minute meeting Sunday with Marshall and Campbell was that "they came with an offer knowing 1 would have to refuse."
"Their proposal involved moving a large part of Northland's operation to Prince Rupert," Fleming said. "They weren't serious about it and they gave me less than 24 hours to say yes or no."
The Vancouver Province for October 29 last had this to say:
The entire subsidy business, on both the east and the west coasts, has seemed very fishy indeed. Federal subsidies are denied the B.C. ferry fleet because it provides an intraprovincial service which should be the entire responsibility of the province concerned. Yet a similar intraprovincial run across the St. Lawrence River in Quebec is subsidized.
It is not difficult for me or for other members to understand why Rivtow got this sweetheart deal. After all, we know that Mr. Cosulich is a bagman for the Liberal party and it makes common sense. After all, why not? It is the usual thing with this pork-barrelling government and is nothing new. Northland Shipping asked the government to provide, on a descending scale over a period of seven years, $3.8 million at the start, reducing to $200,000, plus an $11 million commitment by Northland. But this was sandbagged by the Minister of Trans-
[Mr. Brisco.1
port, just as the Acres report which recommended continued use of Northland Shipping was sandbagged by the minister.
I have heard the bleatings of Liberal members on the other side who say that we do not contribute, that we do not criticize, or that when we do, we do not offer constructive alternatives. But it is very difficult to offer constructive alternatives to a government that clearly does not operate with integrity. There are many other comments that could be made on Bill C-19, but I am sure that other members of the official opposition will be contributing in like manner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) accept a question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Roy)?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Certainly.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, concerning government priorities, particularly with regard to the action taken by the government to open French stations outside Quebec, I would ask the hon. member whether he is opposed to such a priority. If so, it seems to me this is an approach that goes against the objective of the Official Languages Act, and I think that such an approach, considering the events that took place on November 15 last, merely helps bring about the country's collapse.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I have no argument with that particular program provided it is implemented under the guidelines that have been clearly laid down by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. Those guidelines, as the hon. member well knows, provide coverage for a certain percentage of Anglophones or, conversely, a certain percentage of Francophones. But when either English language or French language radio or television is thrust upon Canadians in areas where those percentages do not apply, those guidelines are violated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Let me finish, Mr. Speaker. I said "when", not "if'. I said that when those guidelines are violated, I consider it to be wasteful. I made no reference at all to this particular program. I was talking about when the guidelines are violated. If the hon. member does not like the truth, let him put up or shut up.


Marcel-Claude Roy: I do not agree at all with that kind of statement, and it is not according to the facts.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to participate in the debate this afternoon. Although the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) complained, and I think rightfully so, with respect to the timing a few minutes ago of the statement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) with respect to establishing a royal commission of inquiry on financial organization and accountability in the government of Canada, he
'*it



November 22, 1976

having complained from one point of view 1 might complain from another point of view, and that is that I believe this was an attempt by the government to pull the rug out from under the hardworking public servants in the Auditor General's department who, as a result of their devotion to duty, and as a result of the devotion and expertise of the Auditor General himself, have exposed this government for what it is, a wasteful, arrogant, sagging carcass of a government so far as restraint or anything else is concerned.
In opening my speech I want to commend the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) on his very forceful reply to the statement of the President of the Treasury Board, and to congratulate other colleagues in this caucus who have spotlighted examples of the government's inability even to follow the law which has been laid down precisely and openly in regard to some responsibility for government expenditure.
If Bill C-19 is juxtaposed with the minister's statement today, and at the same time juxtaposed with a complete lack of responsibility with respect to restraint, as we have had exhibited through the good offices of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) who brought to the attention of the House the wasteful and flagrant abuse of public moneys by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), I think we have a very interesting combination of events indeed.
This bill, which is supposed to deal with government restraint, is one of the most hypocritical pieces of cosmetic legislation that we have had to deal with in this House in my time here, and my time has not been as long as some others who will also deal with this bill. I remember the headlines when the predecessor bill was introduced which highlighted the intention to do away with Information Canada and the Company of Young Canadians. Those headlines only dealt with the surface of the cosmetic quality of this bill.
This bill is not by any means a restraint bill. In terms of the "at and east" rates in the field of transportation, which have been much discussed in this debate, the bill would do away with $11 million worth of expenditure. The government, through another means-a sort of self-defeating means-is going to replace this money with $9 million. In terms of a real lessening of government expenditure, we have the fact that the bill deals with the dismemberment and fundamental changing of research and development incentives aspects of government policy, which in the long run are perhaps so needed in this country that the point is hardly worthy of emphasis.
In the name of restraint, this government freezes the 1976 indexing fact of family allowances, in effect laying the burden of its restraint program, to the extent of $230 million, on the backs of those people who rely on family allowances. It is a fact that there was a large increase in family allowances in dollar terms some time ago, but there was a fundamental change made at that time. For the first time those allowances became taxable, and in fact what happened is that those who do not need the benefit have had the increase virtually taxed away, but those who require the increase in benefits have had
Restraint of Government Expenditures
that frozen at a time when, despite the propaganda of this government, the expenditures for a man and woman trying to raise a family are increasing. This is double hypocrisy.
The greatest hypocrisy of all occurred in this House when the Minister of Transport stood in his place and talked about restraint. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) was on his feet the other day when asked to explain in specific terms the so-called restraint exhibited by the Minister of Transport, and he took great pains to avoid the issue; and so he should, because as an example of irresponsibility on the part of a minister of the Crown dealing with public money, the case of the Minister of Transport and his Jet Star must be the cornerstone of hypocrisy.
I have come to the conclusion from what I have read in that noble newspaper, the Globe and Mail, that things may have been even worse, because apparently when the minister was caught with his finger in the public cookie jar, the next trip to his constituency was by Air Canada, the people's airline. The minister went out there, I guess with his press secretary. There was a picture of the minister and this girl named Adrienne Lang, his unpaid press secretary. The caption under the picture indicated that the minister was for the first time travelling by the people's airline, suffering the so-called discomfort and the degradation of having to travel in that way, leaving his flying machine at home. He travelled on one of those machines usually left to others of lesser estate and breed in this country. I do not know what that trip cost, but I assume it would be around $274, a far cry from the cost of that trip involving the Grey Cup, amounting to $10,222.
An hon. Mlember: It didn't cost him that; he has a pass.


Walter David Baker: That would be the cost if he had to pay but, as the hon. member has pointed out, the minister has a pass. He should have a pass, and I would not argue about that; but my contention is that he should use his pass because that is why it was given him. In any event, the press secretary apparently said something to the press, because in the caption there was an indication that if there were offenders against the public purse in the ministry, the present Minister of Transport would be among the least of those offenders.
The hon. member for Leeds, who knows something about that of which he speaks because of his former associations, is placing on the order paper some additional questions to determine whether those words of the press secretary to the Minister of Transport were correct, and to ascertain whether in fact there has been even more wallowing in the public trough by others than has been exhibited by the Minister of Transport.
I find it difficult to accept what the minister has said in the House of Commons about his $740,000 air travel bill for taking himself across the country, even to such a distinguished city as Saskatoon, all for the purpose of public business. I would not suggest the minister misled the House directly when he stood in his place and said that. I would suggest, however, that the minister and this government have become so arro-
80005 - 1 lVi

November 22, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
gant that they no longer know the difference between right and wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: It is very interesting to note the sensitivity of members across the way when we deal with a matter such as this, described to me this morning as wallowing in the public trough up to his knees and his elbows. I think that is most descriptive.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) refers to the letter by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I do not pretend to have any insight into the inner sanctum of this government. I suspect that some members of the Liberal party do not have any particular insight into the workings of that party, either. I was very much interested to note today that the hon. member for Vaudreuil felt compelled to raise an improper question of privilege regarding a letter he had written. I presume it was an open letter in that I and other members on our side received copies of it. I will refer to it as his "open letter to Canadians." It gives us some insight into the workings of this shamble of a government composed of those who do not take part in the debates of the House and refuse to stand up and be criticized. Once in a while there is a truthful person in that party in terms of what is really happening, and it was refreshing to receive this letter in which the hon. member said:
I have not failed to perceive that much of the provincial disenchantment is rubbing off on the federal Liberal party. This is why there is an urgent need to discuss and to act.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil is quite right that there is a disenchantment with the federal Liberal party, and 1 do not have to call as my witness any member of the opposition. I can call as my witness any of the gentlemen on the other side of this House who react as though they had stuck their finger in a light socket every time someone mentions these air trips out west or other recent disasters of that party.
We now have a recommendation for the establishment of a royal commission to inquire into the methods of accounting by the government of Canada, a matter that has been dealt with at length by the greatest accounting firms we have in this country, many of them with both a national and an international reputation. We have an Auditor General who is acknowledged to have done a fine job. We have no commission of inquiry, where it is really needed, to investigate how things have been handled by the other side.
In addition to the disaster at Stat-Can, what other disasters have we had? We have had the disaster in the dredging affair, the disaster in respect of tenders for airport car rentals, which is an absolute mish-mash of foolishness, and we have had the Mirabel airport and Sky Shops disaster. In the face of what our late and lamented friend, the former minister of transport, Mr. Marchand, admitted was a mess, what do we have? We have another royal commission of inquiry. It would be great fun being in parliament if it were not so tragic to see the

shambling in and out every day and after the question period with only a few of the faithful left on the other side to take the brickbats.


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Walter David Baker: I will not permit a question, Mr. Speaker. I think the return of the former member for Langelier, the former minister of transport, would be a very refreshing thing for this country. At least in terms of transportation in this country he would be candid, honest, and would call it what it is, a mess, as he did on many occasions.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we would find that minister of transport misusing the facilities he was granted as a minister of the Crown. The former minister of transport, as he said on many occasions, came up the hard way. He did not come in through the upper echelons of government. He never felt, of his office, as if he were a member of the board of directors so entrenched that he could not be moved and therefore did not have to be accountable to anybody. There was some human warmth and responsiveness in the former minister of transport. The excuses that have been given in this House underscore what I have to say. Not only has the government and some of its ministers been wrong, but in defending the indefensible they do not know the difference between right and wrong.
I hear a little chirping on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. It is very interesting that members on the other side of the House make their speeches sitting down. I did not know that was within the rules of the House. There is ample opportunity for all members of the House of Commons to become involved in this debate.
There have been some speakers from the other side of the House. I should like some other members on the government side to rise in this debate, because it is an important one. Aside from the issues in this bill which I have mentioned, which are important, the issue in respect of what the government intends to do with the Railway Act is an important issue. The issue with regard to research in terms of job creation is an important issue. The issue with regard to family allowances and the effect this has on some Canadians is an important issue.
But there is one other issue which rises up out of this bill. It is a question in respect of which the President of the Treasury Board has responsibility. It was raised by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) when he spoke. I thought he made an excellent speech in terms of this bill. I refer to the problem that has occurred with respect of the public sector which supplies so many of the services upon which Canadians depend. If I remember his speech correctly, the hon. member said something has happened to the relations between the government and its employees, something that was never intended when this parliament quite properly gave its approval for the use of the collective bargaining procedure in the public service of Canada when it allowed the adversary system to be moved from the private sector to the public sector.
This was a great breakthrough in terms of the public service. There are some people who would say this ought to be taken
November 22, 1976

away willy-nilly. I do not subscribe to that, but I do subscribe to this, that there must be a way in which we can breathe some life into that system so that it will be responsive and proper as it applies to the public sector and employment in the public sector.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) accept a question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Pelletier)?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps he could put the question when 1 have finished my speech this evening. I would be quite happy to receive it then.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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 Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson)-Transport- Request for action to enable some communities to participate in railway relocation program; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Administration of Justice- Payment of costs for Mr. Ouellet contempt of court proceedings; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnaty-shyn)-Federal-Provincial Relations-Saskatchewan's claim of jurisdiction over pay television-possible discussion of subject at conference with premiers.
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, notices of motions, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Notice of motion No. 3, in the name of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government. Motion No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Unemployment Insurance Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government. Motion No. 5, in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government. Motion No. 7, in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government. Motion No. 8, in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think there is agreement that we take motion No. 12, standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that we move to motion No. 12?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
J. Michael Forrestall: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide benefits to the adoptive parent of an infant, similar to the maternity benefits now provided to workers who are unemployed due to pregnancy.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my comments and observations with regard to this, perhaps in some respects minor amendment, to the existing act will be brief. The intent of the notice of motion speaks quite clearly for itself. 1 think I should make it quite clear at the outset that in bringing this matter forward this afternoon, I do not intend to seek ways and methods of expanding the already overloaded rolls of the unemployed in Canada, nor am I doing it to expand to so-called welfare society; but, rather, I am doing it because the question is there.
The problem has been described by some as an inequitable situation. I am bringing this motion forward because there are a number of questions that surround this area which 1 think need examination and serious thought and consideration by members of this chamber and officials of the government. The

November 22, 1976
Unemployment Insurance Act
problem, very simply stated, is that mothers of adopted children, particularly when those children are infants, are not accorded the same flexibility within the unemployment insurance structure as are natural mothers. We give an extended period of grace to natural mothers who can take their leave entirely before the birth, and perhaps entirely afterwards. In any event, the parent who brings home an adopted infant does not have the same flexibility, the same access to benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act that natural mothers do, and this seems somewhat unfair. So I raise this matter for the specific purpose of drawing attention to what I consider to be an omission in the act. At best it was an omission when we were going through the amendments to the act a few years ago, and at worst it has been described as unfair and somewhat discriminatory in nature.
Private member's motions very frequently, like most other motions and private bills introduced by members, stem from correspondence with constituents and with many others throughout Canada concerned with what they consider to be a serious failing in a particular piece of legislation. In this case, my motion stems from questions asked of me as to why those Canadians who are unable to bear children are discriminated against, and why, if we are to assume that an adopted child coming into a home requires as much love and attention as a child that comes into a home with its natural parent, adoptive parents are not entitled to the same assistance under the UIC program as are natural parents.
At present, a working parent who decides to adopt must use his or her annual leave without pay to allow time to make the proper adjustments before taking home a new member of the family, and certainly in the days and immediate weeks after the arrival of the child, particularly an infant, there is a need to make adjustments to make the child feel welcomed and loved. Some say this is merely a sacrifice which adoptive parents are willing to make and that the fact that in 1971 amendments were made to the Unemployment Insurance Act to protect workers whose earnings were interrupted by pregnancy really is irrelevant. It seems to me that it is relevant because the omission discriminates against one group of parents. The couple adopting a child consider themselves just as much parents as are the natural parents. I stand here as the proud father of two adopted children whom I could not love more. I am not speaking for myself now, because I do not think I will adopt any more children.
In January of this year I wrote to the then minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and received a reply from his departmental assistant in which he attempted to justify the government's stance on the ground of the differing voluntary and involuntary nature of adoption and pregnancy. Let me quote the crux of his argument: it reads:
The payment of benefits to major-attachment claimants who have incurred an interruption of earnings due to sickness or pregnancy, is in recognition of the principle that these conditions, generally involuntary, cause a claimant to be incapable of work. As a generality, the adoptive parents cannot be said to have incurred an involuntary condition which renders him or her incapable of work, as the adoption was, in fact, an act at the discretion of the parents and, under these circumstances, it is not possible to consider the granting of benefits.

That statement, I think, reeks with bureaucratic idiocy. That might have been the case 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago when we did not know what the pill was. Today in Canada, I suggest, pregnancy is fairly accidental in some respects, but by and large Canadian families in western society plan their families. So I cannot see the validity of the argument put forward by the official of the department. It seems to me that with the lowering number of children available in Canada for adoption, adopting a child is about as much out of the control of willing couples seeking to establish a family as is pregnancy.
You might put in your name and wait for years before the opportunity to bring a child into your home occurs. So while it is a deliberate act of love-indeed, those with adopted children will tell you, particularly after they have watched their children grow up, as I have, that it is a very selfish thing to do because of the great love that flows from these children to the parents-to argue that adopting is deliberate and pregnancy is accidental, and to use that argument to refuse to extend benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act to prospective parents of adoptive children, is nonsense.
I am not really talking about the eight-year old or the 15 or 18-year old child, nor am I talking about the three or four-year old child, although I think it is sometimes necessary to require time for their adjustment. I am speaking specifically about infants a week old up to, say, one year old. There is a school of thought with regard to any age that you would specify in connection with this type of adjustment. In this context I am talking about infants who require the presence of a mother. Given the character and nature of the lives of young men and women in Canada today, a prospective adoptive mother might be an employee of the Department of External Affairs and might have gone to China for a week or ten days during which time an opportunity for adoption might come up. The father would then have to fill that role, because if the prospective parents had been waiting for six months, for a year or for five years, they would certainly not want to miss the opportunity to proceed with the adoption, nor indeed should they.
But what does the father do? He has no benefit; he has no recourse. He either has to do it by way of leave of absence, or without pay. If he has a generous employer, perhaps some other arrangement can be worked out; but the point is that adoption is not a matter of picking up a telephone and calling. It is beyond the control of the couple seeking to adopt, so to that degree I suppose the word "accidental" could be used in connection with timing.
Speaking with respect to fairness and common sense, I suppose we should be realistic about the present omission in the act. I would not argue, as I attempted to point out, that the adoptive parents should be eligible for the same full fifteen weeks of benefits because, of course, the mother does not carry the child. Perhaps a more reasonable time might be seven or eight weeks, but I do not know. However, I do believe that we should recognize the special needs and problems parents have when adopting a child in terms of providing the care, attention
November 22, 1976

and love which is necessary, particularly immediately after the infant child comes into the home.
I hope hon. members will give some consideration to this matter. It is not earth-shattering, given the problems we have in Canada today; nevertheless, it is one of those small matters which are very serious to the individuals concerned, and if there is an inequity it should be corrected. It may well be that proper investigation on the part of the responsible authorities within government would lead to the conclusion that it is just not practical to do it. I would accept that, but I will not accept it simply because somebody says so. Somebody is going to have to demonstrate to me that somebody has seriously looked at this problem and concluded that there is not an inequitable practice involved in this omission. If it is unjust, then let us correct it. If it is not unjust, then let someone tell me and tell Canadians who may be looking forward to adopting children why it is not unjust and why they should not have access to benefits under this particular program.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, for your attention. I commend this motion to hon. members and look forward to hearing their comments and observations.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for bringing forward this motion. It is a thoughtful proposal, in my opinion, and it has been advanced by Canadians in many parts of the country. The hon. member is one of the few in the Conservative party who supports unemployment insurance. He once broke ranks with his party when in early 1973 there were some pretty serious debates and when serious punitive measures were being proposed by the party to which he belongs. I admired him at that time, and I admire him today for putting forward a measure at a time when everybody is talking about cutting down and reducing the social security measures we have in this country, including unemployment insurance.
In approaching this question we can ask ourselves, who would benefit from this measure? The theory being put forward by some commentators is that a distinction has to be drawn when a child is adopted because the adopting parent is not physically incapacitated, and therefore the parent does not really need this kind of recognition by society in the form of benefits. It seems to me that this is not really the question. The question is whether a child, whether adopted or not, is going to benefit by the presence of a parent-presumably the mother- for a number of weeks and possibly for a number of months. It is quite evident that a child would benefit from a measure of this kind by having the mother present for weeks and months taking care of him or her. Therefore, whether a child is adopted is really irrelevant. Children need care, and by adopting, a family takes on the responsibility for the present and future well-being of a child.
That responsibility will be carried out more successfully if one of the parents can afford to leave his or her employment at least for a few weeks or months, and in this regard I encourage the hon. member to pursue his line of thinking in a way which would give adoptive parents the same number of weeks of benefits as other parents. Surely from that viewpoint the best
Unemployment Insurance Act
interests of the child would be served. Lengthier periods of benefits are desirable in either case.
Although there is in this country at the present time a declining birthrate, there may be an increase in the number of cases in this category, particularly if there is to be a tightening of rules permitting abortion, as I hope there will be. There is certainly a need to look into this field. There is a disturbing increase in the number of abortions taking place, and if the rules are to be tightened there will be an increase in the number of babies available for Canadians to adopt. Therefore, the hon. member raises a question which will be in the minds of many people who will ask themselves at the time of adoption what their rights and duties are when the adopted child is brought home.
There is another aspect to the proposal of the hon. member upon which I would like to touch briefly-and I am grateful for the opportunity-and that is that there is a need at this time to consider the benefits which are extended to mothers of premature babies. It is my understanding that in some cases mothers of premature babies are not entitled to benefits for the same length of time as mothers who have full-term children. Here again, in seeking the answer as to what is the best approach the basic question we can ask ourselves is, who is to benefit? I do not think we should be distracted by considering how the child became a member of his family. That is a decision for that family to make. We should ask ourselves what is in the best interests of the child at the time the family expands. Clearly, the answer is that to have the mother in the home for the longest period possible would work to the advantage of the child in developing a certain degree of self-confidence and a mutual relationship of understanding with the parent that stays at home and takes care of the child in its early life.
I conclude this brief intervention, Mr. Speaker, by saying that on this side of the House we are glad to see that there are some members of the Conservative party who see the Unemployment Insurance Act as a vehicle for income security in the life of Canadians. I am glad this has come from the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). We will gratefully remember this intervention on his part when in committee and in debates in this House we hear his colleagues attack the government for taking a broad, general and social approach to unemployment insurance.
The hon. member comes from a part of the country where unemployment insurance plays a vital role in the life of individuals. He knows that, and so do his colleagues from the Atlantic region who broke ranks with their party in 1973 on the issue of unemployment insurance. We admired their courage at that time and we admire their deep-rooted social conscience which demonstrates that this government and this type of legislation is not only needed but is desirable for Canada.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who proposed this motion has

November 22, 1976
Unemployment Insurance Act
had the experience of adopting children and knows the traumatic experience of the changing lives of families in this area, 1 was happy the motion came forward. I have adopted children myself and certainly know the change in the family situation that takes place as a result.
The hon. member mentioned in his dissertation the expanding welfare society, and I was glad he raised that question because this government has been criticized by the opposition in the last few days for the expenditures it has made over the years. The expanding welfare society has been criticized by the opposition on many occasions, as has the help this government has given to all segments of society. Even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has criticized the way this government has been in the forefront with programs to fully suit the people of this country.
This motion proposes to advance that welfare to an area which is very important. The phenomenon of adoption in Canadian society is changing rapidly, and 1 think government policy must take into account the concerns of a great many people. As has been already indicated, the question before us today is that of the most appropriate means of dealing with what appears to be a most legitimate social concern. 1 think all hon. members would agree that it is a concern.
The hon. member who put the motion said that abortions have obviously reduced the potential number of adoptable children in this country. I wonder if that is a sign of our times-a sign of irresponsibility, not only to each other but also to the unborn. It is evident, in the area that I represent, that there is an overwhelming rubber-stamping of abortion under the guise of therapeutic abortion. It is very difficult for anybody who has not adopted children to understand the traumatic experience of people who are without children but who want to share the love of family life not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of the children. I have talked to many friends about this who have attempted to adopt children in the last five or six years. My wife and 1 were very fortunate, Mr. Speaker: we were able to adopt before our fourth and fifth came along.
I think what we have done in society is forget the importance of love itself and the love of giving.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: It has been mentioned by the hon. member who proposed this motion that there are financial circumstances to be considered. Certainly, raising children today is not easy and it is not cheap; but I think we should be looking in another direction and forgetting the monetary and financial circumstances. We should be looking at the circumstances of love that we should have for children who are adopted. You often see accounts in the newspapers of children who are beaten. Just recently, in the London area, a six-year old child was allowed to starve to death. 1 wonder what possibility there would have been of a six-year old child starving to death 25 years ago? Has that possibility passed because of our demand for money, for gain, for wealth, forgetting the basics of family life?
Just as important, in my view, is the question of whether the needs of the adopted child can be met in the environment of the adopting family. With the social services we have today in all provinces, I am convinced that a complete investigation and must be made to ensure for that child a future of family happiness. Some of the factors considered in the evaluation of a prospective home are that the marriage be stable, the there be emotional stability and financial security. Emotional stability may be there, but as 1 am sure hon. members will agree, financial security is not really the key to family life. That is based on love and affection between parent and child, child and parent, brother and sister; that is the basis of stable family life.
Another factor is that parents demonstrate their ability to handle the problems that will arise in adoptive situations. 1 think this would come under the heading of emotional stability. I do not feel the giving of a parent, or the grasping of a child for family life would in any way impede the love and affection and emotional ability of a parent who is giving love, and the child who is giving it back. 1 think it is fair to say, however, that as a result of the investigations carried out by the Children's Aid Society, most families have adequate income. In fact some Children's Aid Societies ask adoptive parents to provide a supervising parent for up to six months. I cannot agree with that. Anyone who is going to adopt a child is going to be prepared to rear it as his own.
1 agree with the hon. member who presented this motion that this area seems to be basically one of provincial responsibility. This is obviously an important factor to be taken into account in any deliberation we may decide to pursue. It would seem to me essential that, before taking any form of decision, we undertake discussions with the appropriate provincial authorities.
Another prime factor to be considered is quite obviously that societal values are changing rapidly with regard to adoption, and these changing values are being reflected in the way in which provincial and private agencies administer their adoption programs. It would have been virtually unheard of ten or 15 years ago for a single parent to adopt a child. While it is still far from the norm, it is happening now, and as it becomes more and more common such practice will raise a number of questions in terms of the adequacy of our social programs, and facilities such as day care centres. This party has been the leader in social reform with regard to day care centres and meeting the needs of those who are not as well off as the ordinary individual. This government has brought in these programs over the last few years.
Personally 1 think adoptive parents play an absolutely essential role in our society, although I am aware that the extent of adoption is declining somewhat because of the increasing tendency among single mothers to keep their babies. This is, of course, another area of concern entirely, but it does have a bearing on the over-all question of adoption. It is no longer a question of a large surplus of unwanted babies being available

November 22, 1976

for an insufficient number of parents-in fact in some localities quite the reverse is true.
1 get back to the issue of rubber stamp abortions. It is the responsibility of the provincial governments to investigate fully abortions being carried out. The number of abortions being performed has run rampant. On the question of the original law presented in this parliament, if we had looked down the road two, five or ten years, we would not have been happy about what is happening today. Many times in the past governments have reacted because of pressure. On occasion that may be good. However, I sometimes wonder whether governments sometimes try to fill the gap in too much of a hurry.
Canadians are concerned about the number of abortions being performed in their country. I just wonder if therapeutic abortions had been legal whether there would have been as many 15 or 20 years ago.
I wonder if those who have abortions think of the love they are stealing from an adoptive parent. 1 do not believe that has been brought to their attention. Many of us know adoptive parents. The reason they are so is not only because they are willing to give of themselves. They want to be part of a family. When they approach a green traffic light, they want to be able to take the hand of their child and help him across. That is a natural instinct. When the rubber stamp is used to approve therapeutic abortions, I wonder whether those people think of that.
In conclusion, the motion certainly is interesting. However, there should be more discussion with the provincial agencies with regard to the concern expressed by the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Darmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for introducing this motion. 1 hope it can be carried even though it is facing the perils of private members' hour.
I also commend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on the excellent speech he made in support of this motion, pointing out as he did that our concern should be with the children who are affected. My friend across the way stated the case as it is. In my view the action suggested in this motion should be taken.
Unemployment insurance, by the way, comes entirely under federal responsibility. So it cannot be argued that it should be discussed with the provincial authorities before we act on it.
I want to take a moment or two to refer to one other piece of unfairness that sometimes affects adopted children. In many cases children are adopted, because something has happened to their parents, by their grandparents. I know of cases where that has happened, and where the grandparents are in receipt of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. However, because of an oversight in the legislation, when such grandparents receive the family allowance for the support of those adopted children, their guaranteed income supplement is cut back.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Surely there was no intention when it was decided that a person's income should affect his right to a guaranteed income supplement to make that apply as well to money received for the upbringing of children. This can be corrected very easily. 1 have raised the matter with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and I take this as another opportunity to press the point that it ought to be done. 1 press it for the same reasons given across the way, namely, that our concern should be for the children.
These are little things that sometimes go wrong simply through oversight or a failure to think the whole issue through.
I believe that both of these matters can be corrected. In conclusion, I hope this House will say yes to the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). I think that can best be done if the members of this House will allow me to go back to the word "honourable" because that gentleman fills that word to its utmost. He is honourable in every respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: That is the highest tribute I can pay to him in this House of Commons.
I stand to take part in this debate as one who himself was adopted. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) just raised a problem. He was truly justified in doing that. In my particular case, it was not grandparents but a great aunt who adopted me. She did this knowing I was a premature child. This aspect was raised by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) as well. The implications of adopting a premature child are serious, particularly in the case of those who have never had children of their own. In these later years of life, I, as an adopted child, owe my adoptive parents a debt of gratitude which I can never pay back, verbally or otherwise, in my lifetime or in all the lifetimes of all the adopted children in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: It is only proper, as hon. members have suggested, to think first of the child and of his reaction to the love and affection heaped on him by his adoptive parents. I commend the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon) and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. They each have adopted children and I am sure those children are no less in their affections and regard than my three natural children are to me. I honestly believe, though, that some of the suggestions we have heard this afternoon might better be embodied in amendments to the health and welfare legislation.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, once a baby bonus, or whatever you want to call it, reaches the adoptive parents, if those parents have reached an age at which they are receiving benefits under the old age pension,
1250

November 22, 1976
Unemployment Insurance Act
the bonus payments are deducted from the amount the adoptive parents get. This is grossly unfair and I do not believe it is the intention of the legislation, of the baby bonus system, or of the Canada Pension Plan. The situation ought to be corrected by means of an amendment to the National Health Act.
We have heard a lot about adopted children this afternoon. Many such children sometimes resent the use of the word "adopted". I rather like the word "chosen". They are chosen children. They are chosen in the true sense of the word. This feeling has stayed with me throughout all the years of my life ever since my parents explained to me how it came about that they had become my parents. Such parents have a choice, a choice which is never offered to those of naturally born children. Adoptive parents give their love and devotion freely to the child they have chosen. So it is a proud thing for an adopted child to say "I was chosen".
In making their choice, the prospective parents have a responsibility of course to look into all the aspects of what they are doing. Under the present system they may find themselves deprived of unemployment insurance benefits in certain circumstances. I do not believe, of course, that anyone who adopts a child in Canada will take into consideration, when making such a decision, the relatively small amount which is involved in losing unemployment insurance benefits for a period of five or six or even 25 weeks. That is not what is uppermost in the minds of parents who have decided to take into their home a child to raise and cherish. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East raised an interesting point concerning the circumstances in which an adoptive parent might not be home when the child arrives. Needless to say, it is highly unlikely that a natural mother would not be at home when the child arrived.


Stanley Howard Knowles: She might be in the hospital.


Crawford Douglas: There are, of course, circumstances in which the natural father might have to accept a great deal of extra responsibility once the mother and child have returned home. This brings up the question: ought such a situation to be covered by the unemployment insurance legislation? Suppose a mother and child return home and, due to medical reasons which could be explained much more ably by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. Railton), the mother is confined for weeks or months, unable to take care of her baby, should we take into account the position of the father who is taking time off to provide the care which is required?
A question has been raised involving the ages of adopted children. Where do we draw the line? At what age does one say that a child is able to take care of itself while the mother is absent, for example, at her work or business? There are many variables to be considered, depending on the abilities of the particular child concerned. Mental or physical disability aside, one child of five or six years might be quite able to look after himself in certain circumstances while another child of eight or nine might not be able to do so, so serious thought must be
(Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey).J
given as to when the umbrella of unemployment insurance would cease to operate.
Primarily I wanted to put on record my thanks to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East for having put this subject forward for discussion. I give my thanks as an adopted child to all parents in this great country of ours who have taken upon themselves the raising of a child, whether a family relation or purely a child that has been put up for adoption. They are the kind of people this country needs, and they have provided for many young men and women the type of upbringing that they were so much in need of. My thanks go to the hon. member and to the members of the House for bearing with me this evening.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I join also the hon. members who have spoken to congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) on his motion. I also want to congratulate him for having adopted two children; several other Canadian families are in the same situation and also deserve our congratulations. In that way, several young Canadians will happily benefit from family life which is often well deserved.
Mr. Speaker, the basic aim of the unemployment insurance act of 1971 was to ensure an income to those workers who, for reasons beyond anyone's control, are out of work, but who are capable of working and willing to do so, and who seek new employment. So, in 1971, the government recognized that it was necessary to cover interruptions in salary due to pregnancy and that adequate amendments should be made to the laws on maternity in Canada, one third of the workers being women and one out of six of them being married. Because of the fate of several thousand women who had little or no protection when they became unemployed because of pregnancy, the government saw to it that those workers should be entitled to 15 weeks of benefits provided they had at least 20 weeks to qualify them for maternity benefits.

Since their introduction maternity benefits have been made more flexible by providing up to 15 consecutive weeks of benefits within a period beginning as early as eight weeks before the expected week of confinement and ending as late as 17 weeks after the actual week of confinement. Before this, the 15 weeks of benefits were provided within rigidly defined boundaries: eight weeks prior to the expected week of confinement and up to six weeks after the week of confinement. The increased flexibility was in recognition of the differing needs of individual women. These changes also brought the UI maternity benefit period into line with existing provincial maternity leave provisions.

I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Unemployment Insurance Act can be further amended in the future to give the act as it
November 22, 1976

now stands greater flexibility, especially in the case of those who are entitled to maternity benefits.

We will continue to review the maternity legislation to ensure that within the bounds of UI principles it ensures fair and equitable treatment of maternity claimants and reflects changing federal and provincial labour standards.
It has been argued by some people that there exists an anomaly in the UI legislation which affords benefits to natural mothers yet denies them to adoptive mothers. When a couple adopts, the woman is viewed as being capable of performing a job at all times, unlike a pregnant woman who is in varying degrees incapable during the period surrounding childbirth. Adoptive parents emphasize that the experience of parenthood is similar whether parents are natural or adoptive, and that adoptive mothers have the same need and desire to be near their child. The adopted children also need the same care and attention of a natural child. However, maternity benefits relate only to incapacity or "capability" of working, and do not relate to non-availability, which is a much broader problem relating to many groups besides adoptive parents.
If the adopted child is an infant, the adjustment period would be shorter, perhaps a month, since it would not have the same psychological needs as an older child who has been bounced around foster homes. With an older child, such things as introduction into a more permanent home, a different lifestyle, and two new parents are not achieved overnight. In adoptions, therefore, the adjustment period is a crucial time for both sides involved. Once again, while it cannot be denied that the woman is capable of working, in the interests of the family unit she may be needed at home to smooth the transition period.
In addition, to adopt, parents do not have to be wealthy. And for a couple to lose a source of income for a number of months-the length of time, depending on the age of the child and period of adjustment recommended by a counsellor-is a strain on those who have chosen to start a family voluntarily. It has therefore been argued that if natural mothers are accorded maternity benefits under UI, adoptive mothers should be eligible for some similar kind of benefits.
As outlined above, the needs of adoptive parents are indeed legitimate; however, we feel that the UI program is not the proper vehicle to support incomes of parents who choose to adopt and who must, for very legitimate reasons, drop out of the labour force for a short time. To understand this position fully it is necessary to examine both the context in which maternity benefits are provided in the federal UI legislation, and the provincial context within which the adoption agencies presently operate.
The last five to ten years-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'oclock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Restraint of Government Expenditures AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[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.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner hour I was discussing in the context of this particular piece of restraint legislation, at least that is the appellation the government would like to attach to it, the relationship of this whole matter of restraint to the cost of the operations-I think that is the one way to describe it-or the modus operandi or behaviour of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) when he recently ran up a bill of expense the like of which could only lead to questions, and indeed has led to questions.
I had moved from that very important matter of the government asking the people to restrain themselves on the one hand, and spending like drunken sailors on the other, into the area involving the Public Service of Canada and the attitude of the government in terms of stability of continued service by that public service.
There are some people who would attribute all the blame for the problems that have arisen in the Public Service of Canada to the public servant as such, to the public servant being granted the important right to carry on the collective bargaining process and all that means, with some notable exceptions, in the public service. I respectfully suggest it is not fair to lay the complete blame on the Public Service of Canada as an institution or on the organizations which represented public servants.
In some cases there has been a real breakdown in relations between the employer and the employee in the public service. As a result there has been a disruption of service on the one hand and an unjustifiable increase in the level of compensation as compared to the private sector on the other, as some critics would suggest.
If we are to deal with the public service in any realistic way, in my respectful submission we do not necessarily have to change the law. The law is a sound instrument and the rights granted to the public service were granted following a long debate in this parliament. Rather, what we have to do is look at the attitude toward bargaining in the Public Service of Canada.
8000S -12V2

November 22, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
It has become lamentably clear that the incidence of difficulties in the bargaining process and of the adversary system as such so far as the Government of Canada as an employer is concerned indicate that in fact the easiest course and the course most likely to lead to some success, some speed and some finalization within a reasonable period of time, has been the course of conciliation and strike as opposed to arbitration. This becomes very important when coupled with the matter about which 1 am going to speak in a moment, having to do with the cost of the government doing business.
It is a fact that man-days lost as a result of strikes and lockouts by federal public service employees amounted to 261,180 in the fiscal period 1974-75 compared with 1,490 man-days lost in the period 1973-74. Excluding the Post Office, the figures were 84,130 man-days lost in the first period and 840 in the second period to which I have referred. Those are the figures as they existed at that time. This is the result of a complete failure on the part of the Treasury Board in its procedure in bargaining on the one hand and the loss of faith by the public service on the other. There was a loss of faith, faith which is essential to the quick and expedient end of discussions between the employer and the employee.
In 1970 some 81 per cent of public servants chose the arbitration route, and only 19 per cent chose the conciliation and strike route. In 1975 only 36 per cent chose arbitration whereas a whopping 64 per cent chose the conciliation and strike route. There should be a message in that for the government in terms of the cost to the government.
Instead of cutting back on family allowances, industrial research, industrial incentives, and a host of other things covered in this bill, the government might well be considering its own housekeeping, asking itself two questions. Why should the Public Service of Canada, which by nature would not move to the conciliation-strike route as an alternative, now move in that direction? The second question is, what does this mean in respect of the stability of the public service as a provider of so many of the essential services of this country?
I think that if a thorough examination were made of the relationship, the responsiveness, speed and even trustworthiness of Treasury Board bargaining in this regard quite a case could be made pointing out a situation which does not augur well in respect of keeping the cost of government within a reasonable perspective and retaining a reasonable level of service. That is only one side of the coin. I dealt with it because the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) made a very thoughtful speech. Ele wanted to use the comparison approach, comparing public service salaries on the one hand with public sector salaries on the other. This is an approach which is now being discussed. Perhaps it is one we should deal with in a concrete way. The important thing is that if there is to be some maintenance of stability and therefore a maintenance of a reasonable cost factor in doing business, this is one fruitful ground of inquiry for any interested government.
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).J
The other aspect is what was tabled in the House today. I refer to the report of the Auditor General. This government which has been in office since 1963, and since 1968 under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), prides itself on having the great technocrats, the wonderful managers. But it has so mucked up things that the Auditor General said this:
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.
What I am criticizing, Mr. Speaker, is not the public service of this country but the direction the government has given to that public service. I think very few of my electors are prepared to take lumps for those things which should be blamed on this government. The conspectus filed today is a denunciation of the government's management skills in handling public accounts and public business.
Instead of taking the words of the Auditor General to heart and acting on his recommendations, some of which have been outstanding for 15 years according to this report and some other reports, what do the President of the Treasury Board and the government do? They appoint another royal commission- another cover-up, another delaying tactic, another stonewalling. That is what is happening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member who has knowledge of the procedures of this House would have reverted to motions when the matter under consideration is Bill C-19.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the parliamentary secretary make all of us wonder how he reached even the level of parliamentary secretary. I hope I do not have to point out to the hon. gentleman that one of the things that is important, that one of the things that suddenly drives this government into its stance on restraint is the spend-thrift attitude it adopted over the years gone by. The government tries to place the blame for that on the backs of the public service and on anyone else, rather than blame itself. This is an indication of the rotten record of a rotten government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) has addressed me as a supposed expert on parliamentary procedure. I have never professed to be an expert on parliamentary procedure.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Walter David Baker: In that regard I have a lot of company over there. It has become apparent to any observer of this place that the form of the estimates put before this House and the way in which this House deals with the estimates, that the estimates are unintelligible to even the best of us and certainly to that group over there, and the opportunity for parliament to deal with them is limited. What we need as an adjunct to the work done by the Auditor General is a whole new approach to the operations of this parliament. I say
November 22, 1976

to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) there are good reasons why the attitude of this place ought to be changed. What we have seen over the years is a gradual whittling away of the right of all members of this House to examine those estimates which represent the springboard of government policy.
This is the place in which we have the duty and ought to have the machinery and tools to examine the estimates. We do not. Not only must there be a fundamental change in the rules of this House, to which this party is committed, but there must be a fundamental change in the attitude of the government.


An hon. Member:: Which way?


Walter David Baker: The hon. member asks me "which way". If he would close his mouth and open his ears I would tell him. The first thing which must happen in this place is that there must be returned to this place in the fullest sense the Committee of Supply so that in a very real way all of us as members of parliament will have an opportunity to examine the expenditures on a selective basis at the very least, of the various ministries which in a sense spend the public money. I do not wish any member of the House to take this as a suggestion that we return necessarily to the old system. But surely members of this House at the beginning of a year ought to have an opportunity to satisfy themselves concerning the government's spending. The estimates should be examined and the ministers and the deputy ministers, but particularly the ministers, should be subjected to the fullest possible scrutiny. If any members of this House do not understand this then they are not worthy to be here. Certainly that includes the hon. member for Welland.
The second matter is that dealt with by the hon. member for Scarborough East who made a contribution to the Committee on Procedure and Organization which I think is pretty sound. What he said, at a time when his own party is in power, is that the time has long since passed when members of this parliament ought to be able to examine in depth the estimates in respect of all the programs of the government. That is something that does not lie with us now.
We have the right to examine estimates in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, but in fact because of the procedure of the standing committees dealing with estimates which allows for the guillotine to be applied to the consideration of estimates, members of this House have absolutely no right to examine the government's program. That right should be restored to this parliament. It is a right not just of the opposition but of every member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: If the hon. member for Welland has dined so well that he does not care to listen, I would appreciate very much if he would at least stop making his interjections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Restraint of Government Expenditures


Walter David Baker: The other thing that should happen in order to make the committee system work properly is for us to involve ourselves in the establishment of a panel of chairmen to bring about some known, visible, and apparent independence of chairmen of committees and to build up a certain continuity in the operations of committees. In some cases we should suspend the guillotine rule in standing committees or in any other committee which we establish.
I commend to members of the government the action that was taken in the province of Manitoba. I do not suggest that it is the last word but I suggest to hon. members that the NDP government in Manitoba demonstrated more foresight in its operations and in its approach to the rules of its House and the consideration of its government's estimates of expenditures than most members of this House, particularly those on the other side of the House. We should at least explore the possibility of allowing the committees of this House-the membership of which, after all, reflects the party representation in the House-some reasonable independence and, most of all, initiative in terms of investigation. Most of all, we should decry the absent-minded mouthing of nothings from the other side of the House when a member of parliament is making a speech on a serious matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: It is this attitude that caused the party opposite to receive the kick in the head it got last week in Quebec. The people there are sick and tired of arrogance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I see that I struck a chord.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 was trying to give the hon. member a chance to complete his remarks, but he has gone beyond his time and if he wants to continue he will need the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that I was quite taken by the remarks made by the House leader of the official opposition party on parliamentary reform. However welcome these remarks may be, I am sure he would be the first to admit that they are hardly the subject matter of our discussion which, as I understand it, is Bill C-19.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: He would not know the difference.


John Mercer Reid: I want to point out to hon. members and to the House leader of the opposition that this is the eighth day we have been talking about Bill C-19. I do not want to go back to its history, but hon. members will remember that when the

November 22, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures restraint program was first announced by the former president of the Treasury Board there was a considerable amount of discussion about that matter in the Elouse at that time. Since then we have had a great deal of discussion in the House on that subject, and now we have the bill. I am sure that the House leader of the Progressive Conservative party would be the first to admit that if any criticism could be made of the discussion of the subject matter in the House it would be that this matter has been overdiscussed.
The point that 1 want to make is that those of us who are concerned about the House of Commons and its apparent lack of credibility in the country, about the way people do not seem to have much respect for the House, must look at the way in which we have been dealing with Bill C-19. We have spent eight days in the House on a program that was announced eight months ago and has been discussed on many occasions since. It seems to me that the opposition parties have a responsibility to do something in terms of speeding up the procedures of the House. Hon. members opposite should know that if they really want to defeat the government and sit on this side of the House, they should come up with policies, programs, efficiency, and common sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, even though I will make only a short speech this evening-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: -I am not used to being intimidated by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). It was not planned as a result of his latest remarks. We on this side of the House have every right to speak as long as we wish, according to the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: When we see stupidity, we want to talk about it.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We on this side of the House can sense that many hon. members opposite on the government side, perhaps not all, are somewhat embarrassed by the name of this bill, a bill on restraint of government expenditures, which I think is one of the biggest jokes we have had since I have been here. If you take a look at the proposed budget and estimates for 1976-1977 you will see that we will hit around $42.5 billion. If that is restraint then I am beginning to wonder what the opposite of it is.
This bill is pretty innocuous. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) introduced it with the aim of saving the Canadian taxpayers approximately $1.5 billion. On the surface that sounds like a very noble and wise thing to do. I say that the bill is innocuous because three of its clauses eliminate the Company of Young Canadians, which is nothing more than a housecleaning measure, three others set a cut off date for all applications for industrial research grants which, as some hon. members have pointed out, were not being used extensively

any way, while another clause finishes Information Canada once and for all. Again this is just a final postcript to something we have all known about for several months.
Two other clauses of Bill C-19 deal with restraining the level of adult occupational allowances and the freezing of family allowances to 1975 levels. Other members of my party have already dealt with these, and at this point I do not intend to repeat our views. I think it is sufficient to say that the removal of indexing for family allowances for 1976, which has cost Canadians around $230 million to $250 million, was a crass move by the government, designed to pacify those who are under the mistaken impression that all government spending is necessarily bad. That measure, like this whole bill, was just a public relations measure giving in to those in this country and in the House who think that less government is better government. I use the phrase "giving in" because I know that the government realized the folly of removing the indexing of family allowances.
Back in April of this year the government's own Economic Review had this to say about the value of its income support programs:
.. . there is no doubt that the strength and timeliness of the income support given to Canadians ... between November 1974 and June 1975 were among the most important factors in Canada suffering a much milder recession than that experienced in the U.S.
There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that income support was not needed in 1976. What is most galling is that the government knew this in advance. Just recently the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) acknowledged in this House that our rate of recovery has not advanced as was originally expected. Surely part of this was as a result of taking $230 million out of the hands of consumers who needed it most.
At this point I would like to emphasize a point I have been very concerned about throughout most of my political career. There are many people in this country, particularly those in small business sectors, who are always complaining about transfer payments, about our welfare programs, and about social assistance programs of one kind or another. They say they are costly, hard on the economy, and a few have even said they are ruinous to our economy.
However, I wonder how many of these individuals, both in the House of Commons and outside, appreciate the fact that if people on marginal and low incomes, people who cannot work, people who are disabled and people who are legitimately in need of support did not have increasing social assistance benefits, the very people who are complaining would probably be going out of business or would have been bankrupt years ago because low income earners and people on fixed incomes have the highest propensity to spend, and the more they receive-because of the mismanagement of our economy-the more they have to spend. Where do they spend it? They do not fly to New York city to buy fur coats. They go to grocery stores; they go to Main Street, Canada. That is where they spend most of their money. However, the wealthy people of this country often go out of their cities or to big metropolitan
November 22, 1976

areas to do their buying. Sometimes I think that the reason for this in small cities like my own city of Brantford is that they may sometimes be embarrassed by the amount of money or disposable income they may have to spend.
I am getting rather tired of listening to the age old argument from the reactionaries in this country that transfer payments to those on middle incomes, low incomes and on fix incomes is a bad thing economically. 1 suggest that governments at all levels-the municipal level, the educational level, the provincial level through sales tax, and the federal level through income taxes and hidden sales taxes-get back almost as much as they put out. In fact I think it might be a good idea if somebody conducted an up to date study. We might even find out that the governments of this country, particularly the federal government, are actually making money out of transfer payments to the needy. I hope some day most of us in this country will come to our senses and realize that this is money in circulation. When I speak of money I am talking about transfer payments to the needy. This is not money which is going down the drain; it is money which stays in circulation, so let us not completely and totally blame the poor or the disadvantaged for the mismanagement of the economy of the country.
Regardless of this the government continues on its hell bent course, eliminating programs which are worth while just because it has become, shall we say, fashionable to knock them. This is best exemplified by the title of this bill: "An act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures". One is tempted to suggest that the title was probably written by some officer of the Maclaren Advertising Agency in Toronto. I am not suggesting that is true, but this sounds like one of their slick advertising gimmicks.
It is easy to understand why the government has adopted the stance it has vis-a-vis government expenditures. Big government, a catch-all term meaning virtually anything paid for by taxes, has become the whipping boy of western society, not just in Canada but in the United States as well. In virtually every western country the public is blaming big government for anything and everything which goes wrong.
This anti government trend was particularly visible prior to the recent U.S. elections. Both the president elect and the defeated candidate for the Republican Party ran for president on the anti Washington, anti big government platform. Here in this country the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has done much the same when speaking to business groups and the like. The message seems to be, "Let's get government off our backs". However, as a columnist for one of our national magazines stated recently, this is, and 1 quote "a little like a temperance man applying for a liquor licence".
This anti big government feeling is not abated when former key officials in government like John Turner and Simon Reisman single out government spending as a chief cause of inflation. It is unfortunate that the former deputy minister does not mention the fact that government expenditures
Restraint of Government Expenditures increase dramatically when individuals such as himself receive pensions in excess of $30,000 per year, and which are indexed.
In saying all this I do not mean to suggest that many of the complaints about expenditures are unwarranted. Ploughing through the Auditor General's reports of the last decade one can come up with countless examples of where the government has gone astray in administering public funds.
In addition, if we look at the amount of money expended through deductions-and they are expenditures, let us face it-we find that these deductions cost the government $6.4 billion in lost revenue for the 1974 fiscal year. These figures were issued recently by the National Council of Welfare, and they have already been put on the record by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). It is interesting to note in this context that the very people who want less government-I refer here mainly to the large business community-have profited the most from government involvement in their operations.
As has been stated before during this debate-and I am going to re-emphasize it, and as this debate continues, I hope other hon. members of my party will do likewise-no nation in the world has given the corporate sector a more handsome gift package of subsidies, tax allowances, two year write offs, deductibility of merger costs, cheap loans-and the list goes on-than this one under this government. On the one hand, a few moments ago I mentioned that there is a mood abroad in the land that one of the greatest faults of our country is that too much money is being given to the "poor", but on the other hand, if we look at the facts and figures, we find that this country has been more generous-when I say this country, I am talking about the taxpayers-to the business and corporate sectors than any other country in the industrial western world. Yet if I may quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with reference to banks, they are the ones who do the most bitching.
But still the clamouring continues, from the business community, from many hon. members to my right and, I suspect, even from hon. members across the way. Consequently, instead of implementing some of the Auditor General's recommendations or cutting back on many of the gratuitous tax exemptions for corporations and individuals, the government slashes the amount of money which families desperately require, or eliminates groups like the Company of Young Canadians, which was performing a useful social function before some of the older members of our society stepped in and told the CYC that its members were too young, too radical, too innovative, and wasting money. I gave credit to the Liberal government when it set up the Company of Young Canadians. The concept was an admirable one, and I think if we had let the CYC run the show itself in those days, it probably would have done an even better job.
When we oppose these measures, we in my party are accused by the government of being two faced on the whole issue of government expenditures. The common response from government members is as follows: "You want us to cut expenditures and, when we do, you complain." Lately they have been saying that in order to fight inflation, everyone has

November 22, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
to share the burden. I suggest, however, that each time this government begins a new war on inflation the casualties are invariably the less well off and the unemployed. The same can be said each time the government embarks on a phony expenditure restraint program.
While I am talking about unemployment, Mr. Speaker- and this is in keeping with Bill C-19-I might add that in my opinion one of the reasons why the Parti Quebecois swept into power in the province of Quebec is because of that large group between age 18 and 24 or 25 in which there is very high unemployment in that province. These young people, whether separatists or not, were getting damn fed up with a government that was insensitive about providing jobs for them. This is one thing I would say to members opposite, that unless they can cope with the problem of unemployment they will be turfed out just as Mr. Bourassa was a week ago Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Inflation is an important issue too, but you cannot fight inflation and totally ignore unemployment. These young people particularly will not tolerate this kind of nonsense from any government at any level.
I have said that the main aim of the bill is to attract those who hold the opinion that any kind of government spending is the prime cause of our economic ills. I suggest this myth has been fostered by the business community and accepted by many individuals. Take, for example, social assistance payments, since indexing the family allowance is included in Bill C-19. Many people who are above the poverty line seem to think that their hard earned tax dollars are wasted on transfer payments and social assistance payments in general. The common complaint is that these expenditures are not productive. From a strictly economic point of view, nothing could be further from the truth. With respect to the family allowance program, the government claimed last year that it would cost little more than $2 billion. This amount would work through the economy in the purchase of goods and services. As well, because the allowances are not tax deductible, $600 million of the $2 billion would end up right back in the public purse. Were these programs not available the economic costs to the community would be disastrous.
I can recall in the 1968 election-when I lost and when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was at the height of his popularity-there was a strike in a large industry in my constituency which by election day had lasted ten weeks. I went from store to store along Dalhousie Street and Colbourne Street in Brantford. In one shop where I introduced myself as the New Democratic Party candidate for Brant the owner told me that it was my party that was ruining the country. The Massey strike meant a quarter million dollar payroll was lost to the local business community. I pointed out that the men and women on strike felt they deserved more money but that every day they were on strike they were losing money. I told the shopkeeper that, if they did not get an increase in pay, less

dollars would be going through his cash register. When he thought it over I think he realized it was not necessarily a bad thing.
Most of the money that comes from the factory workers and farmers and ordinary people in my constituency and across the country goes into the local economy. It is not spread around the large metropolitan areas. Nonetheless the public remains uneasy about deficit financing and the attacks by everyone from Earle McLaughlin, the Royal Bank Chairman, to the leader of the official opposition seemed to have had some effect on the government in the past few months. Unfortunately this backlash has taken hold and governments at all levels have acted, usually to the detriment of society as a whole.
We have seen hospitals closed in the province of Ontario, medical research grants cut back in Ottawa, and a tightening up of the unemployment insurance program. All these programs have served us well in the past but now the government makes them a convenient scapegoat. This is the tightening up. People in public life, whether on boards of education, town councils, members of parliament or of provincial legislatures react to the mood of the populace. We want to race with the mob and very often we do not have the courage to speak out for our own convictions. We do not have the courage to speak out for some of the good things our country has accomplished through successive governments for average and ordinary people.
There are some in society, of course, who say we have gone too far. I have no more courage than any one else in this House, but 1 am proud that my party has had a tremendous influence on both Liberals and Conservatives federally and provincially in the area of wise government expenditures to benefit people who in most cases do not have the ability, physically or mentally, to make it as the capitalist has made it. As members of parliament, as businessmen, as teachers and so on, we have to be prepared to spend money out of our own pockets to make this a more egalitarian society-not a society of equals but a more egalitarian society.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to make brief mention of the most serious problem the country faces currently and the way our whole nation is in an uproar from time to time about government expenditures.
Our current level of unemployment is higher than it has been in 15 years. As other members have pointed out, because of this our national economy last year lost more than $6 billion worth of goods and services. This enormous unemployment rate has also reduced tax revenues by a substantial amount. I am sure that the government realizes the gains to be had by either introducing a tax cut or increasing government expenditures. Yet to date no action has been taken to reduce our high level of unemployment. We ask why, Mr. Speaker? I suggest the reason was best summed up in an article written some weeks ago in the Ottawa Citizen by Ben Malkin. He stated that only government spending could deal with unemployment and that government spending faces a mental block-that for some mysterious reason government spending on jobs evokes a
November 22, 1976

reaction among economists as violent as that of a virgin defending her honour.
1 am opposed to the spirit of this bill, Mr. Speaker. In entitling Bill C-19 as an act to restrain government expenditures, the President of the Treasury Board is trying to evoke the feeling that any reduction in expenditures is necessarily good. We in this party are opposed to that. Cutting out the indexing of family allowances is counterproductive to the requirements of our economy. Before this government, or any level of government for that matter, takes any further counter clockwise steps, we must consider the alternatives. We must decide whether big business will be allowed to make investment decisions for the benefit of a few, or whether the government should make these decisions which hopefully will be in the interests of all.
In this country we have treasured the concept of free enterprise, the free market place, and the freedom of individual corporations, particularly large ones, to come to major investment decisions although half the time we will not know who owns the corporations. We do not know how far back they go to the source, the big man, the board of directors, whether it be in the United States, Japan, West Germany or somewhere else. It is about time the government decided where it intends to go.
Last Christmas and last January the Prime Minister made a few statements which, to the Liberal party, were very radical. 1 thought they were mild. They were statements that had been made for years by politicians and political leaders in this country and, indeed, by many very eminent economists. It was interesting to watch members on the government side, not all but generally speaking, go through a traumatic experience. I know they received mail from businessmen in their constituencies, corporate people, financiers and so on. I do not think they received much mail from the working people.
People in the business world were saying. "My God, what happened to the Liberal party?" referring to the classic interpretation of liberalism emanating from the Manchester school in the nineteenth century. Liberalism was the philosophy of individual enterprise.
Look at the country today. How much individual enterprise is there when the huge corporations are moving in and pushing out small firms, companies and factories? I admit we have a new minister to look after small business. I have a lot of respect for him personally. He is very likeable. However, I question his credentials with regard to being responsible for small enterprise in this country.
We have this anomaly through the media that somehow the little people are afraid of the left wing, afraid of socialism because it stands up for the little people, the trade unionists. They seem to think that the only way to manage an economy is to put it in the hands of fewer and fewer but larger and larger corporations.
In my opinion Bill C-19 will not have any real effect on cutting government expenditures. While we are supposedly
Restraint of Government Expenditures cutting $1.5 billion in government expenditures, you can bet your bottom dollar, or bottom $1.5 billion, it will be spent some place else, and probably uselessly.
A lot has been said about Bill C-19. I hope other members will in fact prolong this debate regardless of what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had to say about it. It is a very important bill, and I hope we can get our priorities straight on it. Government spending is not necessarily bad. It is a question of how and where it is spent, and how effectively.
I hope all hon. members realize that we are here only at the wish of our constituents. We are here to serve them. The basis of politics today is economics. That means a reasonably good pay cheque at the end of a good week's work.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-19. My speech will be laconic and to the point, with little or no rhetoric to attempt to enhance superficially the material in my words.
Bill C-19, an act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, is really nothing but the resurrection of Bill C-87, almost verbatim, which was introduced in the last session of this parliament and which died on the order paper when the new session, the second session of the thirtieth parliament, commenced on October 12. Among other things this bill, if passed, would remove certain statutory restrictions now applicable in respect of training allowance rates paid under the Adult Occupational Training Act. Also, the Company of Young Canadians would officially cease to exist if the provisions of this bill become law.
This bill would also give the authority to freeze, at the 1975 level, the rates paid to residents of provinces for family allowance. It also would officially terminate Information Canada. There are other provisions in the bill, but time will only permit me to elaborate on one very important one.
As I read Bill C-19, the repeal of Section 272 of the Railway Act would remove the provision maintaining at the 1960 level the rates for moving grain, and, at the 1966 level, the rates for moving flour for export to an eastern port. It would also remove the subsidy paid to railway companies that allows them to move grain or flour at those rates. To implement this section of the bill would be a grave injustice and a mistake on the government's part. This subsidy to the railways should not be removed. Elimination of the subsidy could mean the loss to Canada of about $828 million in "value added" processing activities. Many of the 3,000 persons presently employed will be unemployed. Indirectly, complementary industries could lose $865 million a year.
There is no question in my mind that the government's action in this regard is one that was taken without proper consultation with the industries involved. Unilateral action, not only in this particular instance but on many other occasions as well, only accentuates the non-thinking that the government has displayed time after time since it took office under its present leader in 1968.

November 22, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
Arbitrary decisions have no place in a democratic society. Those who pursue and uphold such deviations from democratic principles should not be too surprised when an angered electorate turns them out of office. One of the dangerous actions a government can take is the removal of a subsidy, especially without any studies made to warrant such action and also because of the lack of any alternative policy to take its place. The removal of a subsidy, and without any alternatives proposed by this government, is abandoning the two basic principles of the transportation policy-a tool of regional development and an instrument of national unity. The areas of regional disparity all across Canada are in no position to make it on their own without such direct assistance from the government, and the government knows this.
If the government remains adamant in including this provision in Bill C-19, it will mean a virtual end to unloads and storage loads to Georgian Bay port elevators. The impact of this upon the elevator operator appears from the fact that, of the through-put of the elevators, the following percentage is accounted for by the grain shipped by water: Port McNicoll, 100 per cent; Tiffen, 100 per cent; Mid-Simcoe, 90 per cent; Owen Sound, 50 per cent; Sarnia, 30 per cent; Goderich, 10 per cent.
The operators of Port McNicoll, Tiffen, Mid-Simcoe and Owen Sound have stated their intention of closing if this traffic stops.
You may ask, Mr. Speaker, about the very serious direct impact that would take place on the closing of these elevators and the reduction in tonnage that would result. Let me illustrate this. Let me illustrate what would happen if these elevators were forced to close down. First, we would lose the use of Georgian Bay ports after the closing of the Seaway, as well as losing a greater utilization of fleets and a loss of greater productivity.
We would lose 19 million bushels of reserve elevator space which in past years of bumper crops has been used to back up the St. Lawrence ports. It would no longer be possible, Mr. Speaker, in times of crisis caused by strikes and slowing down of rail movement to Thunder Bay to maintain an even flow to the St. Lawrence transshipment ports. For these reasons alone I feel very strongly that these facilities should be kept in a viable way and should not be forced to close their doors by the implementation of this part of the bill.
The minister should realize, that although rate comparisons are often made from Thunder Bay via an all-water route, versus a water-rail movement, because the former is cheaper, the fact should be brought out that the all-water route from Thunder to the east coast is very heavily subsidized, because neither the original capital investment nor interest thereon has been paid, together with the vast sums required for yearly operations. It seems unreasonable to me, Mr. Speaker, that one part of the system should be damaged by the removal of one means of support.
[Mr. Mitgcs.J
I think too that the total amount of dollars, approximately $11 million is involved, is certainly not great in comparison to the benefits to be gained by keeping the winter grain movement in operation. If this legislation goes through there will be a considerable increase in the price of grain once it reaches the Atlantic ports-an increase that will not be competitive and will do nothing for the economy. What will this policy do to the Atlantic ports? In the Port of Saint John, for example, the elimination of the existing rail subsidies on flour and grain will have a serious adverse effect.
Over the last five years, Saint John has exported an average of 200,000 tons of flour per year, as well as an average of better than 15 million bushels of grain per annum. The effect of this bill will be the loss of this valuable labour-intensive cargo to this port and will also result in the closing of Saint John's efficient and extensive grain handling facilities.
There is no doubt that a substantial portion of this Canadian traffic could be lost to United States ports which would derive an unfair competitive advantage. In addition, the enactment of this policy will result in the loss of jobs for railway personnel, dock labourers, pilotage crews and others in auxiliary services. Not only will this legislation have serious effects on the economy of this country as a whole, including milling, transportation, supporting industries, and wheat producers of Western Canada, it will affect Canada's balance of trade in an adverse way.
Recent policy announcements by the Department of Transport indicate that transportation must be used as a tool to eliminate regional disparity and to further the development of all areas of the country. The government must be blind, Mr. Speaker, if it cannot see and understand the detrimental repercussions that this part of the bill would create if the railway subsidy is allowed to terminate.
It is evident that this proposal will not in the long run contribute to the restraint of government expenditures in any real sense. Surely even the present government can be made to understand that the removal of this railway subsidy is not only contrary to the best interests of all Canadians but is a real step backward in trying to bolster an already shaky economy.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put on record a fairly brief intervention in regard to Bill C-19. Initially I should like to compare it with the total anti-inflation program inasmuch as it is too little, too late, and poorly conceived.
Bill C-87, the forerunner of this particular measure, was placed on the order paper, deemed to be unimportant and left there to die as the last session died. The government is using the present bill as an excuse for long term planning. If these cuts were necessary, why wasn't action taken before now?
The anti-inflation program has been variously described by the former minister of finance. Not long ago he said it must end right away. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has stated that it will end on time. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) got into the act the other day saying it would not be extended.
November 22, 1976

This measure embodies half a dozen differing provisions. The Adult Occupational Training Act is affected. In this respect I believe the government is tinkering with the program. There are to be changes to the Family Allowances Act. Well, if you believe in the principle, why freeze the payments at all? My hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton went into some detail concerning that subject and I do not intend to repeat what he said. Information Canada is gone, the Company of Young Canadians is gone and, as far as I am concerned, I cheer their departure. But what will the saving amount to? I clearly recall being involved in a public relations type business when Information Canada was established. I remember the great glee with which its formation was greeted in the public relations industry as all kinds of people got easy jobs-the only real question asked was whether they were members of the Liberal party. It is a cinch that these people are still working.
The subject of the western grains stabilization legislation has been dealt with by a number of my hon. friends and I do not intend to spend more time discussing it. I shall, however, spend some time considering the effect of the cutting out this year of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. This is disastrous. It is monstrously stupid. It is one of the things, I am sure, that the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) was thinking of when he made the comment he did in his now famous letter.
The government has failed in its industrial strategy. It has failed particularly in its support of research and development. The industrial climate in Canada is inhospitable. There is an air of uncertainty around future government actions. The net effect is to discourage the imaginative and aggressive use of investment funds available from most domestic and foreign sources.
Let me review the history of the support given to research and development in Canada. In the early 1960's industrial research and development, which had been growing only slowly, began to respond to incentive schemes offered by the federal government of the day. New research laboratories began to open and existing laboratories began to expand. I need not belabour the point that there was a Conservative government in place in the early sixties. Industrial research and development in Canada increased rapidly from the early sixties, when government incentive programs were first established, to a peak in 1967 or 1968.
Beginning in the taxation year, 1962, a general incentive provision was inserted into the Income Tax Act as section 72A for an experimental five-year period. Under this provision companies were allowed to deduct from their taxable incomes a further 50 per cent of all expenditures in Canada which exceeded expenditure in the 1961 base year period and which were allowable under the act. As presented by the minister of finance at the time, the Hon. Donald Fleming, the principal aims of the incentive were to increase industrial research and development expenditures and to emphasize the vital importance of research activities performed in-house or under contract in Canada. It was also intended to strengthen the research and development capabilities of some Canadian com-
Restraint of Government Expenditures panies in relation to the research activities of their parent companies abroad. The single base year was used to enable corporate taxpayers to earn substantial tax benefits.
The five year experimental period was chosen because, under normal circumstances, experience with the operation of the incentive would indicate fairly quickly how it could be improved. This was also a long enough period to enable companies to plan research and development expenditures sufficiently ahead of time.
Despite advice to the contrary from the Science Council of Canada, the Liberal government dropped the incentive under Section 72A and late in 1966 introduced IRDIA, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, which received Royal Assent in March, 1967. In the literature issued at the time it was described as a grant-based incentives assistance program specifically intended to replace 72A. Later the Science Council once more suggested the removal of IRDIA, replacing it with a tax incentives program similar to that which had been in effect from 1962 through 1966. I repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to note that what the Science Council wanted to do was replace the act by a different program. What the government is doing now is to remove it completely and replace it with nothing.
Why am I so interested, Mr. Speaker, in the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act? One of the major users of that act is Northern Telecom. Northern Telecom has a major plant in the city of Belleville. Before my colleagues on the left start to howl too loudly about wanting to nationalize this Canadian company, let me tell them that there are something like 48 jobs that have been terminated in that plant in the last week, and I am concerned about it. Canada is small and is getting smaller in so far as its secondary manufacturing industries are concerned. Manufacturers find it harder to compete now than they did six years ago. Profits are down and, inevitably, so are the research budgets.
Canada has a lamentable record when it comes to industrial research and development spending, lagging behind every major industrial nation. In terms of international comparisons, given the size of the Canadian economy, the effort regarding research and development is going from bad to worse. According to the latest figures I was able to obtain, Canada was seventh, behind a number of other countries. Our spending on industrial research and development, expressed as a percentage of real domestic product, was 0.41 per cent, a quarter that of the United States which was at 1.61 per cent.
Funds spent on electrical products in the field of research and development are second only to funds spent on research and development in the chemical field in Canada. Northern Telecom, a Canadian owned company, produces approximately one half of the shipments of all electrical goods in this particular sector. Again, this Canadian owned company employs about one half of the total number of scientists and engineers specialized in research and development in the electrical industry in Canada. Northern Telecom has a positive

November 22, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
trade balance. In 1975 this major Canadian company spent $50.3 million in research and development. They had 1,700 people employed in research and development, 1,100 of whom were scientists and engineers. The total amount of Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act grants for that year amounted to only $30 million. However, notwithstanding the small government effort, these grants are often essential for the initiation and continuation of the research programs of some smaller Canadian companies.
Let me tell the House a little more about Northern Telecom in order to indicate why it is important to the economy of Canada, and particularly to the economy of my riding. Northern Telecom is the largest manufacturer of telecommunications equipment in North America, outside the U.S. Bell system, and probably the fourth largest in the world. It is the fastest growing major telecommunications manufacturing company in the world. Some 85 per cent of all the world's commercial communications satellites have electronic platforms made by Northern Telecom.
Without getting into a great deal of detail, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that one product alone, their SP-1 switching system, produces $85 million in manufacturing wages, $27 million in research and development wages, and $25 million in taxes to the Canadian government. Yet the total input to that program by the Canadian government through its industrial research and development incentives program has been $4.3 million.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the position of research in our society can best be described as insecure and its future appears to be even more bleak. We appear to be the least prepared of any industrial nation for our journey into the future. Canadian investment in industrial research, measured as a percentage of the Gross National Product, as I have said peaked nearly ten years ago, and it has been on a steady, almost uninterrupted decline since.
The most current estimate of Statistics Canada indicates an outlay on Canadian industrial research this year which is the lowest in 13 years. And worse, Mr. Speaker, the government is doing little or nothing to change the situation, except at this very inopportune time it chooses completely to remove the one program that has been helping. To reduce the level of industrial research at this time seems to me to be tantamount to mortgaging our national economic future for the sake of minuscule savings in financial outlays that can be achieved in less vital areas. This in time can only lead to further deficits in the Canadian balance of trade.
Is the government unable to understand the critical importance of research and development and the relationship between the cutbacks in research and development and the declining position of manufacturing in the gross national product? One of the main impediments to economic success in manufacturing is the poor relationship which exists between government and industry. I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) is not in the House at the moment, but if he were I would be quite happy to give him the name of the president of a major Canadian company who

tried for seven weeks to get an appointment with the deputy minister of industry, trade and commerce, but without success. He was told that the only time he could see the deputy minister was between the hours of ten o'clock in the morning and four o'clock in the afternoon. Imagine my surprise, Mr. Speaker, when I discovered this afternoon that that same man is the key person on the new royal commission that has just been appointed.
In the past week, Mr. Speaker, we have had a travelling circus, or perhaps it is called a travelling caucus, visit my city. We had a visit from three ministers and three members of parliament. I am not too sure who paid the bill to get them there, but they were there for a while and I thought I would read a few of the things reported as coming from those ministers, just to give the House an idea why the industrial climate is as bad as it is.
The minister responsible for small business had something to say about the government sending more money to "sometimes big business and less to large corporations". I have long been an advocate of giving money to small business and, as the minister says, also sometimes big business, but there are many thousands of people who work for large corporations who do not necessarily want to see their livelihoods taken away from them simply because this minister has turned off the tap on research and development.
The minister went on to say that programs like the industrial innovation and adjustment incentives program could be made to benefit smaller companies. If the government is going to do away completely with the IRDIA program, I am not sure where the funds are going to come from for this. Then he went on to talk about:
-extending the Small Business Loans Act; raising the size of limit on eligible companies; raising the limit on individual loans; raising the allocation set aside for contingent liabilities-
Unless some of these have been put on the order paper today in the form of legislation I know nothing about them. I had a private member's bill advocating this some three years ago but, like most private members' bills, it was talked out. Instead of travelling around the country talking about it, the minister and his colleagues should stay here and do something which would be much more fruitful.
The other press clipping I wanted to refer to has to do with the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner) who happens to be the minister responsible politically in my part of the country. I do not know what that gives him by way of title, but that is what he is. He was in Belleville and made some comments about the very thing I am talking about, that is, research and development incentives. This is what he said, and I quote from the Belleville Intelligencer:
Unless Canadian firms concentrate on research and development they will be "pre-empted" by manufacturing companies of other countries-
He refers to assistance to research and development programs. However, given the taxes that major companies now
November 22, 1976

have to pay, there is no way that they can do this on their own. The minister went on to say:
Canadian manufacturing has to realize these factors (research, development and design) are important in their ability to compete-
He said that how we utilize science in the development of our country is important. The article states:
Both government and industry, said Mr. Faulkner, "could" spend more money on research and development.
What is happening, of course, is that the government is taking away the only spending program it has in respect of research and development. The minister went on to refer to:
-industry's habit of cutting back on research during a period of restraint as "foresighted" because research is important to future success.
Yet that is exactly what the government is doing. I am not sure how the government can justify ministers travelling around the country saying one thing when here in this House it is doing exactly the opposite.
There has rarely been a time when there was a greater need in Canada for vigorous, well-funded research programs. The importance of manufacturing industry to Canada and of research and development to industry is obvious to most people. It is even obvious to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. What are some of the more obvious benefits? They are: to maintain Canadian sovereignty and jurisdiction over many of the important wealth-creating assets and activities in Canada; to lessen the negative effects of U.S.-type industrial structure and competition in Canada, and industrial research is one of the keys to securing and advancing a position in international trade. This is truer for Canada than for many other countries.
An unavoidable corollary to the drop in research effort will be a loss in brain power. Just as money tends to move toward the big money markets where opportunities are the greatest, so do trained minds tend to gravitate to where the opportunities and challenges are the greatest. Is this the kind of loss we as a nation want or can afford to contemplate?
It seems to me the national interest would be better and more profitably served by increasing the national research effort, making Canada one of the most desirable brain havens in the world. It is absolutely vital at this time that every effort be made to expand Canadian industrial research in all fields. If we do not, there is little doubt that we will be outpaced by other industrial countries to a greater degree than we are now.
A national industrial strategy should enhance the effectiveness of research and development incentives. It must be coordinated particularly among federal departments, but also between provincial and federal governments and, necessarily, among industry.
At the present time some governments, especially that of Ontario, have excellent industrial support but no help from the federal government. I wonder what the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce does with its resources. The research and development incentives, if IRDIA is to be done away with, could well be handled through tax incentives as they were handled in the period of 1962 to 1966 and as
Restraint of Government Expenditures
recommended by the Science Council of Canada. What would be needed is to define in the Income Tax Act what constitutes acceptable research and development expense admissible for incentives. Claims would be audited in the normal processing of business tax returns. Research and development capital expenditures would be motivated by the capital cost allowance rates in the tax act.
Some may point out that over the 30-years history of tax change in the United States there has been an overloading there of incentives for investors to the point where it is claimed by some that you could drive a tank through the loopholes. Perhaps that is so, but look at the industrial strength and wealth of that country compared to ours. While I would think we could prevent this, I would prefer any time to err on the side of growth than to cut off Canadian industry as this bill attempts to do. There is no question but that, on the basis of the best available evidence, the creation of technology-based employment offers the best possible multiplier effect. Longterm research strategy tied to long-term national needs, study of technology, trade, social development, medicine, agriculture and other fields, will ensure the continued development of Canada as a viable industrial nation. The implementation of Bill C-19, particularly this part, will do just the opposite.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of participating in the debate on Bill C-19 which, as two previous speakers have mentioned, is simply a revival of old Bill C-87. Quite frankly, if you look at it, while the short title is "The Government Expenditures Restraint Act", it is purely a piece of cosmetic legislation designed to persuade the public that the government is attempting to do something about the excessive expenditures. However, not only members of parliament but the public of Canada as a whole know that this is not so.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), to be found in the November 16 issue of Hansard. It was an exceptional speech and one that I think should be recommended reading for all members of this House, particularly those on the government side. He recited in some detail the history of the railways, and the Railway Act. In particular he made reference to Section 272 which will effectively be repealed by the present legislation.
Before going into specifics on Bill C-19 I should like to comment on several remarks made a few days ago by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) as reported in Hansard for November 16. That was the second occasion on which the hon. member gave my particular riding prominence. A member is rather pleased when another member refers to him or to his riding but when the reference, as in my case, has to do with a statement I made which is misinterpreted 1 think I should be free to clear the record. As reported at page 1032 of Hansard for November 16 the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre said:

November 22, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and the minister of agriculture of the Tory government in Edmonton agreed that we should have inland terminals. They not only agreed that we should have them, but also that they should receive incentives. So Tories agree with Liberals on inland terminals. In fact, they even want to help outfits like the Cargill Grain Company.
1 do not know where the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre received that information, but I have a reasonably good idea. I know for a fact that he is not illiterate but 1 know from time to time he has some difficulty understanding what he reads. In particular, the statements he made concerning me are totally inaccurate.
I can only believe his information is as a result of a presentation 1 made to the Hall Commission on grain handling and grain transportation in Moose Jaw earlier this year. I should like to quote briefly from my presentation simply to get the matter on the record. In that presentation I said:
Efficiency of handling grain and at the least cost to the producer is very important if we are to maintain a viable grain and livestock industry in western Canada. I wonder at the efficiency of several companies operating elevators at one delivery point with a duplication of facilities. Would it not be more efficient to have one large house where the various companies share the capital cost and allow the producer to determine which company he would deal with?
A large house would provide facilities for drying, cleaning, protein grading and could prepare various grades for loading into unit trains for direct shipment to export position. The screenings would be available for feeding livestock in the immediate area. Protein grading would mean that the producer would be paid for the quality of the product he produces.
Such an arrangement would not mean a reduction in staff but rather would guarantee jobs for those who might find their employment in jeopardy because of the closing down of some of the smaller houses.
That was only the statement I made with regard to grain handling and transportation. Certainly it is not possible to read into that statement what the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has attributed to me.
Coming to the specifics of this particular bill, I was pleased to see that it does away with the Company of Young Canadians. I think the majority of Canadians will agree it is time that organization came to an end. The Company of Young Canadians together with the OFY has been a drain on our economy. Perhaps it has given some young people the opportunity to travel, but it has not been a productive exercise.
I suggest the LIP program should go the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Charles Neil: The LIP program is not productive so far as the people of Canada are concerned. It provides jobs on a temporary basis to people who are unemployed, but if you examine the majority of the LIP programs, Mr. Speaker, you will find that when the programs come to an end not one thing has been done to add to the community. This is the situation in the majority of cases.


Ralph Goodale: That is not true. There have been all sorts of capital projects for small towns in Saskatchewan.


Douglas Charles Neil: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) talks about the small towns in Saskatchewan. I am concerned about the small towns throughout Saskatchewan.


Ralph Goodale: LIP has done a lot for them.


Douglas Charles Neil: Perhaps, but it has not done very much so far as I am concerned for the small towns. If the government wanted to do something for the small towns, not only in the province of Saskatchewan but throughout Canada, it would develop a program and utilize the money it has spent on LIP to develop facilities in those towns of a lasting nature whether they be curling rinks, senior citizens' homes, or what have you.


Ralph Goodale: They did that in Assiniboia.


Douglas Charles Neil: I grant that it has been done in certain cases, but if one examines the LIP program generally one will find that it has not had a lasting effect so far as the communities are concerned. Basically if one talks to the people who are involved in the LIP program, and examines the applications, generally speaking one will find that these people are reluctant to fund a program which will give a facility to a small town. They are more concerned with programs which have no lasting effect but which simply provide employment. I am not saying that the money be not used but rather that the LIP program should be changed so that it will have a lasting effect in communities throughout Canada.
All of us were happy to see the end of Information Canada. When I first came here I received a letter from a constituent who wanted certain information. I assumed the place to go for the information would be Information Canada because the name seemed to indicate it was a department or a branch of government that would be able to supply one with information. I found that Information Canada was simply a glorified bookstore. If one wanted information one had to know what information was required and then dig it up oneself. I think most people in Canada are happy to see the end of Information Canada.
I noted with interest under clause 10 that the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act grants will be cut off at the end of the calendar year and will not be renewed. Research and development are important so far as our country is concerned. Without research and development we would still be travelling with the horse and buggy and still be using iceboxes instead of refrigerators.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Instead of the Jetstar.


Douglas Charles Neil: Instead of the Jetstar as the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville says. It is important that we not only continue grants for research and development but that we increase them. If one examines the area of agriculture and the estimates for the past number of years one will note that there has been no increase in these grants. With the rate of inflation we have seen in the last number of years the effect has been a cut-back in research and development.
Recently I received a letter from the Agricultural Institute of Canada. Attached to the letter is what is called "The AIC Position". I should like to quote from that in part:
One of the fundamental requirements of an efficient food production system is a sound, adequately financed and well co-ordinated research and development
November 22, 1976

capability. This research and development must be directed towards ensuring a continuing supply of food that Canadians can afford, while providing a fair return for the primary producer and processor. In addition, the food production system should provide a surplus for export which is so important to Canada's balance of payments in world trade.
To meet this challenge, we must have a commitment from federal and provincial governments and from industry, a commitment to reverse the current trend of declining research and development programs in agriculture. The commitment should recognize the need to provide not only the financial resources for expanded programs in research and development but also the trained scientists to ensure that Canada maintains and enhances her place as one of the world's agricultural leaders.
I endorse that statement. What the government should be doing is to increase not decrease its funding of research and development.
The hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) has spoken of funding in the industrial area. Coming from an agricultural area I am interested in funding for agricultural purposes. If you go to some of the experimental farms around the prairies you will find that they are almost begging for money. They do not have funds to carry out their programs adequately. 1 think this is a disgrace because it is important that we continue to develop new strains of grains to increase production, new strains of livestock, and so on. If we do not, we will lag behind the United States, the U.S.S.R., and other countries in their advances in agriculture.
I should like to turn now to the provision in the bill dealing with western grain stabilization, which is clause 14 of the bill, which in effect enables the government not to place funds in the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purposes of western grain stabilization. I am not an accountant but it seems to me that the effect of this amendment would be as if an employer said to his employees, "We have a pension plan and you people put your money in it, but we are going to delay putting our share of the money into the plan". There is no doubt that by not setting this money aside the budgetary requirements will be reduced each year until the money is called for, and there is no question that under the Western Grain Stabilization Act there is a requirement that the government put in $2 for every $1 that the farmer puts in, plus the interest.
The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) was correct when he said that there was certainly no question about the government's obligation to pay in the money. I say that the obligation is there and that it will continue year after year as long as the plan is in existence, so it seems to me rather ridiculous for the government to decide that it will not put in the money but will use it for some other purposes. To me this means that possibly next year or the following year the government will have to set aside in its budget double or triple the amount which it would set aside this year.
When the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley spoke in the House on November 10 he said the following in respect of the Western Grain Stabilization Act:
I regret that more than 30,000 western producers have decided to opt out of the plan. I do not put that down to the fact that farmers are not prepared to accept the trust or confidence of this government; however, they have been
Restraint of Government Expenditures
listening to some of the chatter and nonsense in discussions that led up to this bill, although I certainly cannot say that of the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Since that speech was made, it is my understanding that the farmers who have opted out now number close to 40,000. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley is correct when he says that they are not prepared to accept the trust or confidence of this government. The situation is that farmers do not understand this program. 1 know that the hon. member for Assiniboia has travelled in his constituency and in the province making presentations to the producers. In the summertime I myself rented a hall and brought down officials of the Department of Agriculture to explain the program to a group of 30 or 40 farmers. They understood the program. But recently I had a telephone call from a group of farmers who told me that in their understanding they only had until November 30 of this year to make a decision so far as this program is concerned, and they asked me what they should do and whether I would meet with them. I asked them whether they have had any meetings, and they told me that they had spoken to their elevator agent who does not understand the program and to their agricultural representative who cannot explain the program to them, so what are they going to do?


Ralph Goodale: Why don't you ask me to come to explain it? I have accepted more than 50 invitations from farmers across the prairies to do that.


An hon. Member:: It costs too much money.


Douglas Charles Neil: It certainly did not cost too much for me to explain it last Sunday. I spent two and a half hours with seven farmers explaining the program to them. As a result of that meeting five of the seven farmers indicated they were prepared to accept the program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are alone over there.


Douglas Charles Neil: No, I am not alone over here. The hon. member for Assiniboia suggests I am alone. That is not so. Members of this party have not knocked the Western Grain Stabilization Act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have improved it.


Douglas Charles Neil: We attempted to improve it by amendments, by representations and by recommendations, but the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) was not prepared to accept our recommendations. Farmers in the west would have loved to accept them.


Ralph Goodale: You try to be fair, but the rest in your party try to knock it down.


Douglas Charles Neil: Members on this side of the House have not knocked the program. Anyone I have spoken to has recommended to the farmers that they participate in the program. What I am saying is that this government has not explained the program to the farmers.

November 22, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not enough trips by Jetstar.


Douglas Charles Neil: One of the reasons is that the bill is so complicated that it is almost impossible to explain because one of the first things the farmers ask you is under what circumstances they will receive a pay out. It might be easy for the hon. member for Assiniboia but is not very easy for the average layman to understand. The hon. member for Assiniboia, like myself and other members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, spent about four to five months studying the bill and receiving detailed explanations from the experts, but it is certainly impossible in a matter of an hour or two to explain the details of the program to the farmers and to tell them when they will get a payment.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Farmers are just as smart as anyone else and they can absorb it as fast as anyone else.


Douglas Charles Neil: No doubt they are as smart as the minister who interjected. I have a lot of respect for farmers. There are many very intelligent farmers who understand what is happening here and who understand the government's actions.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You should not have said that it takes two or three hours for them to understand. You should have more respect for the farmers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Make your own speech.


Douglas Charles Neil: 1 know that when I am through the minister will want to make his own speech on the Western Grain Stabilization Act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Tell us something about shoes.


Douglas Charles Neil: I would say that the farmer in western Canada is one of the smartest businessmen in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: For a person to understand the western grain stabilization bill, he would have to be a chartered accountant or have a mathematical or computer mind.


Ralph Goodale: That is not so.


Douglas Charles Neil: The hon. member says it is not so, but he should go back and spend more time on the hustings and talk to some farmers with respect-


Ralph Goodale: I have just completed 58 meetings. I know what they are saying about the Western Grain Stabilization Act.


Douglas Charles Neil: If the hon. member has completed 58 meetings, 1 wonder why some 40,000 farmers are opting out of the program.


Ralph Goodale: They all must be in your constituency.
(Mr. Neil.|


Douglas Charles Neil: I take it they did not understand what the parliamentary secretary was explaining to them.


Ralph Goodale: Assiniboia has the highest participation of any constituency on the prairies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the parliamentary secretary and other hon. members should let the hon. member complete his speech. With all those interjections I think that he must have difficulty addressing the Chair. Other people are trying to help him make his speech.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate your interceding in the matter, but I always enjoy remarks from the other side. It gives one an opportunity to respond off the cuff, and it gets rather interesting at times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: In closing I would like to refer for a few moments to the clause which would repeal section 272 of the Railway Act. I will not go into detail, as I mentioned earlier.
The speech given by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain goes into the historic aspect of this section and, as I said, it should be compulsory reading for all hon. members of this House. The repeal of this section would eliminate the "at and east" rate, an historic rate structure, as historic as the Crow rates in western Canada, and like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain I also wonder whether this move to eliminate section 272 of the Railway Act is the first step to eliminate the Crow rates. I can assure hon. members on the other side that if the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board attempts to take the benefits of the Crow rates away from prairie farmers, the repercussions he heard with respect to his $750,000 travelling expense account will be like a handclap compared to a thunderclap.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You understate the case.


An hon. Member:: Stop interrupting.


Douglas Charles Neil: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) says I understate the case, but 1 think people can understand the difference between an handclap and a thunderclap. However, I certainly hope this is not the first step to monkey with our rates.
For the reason I have given, namely, the attempt to repeal section 272 of the Railway Act, the clause which would do away with research and development grants, and other clauses of the bill which have been referred to by other hon. members on this side of the House, the bill will obviously have to be opposed by hon. members on this side of the House, and we will have no alternative but to vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, there comes a time in parliament when it becomes particularly appropriate that certain things happen in juxtaposition with other things, and I think it is particularly appropriate at a time
November 22, 1976

when we are rising to discuss Bill C-19, an act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, that on the same day we hear an announcement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) that there is to be established a royal commission of inquiry on financial organization and accountability in the Government of Canada. It seems to me that this could not be more ironic, nor could it be more appropriate.
It seems to me that in discussing this bill one should, if possible, be brief, but there are a few things which simply must be said and, coming from the earstern part of this country, it seems to me that before getting into a detailed discussion on the bill it would be appropriate to call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That is the best speech you have ever made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alex B. Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on November 8 I asked a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) as follows:
As the cost-sharing formula in the railway relocation legislation makes it impossible for many towns and communities to participate in the program, will the minister consider the introduction of amendments which will make it possible for less affluent communities to proceed with plans to remove serious inconveniences and eliminate safety hazards occasioned by the presence of railway lines in heavily populated areas?
This brings to our attention the matter of relocation of railway lines in populated areas across the country, and as we check back we find that the history of this particular legislation is rather long and, to say the least, interesting. It has been a long period of promises by the government and then long delays in the fulfillment of those promises.
I call attention to the Debates of March 25, 1974, when I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As in the last session on at least five occasions the government was asked about its impending plans for the introduction of railway relocation legislation, as the Speech from the Throne said that something would be done in that connection and, further, in view of the present uncertainty this question is
Adjournment Debate
causing right across Canada, including in my own areas of Chilliwack and Abbotsford, can the minister state today when the government will bring forward legislation to deal with this important matter?
The reply of the then minister of state for urban affairs, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) was as follows:
... I have met with the Mayor of Chilliwack and I know he has a great interest in railway relocation proposals in that community. My colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I hope to be able to make an announcement in this regard very shortly.
That goes back a considerable length of time, but later on I took part in the debates in the House on April 29, 1974, and I raised this question about the availability of funds for the relocation of railways in smaller urban areas across the nation.
1 voiced the fear that it was impossible that all the funds that had been locked into this program could conceivably be allocated to the larger areas where they were probably better able to raise their apportionment to carry out this work.
1 raised this question with the former minister of state for urban affairs on April 29, 1974, and at page 1838 of Hansard he replied:
... it would cover the cities of Chilliwack and Abbotsford to which the hon. member referred in that, from one purpose of the definition, it is any municipality with a population of 1,000 or more people having the legal status of a city, town or village. So there is no question that the centres within the hon. member's riding would be covered by the Statistics Canada definition.
As this program got under way we found that these two communities to which I have alluded were unable to meet the requirements of the cost formula because they were small urban areas and the formula was such that they were not able to have the financial resources to pay their share of the relocation program.
I should like to call attention to a letter from the city of Chilliwack to Senator Ray Perrault dated February 11, 1976. There was a great deal of discussion and many communications at the time to try to get some further action. The letter reads:
Dear Sir:
At a recent meeting of the council of Chilliwack city and Chilliwack township, a resolution was unanimously passed directing that both councils point out once again the extreme hazards, inconvenience and depreciating effect caused by the C.N. Railway's mainline bisecting this community.
This council has already made its feelings on this matter known to both the federal and provincial governments. It is impossible for this community to find the vast sums necessary to relocate the line despite announced federal financial assistance programs.
Then the letter went on:
What is needed and what is being increasingly demanded by the citizens of this community is bold, dynamic and imaginative action by the federal government to erase the threat to their well-being.
There is a letter from the mayor of the township as well. It took a long time to get the program in place, Mr. Speaker, so why not make it of optimum benefit to all the areas requiring help? When I asked this question the other day the minister responded but I was not sure what he meant by the last part of the reply so I put a supplementary question as follows:

November 22, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Since in many small communities railway lines constitute a real hazard in connection with the provision of emergency services to parts of such communities, I wonder if the minister would consider an amendment along the lines 1 suggested.
The minister made no audible reply but 1 thought he nodded his head. I should like to ask the hon. member who replies tonight to indicate whether the minister accepted the suggestion and is willing to bring in some amendment. I believe this would help tremendously in these communities because they are divided by problems that jeopardize safety because of the emergency services. I trust the minister will take notice of the matter and bring in the amendments.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) for raising this important question about government policies on the railway relocation program.
The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act provides a number of solutions to the problems of safety and convenience as raised in the question by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. To summarize, Mr. Speaker, Part I of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act provides for the relocation of rail lines.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) will support up to 50 per cent of the cost of preparing transportation and urban development plans required for application to the Canadian Transport Commission for authority to relocate railway facilities from urban areas. The Minister of Transport, after approval from the governor in council, and upon recommendation from the Canadian Transport Commission, would pay up to 50 per cent of the net cost of relocation.
It should be noted that the cost of relocation to the community may be reduced by the increase in value of the urban land released from railway use. Further, the use of this land would be controlled by municipal zoning and probably would result in a higher tax base for the community.
To remove safety hazards at crossings, Part III of the act is of particular significance to small communities as it provides up to 80 per cent of the cost of installing automatic protection devices or the construction of grade separations.
Part II of the legislation provides funds toward grade separation projects costing in excess of $1.25 million, providing 80 per cent of the first $1.25 million and 60 per cent of the balance up to $5 million and continues on a sliding scale.
The hon. member should note, Mr. Speaker, that contributions to safety and convenience through automatic protection devices and grade separations are funded to a high level in relation to other federal programs. Finally, the 50 per cent federal contribution to railway relocation must be considered in light of provincial interests in the area of improvements to the urban environment.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-PAYMENT OF COSTS FOR MR. OUELLET CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the circumstance which brings me here this evening occurred when the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs, now the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), made some remarks outside this Chamber, about 30 or so yards from where I now stand. He made them concerning the judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Kenneth Mackay of the Quebec Superior Court in connection with a lengthy prosecution for alleged offences under the Combines Investigation Act against several sugar companies in Canada. Mr. Justice Mackay dismissed the prosecution.
The minister was upset, I would think understandably so from the fact that he was a party to the cause in that sense, and exercised his disappointment. One has to learn to take defeat at times and keep one's mouth shut in public places. This the minister did not do.
The minister had some rather unflattering things to say about Mr. Justice Mackay. The judge promptly retained Mr. Richard Holden, a barrister in Montreal, to pursue a contempt proceeding against the minister.
It is clear that if the minister had made his remarks in Mr. Justice Mackay's court when the judgment was rendered, Mr. Justice Mackay could have punished him for contempt on the spot, but that is 120 miles from here.
The matter of Mr. Holden's legal account has become somewhat of a cause celebre in legal circles. It has not been paid. As I gather, the federal position is this, and this was put forward by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), not only in this House but in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, on Tuesday, May 25 of this year, issue No. 54, in response to questioning by myself.
After the case was heard in another court before another judge, not Mr. Justice Mackay, it was appealed to a higher court and a different lawyer was appointed to the appeal court. Note, I say he was appointed, and this is what happened, according to the Minister of Justice, as one finds in issue No. 54 at page 26.
I asked whether the Court of Appeal had, in fact, appointed counsel. The Minister of Justice replied: "When the matter went to the court of appeal they in fact appointed counsel."
That counsel has been paid. The man who handled the case in the lower court has not been paid, while the man who handled the case in the higher court has been paid. How has this come about? The Minister of Justice makes this point. He says the Mackay decision had, in effect, disposed of proceedings in the lower court and, from that point on, whatever arose was concerned only with the administration of justice, that this was a provincial matter and that the bill should have been paid by the department of the provincial attorney-general.
It can indeed be said that the account of the lawyer who dealt with the matter in the higher court was paid by the
(Mr. Patterson.)
November 22, 1976

department of the attorney general in Quebec. So the question is, I suppose, whether the proceedings were over and done with when the minister made his intemperate remarks in the government lobby or whether they were still under way. My opinion, offhand, would be that they were still under way in the sense that no order had been taken out at that point to settle the matter which was tried before Mr. Justice Mackay. But that is a technicality. What 1 think has happened here is that Mr. Holden, who had the temerity to be a former Conservative candidate for one of the seats in the city of Montreal, incurred the wrath and displeasure of either the federal Minister of Justice and the provincial minister of justice or both-two gentlemen who belong, or belonged, to the Liberal party.
I rarely impute motives but I think that in this case a great deal of the difficulty surrounding Mr. Holden's account arises out of political incompatibility between himself on the one hand and the Minister of Justice on the other. This is what causes me concern and what creates a scandal in the law. 1 have suggested that this matter be placed before the battonier of the Montreal Bar so that he might decide between these warring ministers of justice. I also suggest to the minister that if the size of the account itself is in dispute, this matter could be settled by an arbitration council such as is set up by the Montreal Bar for the benefit of many an aggrieved client who may think he is being "had" by the lawyer presenting his bill. There will be a new minister of justice in Quebec very shortly. It will be a government with a new look, and from what I have seen of Mr. Levesque so far it is a government which will use a lot of imagination and bring a great deal of honesty to the political scene. 1 would hope that the Minister of Justice here and the minister of justice in the new provincial government will get together to solve this matter, if not on the basis of the formula I have suggested, then in some other way so that this scandal could be removed from the law.
I say in conclusion that Ulysses, the ancient mariner, seeking to plot his course between Scylla and Charybdis encountered no greater difficulty than does Mr. Richard Holden, the man with the unpaid legal bill in the City of Montreal.


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has raised the matter of the payment of the fees of Mr. Holden, the attorney appointed by Mr. Justice Mackay in relation to the prosecution of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).
The prosecution in this matter related to the administration of justice in the province of Quebec. The responsibility for the prosecution is one that rests with the minister of justice of Quebec. At the time of the court of appeal proceedings, the Chief Justice of the province of Quebec made a request to the minister of Justice of Quebec for the appointment of counsel to assist the court. The province of Quebec recognized its jurisdiction and appointed Batonnier Michel Robert for the purpose. Mr. Holden, although he made a request to this effect to the court of appeal, was not allowed to act on the appeal since
Adjournment Debate
it was for the minister of justice of Quebec to determine who should assist the court.
At the outset, on December 29 Mr. Justice Mackay wrote to the Attorney General of Canada advising that he had appointed Mr. Holden to act in this matter. There was then no suggestion that the Government of Canada might be called on to pay any fees to Mr. Holden. The letter stated in fact that the fees would form part of the costs of the case. On January 13, 1976 the Attorney General of Canada wrote to Mr. Justice Mackay and advised that this was a matter within the competence of the minister of justice of Quebec. The claim of Mr. Holden is for a total of $21,053.02. This claim is on the basis of $100 per hour or $1,000 per day.
Mr. Justice Montgomery of the Court of Appeal of Quebec, in his decision in this matter, made some comments that are worthy of note in relation to this matter. He said:
Hugessen, Associate Chief Justice, has condemned appellant to pay $500, to be deposited in court and remitted to the prosecuting counsel. With all respect for the contrary opinion, I cannot agree that this was an unwarranted exercise of his discretion or that we should be influenced by knowledge that this attorney has subsequently claimed a much larger sum. 1 agree with Hugessen, A.C.J., that it is desirable that a special prosecutor be appointed in cases such as this. This necessarily gives rise to the question of how such counsel should be remunerated. I would have thought that a member of the Bar might consider it an honour to be given the opportunity of acting to uphold the dignity of the courts. Still, it is but reasonable that such counsel should receive some nominal honorarium to compensate him for his loss of time.
In view of the complexity of the technical objections presented by Appellant, I might have been disposed to award more than $500. But Hugessen, A.C.J., had counsel before him and was in a better position than I am to estimate a reasonable fee . . . It may be reasonable to expect a member of the Bar to offer his services in a case such as this for a purely nominal fee .. .
Since this matter falls within the competence of the minister of justice of Quebec, and for the foregoing reasons, the Attorney General of Canada has therefore taken the position that he has neither an obligation nor the legal authority to entertain the payment of Mr. Holden's account.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS-SASKATCHEWAN'S CLAIM OF JURISDICTION OVER PAY TELEVISION-POSSIBLE DISCUSSION OFSUBJECT AT CONFERENCE WITH PREMIERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight arise from a question 1 asked last Friday, November 19, 1976 of the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve). It related to the whole area of jurisdiction over, and responsibility for, pay and cable television in this country. The House will recall that at that time 1 had asked the Acting Prime Minister, in light of statements made by the premier of Saskatchewan in the context of the provincial speech from the throne at the opening of the legislature, to the effect that legislation would be introduced in Saskatchewan introducing pay television in the province quite separate and apart from any licence from or authority of the federal government or CRTC, whether the Acting Prime Minister would indicate if pay television was an area regarded by the federal government as under its jurisdiction, or whether it was prepared to negotiate, with the provincial government, jurisdiction over this particular area.

November 22, 1976
Adjournment Debate
The fact of the matter is that the premier of Saskatchewan has indicated in quite specific terms that he for one regards pay television as being exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. The parliamentary secretary who is going to answer for the minister tonight will, I think, agree that this position has been taken by a number of provinces, which feel that a closed circuit, pay television type of operation is the sort of area of responsibility that would fall within provincial jurisdiction, and therefore they do not accept any licensing requirement on the part of the federal government or CRTC.
Indeed I think the Premier of Saskatchewan said the legislation he intended to bring forward governing cable television will establish regulations for aspects of cable over which the province feels it has control, namely, closed-circuit TV. The premier said the legislation was not intended to become part of the ongoing dispute between the Saskatchewan and federal governments over the control of communications on the basis that the province feels it has jurisdiction over closed-circuit television. The premier argued that closed-circuit systems now exist in the Toronto area that are not controlled by the CRTC and, given that precedent, he argued that Ottawa could not claim control in respect of closed-circuit systems. He said that the federal government could not set one law for Ontario and another one for Saskatchewan. I am certain that the parliamentary secretary, although he is from Ontario, would certainly agree that this latter point is valid.
What I am trying to determine from the government, and apparently the Acting Prime Minister was not aware what the policy was in this respect or was not prepared to answer last Friday, is precisely what position the government takes in respect of jurisdiction in this very important area. I was amazed that the Acting Prime Minister was not in a position or not prepared to tell me what the policy of the government was, because this is certainly something that has had a high profile in the press, and something which has been before the cabinet and before the government for some period of time. It seems to me this refusal on the part of the government to answer, and the remarks of the minister who dismissed the contention of the province of Saskatchewan arbitrarily, referring to it rather unfortunately as "crap", were unfortunate.
What is developing now in this country is a situation in which, regardless of political affiliation, there is a distrust of government on almost every facet of federal relations with the provinces. In other words, a spirit of confrontation seems to exist on the part of the federal government in respect of its dealings with the provinces.
This is a prime example of a matter which has been before the federal government, yet the federal government has apparently not indicated in any uniform manner what its policy is. It has made a special sort of contract with the province of Manitoba in respect of cable television there. If one looks at that contract he will see it does not in effect commit the provincial government to accepting the federal government's

point of view, or the federal government to accepting the provincial government's viewpoint in respect of jurisdiction. In other words this is being done on a piecemeal basis. The government refuses to make any sort of arrangement on a rational, reasonable, and uniform basis with the provinces across Canada. This is another indication of the kind of balkanization approach to federal-provincial relations which this government seems to want to adopt.
Quite frankly I was very dissatisfied with the slough-off I received to my question last Friday, that non-answer. This parliamentary secretary is, I believe, a reasonable and rational person, and I hope he will come forward tonight to let us know in no uncertain terms what position the federal government is taking in respect of this matter, the basis upon which it is taking that position, giving some indication to the provinces as to how they might approach this question of jurisdiction over paid television.


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyhsyn) has raised this in the context he has. I take it from his remarks that he is expressing a sincere concern in respect of this policy issue, and I think this underlies the fact that it is perhaps a difficult issue with no very easy resolution.
First of all, on reading the excerpt from the speech from the throne in the province of Saskatchewan I want to say it is not very clear what the province of Saskatchewan intends to do. Perhaps it would be good to put on the record the quotation from that speech:
Over the past few months, my Government has attempted to ensure access to cable television for the people of Saskatchewan. The coaxial cable now being installed by SaskTel can supply Saskatchewan communities with cable television at equitable and reasonable rates. The CRTC has insisted that those licensed to provide cable TV should own at least part of the equipment. This would result in a duplication of equipment, higher costs, and possible loss of service for smaller communities. My government wishes to provide the largest possible number of citizens with a greater range of TV programs without such wasteful duplication. You will be asked to approve legislation relating to provincial aspects of cable TV service.
I think it is fair to say that it is not terribly clear what is meant by the sentence "you will be asked to approve legislation relating to provincial aspects of cable TV service," and perhaps to be precise in responding to the hon. member's concern we will have to wait and see what those provisions might be. I do not think there is any question but that the federal jurisdiction stands for the question of cable television through licensing operators through pay TV. 1 am raising the point that I think in a discussion of this we must be careful to distinguish between pay TV and closed circuit TV because they are very different things.
The hon. member referred to the expression the minister used. I think she was really referring to the quality of programming on closed circuit TV rather than the process itself or anything to do with the major concern raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. Really I think there are two points. The hon. member raised the question of the Manitoba agreement. It really is not an agreement which deals so much
November 22, 1976

with jurisdiction as with the ownership of the hardware. It is an agreement whereby federal regulations of broadcasting would be respected. This was agreed to by both sides and jurisdiction over the ownership of the hardware was set up.
So far as the Saskatchewan situation is concerned I think the hon. member knows that is in the future. It is the opinion of the minister that this should be by negotiation and by discussion rather than confrontation over the issue. 1 think it is fair also to say the minister is most concerned with this issue.
A representative of the Saskatchewan government was to have met the minister some two weeks ago but postponed that meeting. I understand the meeting will be taking place next week. 1 want to assure the hon. member that the minister is
Adjournment Debate
anxious to avoid hard confrontation. I agree that there is too much confrontation between the various levels of government, but I do not think it is fair to make that an issue at this time until the discussion has taken place. 1 want to assure the hon. member that the federal jurisdiction over cable television, particularly as it relates to pay television, will be upheld by the federal government and by the minister, and hopefully most of the discussion will relate really to the ownership of the physical plant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but he has gone a little beyond the allotted time. I have to declare the motion is considered to be adopted.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Tuesday, November 23, 1976