1976-11-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the confusing statements made by the Minister of Transport with regard to the employment of a 21-year old nanny to look after his children and the conditions of her employment, free flights between Scotland and Canada and the misuse of military aircraft to provide this transportation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for study so that the minister's continued abuse of the public trust can be examined.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF TRANSPORT MAKE STATEMENT ON ALLEGED ABUSE OF PRIVILEGES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House request the Minister of Transport to make a statement on why he had made reservations for his family's nanny to return to Britain on a DND flight today and reservations for another to come to Canada at a later date on a DND flight which appears to be a blatant abuse of the minister's privileges.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (ShefTord):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the Bank of Canada has just lowered its prime rate to 9 per cent; that the new Quebec Minister of Finance will attend the conference of ministers of finance of Canada which will take place in a couple of months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the Minister of Finance of Canada be accompanied by the Governor of the Bank of Canada to this conference to help Canadian Ministers of Finance to establish a long-term monetary policy for Canada with a view to promoting economic expansion and, with the co-operation of the Bank of Canada, reducing Financial pressures which increasingly tend to dismember Confederation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the recommendation of the International Joint Commission that the United States Government pay for a minimum of $3 million in flood control projects in Manitoba before work on the Roseau River Basin Project south of the 49th parallel is completed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs convey the objections of Canadians and ask the U.S. government to stop all construction along the

November 25, 1976
Transport
Roseau River Basin south of the 49th Parallel which will cause flooding and damage in Manitoba.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Air Canada's tenders for beef call for good average quality Australian or New Zealand beef, not Canadian beef, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the Minister of Agriculture resign his portfolio immediately, since Air Canada is a Crown corporation, and the Minister of Agriculture is doing absolutely nothing to promote our own cattle industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move:
In view of the very serious consequences of the announcement by senior officials within the Ministry of Transport that 3,000 workers involved in transport related Fields will be laid off very shortly and that this Figure could go as high as 5,000 in the next six months, that the Minister of Transport be directed to prepare plans for projects which would provide jobs for the 5,000 people who are to be laid off precisely at this time of very high unemployment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTION LEADERS' BROADCAST SPEECHES ON QUEBEC SITUATION BE APPENDED TO &quot;HANSARD&quot;-MOTION UNDER S.O.
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy):
That the speeches given last night on CBC by the right hon. Prime Minister and the leaders of the opposition parties in the House be appended to today's official report of the House of Commons debates.
I hope I shall have the unanimous consent of hon. members, in view of the importance of this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTINUE REVENUE GUARANTEE TO THE PROVINCES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 for the following motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the Minister of Finance informed the provinces of Canada that the five year revenue guarantee given the provinces in 1971 with reference to the new income tax legislation would be terminated at the end of 1976 and not renewed and that the formula for calculating compensation would be changed retroactively for 1974 and 1975, and whereas the Minister of Finance has now offered the provinces as compensation for the end of the revenue guarantee the transfer of one income tax point equalized to the national average, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House commends the government for this more equitable attitude and directs the government to cease its attempt to change the formula for compensation retroactively and meet its commitment to the provinces of Canada on the said revenue guarantee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Epp.l
November 25, 1976


AIR CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the general picture of financial ineptitude as set out in the latest report of the Auditor General of Canada, which has caused such concern all over this nation, and in view of the reports that it will cost Air Canada up to $100 million to translate aircraft and flight manuals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir):
That the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Transport undertake stringent cost control procedures to make certain that only those which are most essential for current aviation purposes be translated and that the most economic procedures consistent with this task be utilized.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding the massive lay-offs taking place in transport and related industries. On November 19, the Minister of Finance told the House that the government was particularly concerned about regional unemployment levels in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec which are higher than the Canadian average and have increased most rapidly in recent months. Will the minister demonstrate now some of that concern and advise the House what immediate action this government intends to take to prevent the lay-offs and alleviate the economic hardship of some 3,000 Canadian workers in Quebec, Nova Scotia and southern Ontario-an area where unemployment is rising-apparently as a result of poor planning on the part of the federal Ministry of Transport?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the government in effect is showing its concern, as announced by the Minister of Finance. I want to look into areas dealing with unemployment to see what can be done about the unemployment aspect. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member for Hamilton West that the LIP allocation will be doubled to $200 million.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am pleased also to tell him that there will be an additional $50 million for federal labour intensive projects this winter administered by the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am very pleased to be able to say that as a result of good administration and proper surveillance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -and for this I give tribute to the Unemployment Insurance Commission-we are able to announce a 9 per cent reduction in premium rates, which will mean about $250 million back into the economy in 1977.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister has just advised me about LIP, which, as far as I am concerned, is only a stopgap measure for a very serious problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Ministry of Transport economist involved in the contracting of work to these two industries stated that this is not the end, that it is the beginning and that it could go as high 5,000 in transport related fields. Given the fact that these increasing numbers of lay-offs may well push the unemployment rate over 11 per cent in both Nova Scotia and Quebec, will the minister assure this House that the budgetary flexibility referred to by the Minister of Finance will be channelled specifically into these transport related industries? That is the point we are concerned about today.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: An additional $100 million is something more than just a small measure, as the hon. member seems to suggest.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You waste that much every day.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not think we should be aiming at one specific industry. I think we have to use measures such as this to do what we can at the government level to help decrease the unemployment figure. Using LIP money, we can target it to areas of high unemployment, and I am pleased to say that this will be coming out of existing expenditure quotas. It will be below the existing ceilings, and we will be living within the fiscal framework announced by the President of the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 25, 1976
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


REQUEST FOR BETTER PLANNING TO AVOID LAY-OFFS OF WORKERS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that this massive lay-off is the fault of the Minister of Transport and is the result of poor planning, I now direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Given the fact that the same economist from the Ministry of Transport stated that the problem was that there was no follow up project to absorb all the skilled labour involved, will the acting minister assure this House that the department will engage in more rigorous planning of contracts so that lay-offs of this magnitude will not occur again?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is now in the process of discussing transports with the province of Premier Blakeney. With regard to the manufacturing of cars by the plants mentioned, I believe we are now negotiating with a view to determining the urgency, the necessity, the category and type of cars purchased by the Canadian Wheat Board.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I thank the other hon. gentleman for their replies, although they did not deal directly with what we are involved in at the moment.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would inform the House if any consideration is being given to the re-assignment of contracts for the building of hopper cars-which has already been referred to by the Minister of Transport-to those companies involved, and further, in view of continuing lay-offs at the Sysco steel plant at Sydney where the employment force has been reduced from 4,000 to 2,200, will an approach be made to Canadian National Railways to purchase more steel rails, even if they have to be stockpiled, in order to provide much needed employment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the hon. member raises a question which the Minister of Transport has been discussing with me and some other colleagues. It is a suggestion that has considerable merit, but as the hon. member would recognize, it requires considerable expenditures and at a time of restraint we are inclined to look at these suggestions with a great deal of caution. I could add in all earnestness, Mr. Speaker, that if Bill C-19, which is before this House, could be expedited, and
[Mr. Cullen.1
if the opposition could co-operate in helping the government to cut down expenditures, it would be easier to look at these programs.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Cut down waste.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the right hon. gentleman for his kind reply which I am sure is not doing very much for the unemployed. In view of the fact that Hawker Siddeley and Marine Industries Limited received regular and substantial subsidization from the federal government, does the right hon. gentleman not agree that both government and industry share a responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer to assure the full and steady employment of its workers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is repeating the question is another form. I told the hon. member that the matter was being given serious consideration. I repeat the enjoinder to the opposition that they co-operate with the government in cutting expenses.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FEDERAL PROPOSALS TO MAINTAIN UNITED CANADA
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. Last night he said that the central question for the people of Quebec at this difficult time in our history is whether the growth of freedom and independence of these people can best be achieved from within Canada or be best achieved in an independent Quebec. I should like to agree with the Prime Minister's formulation of the problem which I think was well expressed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: However, since he also said there was a cultural aspect of the question and an economic aspect and said that the crisis is now, I should like to ask him what serious proposals he will make now to deal with the problem he described so ably last night?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the New Democratic Party was listening, he heard the Minister of Manpower and Immigration announce a program of several hundred million dollars which will be spent toward alleviating problems of unemployment, particularly where they are high, as in Quebec and the Maritimes.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since of the more than one-quarter million Canadians who became unemployed during the last two years, more than 50 per cent were in the province of Quebec which only has 25 per cent of the population of Canada and since the Prime Minister said that one of the central aspects of the continuation of this federalism we have is dealing with such questions and he said that they have to be dealt with now, is he saying that the
November 25, 1976

general, and I would say seriously, paltry sums of money still being offered by the government on a national basis are going to be in any way adequate to deal with that more than 10 per cent unemployment level in the province of Quebec?


An hon. Member:: Sell a Cadillac.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat paradoxical that the leader of the New Democratic Party, and indeed many members of the Tory Party, are now suggesting that we have not been doing enough for Quebec. I can remember a time not long past when parties on the other side-


An hon. Member:: Take it easy now.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Easy, easy!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -including an NDP premier were saying we were spending too much in Quebec. If any of the Tories want me to quote speeches for them, I will do that too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? Such sophistry will not bail out the Prime Minister. He knows that the NDP in this House, in the whole period of its existence, has not taken that position.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has risen to ask a final supplementary question. Perhaps he will ask it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question. The Prime Minister should answer it. Is the Prime Minister saying that the programs announced today by the minister responsible for employment will be adequate to reduce significantly the disproportionate amount of unemployment of the last two years in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a repetition of the last question.


FINANCE
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As within the next few weeks, as everyone knows, a very important federal-provincial conference of the finance ministers will be held and, above all, in order to protect Canadian unity, does the Prime Minister not think it would be advisable to invite the Governor of the Bank of Canada to attend this important conference so that, with the ministers of finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, he might plan the long-term monetary policy of Canada, to avoid the financial
Oral Questions
tensions which now seem to threaten Confederation and Canadian unity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that it is customary for the Governor of the Bank of Canada to attend those conferences, but I am quite confident that he will be advised of everything that is said at the conference.


Mr. Andrd Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary of the right hon. Prime Minister.
I would like to ask him whether the government intends at least to consider the possibility of using the Bank of Canada and allow this institution to grant loans to the provinces at the administration rate so that they can have a consistent and normal development in line with their own rhythm and expectations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the role of the Bank of Canada has been discussed so often in the House that I do not see anything new I could add to convince the hon. member that his creditist arguments are not based on any practical system.


ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the President of the Treasury Board.


An hon. Member:: He is hiding.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I understand the President of the Treasury Board is to be absent for the next ten days or two weeks.


Walter David Baker: On sick leave.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Therefore, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? It has to do with questions I directed to the President of the Treasury Board yesterday having to do with the possible conflict of interest concerning members of the royal commission established to review government organization and accountability. The minister yesterday pointed out that it is important to clear up the issue quickly since, obviously, there is a conflict of interest with regard to one member of the commission, Mr. H. Marcel Caron. Since the commission is to review and evaluate the operations of Crown corporations, and since Mr. Caron was a member of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, may I ask the Prime Minister if the whole matter I have raised has been looked into and if today he will be announcing a replacement for Mr. Caron, in view of the obvious conflicts of interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board discussed this matter with me this morning. I want to preface any answer by saying that we have the utmost confidence in Mr. Caron's professional

November 25, 1976
Oral Questions
ability and integrity. I might even add that Mr. Caron's name was among those put forward by the Auditor General himself as a first rate candidate for employment in the federal government in areas of financial control.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know why the opposition is annoyed that the Auditor General should have found Mr. Caron to be a most qualified person.


Mr. Fraser:: That is not the point, and you know it. There is a conflict of interest.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would add, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the Treasury Board indicated to me that he was going to talk to Mr. Caron. I understand that Mr. Caron, who was prepared to work on this royal commission, is wondering if it is worth working on a commission when members of parliament and members of the public do not appreciate the role he would play on this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the fact that the public interest demands the utmost impartiality, can the Prime Minister explain how this member can serve on this commission which will review the operations of a Crown corporation of which he was a member, and how he can be a participant in an honest and frank evaluation of the operations of this particular Crown corporation in light of statements made by the Auditor General about questionable dealings that took place within Atomic Energy of Canada Limited while he was a director of that particular corporation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would make only two points on this. One is that Mr. Caron has proven himself to me to be a man of high integrity because some time ago, on his own initiative, he resigned from the board of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. He felt that in his professional duties he had. clients who might put him in a conflict of interest position as a director of AECL. I repeat, 1 have the highest regard for the integrity of the man. It was his own decision some time ago to declare positions of conflict of interest when there were any such. It is difficult enough to get men of high quality to serve the public. My concern now is that he might not want to continue in this job since the opposition is obviously indicating their doubts about his qualifications.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is the Prime Minister telling this House that he completely and totally disregards any involvement of Mr. Caron with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? Is he telling this House that he expects this commission to make an impartial review of government organization and accountability? Is that what he is telling this House and the people of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not telling that to the House. I am telling the House that if it looks at the mandate which was made public, the function of the royal commission is not to look into the administration of AECL. It is to study an entirely different question. The President of the Treasury Board has just handed me a letter which, if I read it correctly, is an indication by Mr. Caron that he will not be prepared to serve on the commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY-REQUEST PRIME MINISTER REVIEW APPOINTMENTS FOR POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of information placed on the record of the House yesterday by a former Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, calling into question the impartiality of the other members of the royal commission and indeed placing them in a conflict of interest situation, will the Prime Minister undertake to the House that in light of the representations of the right hon. member, he will at least review the other appointments to the royal commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on this subject, I would ask permission of the House to table Mr. Caron's letter of resignation. Since his name has been brought forward as being in a conflict of interest position, I think he is certainly entitled to speak for himself. With the permission of the House, I will table this document.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a document can only be tabled and only at this time with the unanimous consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for indulging in the time of the House, but the Prime Minister obviously did not hear my question. He certainly did not address himself to it. In view of the representations made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert yesterday outlining an apparent conflict of interest of the other members of the royal commission, will the Prime Minister undertake to the House that he will at least review these other appointments so they will not seem to be in a conflict of interest situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly undertake that the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert be read.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You better do it before the President of
the Treasury Board leaves, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If any partisanship can be found, I will
consider it.


FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY-SUGGESTION COMMISSION BE DISBANDED
Mr, Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister do the House and the country the pleasure of ending this farce with respect to this royal commission? It has gone much too far. The royal commission is designed merely to sweep evidence of administrative inefficiency under the rug. Why not get this over with and abandon the whole thing right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a trace of argumentation in the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister clarify for the House today a couple of points relating to the use of international agents engaged by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to promote and facilitate the sales of Canadian nuclear hardware? In light of the fact that the minister was made aware as early as February of this year that up to $20 million would be disbursed to persons in one deal alone for services unspecified, can the minister tell us what action he has undertaken since that date, apart from his rather late but hasty reaction to the Auditor General's report, to protect our country's integrity in the international market and to protect the public interest.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, when this particular item was brought to my attention this year by the chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, I immediately saw what he was concerned about. It was not just the size of the payment to be made, but the lack of detail in support of the services to be rendered. I so registered that with the chairman of Atomic Energy. He called a board meeting forthwith to discuss that with his directors. I should point out that these directors are clearly those who concern themselves with this matter of policy at the corporate level. On the instructions of his board of directors, he forthwith went to Tel Aviv to seek to renegotiate the terms of the agency agreement and the nature of the payment. That was done within a matter of days of that particular item having been brought to my attention.


Frank Oberle: Since such negotiations and renegotiations would have to result in certain documentation and contracts, is the minister prepared to table any documents resulting from the trip to Tel Aviv as well as any documents that may indicate to the House and the country what additional costs were incurred by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited with
Oral Questions
regard to other sales that were applied and supplied by their own sales agencies, such as technical and scientific reports?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I told the public accounts committee yesterday, or rather the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I would be pleased to take this particular question under consideration. I am anxious to provide as much information as I can to the House and to the Public Accounts committee. However, I have to concern myself as well with the question of the commercial confidentiality of some of the correspondence. I have issued instructions to the senior officials of the AECL to examine the documentation from the point of view of commercial confidentiality and get back to me. I hope to be able to make a statement within a few days.


PROPOSAL TO TELEVISE PROCEEDINGS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up a question I addressed to the Prime Minister on November 1. In the light of the insistence of the opposition parties that the Prime Minister should make policy statements such as he made last night in the House of Commons, and the desirability that such statements, together with the responses of the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: And today's performance!


Mitchell William Sharp: -and today's performance, those of all parties in this House, should be seen and heard by the people of Canada generally-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I would ask the Prime Minister what offers of co-operation the government has received from the opposition in connection with the televising of our proceedings?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know that the former minister, the hon. member for Eglinton, has been very active in promoting this idea. I understand that in the past he has not found complete co-operation from opposition parties. But judging from their reaction today they would seem disposed to proceed as quickly as possible with televising our proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Where are you going to put the fireplace?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This, as hon. members know, is something we proposed more than a year and a half ago and if the opposition

November 25, 1976
Oral Questions
is disposed to proceed, as they seem to indicate today, I would be prepared to move today, as a matter of fact at this moment, that the House give authorization-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Do it under Standing Order 43!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am unable at the moment to determine whether what the Prime Minister is continuing to say is out of order. I cannot hear him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the intent of my answer is clear. But it is obvious, also, that the opposition is not serious in wishing to proceed with this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are any points of order to be raised I will hear them at three o'clock in keeping with our practice of the last several months.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has to do with the $2.4 million paid by AECL into a bank in Lichtenstein-into the account of the InterContinental General Trading Establishment. Has the minister investigated to determine whether or not this company is a legitimate trading company? If so, who are its chief officers and where is the head office located? If it is a legitimate company, and if its head office is not in Lichtenstein, would he tell the House why the cheque was sent to a bank in that country?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have been trying to get answers myself to some of the questions the hon. member has put.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: I have to tell the House that I do not have the answers the hon. member is seeking. I would hope to be able to provide them, or that officials of AECL would be able to provide them, before the Public Accounts Committee. I can tell the hon. member that I have issued instructions to senior officers of AECL to request their Italian partner and co-contractor in this deal to provide further details as to the agency arrangements which the Italian partner made on behalf of the two contracting partners.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister telling the House that AECL approved the expenditure of $2.4 million paid to an agent about whose bona fides they had no information and which could have been a front for the payment of funds to a person or persons in Argentina in return for using influence to get a contract for AECL? Is he telling

the House that this large sum was paid to some unknown person or persons in the absence of any information whatsoever as to the services which were rendered? If that is the case, I ask the minister who was responsible for this action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I think it was made clear yesterday before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works that AECL provided the technical expertise and input and that the Italian partner undertook the commercial promotion of the venture. That was the arrangement between the two parties. It was also arranged, I am told, between the two partners that any payment which had been arranged for by the Italian partner to an agent to secure a contract would be split. One half would be paid by the AECL and the other half would be paid by the Italian partner. On the consummation of the contract, AECL received notice from its Italian partner that the agency, or the agent, had completed its part of the deal and that the payment was therefore due. On that basis, on the basis of the information given by the Italian partner through whom the arrangement was made by AECL, the payment was made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am aware of the fact that the agent was hired by Italimpianti. But I understand that half the payment to the agent was to be made by AECL. What I am asking the minister is this: was that payment made at the request of Italimpianti in the absence of any information as to the services rendered or any knowledge concerning the person or persons to whom the money was given? May I ask the minister, finally, whether this unusual transaction was approved by the president of AECL, the chairman and members of the board, and whether this transaction was drawn to the attention of the present minister or of his predecessor?


Alastair William Gillespie: The short answer is that this information only became known to me very recently. When I say "recently", I am speaking of myself. This transaction took place in 1974. I regret that it was not discovered by the auditor of AECL and reported to the shareholder until a matter of a very few weeks ago. Indeed, it did not become public knowledge until the Auditor General's report was published earlier this week. That is in fact the answer as far as I know it at this time.


ROLE OF DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE IN SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister what role was exercised by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce throughout this whole affair? Surely that great department of state has some role in the selling of Canadian goods abroad, so why did we need any of these intervenors?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce at this particular point.
November 25, 1976


An hon. Member:: You could at that time.


Alastair William Gillespie: I think I should take the opportunity the questioner has provided me to say that the retaining of an agent for negotiating a foreign sale is a very usual and conventional business practice. Indeed, it is the practice that is most often used rather having a resident salesman in the foreign country.


DATE WHEN PRIME MINISTER WAS INFORMED OF USE OF AGENTS TO SELL NUCLEAR REACTORS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources first reported this matter to him. As the present minister has indicated, this took place under the regime of his predecessor. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether he discussed this matter with the minister's predecessor?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the exact date, but I would say from memory it was several months ago-many months ago-that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told me he had discovered this question. I believe it was more or less at the time we were appointing a new chairman of AECL. He told me he was proceeding immediately to look into this matter to try to ascertain the justification for the very large expense account. Shortly thereafter he told me he was dispatching the chairman of the AECL to look into this matter and, if possible, to renegotiate the particular size of the expense account. I can probably ascertain the dates of the formal decision, but it was many months ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister answer the latter part of my question as to whether, upon learning of this, he had discussed the matter with the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who was presiding over this Crown corporation, or through whom this Crown corporation reported to parliament at the time? Did he ask that former minister whether he knew anything about this or how it happened at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last question I would indicate that I did discuss this matter with the former minister. I must correct my previous answer. I understood the question to be related to the Korean contract, but I understand now the discussion is about the Argentina contract. I would have to check that discussion against my memory, but I can say at least that we certainly did discuss the matter at that time. I can give an approximate date.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate what explanation, if any, or justification the previous minister gave him for his apparent-I will not use any descriptive words-for this affair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do remember that the former minister raised it with me as an indication of his concern and
Oral Questions
because of the dilemma in which he, as the minister and we as the government, find ourselves when Crown corporations, as the House knows, are set up by statute with a certain degree of autonomy and are allowed to conduct their affairs with that autonomy and the minister can only be made aware of events such as this, which concerns the hon. member, a considerable length of time after the fact.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-DATE OF SIGNING OF RENEGOTIATED CONTRACT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary also deals with the Argentinian contract. I want to give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the opportunity to clear up an apparent contradiction in what he said in the House yesterday regarding something that does come before the Cabinet, the Prime Minister and the minister, namely, the contract itself or the renegotiated contract. Yesterday in the House the minister quite clearly told me that the renegotiated contract had not yet been signed, yet an extremely reputable journalist the night before spoke to the minister and quoted him directly as saying that the contract had been signed a few days before. This morning on checking this, along with a few other matters, with Rio Tertzio officials in Argentina I was told very definitely they informed people here in Canada, people here in Ottawa and in this place that the contract was certainly signed about a week ago. I give the minister the opportunity now to clear up this contradiction by asking again, was the renegotiated contract signed?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to try to clear up what must be a very complicated matter for the hon. member. As the hon. member will recognize, there are a number of signatures involved in this matter. On behalf of the Canadian government there is not only my signature but perhaps the signature of other members, and there is the whole matter of the order in council itself that is involved. On the other side there is the Italian partner and, of course, the customer in Argentina. When I answered the question yesterday I indicated I was not sure whether the signatures were all there. I must say that I still have to give the same answer because immediately following the question period I spoke to a senior officer of Atomic Energy of Canada and asked if the deal had now been put together and he said: "Quite frankly I cannot tell you because some of the other, or one of the other partners has not yet communicated that information to me". So I have to tell the hon. member that at the moment my answer stands as I gave it yesterday.


ROYAL COMMISSION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would refer to that which took place a little while ago

November 25, 1976
Oral Questions
when the Prime Minister or the President of the Treasury Board filed a document purporting to be a letter that was signed by Mr. Caron. It is a strange thing that this document is not a copy of a letter but simply a document not addressed or signed by anyone. Which reads, "Yours truly, Marcel Caron, C.A.". I notice that when the Prime Minister agreed to table this document the President of the Treasury Board rose and seemed very concerned. In view of the fact that this document is simply a piece of paper, I would ask the Prime Minister when he received the original of the document, a portion of which has been tabled without showing the name of the addressee or anything of that kind.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the document that was tabled-


John George Diefenbaker: Is nothing.


Robert Knight Andras: The document that was tabled is the text of the letter that is on its way and that was telephoned just before I came in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Caron has been subjected to very severe and, I think, unwarranted abuse and criticism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, out of common courtesy to a gentleman who has served this country on two royal commissions and in an innumerable number of public endeavours with distinction, I undertook to table at the earliest possible moment the contents of that letter. I will substitute the actual letter which is on its way if that is the proper procedure of the House. I think this gentleman deserves an opportunity to get on the record his reaction to the abuse he has suffered. I just want to establish what he said.


John Allen Fraser: You are trying to make a cry baby out of him.


Robert Knight Andras: He said: "There have been questions and comments which led to widespread reports casting reflection on my personal and professional integrity"-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: I was prepared to let the minister go to the point of explaining the circumstances surrounding the tabling of the document but I do not think I should let him go any further.


John George Diefenbaker: With so much circumlocution I ask him this: did the document which the Prime Minister filed consist simply of a general outline purporting to have been made by Mr. Caron? Why was the original concealed? Where is that original, then; is it upstairs? I ask him not to give us these circuitous explanations. Why is the document in question that

the Prime Minister led the House to believe had actually been received not one which was received?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Caron and his lawyer are both in Montreal. There have been telephone conversations. He telephoned me with the request that this be made public at the earliest possible moment. I agreed to take it down in dictation and substitute for it the actual letter which is on its way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: He clearly wanted it indicated that he will not accept the appointment because he must be free to defend himself. He ends up saying: "I have nevertheless discussed-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presenting reports from special and standing committees.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege which relates to the public accounts committee of which I am chairman. A few moments ago the Prime Minister, or the President of the Treasury Board-I am not sure which- tabled what I assume purports to be a copy of an undated, unsigned and unaddressed letter, the third paragraph of which reads:
In the current proceedings before the public accounts committee there have been questions and comments which have led to widespread reports casting a reflection on my personal and professional integrity as well as a possible conflict of interest. I must and will defend myself from these charges and I must therefore be completely free to do so.
My question of privilege is simply that there has not yet been a public meeting of the public accounts committee where, under any circumstances, any such charges could have been made. Therefore, sir, I think, under these circumstances and on a question of privilege, I must defend the members of the public accounts committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If, as the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham stated, this is to be a defence against such allegations against the committee over which he presides, the fact is that such allegations, if they have been made, have been made not by a member of the House in the House but by someone outside the House, and therefore do not constitute a question of privilege.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw to the attention of the House that there were press reports describing the proceedings yesterday afternoon before the standing committee on natural resources as proceedings of the public accounts committee. It may well be that there has been some confusion on that point.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in today's proceedings, the hon. member for Eglinton asked a question of the Prime Minister concerning the televising of the proceedings of the House of Commons, about which
November 25, 1976

there has been, to understate it, somewhat prolonged discussion in these chambers. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, now, if he would follow through with his suggestion when we come to motions and make the proposal he indicated he would be prepared to make, namely, that television be introduced for the proceedings of the House of Commons without delay.
I should like to urge the Prime Minister to do that because I say, in all seriousness-as I am sure would the hon. member for Eglinton-that the kind of controversy in which we have found ourselves in the past couple of days concerning public appearances, in advance of speeches in the House of Commons, could very effectively be avoided in the future by this great, forward act. So I would ask, through you, sir, if the Prime Minister would be prepared to move that on motions this afternoon, and I indicate to him that the New Democratic Party would give its immediate support to it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the President of the Privy Council last session had a motion standing in his name. If there is that anxiety, I think it would be well that the motion be put back on the order Paper-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -so that this issue can be fully, thoroughly and properly debated in this House. May I say that parliament might very well be served by a debate and discussion on that motion, and if the government House leader-wherever he is-will talk to us about putting on that motion, and will talk to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I am sure we would be quite prepared to accommodate him. In any event, if the Prime Minister really feels strongly about the subject, all he has to do is speak to the government House leader and move that motion again, and we are prepared to deal with it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister, on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House leader of the Tory party suggests that I put the matter to the government House leader, wherever he is. I would point out to the House that the government House leader was attending the international economic conference which he had been asked to attend very urgently in his position as co-chairman. He is flying back today. I repeat what I mentioned earlier in answer to the hon. member for Eglinton. It has been our intention for a year and a half now, or perhaps longer, to televise the proceedings of the House.


An hon. Member:: Who stopped you?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks, "Who stopped you?" The hon. member should know that we had a motion on the order paper, but the House leader could not get from the opposition any undertaking for firm action. I will give some consideration to reinstating last year's motion, but I want to
Oral Questions
make it clear that we will only do so if it can end up with a very early resolution and a positive-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are, after all, dealing, by way of a point of order, with the possibility of something being done that can only be done, first of all, upon application for unanimous consent of the House and, second, upon the reception of the unanimous consent of the House. At the moment we have not even advanced to the stage of asking for unanimous consent. I wonder if we might get on to other business.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I conclude my remarks? I should like to say that we are prepared to take action on this matter if the opposition party is prepared to do more than talk about it. If the opposition is prepared to do that, we would bring it forward. But I suggest that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton should discuss it with his leader, wherever he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I cannot understand what is happening. The Prime Minister said that a letter had been received from Mr. Caron and he would have no objection to tabling it. I noticed that at the same time the President of the Treasury Board was jumping up and down. Finally, he did hand over to the Clerk what was supposed to be a letter, directed to whom we do not know. It is two pages long, without any addressee on it. The President of the Treasury Board says it is not a letter, it is simply the text of a telephone conversation. In the course of these two pages, undated, addressed to and signed by no one, the following appears:
-on September 22, 1976, following a period of my increasing concerns of possible conflicts of interests between AECL and a number of my firms' clients some of which are large Canadian public utilities. I attach a copy of my letter of resignation from the board of AECL, together with the minister's acceptance in his letter dated September 29, 1976. I hope that the foregoing will clarify the record.
Imagine, a document is produced which purports to be a letter, and it turns out not to be a letter but something that was phoned down, and in it are stated the following words, "I attach a copy of my letter of resignation ..." on September 22, 1976. Sir, this is incredible. The letter was tabled. A letter was received, but there was no such letter; there was simply a memorandum of a telephone conversation with the President of the Treasury Board. Sir, I hope you will look into this matter because we have spoken over and over again about government concealment, about covering up. If there was ever an example of something that is even worse, the placing before parliament of an alleged letter when there was not a leftter, and the pretence that a letter had been received, this is it. It is something that encroaches upon the privileges of members of this House. It indicates the degree to which this government will cover up facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 25, 1976
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we go on to the discussion, I see there are other hon. members who want to participate. The Chair is faced with a special difficulty in this matter because the document, perhaps because of its extraordinary timing as opposed to its contents, or for whatever reason, was tabled with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: That might not alter the difficulty of the circumstances under which the consent was given, but the fact is that that factor is involved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: A red herring.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We made the mistake of believing the Prime Minister.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it may seem a minor point-the difference between a memorandum with respect to what is in a letter and the actual letter- but I suggest that what has happened today is really quite serious, and I am glad the right hon. member for Prince Albert raised it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is quite clear that cabinet ministers have wide latitude as to what they can table. This is covered under Standing Order 41(2), which reads:
A minister of the Crown, or a parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of a minister, may, in his place in the House, state that he proposes to lay upon the table of the House, any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government, and, there upon, the same shall be deemed for all purposes to have been laid before the House.
So the rule as to what kind of paper can be laid before the House is very wide. But in this case Your Honour, as you just said, asked for unanimous consent. Sir, the House gave unanimous consent because we had been told that what was being tabled was a letter. I submit that the piece of paper that apparently has been tabled was not what the minister said it was, and that although our unanimous consent to the tabling of the letter may apply to the tabling of the letter at five o'clock, six o'clock or tomorrow some time, it does not cover the tabling of a piece of paper which was not what the minister said it was.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I join the right hon. member for Prince Albert in suggesting that the House was misled, but the point is that it should be corrected and I contend that the unanimous consent which we gave does not cover the piece of paper that was laid on the table, and that the whole matter should be reviewed by Your Honour and corrected forthwith.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the House leader of the NDP may have a
[Mr. Dicfenbaker.j
point of order which is well taken under our rules. They profess to be great parliamentarians, or at least they like to have that reputation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They are great parliamentarians.


An hon. Member:: You would not recognize that. They tower above you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have the impression that there is something unreal about this discussion, Mr. Speaker. If they were attacking the government, then surely that is fair game; but when a very honourable member of the public who is not a member of this government, a man who has served the public many times and in many capacities, is prepared to serve it again, and when he hears his name abused in this House, then surely-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He was not abused.


An hon. Member:: That is not right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -he is entitled to defend himself as soon as possible. His way was by telephoning the President of the Treasury Board in all urgency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why did you not say so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An hon. member asks, why did I not say so? The House will remember that when I was answering this question about Mr. Caron, the President of the Treasury Board came over and handed me some papers. I also assumed it was a letter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -signed by Mr. Caron. In the event it was not, it was the telephone conversation transcription. All I ask of hon. members is that they be fair. Do they not have any sense of fairness?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under some technical pretence, which may be well justified, the members of the opposition are denying to an honourable man a chance to defend himself.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are denying him a chance to defend himself at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Now you are misleading the people.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are denying him the chance to defend himself at this very time and in this very place where he is

being attacked. Surely, if parliament makes any sense at all, it should be able to bend itself to its rules and respect rules of fairness, which seem to be absent completely, judging by these attacks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: A real phony.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There does not seem to be any doubt that the grounds upon which the question of privilege raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert are based are well founded. There is no argument about that point. The Prime Minister, in his intervention on the other side of the question, even made reference to the fact that the point was well founded. The fact is that during the course of answering a question earlier this afternoon, the Prime Minister, while on his feet, took the text of the letter from one of the ministers and said that either it was, or appeared to be, a letter, and under those circumstances and on that understanding the House was asked for, and gave, unanimous consent for the tabling of the document. I am not now able to recall whether the Prime Minister at that moment said, "I have in my hand what is or what appears to be a letter," but the fact is that that aspect of it at the moment is not important.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the circumstances, we are faced with a document which has been tabled with the unanimous consent of the House. The unanimous consent was clearly given on an understanding which was wrong. That being the case, I do not suppose it is possible, even if hon. members wanted it to be done, for the document to be untabled: it is there. At the moment, I think I have to regard the unanimous consent of the House as having been given earlier today for the tabling of the letter of resignation from Mr. Caron. That letter is in the information given to the House by the President of the Treasury Board, and it is on its way to the House. That is certainly to be hoped for, and in my opinion it would be understood that, consistent with the undertaking which was given during the question period today-or just after the question period-the minute that letter arrived the minister would reappear here and table it pursuant to that undertaking, and that no other document, pursuant to the unanimous consent of the House, ought to be tabled.
The document is now in the possession of the House and will have to stay there, but I hope the President of the Treasury Board will return to the House and will, pursuant to the unanimous consent given earlier today, table the actual letter.
Some boo. Members: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the explanation given by the Prime Minister was a mass of deception.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert raised a question of privilege which I found to be valid, and I took action on it and made whatever order I thought necessary in the circumstances. I do not think the matter can be discussed any further. However, if there is a fresh point which ought to be dealt with, I would be glad to see any hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you are the protector of the rights of parliament. We accepted unanimously, this afternoon, the tabling of a letter, but there was no such letter tabled.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert on that point. In fact, I accepted his point. The matter is now closed. I think we ought to get on to another matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which, as I indicated yesterday, concerns the role of parliamentary secretaries answering, at will, questions directed to ministers or acting ministers. Yesterday, questions I asked of the acting minister of finance, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, and of the Prime Minister, were answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, despite the fact that repeated efforts were made to direct those questions to the acting minister of finance. These questions, in general, dealt with the intentions of the minister of bringing down a new budget, and specifically with his assessment of the economy in light of an unfavourable forecast by the OECD of the economic future of this country.
As such, these were questions of policy which in tradition, precedent and practice have been reserved for ministers and acting ministers, not parliamentary secretaries who are not privy to cabinet decisions and who do not share in the collective ministerial responsibility of government for its policies and programs.
I know that there have been exchanges on topics related to the one I am dealing with today, and I do not propose to cite examples of precedents which have already been put before Your Honour, including the precedent-as will be seen in Hansard-of October 29. I do feel, however, that budget considerations are among the clearest examples of government policy:making, and no parliamentary secretary, no matter how competent-and I stress that-can attempt to answer questions of this kind when he has no access to or responsibility for the decisions of the cabinet. If a question regarding the development of policy is asked, then the answer of a parliamentary secretary, who constitutionally has no role in discussions of policy, must of necessity be irrelevant to the question. The answer can be no more than a bland reassurance based on blissful ignorance rather than informed concern.
1370

November 25, 1976
Oral Questions
I noted with interest the exchange last month on this very point when the Chair indicated that in addition to the well-recognized right of hon. members of the House to ask questions, there is also no obligation to answer those questions. The Chair also stated, as reported at page 590 of Hansard:
-it is difficult to say that a mere attempt to answer on the part of the parliamentary secretary, acting minister or another acting in his stead is not an adequate response when no response is required by the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I believe you put your finger on a very important distinction which I would like to reiterate today. For example, this distinction was brought out in the book "Procedures in the Canadian House of Commons", written by Mr. Dawson. At page 158 of this book, Mr. Dawson discusses the whole question of the impact of the question period. He points out that the rules certainly contemplate that information is solicited and, hopefully, gained. But in reference to Your Honour's comment of October 29, I think Mr. Dawson's opinion is very relevant, and that opinion is expressed at page 158. Referring to the detail we solicit as far as questions are concerned, Mr. Dawson states:
This is, however, the most limited and least valuable use of the parliamentary question. There is little doubt that a letter or telephone call to a minister would produce factual information more quickly than would a question in the House. The rules, of course, ignore the real purpose of most questions. Over the years they have become the principal weapon in the hands of the opposition parties. There is little hope in their minds that they will get a major amendment accepted in the House or otherwise alter government policy significantly. They may, however, harass the government and demonstrate its deficiencies to the electorate. For this the oral parliamentary question is unequalled. The question itself must be short but each answer as it comes from the minister can be... followed to a conclusion whether that conclusion be a revelation by the government of all the significant facts, or perhaps, even more revealing, a refusal to disclose them.
I suggest that that is a fundamental reason why it has become customary that the rules provide that oral questions be put only to ministers and, as is accepted, to acting ministers. They, and they alone, should be tested in this House. I suggest that the demonstration we had in the oral question period today is a vivid demonstration. The President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister were under an oral question barrage which, I suggest, had a totally different effect in its outcome on this House than if that exchange had been directed to parliamentary secretaries on behalf of those two gentlemen.


Walter David Baker: In terms of information.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In terms of information, and also of the impact on this House. I respectfully suggest that there is a significant difference between acting ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The hard fact is that the Standing Orders of this House do not allow parliamentary secretaries to answer at will, especially on matters of policy. Our Standing Orders do provide for other things, but there is no provision for having a question put to them that is asked of a minister or an acting minister who is in attendance. Acting ministers, on the other hand, do have the right to respond to questions of policy. As cabinet ministers, they take the same oath, they share in collective accountability to this House, and they can advise on the decision-making process.

The Standing Orders governing the conduct of parliamentary secretaries, and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, are very clear on this matter: parliamentary secretaries are responsible to their ministers-the wording of the act is very clear on that-and they are not responsible to this House. Parliamentary secretaries are specifically not mentioned in reference to question period in this House, with the exception of Standing Order 40(3) to which Your Honour referred in a previous discussion concerning their role.
Standing Order 40(3) of course deals with the adjournment debate, and I would suggest, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that it is a different situation. Specifically, the Standing Order provides that a parliamentary secretary may appear and respond on behalf of his minister. I say that is different from responding during the oral question period, because obviously the minister can direct the parliamentary secretary as to what response he may see fit to make on the adjournment debate. That is entirely different, I respectfully suggest, from a parliamentary secretary gratuitously offering an answer when an acting minister declines to answer.
I would also like to say that a practice has developed precisely because the responsibilities of a parliamentary secretary are not exactly spelled out in the rules or, indeed, in precedents that are now before the House. If we allow parliamentary secretaries to respond to questions, that should not be construed as a right that they can use at will on any question being put to a minister.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there are really three shades to all questions. If a member puts a question to a parliamentary secretary, he has obviously opted to accept the parliamentary secretary's answer, and in spite of the rules regarding such an answer, the practice has arisen in this House that the parliamentary secretary may respond to the question. Clearly, that is a practice that has arisen; but I would suggest that the rules should clarify it. If we read the rule on oral questions, Standing Order 39(5) provides as follows:
Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to ministers of the Crown-
There is no suggestion that a parliamentary secretary has the right to receive a question, or that we have the right to put a question to a parliamentary secretary, but I am saying that the practice has arisen. I would say that if members on this side of the House wish to direct a question to a parliamentary secretary, that is their option. The distinction I wish to make is the alternative situation where a member on this side of the House directs a question to a minister or acting minister. I would suggest there is absolutely no precedent for this; it is something that has become a practice. There is nothing in the rules that allows a parliamentary secretary to stand in his place and respond.
I suggest that an acting minister or minister has two choices when queried in the House: he can answer as he sees fit, or he cannot answer, and let hon. members judge as they will. But I suggest that ministers cannot duck questions by allowing parliamentary secretaries to speak for them when the questions
November 25, 1976

are not directed to a parliamentary secretary. I suggest that if a member of the House puts a question to a parliamentary secretary, that is an entirely different thing because the hon. member has opted to take that course.
I have searched for precedents in our parliamentary manuals dealing with this situation, but unfortunately I cannot find a clearcut precedent for what we are directing ourselves to today. I was able to find some references in the British House of Commons when they had something like a parliamentary secretary system-they do not have it currently, because they use junior ministers-and I did find that there are clear precedents where what happened yesterday was taken exception to in the House of Commons when they had something like the parliamentary secretary system.
I would direct Your Honour's attention to page 319 of the British Hansard for 1903. At that time an hon. member attempted to question the Secretary of State for War. The transcript reads as follows:
The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Lord Stanley, Lancashire, Wes-thoughton) rose to answer the question, but-


Mr. Swift  Macneill@: I do not ask it in the absence of the Secretary for War.


Mr. Speaker:: It is quite common and regular for one minister to answer a question on behalf of another minister.
I think we have already referred to that as something that is accepted, being an acting minister of otherwise. The member who put the question said:


Mr. Swift  Macneill@: Yes, but this is a question affecting policy, and as the noble Lord is not a member of the cabinet he should not answer it.
It was then explained that it was not a question of policy, and in that way the question was not advanced. I would suggest this is perhaps an example of where this type of situation has arisen in the British House, and clearly it was felt that if it is a question of policy, and a person who is not in the government attempts to respond, he should be stopped because he has no such right. Certainly, it should be open to the member putting the question to say if he wishes to accept the answer of a parliamentary secretary because an acting minister or minister declines to answer.
In view of what I have stated, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fundamentally important to this House that the cabinet remain responsible, certainly during oral question period, to members of the House. As Your Honour has pointed out, this is a rather unique function in our parliamentary procedure in Canada. I believe it is imperative, bearing in mind that we have 32 members of cabinet, that we insist that only cabinet ministers respond when hon. members on this side direct their questions to a minister or acting minister, and that a parliamentary secretary should be held to have no right to stand and answer as a substitute for a minister. If you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the matter of parliamentary secretaries answering questions not addressed to them and concerning which they can constitutionally have no knowledge, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, the occasion that the hon. member complains of is answers given on my behalf yesterday by the hon. member for York Centre. The answers are set out at page 1324 of Hansard. I would say that one could hardly find a better model of concise and informative answers on a serious matter of departmental policy-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -than were given by the parliamentary secretary yesterday. Indeed, they are a model of information and we, having heard so much about the necessity for this government to give information, find it rather bizarre to hear an argument today that such extensive information should not be provided to the House.
I would refer to three points made by the hon. member, and I think I do not misstate his case if I put them this way. First, he says that a parliamentary secretary is not adequately informed. Second, he says that a parliamentary secretary is not responsible in some constitutional sense; and, third, he says that the Standing Orders do not provide for parliamentary secretaries to respond to oral questions. One assumes that the gravamen of his complaint is that the use of parliamentary secretaries is in some ways an attempt by the government to thwart the opposition's attempt to obtain information. To deal with the fourth ground, the answer as recorded in Hansard, at pages 1324 and 1325 is the best answer, and nothing more need be said.
May I deal with the first point. A parliamentary secretary, while not sharing in the collective responsibility for the making of policy that belongs to the cabinet alone, has access to virtually the same information on the administration of the department as does the minister. Parliamentary secretaries, including my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for York Centre, frequently attend departmental meetings, and when they are substituting for their ministers during the question period are briefed by the same officers and given the same material. While it is true that parliamentary secretaries cannot attend the full cabinet, they may well from time to time participate in cabinet committees and may also properly be given access to some cabinet papers. If the complaint is that by not being part of the group collectively responsible for policy, parliamentary secretaries cannot answer questions on policy, the response is to be found in the rules of the House as set out in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 171, which reads in part:
A question oral or written must not...
(w) raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an
answer to a question ...
(bb) ask the government's opinion on matters of policy ...
(gg) seek information about matters which are in their nature secret, such as
decisions or proceedings of cabinet.
The answer lies in the proceedings of this House. On questions of that kind the parliamentary secretary is disenti-
80005-19%

November 25, 1976
Oral Questions
tied to comment on cabinet proceedings. Indeed, it is improper to ask him questions which would require him to do so, and it is improper to ask anyone questions of that kind. Notwithstanding the argument of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the purpose of an oral question is to seek information about the administration of government, and there is no reason why a parliamentary secretary cannot provide such information as readily as the minister. In support of that position, may I again refer to the responses made yesterday.
Perhaps the hon. member for York-Simcoe and his colleagues would like to change the rules in order to have mini-debates at this hour of the day. Perhaps they are not interested in the provision regarding the giving of information to the House. However, the rules we have been following are presently in existence. We have followed the widespread practice in this House of having parliamentary secretaries respond to questions, and I say that from experience in this House extending back nearly 14 years. Indeed, in the current session of parliament we have seen questions directed by opposition members to parliamentary secretaries in the observed absence of a minister. Clearly, the practice of having parliamentary secretaries respond to questions is well established and has been for a long time under our procedures.
Second, I deal with the point as to whether a parliamentary secretary is responsible in the constitutional sense. While a parliamentary secretary is not constitutionally responsible to parliament in the same sense as a minister, he is responsible to his minister, who is, in turn, responsible to parliament for the behaviour of his parliamentary secretary in his capacity as parliamentary secretary. Parliamentary secretaries are obliged to take oaths of office, including an oath of administrative secrecy, just as are other departmental officials and ministers who are responsible to parliament for their official behaviour. The right hon. member for Prince Albert is my authority for this theory. He espoused it as long ago as February 9, 1954, when he said, as reported at page 1909 of the House of Commons Debates for that year:
-I can scarcely believe that it would ever have been contemplated that they speak without responsibility.
When the right hon. member was prime minister he was reminded of that statement, and on March 16, 1960, said, as reported at page 2129 of the House of Commons Debates for that year:
Mr. Speaker, that is still my view.
Parliamentary secretaries, of course, have a greater degree of freedom than their ministers in the sense that their restraints, in terms of departmental responsibility, are confined to that department and they have the freedom of debate and action which is outside that imposed by the collegial system of cabinet.
Third, may I deal with the point that the rules only provide for questions to be answered by ministers. I have pointed out that the observed practice of this House has for a long period of time been the opposite. The hon. member clearly founded his argument on the assumption that unless a right is specifically and positively given by the Standing Orders of the

House, it does not exist. I think that to state it in that way is to refute the proposition. Hon. members know that many things in the parliamentary firmament are not to be found within the covers of our provisional Standing Orders; they know, indeed, that there is a widespread practice and procedure reaching far back into the practices of the British parliament in this regard-and, of course, we have built up a substantial practice of our own. I therefore say that if the hon. member's argument is to succeed, and if hon. members are to be confined to the specific words of the Standing Orders, he will have won a Pyrrhic victory indeed, because the fundamental rights of all members of parliament will have been withdrawn by that particular argument.
Section 3 of the Parliamentary Secretaries Act reads in part:
The parliamentary secretary or secretaries to a minister shall assist the minister in such manner as the minister directs.
This gives ministers authority to direct parliamentary secretaries to do anything not otherwise prohibited. Since there is no Standing Order prohibiting parliamentary secretaries from answering questions, clearly, in accordance with statute law, they may be directed to do so. This view is so clearly established that it was referred to by yourself, Mr. Speaker, twice, in your opinion of November 5, 1974, and again on November 15, 1974. Perhaps I need not refer in extenso to that admirable opinion. May I, however, quote a few lines of it. Your Honour, as reported, said:
Similarly, the privilege, of course, of being elevated to the position of parliamentary secretary falls only on those hon. members, not only the recognition, prestige and advantage that comes from their position but the obligation of answering questions, because not only do they occasionally answer questions during the question period, but they do so on a regular basis during the "late show" proceedings at 10 p.m. when they answer for the ministry. I have taken the position, to which I hold, that those who are clothed with the responsibility of answering for the government ought not to use the time of the question period for the privilege of asking questions of the government.
That was the reverse proposition in relation to parliamentary secretaries. Further, on November 15, 1974, Your Honour said, as reported:
-the parliamentary secretary is proposing to give information on behalf of her minister which, as I think I have said on previous occasions, is a very important aspect of the work of parliamentary secretaries.
That, Mr. Speaker, I think could be regarded as the summum optimum of wisdom on this particular question. Indeed, it would be detaining the House unnecessarily to try to improve on such, if I may use another official language, sagesse. I merely say, in conclusion, that it has been widely established in the House that with the current expansion of the administrative responsibilities of government, parliamentary secretaries may answer questions both written and oral. I would sustain the sound statement made by the Chair in the past, a position which I maintain would be upheld as reflecting on the better management of the House and the government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to hear a round of views, I will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and then the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.
November 25, 1976


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. The subject has been well discussed, but I wish to underline one point. Before I do so, may I say that I was interested to listen to the sort of speech the Minister of Finance just made, because-and this applies to the government side as well as my side-when the rules are in favour of the position you are taking, the rules are quoted, but when the rules are against you, you quote tradition and precedent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You have done it many times, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is just like the Bible; you can prove anything if you select your quotations.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I defer to you on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The one point I should like to emphasize is the matter of courtesy. As the hon. member for York-Simcoe suggested, if a member, in the absence of the minister, asks the parliamentary secretary a question, there can be no complaint. However, when a private member goes to the trouble of finding out who the acting minister is-it is not a great deal of trouble; I have the list in my pocket every day-and asks the acting minister to answer a question, and without anything being said by that acting minister it is passed over to the parliamentary secretary, it is something less than full courtesy.
I think the hon. member for York-Simcoe will have trouble sustaining his point procedurally in getting a ruling from Your Honour in his way, but I do want to make this point. There would be less difficulty in the question period if we had a little more courtesy as to who answers the questions. This is not only true about parliamentary secretaries answering when we put questions to acting ministers; it is also true on the part of the Prime Minister. On many a day when we think a question is important enough for him to answer it, he waves to someone else. That is my point.
I leave you, Mr. Speaker, to decide on the procedural issue, but I would like to see a little more courtesy in the way I have indicated.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the NDP House leader's allusion to the minister's use of the rules in terms of courtesy. It reminded me of the story of the lawyer who was advising a young student: he said when the law was in his favour, he should pound the judge; when the facts were in his favour, he should pound the jury. But when neither the law nor the facts were in his favour, he should pound the table, and perhaps the witness, from time to time. I endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to courtesy in terms of the operation of the House of Commons. By doing that, I do not also endorse what he said with regard to the position that Your Honour ought to take.
Your Honour knows that I feel very strongly about the matter. I argued it in the House very strenuously a few weeks
Oral Questions
ago. I do not intend to repeat that argument today. Your Honour did not come to a decision with respect to the matter at that time. I want to speak to a couple of points made by the Minister of Finance. One of his weakest arguments was that the increase in volume of administrative matters made it necessary for parliamentary secretaries to deal with certain matters. That is no argument at all. It may well be an argument for the fact that the rules of the House have not kept up with administrative practice, but it is certainly not an argument for the point of view he wished to advance.
With regard to the adjournment debate, I have tried to make it clear that the Standing Orders are quite different in terms of the responsibility of a parliamentary secretary. In fact, they specifically pinpoint the parliamentary secretary as one to whom responsibility can be delegated in terms of the adjournment debate. I do not have the rules in front of me, and I did go through them the last time. There is, however, a significant omission with regard to the functions in the balance of the rules.
The next argument advanced by the minister was with regard to the statute establishing parliamentary secretaries. He was quite right with respect to what it says, but we have to look beyond what it says to see what it means. Surely, the statute ought not to be interpreted to stand outside something that falls within the jurisdiction of the rules of the House of Commons. Surely, the act was not meant to be interpreted to say that notwithstanding parliamentary practice, procedure and traditions, many of which are not written, a minister of the Crown, by mere delegation of some function to his parliamentary secretary, can transgress the rules of the House.
I respectfully suggest that the practice of the House has been rather loose; it ought to be tightened up. The rules which ought to govern in terms of practice clearly indicate that ministers answer questions in the House of Commons, or acting ministers, not parliamentary secretaries except in that very limited way in accordance with our rules. I do not intend this to be a criticism of the Chair, but it is a practice which has developed over a long period of time.
What I conceive to be the rules have been breached by not being regarded because of convenience. In my judgment, one of those conveniences is somewhat contrary to the rules; that is the practice of opposition members putting questions to parliamentary secretaries. In my respectful submission, that ought not to be done. If it is being done now as a matter of practice, that practice ought not to be honoured by omitting to change the rules or interpreting the rules in such a way that the interpretation goes against the written word of the law in this House of Commons. In other words, I am saying that if the practice is to continue, the rules ought to be changed. The interpretation that the Chair may give to the rules ought not to be contrary to the written rules.
I wish to deal with the last argument, the question of ministerial responsibility. There is a direct responsibility of ministers, certainly among themselves and to the House of Commons. However, the fallacy of advancing one more step and moving that responsibility to the parliamentary secretary

November 25, 1976
Oral Questions
was demonstrated by the minister himself when he said that the parliamentary secretary is responsible to the minister, in turn, who is responsible to the House of Commons. On its face, that indicates that the responsibility is one step removed, that there is no direct responsibility between the parliamentary secretary and the House of Commons. That responsibility is intended by the rules to be that of a minister except in the case of the adjournment debate.
The questions of the other day which gave rise to this question of privilege were very important. I do not suggest, nor would I suggest, that in answering those questions the parliamentary secretary followed the parliamentary practice improperly. He answered them very well. He gave the House the fullest possible information.
If we are to maintain the relationship that ought to exist in this House in terms of answering questions on policy matters, then I suggest, unlike the hon. member for York-Simcoe, that the rules ought to be strictly observed and that either ministers or acting ministers, who were surely named for a purpose, answer those questions. If the hon. member for York-Simcoe is prepared to say that if he chooses to ask a parliamentary secretary a question, he should be allowed to do so, that is his position. I happen to disagree with it. I have a little tougher position in terms of ministerial responsibility. However, we perhaps ought to look at that.
If Your Honour accepts the argument in terms of what the Standing Orders of this House say, it is my respectful submission that there is a question of privilege. The privilege is the right of members of parliament to represent their constituencies and constituents in terms of obtaining what can be judged by practice, precedent, oath and responsibility as matters that are of record on the part of a minister. A ministerial answer in this House of Commons with respect to a matter of government policy is different in its nature and essence than an answer by any other member of this House. However well endowed with knowledge that member may be, it is different in parliamentary terms, and it is different in terms of accountability. Frankly, I think the rule ought to be strictly, rather than loosely, construed-and if there is doubt at all, that doubt ought to be resolved in favour of preserving the traditions of the House, not in permitting other usage. In this respect I must say that I disagree with some of my colleagues. This is not to say we ought not to consider changes, but the rules are before us and are to be followed. As we go down the road in this and succeeding parliaments, this question will have an important bearing on the manner in which ministers and hon. members generally conduct themselves during the question period.
I did not intend to be so long, Mr. Speaker, but the subject is an important one, and in that spirit I am pleased to support the idea which the hon. member for York-Simcoe has advanced.


Mr. Kaplan:: The Minister of Finance has advanced solid arguments for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. I did not

intend to intervene at all until the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put forward an argument which he characterized as a "rather softer argument" dealing with the question of courtesy. I wish to put forward another "soft argument" which I believe ought to be given at least as much weight as the argument advanced by the hon. member.
Very often, a question addressed to the ministry contains damaging and dangerous innuendos. Questions are often heavily laden with false premises. These statements are made; they are before the House; they are a matter of record. If the minister is absent, the acting minister may often not have had the opportunity to be as fully informed as the minister himself would have been; he may not even be in a position to contradict false assumptions or set the record straight in connection with some of the allegations contained in a question asked. In these circumstances it is very valuable for a parliamentary secretary to be able to stand up and at least correct the record, even if he is not in a position at the time to outline a policy. Very often, though, he is in a position to give the same answer as the minister would have given had he been present.
Yesterday, for example, there was an allegation that the OECD had characterized Canada's current economic performance as a "mini-recession". There are no grounds for that allegation, and I was glad to be able to stand in my place and set the record straight on the question. Had I been unable to do so, the acting minister responsible for the portfolio in the House that day might not have been in a position to make such a correction, simply because he might not have had the opportunity a parliamentary secretary often has to be briefed by officials and be prepared to deal with the kind of allegation and innuendo which should not accompany questions but which, unfortunately, so often does.
Before resuming my seat, I want to make one observation on the submission made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. He suggested that Your Honour was being invited to ignore written rules contained in the Standing Orders by extending some privilege or other to parliamentary secretaries. I do not know what written rule or order the hon. member was referring to. None was cited. As far as I can see, there is no written rule or order which denies parliamentary secretaries the right to answer questions during the question period.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to become deeply involved in the substantive argument on this question. I feel the Minister of Finance has very ably dealt with that aspect. I do, however, wish to refer briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he referred to courtesy. Are we not equally, or perhaps more concerned, with making information available? Members of the opposition are constantly belly-aching because the government is not providing them with information when they ask questions. It is a demonstrable fact that yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance provided clear and concise information, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has himself admitted. It is up to hon. members to decide whether they want courtesy, per se, or answers to their questions.
November 25, 1976


Stanley Howard Knowles: Both.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: There is one other matter which must be decided, and I am quite prepared to leave this to your judicial assessment, Mr. Speaker. It is whether or not parliamentary secretaries should be allowed to direct questions to ministers other than their own. I submit that if we are not to be permitted, as parliamentary secretaries, to answer questions in the House, then we must be permitted to address questions to ministers other than those to whom we are attached.


Mr. Speaker:: To deal with a few of the points which have been raised, let me say, first, that there can be no doubt about the truth of the proposition we have just heard. If the practice of parliamentary secretaries rising to answer questions during the question period is to be stopped, for whatever reason, they would have to be freed from the bonds I have placed upon them in this parliament not to put questions to ministers. That is the easiest part of the problem before me.
This matter has been put forward by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. It concerns the application of the rules and precedents as they apply to the procedures we must follow during the question period. As such, it is clearly a matter of order, and not a question of privilege. However, I think it would be disrespectful to the hon. member for York-Simcoe and others who have taken part in this discussion to brush the matter aside simply because it is not really a question of privilege. It is a point of order which has been raised twice recently. On each occasion, extensive and weighty arguments were put forward on both sides. There are, of course, difficulties which have to be faced. The hon. member for York-Simcoe suggested there might be circumstances in which parliamentary secretaries could answer questions, and other circumstances in which they ought not to be allowed to do so.
With all respect to the hon. member, that situation would be an impossible one for the Chair to resolve on a moment to moment basis. There are enough of those situations as things are now. The hon. member certainly raised one fundamental point, that is, whether in answer to questions-and this aspect was touched on rather ably, too, by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton-a minister who is absent is bound by an answer given by his parliamentary secretary.
It has been my suggestion in the past that an effort be made to resolve this question before the procedure committee. However, I am not in the position to order that this be done. Indeed, I take as well-founded the approach of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that a strict interpretation of the Standing Orders might lead us to the conclusion that, at least pro tern and until there is some other resolution, parliamentary secretaries do not have the right to answer questions. That, to my mind, may be one interpretation of the Standing Orders, but it is a strict one and is certainly not in keeping with our recent practice. For the moment, I would like to reserve judgment on the matter. I do take this to be a serious point of order and it is one on which I shall make a decision as soon as possible. I shall actively explore the possibility of
Order Paper Questions
having the procedure committee look at this question on an agreed basis. If that is not possible by agreement, I shall have to make a decision from the chair, and I shall do this as soon as possible.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, during the hubbub in the House I hope it did not escape anyone's notice that it is only Thursday, even though it sounded like Friday. I wonder whether the acting government House leader or the parliamentary secretary is in a position to tell us-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary secretary?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in order to be consistent with what I said a little earlier, I wonder whether the Minister of Communications could inform us if she is acting as the House leader or, if she is not, who would be prepared to give an answer in respect of the business this House will be conducting tomorrow and next week?


Mrs. Sauv6:: Mr. Speaker, I think the acting House leader is in a position to give the hon. member the answer.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept the answer from him, in these exceptional circumstances.


Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, I hope we do not provoke the whole discussion all over again at this particular stage. I can inform the House and my hon. friend that it is our intention to continue with the present order of business before the House, Bill C-19, the expenditure restraint bill. At the conclusion of that particular measure we intend to return to Bill C-22, dealing with income tax, and following the conclusion of that we would be anxious to get on with Bill C-9 relating to the James Bay agreements. I would point out to the House that both Wednesday and Friday of next week are allotted days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, now that things have cooled off a bit, I wonder whether there would be agreement in the House that the four speeches made last night by the leaders of the various parties in this House were important and ought to be part of the record and, therefore, that they should be made an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such an order could only be made with the unanimous consent of the House, and it is

November 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions
obvious to the Chair that such consent would not be forthcoming.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 101, 122, 123, 124, 168, 187, 290, 293, 322, 594, 601, 631, 705, 767, 793, 797, 824 and 874.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names and job designations of all persons at the head office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, 222 Nepean Street, Ottawa, who have been suspended for any form of misconduct in the past two years and in any such case (a) how long was the period of suspension (b)for what reason?
Branch Heads Ontario Region, District Managers Ontario Region and, if so (a) was Mr. Cordeau's title listed as Planning Group and Implementation Committee Co-Chairman (b) was the subject of the memo listed as Manpower and Immigration/UIC Liaison-Integration Planning (c) did the memo announce that K. Byrne would assume immediately the responsibility of M and I/UIC Liaison Officer?
2.	Was the memo classified confidential and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what is confidential insofar as the public or M and I/UIC employees are concerned about this appointment or any other similar government appointment?
3.	Is the memo part of a government programme to deprive Canadians of the right to know about matters that outwardly have no appearance of being of a confidential nature and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Is the memo part of a government policy of restricting release of routine information by use of the label confidential and, if so, for what reason?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes. (a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Classified in error; (b) Nothing.
3.	No.
4.	No.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: There has been one employee, an AS-3 Project Officer, suspended for 33 days for misconduct toward another employee.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since the transfer of Mr. G. Cousineau from Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to Head of Loto Canada, how many employees or former employees of UIC have (a) been hired by Loto Canada (b) applied or are in the process of being hired or considered for employment with Loto Canada?


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Did Mr. C. Cordeau of the Unemployment Insurance Commission issue a memo dated August 19, 1976 to Regional Executive Committee Members and
2.	In each case, what (a) are their names (b) was or is their job designation with (i) UIC (ii) Loto Canada?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The management of Loto Canada Inc. advises as follows: 1. (a) 10. (b) Personnel files show no information on the subject.
(a)	(b)i.	(b) ii.1	L. Seguin	1 Administrative Assistant, Office of the Chairman	1 Chief of Administration2	C. Lanois	2 Typist	2 Registry Clerk3	J. Donoghue	3 Executive Director Operational Planning	3 Executive Vice President4	S. Gillean	4 Career Assignment Program	4 Marketing Analyst5	J. Bullock	5 Secretary	5 Administrative Assistant to the President6	R. Dicerni	6 Director, Planning and Evaluation	6 Corporate Secretary7	W. Legros	7 Clerk	7 Clerk8	F. Tremblay	8 Director, Official Languages	8 Corporate Deputy Secretary9	K. Nolan	9 Assistant to Property Manager	9 District Sales Supervisor10	A. Charette	10 Procurement Officer	10 Administration Officer


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since the appointment of the present Minister of Agriculture, how many public servants in the Department, other than his politically appointed office employees, have been involved in answering his mail on political or constituency matters and approximately how many letters have they answered?

2.	Are such files called "red files" by the employees involved or by the Department and, if so, what is the meaning of such a term?
3.	Are letters being answered by persons who would otherwise be spending their time on departmental work and, if so (a) on whose instructions (b) will the process be stopped immediately (c) what are the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds for political purposes?
4.	Are there any Departmental files known as "red files" and, if so, what is a full description of their nature?
November 25, 1976


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	The Minister of Agriculture receives correspondence requesting information on Agriculture and food policies and other programs of interest to the agricultural community. Enquiries or comments on the policies, programs, and activities of Agriculture Canada and of other agencies reporting directly to the Minister of Agriculture are referred to the department or appropriate agency either to note or for the preparation of a draft reply. For the purpose of ready identification, such letters are placed in red file folders and hence the reference to "red files".


Mr. Forrestall: Has the government requested a management review of the Maritime Employers Association and, if so (a) for what reason (b) who will undertake the review?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Yes. The financial agreement signed by the MEA, the banks and the Government on May 5, 1976, contained provision for such management review of the MEA as might be deemed appropriate by Canada or the banks after consultation with the MEA. Broad terms of reference for such a review have been agreed upon between the MEA, the banks and the Government, (a) This is a normal right of banks in a major creditor position, (b) No appointment has yet been made.


[Stage Direction]
OF "LA ROUTE DE L'UNITfi ET DE L'AMITlfi CANADIENNE" IN NIGER
Mr. Murta: Did the Minister of Supply and Services recently visit Niger, West Africa, accompanied by a group of officials to attend the opening of a road which apparently Canadian taxpayers are helping to finance and, if so, what was the (a) cost of the trip (b) number of persons accompanying the Minister?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Following the official invitation of the Government of Niger, the Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer, Minister of Supply and Services, at the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, represented the Canadian Government at the opening ceremonies of "la Route de l'unite et de l'amitie canadienne" in Niger, September 20 to September 22, 1976. He was accompanied, on this occasion, by three (3) officials from Ottawa. He was joined in Niger by three (3) representatives from the Canadian Embassy accredited to Niger (Abidjan) and one (1) officer from our Bureau in Niamey. Final auditing of the travelling expenses has not yet been completed. The overall cost of the visit is estimated to be roughly $6,690.01.
Order Paper Questions CANADIAN PENSION COMMISSION


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Canadian Pension Commission?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Atomic Energy Control Board?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: 1. (a) Nil. (b) Audit Service Bureau, Department of Supply and Services.
2.	$10,000 to Department of Supply and Services.
3.	Nil.


Mr. Orlikow: Did any member of the House of Commons or the Senate make oral or written representations to the Anti-Inflation Board on behalf of any company, union or group of employees and, if so (a) on what dates (b) on whose behalf (c) what are their names?
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): The Anti-Inflation Board has received communications from Members of the Senate and the House of Commons, regarding submissions made by companies, unions or employee groups, to expedite consideration of such submissions to the Board. No separate records are maintained of such representations.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many regional offices are maintained by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (b) where is each located (c) for what area is each responsible?
8000S-20

November 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	On what date was each established and with how many personnel?
3.	What is the present personnel strength of each office?
4.	In addition to regional offices, are district or other sub-offices maintained and, if so (a) in what locations (b) how many?
5.	Are the duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa to the operator in the field, or do they have other functions to perform and, if so, what are such functions?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. (a) Five, (b) Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver; (c) Halifax, Prov. of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, including Labrador. Montreal, Prov. of Quebec. Toronto, Prov. of Ontario. Winnipeg, Prov. of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Vancouver, Prov. of British Columbia, and the Yukon Territory.
2 and 3. The Act creating the Department was passed in December 1967. The Department was an amalgamation of parts of several other Departments, some of which had staff in the Field at the time of the transfer of responsibility. The transfer of financial and manpower resources in the field to the Bureau of Consumer Affairs was effected April 1, 1969. In the summer of 1972 the Bureau of Field Operations was established within CCA to create a unified and coordinated field force and the Regional Offices were established in their present form at that time. The strength of the Regional Offices at the time of the establishment of Field Operations Service is as shown below in Column 1. With the subsequent intensification of decentralization these numbers have increased to those shown in Column 2.
1 2
Regional Office	1972	Current YearHalifax	10	22Montreal	24	46Toronto	32	46Winnipeg	12	28Vancouver	12	284.	(a) In addition to the Regional Offices, the Department maintains District or Sub-Offices at the following locations: Atlantic Region; Halifax/Dartmouth District Office; Fredericton Sub-Office; St. John's Nfld. District Office; Charlottetown, PEI, District Office; Bathurst, N. B. District Office; Saint John, N.B. District Office; Moncton, N.B. District Office; Sydney, N.S. Sub-Office; New Glasgow, N.S. SubOffice; Truro, N.S. Sub-Office; Kentville, N. S. Sub-Office; Yarmouth N.S. Sub-Office; Cornerbrook, Nfld., Sub-Office. In addition to the above there are Resident Inspectors at Antigonish, N.S., Stephenville, Nfld., Berwick, N.S., and St. Stephen, N.B. Quebec Region: Montreal District Office; Quebec District Office (Housed at 2 locations); Trois-Rivieres District Office; Rimouski Sub-Office; Chicoutimi Sub-Office; Sherbrooke District Office. Ontario Region: Don Mills District Office (Housed at 2 locations); Mississauga Sub-Office; Hamilton District Office (Housed at 3 locations); Belleville District Office; Ottawa District Office; London District Office (Housed at 2 locations); Windsor Sub-Office; Sudbury Dis-

trict Office; Thunder Bay District Office. In addition to the above, there are Resident Inspectors in Sault Ste-Marie, Kirkland Lake, Peterborough, Brockville and North Bay. Prairie Region: Winnipeg District Office; Brandon Sub-Office; Edmonton, District Office; Grande Prairie Sub-Office; Calgary District Office; Lethbridge Sub-Office; Regina District Office; Saskatoon District Office; Yorkton Sub-Office. Pacific Region: Vancouver District Office; Victoria District Office; Penticton District Office; Kelowna District Office; Prince George District Office; Nelson Sub-Office, (b) There are therefore a total of 43 District and Sub-Offices across Canada.
5.	In the regions, line management is exercised through the Regional Directors from Field Operations Headquarters. In the case of most of the Activities, however, functional guidance is provided by the relevant Branch of the Department at Headquarters.


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


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. (a) The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce maintains eleven (11) Regional Offices across Canada, (b) These are located in: (i) St. John's-responsible for the Province of Newfoundland; (ii) Charlottetown-responsible for the Province of Prince Edward Island; (iii) Halifax-responsible for the Province of Nova Scotia; (iv) Fredericton-responsible for the Province of New Brunswick; (v) Quebec City-responsible for Eastern Quebec (District Office); (vi) Montreal-responsible for the Province of Quebec; (vii) Toronto-responsible for the Province of Ontario; (viii) Winnipeg-responsible for the Province of Manitoba; (ix) Regina-responsible for the Province of Saskatchewan; (x) Edmonton-responsible for the Province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories; (xi) Vancouver- responsible for the Province of British Columbia and the Yukon Territory; (xii) Ottawa-Eastern Ontario (District Office).
2.	Vancouver and St. John's-these were transferred from the Trade Commissioner Service to the then Transportation and Trade Services Branch, April 1, 1962, Personnel (Vancouver 4, St. John's 2); Halifax-established December 12, 1961, Personnel (4); Winnipeg-established January 25, 1962, Personnel (4); Montreal-established July 17, 1964, Personnel
November 25, 1976

(4); Edmonton-established February 11, 1965, Personnel (3); Toronto-established April 24, 1967, Personnel (4); Regina- established June 18, 1969, Personnel (4); Fredericton-established June 1, 1970, Personnel (4); Quebec City-established September 24, 1974, Personnel (3); Charlottetown-established September 7, 1976, Personnel (2). On April 4, 1973 Treasury Board created the Regional Offices Branch raising the establishment of both the Headquarters and Regional Offices, and widening its mandate which required a general re-organization of personnel and operations.
3.	The personnel strength of the Regional Offices Branch as of September 30, 1976 was: (i) St. John's, four; (ii) Charlottetown, two; (iii) Halifax, six; (iv) Fredericton, six; (v) Quebec City (one officer seconded under the Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism Program), four; (vi) Montreal (three officers seconded under the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Program), 18; (vii) Toronto, Eastern Ontario, 15; one; (viii) Winnipeg, 11; (ix) Regina, six; (x) Edmonton, 11; (xi) Vancouver, 11; (xii) Regional Offices Branch-Hq., 12.
4.	The Quebec City Office responsible for Eastern Quebec and the Ottawa Office covering Eastern Ontario are suboffices of Montreal and Toronto respectively.
5.	Officers manning Regional and sub-offices at the Regional Offices across Canada perform line functions by way of providing regional industry a comprehensive service in the area of export trade development and industrial development; in the latter case more recently through the administration of decentralized industrial development programs. Officers perform a staff function through the establishment and maintenance of regular contact at Senior levels with Provincial Officials responsible for trade matters and industrial development. They also act as the focal point for other Federal Government Programs and services related to trade, industrial development and tourism, and concurrently co-ordinate Department Programs with Programs of other Federal Departments, while providing relevant inputs into Regional Programs of other Federal Departments and Agencies. At the policy level the Officers provide input into the formulation or modification of departmental policy and objectives; interpret departmental policies; evaluate the effectiveness of departmental strategy, policies and objectives, and execute departmental policy involving Federal/Provincial relations-all of the above in a regional context.


Mr. Beatty: Were any lawyers in Ontario given work by the Farm Credit Corporation in the year 1975-76 and, if so, what (a) are their names and addresses (b) was the number of cases handled by each (c) was the total amount of money paid to each?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that this question is similar to question No. 5409 of May 3, 1976 which was answered under Sessional Paper No. 301-2/5409 of June 1, 1976.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has there at any time been a room in the Langevin Building containing what would appear to be a number of television type monitors and, if so (a) what was the exact purpose of such equipment (b) what functions did it perform (c) what appeared on each screen (d) who operated such equipment?
2.	What branch or department of government was in charge or control of the area and what was the cost of the equipment?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: 1. Yes; (a) To monitor images from five closed circuit T.V. cameras situated on Parliament Hill, (b) Cameras and monitors are used by the R.C.M.P. Parliament Hill Detachment to police the grounds of Parliament Hill. The system is operational on a 24 hour a day basis, (c) Images on each screen are those transmitted from the five cameras, (d) R.C.M.P. Parliament Hill Detachment.
2.	The R.C.M.P. are in charge of the area and equipment. The cost of equipment was $116,026.25.
APPLICANTS FOR MANPOWER TRAINING IN QUEBEC EAST, QUEBEC WEST, LfiVIS AND MONTMAGNY


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Were any applications submitted, through the framework of the Adult Occupational Training Programme to the Quebec East, Quebec West, Ldvis and Montmagny manpower centres and, if so, how many?
2.	Did any nurses aids submit application in the Montmagny area and, if so (a) how many (b) how many were accepted?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes. From April 1, 1975 to September 30, 1976 the following training requests were received: at the Quebec East CMC (including Montmorency): 4,043; at the Quebec West CMC (including Ste-Foy): 4,159; at the Levis and Montmagny CMCs combined: 3,787*.
*Statistics are not maintained separately for Levis and Montmagny.
2. Yes. (a) one applicant; (b) no applicant accepted.


Mr. Leggatt: By what percentage would water-borne discharges of mercury into the environment be reduced, if all process water contaminated with mercury by chlor-alkali plants in Canada were to be recycled within those plants by means of a closed water coolant system?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Since 1971, mercury losses to liquid effluents from chlor-alkali plants have been reduced from an estimated 148,000 pounds per year to less than 1,000 pounds per year, a reduction of more than 99.3 percent. If all mercury contaminated waters discharged from chlor-alkali plants in Canada, including storm water, could be recycled, it
80005-2oy2

November 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions
is estimated that mercury discharges from this source would be eliminated. This step would represent a reduction of 100 percent relative to present discharges. Relative to pre-1971 discharges, it represents a further reduction of less than 0.7 percent.


Mr. Herbert: By province, how many entries were received for the poster contest announced by the Office of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on June 16, 1976?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: To date, the number of posters received for the national poster contest on the national poster contest on the Hire-A-Student theme is, by province: Newfoundland, 6; Nova Scotia, 26; New Brunswick, 11; Prince Edward Island, 2; Quebec, 60; Ontario, 250; Manitoba, 25; Saskatchewan, 2; Alberta, 30; North West Territories, 1; British Columbia, 100; Yukon, 0. This makes a total of 513 posters received to date at the regional offices of our department. More are expected to come in from the Canada Manpower Centres. Regional officials estimate another 100 posters for a total of 613.


Mr. Yewchuk: What funds were expended by the Department of the Environment on research into means of eradicating the parasite Traenophorus crassus from whitefish and cisco in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (0 1975 and what were the results of such research?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: No funds were expended.
2.	Advertising was concentrated in areas of high unemployment and in such areas daily newspapers were used. There is no selection criteria since all local daily publications were used to ensure maximum coverage. Where the services of daily publications were not adequate or available, advertisements were run in weekly papers.
3.	Advertising was handled by Vickers and Benson Ltd. and in Quebec by its subsidiary "Les Communications JBL Ltee.". The agency commission was 15 per cent of the total costs.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-19, to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

Mr. Neil: 1.	By province, what amount was spent on advertising for the 1976-77 LIP Programme?
2.	What criteria were used in determining which newspapers should carry such advertising?
3.	What was the name of the advertising agent retained by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and what was the total commission paid to such agent?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.
ivince	Amount Spent on Advertising
Newfoundland	$10,950
Nova Scotia	11,700
New Brunswick	12,550
Prince Edward Island	2,800
Quebec	69,000
Ontario	68,000
Manitoba	5,300
Saskatchewan	4,210
Alberta	5,650
British Columbia	33,000
Northwest Territories	1,840
Yukon	5.000


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will recall that very near the conclusion of the discussion yesterday, a motion was put forward in respect of which the Chair reserved its ruling on procedural acceptability in order that argument might be presented on resumption of the debate today. The sponsor of the motion was the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). Because this is a reasoned amendment to the second reading motion, it raises a number of very well known procedural difficulties. I would be pleased to hear some discussion, since the Chair certainly has very serious reservations about the acceptability of this motion as a reasoned amendment.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate the fact that the vitality of reasoned amendments in this House has been rather shaky, to say the least, since many have been moved and few have been called or recognized. However, I rely on my basic philosophy that hope does spring eternal. I have also tried to recognize or perceive, in the amendment I have proposed, the fundamental ingredients. As I understand it, there are basically two ingredients which would allow a reasoned amendment. I realize there are relatively few positions and that this is a relatively narrow situation, but I suggest there are two elements in issue regarding the reasoned amendment which I raised yesterday.

November 25, 1976

The first question is whether the proposed amendment relates to a recognized principle and opposes it. The second question is whether the amendment is relevant to the bill. I suggest that it does involve a principle, and that it is relevant. As I said yesterday, and repeat now, there is a very important principle at stake here. Bill C-19 in many ways is an attempt to cut expenditures by lopping off parts of long-established programs to the extent that, following passage of this bill- assuming it does pass-these programs and their related funds will be determined by ministers and bureaucrats, and not by the House of Commons.
I cannot really trespass too far in my argument in respect of this motion in the area of the Auditor General's report, as that is outside the bill and cannot be used to fortify my argument. However, as Your Honour well knows, the only reason this institution was created was to exercise some control over the public purse, rather than to become the legislative chamber it has become. It is for this reason that the Auditor General's report and the implementation of this bill are so fundamental.
I attempted to draft my reasoned amendment in a way that would highlight and include what I think are the important elements. This bill, in its several clauses, terminates certain programs and alters others in areas of family allowances and industrial research incentives. I do not have the bill in front of me, but clause 15 repeals section 272 of the Railway Act. It includes a number of things outside the protection of the statute and thus outside the area of scrutiny and comment by the press and members of this place. It takes a number of things away from the protection of the statute and puts them into the area of orders in council or ministerial discretion.
This is the principle I tried to cover by my reasoned amendment, that is, the bill changes things from statute to order in council; it does away with the protection of the statute and puts things at the mercy of ministerial or discretion. I do not suggest that is necessarily a negative thing, because ministerial discretion is a necessary and normal exercise. However, in view of the fact that many of these programs and their future will be continued on the basis of whim, this question definitely involves something that is substantive. If this chamber is to continue to function as it has in the past, we must do something to provide protection in terms of these legislative programs.
What I intend to say from now on will be in a somewhat negative vein. An omnibus bill such as C-19 takes many things out of the statutes. This is accomplished either by repealing the statutes or by continuing their function by order in council, by ministerial discretion or by bureaucratic control. In that way we lessen the importance of the function of this institution-and that is the principle that is involved. Bill C-19 is a relatively short bill. I initially considered the bill carefully in an attempt to find the principle, so I could outline to Your Honour in a very few minutes certain things that should seriously be considered.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
The next question is, assuming there is a principle, is it relevant? I say here that the whole essence of this institution, in its creation, was to control the public purse, to take the old king and shake him down a little and say to him that he cannot fight the war of the crusades today and that we will not give him a few horses because we do not like the cause he supports. That is how we all met. Your Honour knows that is how you were dragged up to the chair when you were first appointed.
Actually, I have the ingredients of a great speech here, Mr. Speaker, because you know how you were dragged from the corner and we elected you, and you were appointed unanimously to be our number one commoner sitting in the chair. You know that your predecessors had their heads chopped off up until the year 1200. Sometimes, when we sit here in frustration during the question period, we think about other beheadings we would like to have from time to time. But we do not do it that way any more. The essence of the matter is that the Speaker and the institution of commoners met behind closed doors and would not let the king come in, because every time he came in he trampled on the commoners and usually tried to get the Speaker and chop off his head and float the head down the river Thames. That is the history of this place. By a slow, insidious process because of the complexity of society and/or the complications of government and society, it is a heck of a lot easier to be managerial and to create bills which give more and more ministerial discretion. That is just another inroad, in terms of parliamentary control, that this institution loses by Bill C-19.
In essence, and in conclusion, I say that there is the principle of parliamentary control versus ministerial discretion and those two, I suggest, are in opposition. The second thing I suggest in respect of my reasoned amendment is that is it relevant. I certainly suggest, Mr. Speaker, as would any member of this House, that with the good bureaucrats and public servants we have, with the torchlight and spotlight of the press, and with the scrutiny of commoners in examining ministers across the floor, we can exercise restraint on government expenditures a heck of a lot better if this question is debated on the floor of the House than if it is all done by the stroke of a pen in exercising ministerial discretion.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced my reasoned amendment. I shall not say anything more at this late hour of the day, except that I believe the amendment, as drafted, with these principles which are so fundamental and necessary, is an amendment which could be just a little exception to the previous precedents in this House, and thus find favour with Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize that the House is anxious to get on with the debate on this bill and therefore awaits the ruling in respect of the procedural acceptability of this amendment in order to carry on intelligently, at least in terms of order in respect of other speeches and other amendments which may be moved if this amendment is not accepted.

November 25, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures However, the whole question of reasoned amendments at second reading is a complex one.
While there are procedural reservations about the motion being put forward by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), it is certainly not so clearly out of order as to enable me, in the face of the argument just put forward by the hon. member, to simply brush it aside. I would like to deliberate on this matter for a few minutes at least. Perhaps in consideration of the anxiety of this House to carry on with its business today, I might return to the House a few minutes before five o'clock to give a ruling on the matter. In the meantime, I would hope there are enough speakers on this amendment. May I assume that until that time there are sufficient speakers on this amendment to carry the matter forward?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, share your substantial reservations with regard to the amendment. I presume that at some point later today you will be in a position to render a decision on this particular matter. If you should be inclined at that time to rule in favour of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), I presume at that later stage those of us who have some concerns would have an opportunity to express them. Perhaps we should do it now.


Mr. Speaker:: If the parliamentary secretary has a contribution to make to the discussion, perhaps he should make it now.


Ralph Goodale: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to be brief. I might point out that the measure with which we are dealing, Bill C-19, received first reading on November 1 this year and since that date the House has had many opportunities to discuss it. In fact, it has occupied nine full days of debate up to today. It is also, I think, worth while to note that the subject matter of this bill was considered in almost this identical form during the last session of parliament. The measure was presented during the first session of the thirtieth parliament and on that occasion was discussed at considerable length. The House has had a considerable time in which to analyse this legislation and debate it on the floor of the House of Commons.
I think that as a matter of background it is relevant to point out that while this bill is complicated, and in fact is an omnibus measure which affects a number of different programs and statutes, nevertheless, a number of members of the House during the course of the debate have expressed concern that perhaps some of the speeches were straying rather dramatically from the point and perhaps the subject matter of those speeches was, at best, only tenuously connected to the subject matter of the legislation.
I simply say that the matter has received extensive consideration, perhaps consideration going beyond the precise nature of the bill, which is a restraint of expenditures bill relating to a certain number of very specific programs of the government. It seems to me, that the amendment now being proposed as a "reasoned amendment" by my hon. friend from Annapolis

Valley perhaps falls into the same mould as a great deal of the discussion into which, unfortunately, this House has already fallen; that is, it strays rather far from the point of this piece of legislation which is intended, in its result, to save in the order of $250 million in government expenditures only, of course, if this bill can be passed with dispatch.
As a matter of reference, I should like to refer to May's nineteenth edition, pages 499 and 500, where this point is discussed at considerable length. I shall not take the time of the House to read the citation from May's but will simply point out that there the learned author notes three specific points which would cause a motion of the nature which has been proposed to be defective. One of those reasons is relevancy. The motion must be relevant to the subject matter of the bill and, indeed, if it is irrelevant, or not strictly relevant, it is out of order, according to May in his writing on this point.
Second, the learned author points out that the amendment must not be concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill. In other words, at the second reading stage it has to relate to the subject matter in principle and must not anticipate an amendment which could be dealt with at a later stage during committee consideration of the bill. Third, May points out that the amendment cannot amount to simply a direct negation of the principle of the bill itself.
I submit to you, sir, that the amendment which has been proposed is defective on at least two of the three counts described in the nineteenth edition of May at pages 499 and 500.
The first problem, I suggest, is the question of relevancy. It seems to me, as I pointed out in my general preamble, that Bill C-19 deals specifically with the reduction of government expenditures. That is the dominant theme of the legislation as indicated in the short title and as repeated constantly throughout the statute. It is not a bill dealing with ministerial discretion-and that, I submit, is the gist of the proposed amendment-but, rather, a bill dealing with the question of the restraint of expenditures for government programs.
I heard the point made by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, that in some fashion the point of ministerial discretion relates to the matter of restraint of expenditures, or at least to the over-all authority of parliament to scrutinize government expenditures, and he outlined some elaborate historical background for that proposition. But I submit that he cannot make the argument that an assumption of ministerial discretion necessarily implies a diminution of the authority of parliament to scrutinize and control the expenditures of government.
I certainly do not believe that the reasoned amendment, relating, as it does, so directly and almost exclusively to the question of ministerial discretion, can be relevant to the bill which, in effect, deals with restraint of government expenditures. I submit that these are two separate things which perhaps can be knitted together in a historical pattern, if one wants to put together the history of the particular matter, but I am not sure that one can then make the argument that this is
November 25, 1976

a relevant amendment; and I submit to Your Honour that it is, in fact, irrelevant on that ground.
I also have concern about the second point which is made by May, that is, that the amendment must not be concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which might be moved in committee. It seems to me that if my hon. friend is concerned about some of the phrases in Bill C-19 which apparently call upon a minister to exercise a judgment or to make some assessment of a situation and act upon it, then he is doing precisely what May says he cannot do in a reasoned amendment. He is anticipating a detail of the bill and particularly a matter which might be dealt with by amendment in committee. On those two grounds, both in relation to the matter of relevancy and in relation to the question of anticipating an amendment, or dealing with a detail of the bill, I submit to Your Honour that the proposed amendment does not properly fall within the category of a reasoned amendment, and therefore is out of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the parliamentary secretary intended to mislead the House but, as I recollect, what he said at the beginning was that the bill was before parliament and had been debated in the House previously. According to my recollection, it was Bill C-87 in the first session of the thirtieth parliament which was on the order paper but was not debated on second reading. There had been extensive discussions between representatives of the official opposition and the government with respect, I think, to a clause of the bill, in the hope that the government would drop it, which might have had some effect on that piece of legislation; but the matter was not debated at the time, and Bill C-19 is the first time the subject matter has been debated in the House.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last evening I had just commenced my comments with respect to Bill C-19 and, as I indicated at the outset, although in my opinion there was ample opportunity for individuals in this debate to look at those areas where there has been excessive government spending, it was relevant, also, to comment on the Auditor General's report with respect to the whole area of government spending and management of money.
I also indicated that I believe there are several aspects of the bill which deserve to be explored to a greater degree and in greater detail. For example, I pointed out the difficulties with respect to Information Canada, and the fact that that program had been a failure despite the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), during the debate on November 8, attempted to mislead the House, in my view, by implying that the program had been discontinued as a measure of restraint and because of criticism from the opposition. This I am not prepared to accept. I gave an illustration of the failure of Information Canada, and referred specifically to the role which that body was presumably to have played and which it failed to do.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
The next point which I mentioned yesterday before the House adjourned concerned that section of the bill which deals with amendments to the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. I pointed out that this act was introduced in March, 1967, and although one could have found substantial evidence from the programs emanating from that act to justify its continuation, I believe the issue was far more basic and required more than simply amending the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act; that the basic issue was the government's lack of response to the call for a science policy for Canada.
Numerous questions had been put in the House of Commons, and in fact opposition days had been devoted specifically to the subject matter of medical research and the ministry of science and technology. I pointed out that after the throne speech of 1973, a number of us in the House had great hopes that perhaps the government of the day had finally seen fit to establish a science policy for Canada, not only in human but in economic terms. From subsequent actions of the government or, if I may say, lack of action by the government, we have seen that this proposed program has not been implemented.
Just before the adjournment yesterday I referred to a recent representation by a very learned body in Canada, the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies, pointing out that this group of individuals will be coming to Ottawa on December 7 and 8 to meet members of parliament from all sides of the House. I said that this was not a special interest body, but a cross-section of numerous scientific disciplines, including such bodies as the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies, the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation, the Humanities Research Council, the Social Sciences Research Council, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Association of Physicists, the Chemical Institute of Canada, and other learned bodies-all making a really concerted effort to point out the importance and the need for a science policy for Canada and a need for some direction from the government in this area.
Mr. Speaker, in that letter they attempted very succinctly and concisely to define the theme they will be presenting to this government and members of parliament from all parties. I want to repeat that theme, which was really broken down into three parts. Reading from the letter dated November 18, 1976, the first part is this:
We seek, for all research areas, at least a restoration of the purchasing power of federal research support to the peak levels of the early 70's, at which time we took on many long term financial and other commitments which are increasingly difficult to meet.
The second point they made is as follows:
It is crucial that federally-supported research programmes have a more stable environment. To this end ... we seek some formula which would guarantee research funding over a long period rather than leaving it to the annual vagaries of parliament... We need a national policy on science. We desperately need revisions of the legislation surrounding at least two of the three federal granting councils (NRC and Canada Council) and a clear policy statement on the level of research capability which the government intends to maintain in Canada.

Restraint of Government Expenditures
The third point they made regarding the theme which will be brought to Ottawa is as follows:
On the question of priorities, we stress our willingness to engage in any analysis of areas which would be most suited to special development. We have some concerns about the best climate in which to do this, and will discuss these concerns during the lobby.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of the attitude of the government toward research in recent years. As I indicated, in 1973 many of us had high expectations as to what would happen in the whole area of science with respect to the re-establishment or redefinition of the science and technology portfolio, and yet, as has been pointed out many times in this House in debates on opposition days, really this portfolio has suddenly fallen into oblivion.
There is another clause in the bill which has not received the attention it should and, above all, there has not been an adequate explanation on the part of the government. I refer to that portion of the bill which deals with adult occupational training or specifically, the Adult Occupational Training Act. I can assure hon. members, from personal experience, that I am well aware of many positive aspects which have resulted from the program, but without some further clarification from the government I am concerned that the amendments we see in the legislation before us may be self-defeating.
When the former president of the treasury board was discussing this clause of the bill, he indicated that the cancellation of indexing of the training allowance and changes in the selection criteria would lead to a saving of $20 million in the Canada Manpower budget. As I understand the proposed changes in Bill C-19, they will permit the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to adjust the rates paid to adults under the Adult Occupational Training Act. It is my understanding that these changes were promoted to overcome the high vacancy rate which was created either by those not taking the program or, equally important, by a significantly large number who were dropping out of the program after they had been involved with it.
These positions appear to be contradictory. On the one hand we have the former president of the treasury board indicating that there will be substantial savings of taxpayers' dollars, and on the other hand we see amendments permitting the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to review the rates at which training allowances are payable, ostensibly to correct the vacancy rate to which I have alluded. This, to me, implies that there will be an increase in the expenditure of money.
It is extremely important, during this debate, for the minister clearly to define the intent of the new regulations. If it is, in fact, the intention of the government to reorganize the administration of the program which would lead to cuts in the budget, such an approach is obviously acceptable and desirable. If, however, the government intends to decrease its services and reduce the number of people receiving Canada Manpower training, I suggest, in all honesty, that this may lead to unnecessary hardships for those who can least afford them. If it is the intention of the government to shift the program so that the only alternative is unemployment insur-

ance or welfare, as this suggests, it will obviously be counterproductive and costly and in no way will it be a restraint measure as suggested by the legislation and by the government. It is apparent to me that this aspect of the bill needs much closer examination, and a far more detailed explanation on the part of the government is necessary to justify its presence in the legislation, not only in terms of restraint but, as I indicated before, also in terms of the human and social components attached to it.
The clause of this bill which I find most objectionable and which really reflects the fuzziness of the thinking of the government is that dealing with the repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act, or what is commonly referred to as the maritimes and east subsidy. As previous speakers have indicated, this clause would have very serious implications on numerous regions in Canada, and from personal contact with people in my area I have found that there will be severe hardship experienced.
As others have indicated, the subsidy applies to the movement of export flour and/or grain from inland terminals situated along Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, Prescott, Colling-wood, Midland, Goderich, Owen Sound, Sarnia, Port Col-borne, Toronto and Kingston to the ports of Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick. In addition, there are also ports in the province of Quebec which would be affected by this clause. As 1 indicated a moment or so ago, I have been in contact with those in my area who will be adversely affected by the sudden discontinuation of this subsidy. There are those who will say that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in his recent announcements made some concessions with respect to this clause, but my interpretation of what the minister has said is that nothing has effectively changed. The repeal of this section still leaves the industry in an adverse and uneconomic position: the effects will be devastating in my area. For example, I know of one mill in my area which exports approximately one-third of its business. It is obvious that the repeal of this section, without consultation and without an alternative program, could cause the company to which I am referring to lose at least one-third of its market. Obviously, this will severely cripple that industry and may well cause it to go into bankruptcy or destroy it. This will add to the existing unemployment problems in the area. Other hon. members have discussed the implications of repealing section 272 of the Railway Act, Mr. Speaker. I want to join them as strenuously as I can in opposing this clause of the bill which has implications far more serious than has been indicated by the minister in this debate.
I think it is important to look back to 1961 and some of the basic reasons for implementing the legislation on the at and east subsidy. I say that the reasons are as valid for the retention of that section today as they were for introducing the at and east subsidy in 1961. If one looks at it very carefully, the reason for promoting that legislation in 1961 is in many respects far more critical than it is at the present time. There was recognition at that time that the maritimes were confront-
November 25, 1976

ed with regional disparity and that an important tool available to the government to correct that type of regional disparity was transportation. In 1961, there was an obvious need to encourage the use of eastern ports and to assist Canadian flour companies to retain a portion of competitiveness in world markets.
Surely those conditions exist today. There is a need to promote and assist development of the expansion of the Canadian grain industry and to benefit our economy by providing mills, transportation and port employment, as well as helping the Canadian balance of trade position in manufactured goods. All these reasons which were utilized in 1961 for the introduction and implementation of that legislation are as valid today as they were then.
I have not seen convincing evidence that the government is able to refute the relevancy of those principles today. More important, they have not introduced an alternative program that will ensure the economic viability of the components to which I have alluded. The government has attempted to oversimplify the problem with their oft-repeated reference to the user-pay concept. No one denies the theoretical appeal of such a concept. I want to suggest, however, in all sincerity, that it does not reflect the regional differences in Canada and the necessity to provide assistance where services are important to meet specific national goals.
I have no intention of adding to the many examples given by other members, including the Crowsnest pass rates; but we must remember that transportation is a very valuable tool that can be, and has been used by government to correct regional disparity in this country.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has indicated that the continuation of the at and east rail subsidy is unlikely to reverse or stem the decline in flour exports which has been apparent for several years. I would suggest that he has failed to say that by removing the subsidy, a difficult problem will become impossible. In my opinion, the federal government is prepared to abandon a very critical and important segment of our economy. In my opinion, the Canadian National Millers' Association put the problem in perspective in February of this year in a document which defines the difficulties experienced by the industry and the necessity of maintaining this subsidy until an alternative plan is available-and I think it is important to emphasize the phrase "an alternative plan is available".
Briefly, they pointed out that the U.S.S.R. had indicated a need for 375,000 tons of Canadian flour during 1976 and had called for further negotiations to be conducted in the event that freight rates are increased. The U.S.S.R. has indicated that Canada is no longer competitive in world markets and that future price increases will require them to look very carefully for alternate suppliers. I think the implications of this are apparent in terms of Canadian industry. They also pointed out that from 1954 to 1974, world demand for flour had increased by 50 per cent-and during that period Canada's share of the trade had declined from 31 per cent to 11 per cent in 1974.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
I find it difficult to believe that the government has failed to recognize that the world flour market is fiercely competitive due to the implementation of subsidy programs by many foreign governments. This government is not only failing to adopt alternative programs but, given our competitive position, in my opinion, they are now prepared to strangle the industry with the removal of the subsidy. In addition, they pointed out that some markets for grain can only be met by the export of flour where there is no milling capacity in the importing countries. The loss of subsidy will impair competitiveness and risk the loss of these most important markets.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is now about VA minutes before 5 o'clock. I would ask the hon. members' indulgence in order that I may give a ruling, as I indicated earlier today that I would attempt to do. I do not want to delay unduly private members' hour, but I do want to give the ruling before private members' hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take your time.


Mr. Speaker:: There was a discussion on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) and on the subject of reasoned amendments at second reading stage generally. The references to May's nineteenth edition are very valuable, and I had an opportunity overnight to examine them, and again just now.
I think all hon. members understand that there is a very high mortality rate, as described by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, with these kinds of amendments, for the simple reason that a number of actions can be taken by a member at second reading stage of a bill, the most effective one being to oppose the bill in debate, oppose it in the vote by opposing the second reading motion or voting against it, or opposing it in discussion. That, of course, negates progress of the bill and, in turn, negates the principle associated with the bill and gives all hon. members an opportunity to express their reasons for so doing.
There are, of course, a number of other motions related to the progress of the bill itself. Those are well known and need not be discussed here. The reason it is difficult to frame a reasoned amendment is that since all hon. members have the opportunity to speak against the bill and the principle of the bill, and with their vote to oppose the progress of the bill, it ought not to be given to members simply to use a reasoned amendment to put on the record their reasons for speaking against the second reading motion or their reasons for voting against the second reading motion. Those reasons fall into a very special category, and those categories are very thoroughly discussed in the well known precedents cited during the course of argument; that is to say, a simply expanded negative ought not to be accepted as a reasoned amendment.
There are rules of relevancy, as with all amendments at all stages. On two counts I have some difficulty with the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley. In the first place, the declaration which he cites is, in my opinion, very close to being an expanded negative, if it is one

November 25, 1976
Adjournment Motion
that seems to be contained in the proposed motion as the principal reason why the hon. member for Annapolis Valley is opposed to second reading of the bill. They may be valid and interesting reasons, but reasons they are, and in my opinion they do not formulate a statement of a principle which is contrary to the principle of the bill. That is a requirement for a reasoned amendment.
The principle of this bill is very narrow indeed. It is a very specific bill, having to do with restraint of expenditures on certain governmental programs. It seems to me that the very existence of the bill itself indicates that in order to reduce in amplitude the spending programs of the government this bill must be passed by parliament. Therefore the very existence of the bill itself respects the sovereignty of parliament in that regard, and to indicate that a lack of respect is, somehow, a statement of principle contrary to the principles of the bill seems to me irrelevant, considering the restricted nature of the bill itself.
In turn, I might say that the motion could be more properly characterized as an expanded negative reason for opposing the bill at second reading, because it is not declaratory, in my opinion, of a principle contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, for these restricted reasons, I cannot accept from a procedural point of view the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley and I rule it out of order.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, 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 Crowfoot (Mr. Horner)-Airports-Criteria used to judge bids by car rental companies for space at airports; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Regional Economic Expansion-Purchase of cruise ship by Magi-Government position on suitability of investment; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)-Administration of Justice-Alleged harassment of Dr. Morgentaler-Possibility of minister interceding.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: that Bill C-1001, to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-1001, an act to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, would convert IAC Limited into a chartered bank. This bill corresponds to Bill S-30 which was introduced before the Senate on October 28, 1975, passed the Senate and received first and second reading and committee approval in the House of Commons, but did not receive third reading in the House before parliament prorogued. The present bill incorporates the changes to Bill S-30 that were adopted in committee, in the Senate and the House of Commons.
I do not think it is necessary to explain at length the reasons for this bill, but I think it is necessary to outline some salient facts about IAC Limited. Since its founding in 1925, IAC has experienced an enviable growth record so that today it is Canada's eleventh largest financial institution, excluding insurance companies. It has more than 3,000 employees across Canada and over 12,000 shareholders, of whom more than 96 per cent are Canadians. The decision to seek legislation converting it into a chartered bank was made only after detailed study of how IAC could best continue to serve its customers, employees and shareholders in the rapidly changing Canadian financial system. The study concluded that IAC is at a competitive disadvantage by comparison with other financial institutions and that this disadvantage will become of increasing significance as these institutions expand their lending activities in the types of loans made by IAC. In consequence, unless IAC becomes a bank it may be unable to maintain its record of growth or to make optimum use of its equity capital.
IAC concluded that by becoming a bank it will alleviate this competitive disadvantage, put its equity capital to more effective use for its customers, employees and its shareholders, and contribute to competition in the Canadian banking system. These conclusions have been reviewed in light of the recommendations in the white paper on Canadian banking legislation and would not be affected by implementation of those recommendations. Indeed, the reasoning in the white paper corresponds in many ways to the reasoning which led to IAC's conclusion that it should become a bank; further, the conversion of IAC into a bank would directly contribute to the attainment of the policy objectives in the white paper.
It is noteworthy that about 65 per cent of IAC's present business is similar to business done by chartered banks. Over 90 per cent of the business of IAC would be of a type eligible for chartered banks if the white paper's recommendation is implemented that banks be permitted to engage directly in financial leasing services.
November 25, 1976

The conclusion that IAC should become a bank is valid whether or not the white paper proposals are implemented. Indeed, adoption of Bill C-1001 at this time not only would enable IAC to put to more effective use its Canadian-owned equity capital, but also would contribute to the white paper objective of an increase in the number of Canadian banks. On an equity basis, IAC would be the sixth largest Canadian bank. Already, IAC is in competition with the banks in many aspects of its business. With its size, its network of branches in 270 locations across Canada, its established clientele and experienced staff, the additional flexibility made available to it as a bank will enable IAC to compete more effectively with the existing banks. IAC believes that the new Continental Bank will quickly become an important bank serving the clientele established by IAC, expanding that clientele and competing effectively with other banks. Few, if any, of the potential additional entrants into Canadian banking would have a comparable scale of operations or competitive impact.
It is particularly noteworthy that none of the banks chartered within the last five years has available to it resources on the scale available to IAC Limited. In other words, we are seriously interested in providing some competitive clout in the Canadian banking system, and banks we have chartered to date do not have even a fraction of the clout in the Canadian banking system which the chartering of IAC would create.
IAC's equity capital of over $200 million is substantially underutilized in comparison with many other financial institutions. As a major Canadian-owned financial company with a long history of service to the nation's economy, IAC recognizes its responsibility to its shareholders to employ their capital as effectively as possible. IAC has carefully considered the necessity of change in order to enable it to continue its record of success and to serve its customers. Studies conducted with independent advisers indicated that conversion to a chartered bank would enable IAC to improve its ability to serve its established market of individuals and small and medium-size businesses, a service that will be of particular importance during the coming decade when the demands of major resource and industry ventures will place severe strains on Canadian capital markets; attract additional funds from institutional investors and individuals in order to put its Canadian-owned equity capital of more than $200 million to more effective use; broaden the range of financial services that it can provide to its customers through the addition of banking services that IAC is not currently able to provide but which constitute a natural adjunct to its existing activities; contribute to the Canadian economy in the ways described, and be of sufficient size to compete effectively with existing major chartered banks; and put its trained and efficient staff to more effective use.
I shall not comment in detail on the contents of the bill. Hon. members who participated in deliberations of the finance committee during previous sessions of the House are well aware of the details. I commend the bill to the House. I point out that as a result of changes made by the finance committee with respect to the board of directors, IAC has moved to
Continental Bank of Canada
replace all but two of the directors who would be in conflict with the provisions of the existing Bank Act, and those two directors have indicated their willingness to resign the day the bill becomes law. Therefore, the questions raised in committee have been met by IAC and all that remains is to send this bill to the appropriate committee where it can be discussed.
In looking at the question of the white paper on proposed banking legislation and this particular bill, I am told there is nothing in this bill which conflicts with the existing Bank Act, that which is contained in the Bank Act or any of the white paper proposals. Therefore, hon. members ought not to have any problem in terms of dealing with this bill as quickly as possible.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? Will he advise how many shareholders there are, so that we might have some idea as to the breadth and width of IAC.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there are 12,000 shareholders of IAC, of which 96 per cent are Canadian.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is there an even distribution of those 12,000 shareholders, or are there one or two people who own most of the shares?


John Mercer Reid: At the present time there are no controlling blocks of shares held by anyone. The largest block of shares, as I understand it, is 19.6 per cent, which is held by Carena-Ban-corp who have one or two members on the board of directors, which amounts to 5 or 6 per cent of the total number on the board of directors. I am subject to correction on that, but I can say there is no block that has control over this organization.
I conclude by commending the bill to the House. It was fully debated in principle in the last parliament. The bill should be sent to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs where it can also be looked at in terms of what is contained in the white paper. We should proceed with this bill as swiftly as possible, as it has been with us now for over a year.


Mr. Peters:: Before the hon. member resumes his seat, Mr. Speaker, may I ask what happened to the $30 million which the committee was told Bronfman had in this corporation, if there are no large shareholders?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I said that the largest block of shares was 19.6 per cent, which was owned by Carena-Ban-corp which, I understand, is connected to the Bronfman interest. I further went on to point out the number of members on the board of directors and also that there were no other controlling blocks of shares. The company, for practical purposes, is operated by its management group. There is no controlling block of shares.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, here we go again. While it was very touching to have the hon.

November 25, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), reinforced by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), express his solicitude for 12,000 shareholders, in some ways-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Never at any time in any remarks that I made on this bill did I suggest I was taking sides for or against the establishment of this bank. I merely asked some pertinent questions for clarification and better understanding. I do not know how the hon. member could interpret those words as being in support or against.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that suggestion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Withdraw.


Max Saltsman: I withdraw. If the hon. member for Crowfoot says that he did not take a side either way, this is the first time in his life he has done so. He is an outspoken person who does not hesitate to take a stand on any issue. However, I take him at his word and I have no quarrel with that. If it was just a question he was asking, that is fine.
The interest we are expressing in this matter has to go beyond 12,000 shareholders. It has to ask the question of how it affects Canadians generally. It raises some very important issues above the question of the shareholders. It is easy to understand why the shareholders want to convert themselves into a bank. As one of the officers of the bank replied in the finance committee a few weeks ago, "We want to play in the major leagues". I do not hold it against anyone playing in the major leagues, if that is what they want to do. There is no doubt that moving into the major leagues would be immensely profitable for IAC and its shareholders. That is enough reason for them to approve the bid to convert into a bank. But shareholders' profit is not a reason that should be so compelling to parliament. In order for parliament to pass this bill, it should satisfy itself that the bill is in the public interest. Up until this point that has not been demonstrated to me or to my colleagues.
I admire the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I have known him for a long time. I appreciate his sincerity in putting forward his arguments. However, I wish he would have a somewhat better cause than the one he is advocating today.
Let me quote from the Financial Post of April 3, 1976, to reinforce the argument I am trying to make, that the issue of the national interest is not at all clear. If it is not clear to the Financial Post, how can it be clear to anyone? While someone might want to quarrel with my perspective, vision or idea of clarity, surely the vision of clarity of the Financial Post is of a somewhat different order. I quote:
Clearly, the IAC-Continental stall-
That refers to the national interest debate which the NDP is carrying on.
-raises some serious questions for the financial system as a whole-questions that will certainly get important billing during the forthcoming Bank Act debate.
At issue: is it in the public interest for a large, efficient financial organization to convert to a chartered bank? If so, what special arrangements should be permitted to allow for an orderly transition, and what time limit should be set?
If our arguments for waiting until the Bank Act was concluded were valid before, they are even more valid at this point. I imagine within weeks the government will be referring the Bank Act or, more likely, the white paper on banking to the finance committee for examination. If the IAC conversion bill is passed, what is the point of having a debate on the Bank Act? All that IAC is asking for to convert itself into a bank is all contained in the stuff and substance of the debate on the Bank Act. If we pass this bill, we may as well forget about passing the Bank Act.
It is arrogant for a corporation like IAC to come before parliament to ask for special privileges in advance of legislation. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River argued that they are very much in line with the white paper and very much in line with what the government will probably do with amendments to the Bank Act. Therefore, he said, why not let them have it now, rather than wait until the Bank Act is concluded? There are a number of things to be said about that.
What would the hon. member say if in the process of debating a bill to increase the old age pension or amend the Canada Pension Plan a pensioner petitioned this House saying that he had a terrible need and could not wait for the debate to be concluded in parliament as that might take a whole year? He may point out that he has to pay his rent for this month, and as members know, if the bill is passed he would like his cheque right now. I would be far more sympathetic in that case than in this case. This is true of every piece of legislation.
Suppose we were in the process of debating an amendment to the Criminal Code. During the course of that debate, would we instruct the judges, saying that that portion of the Criminal Code is being amended and, therefore, "Do not register any convictions under that section"? That would be an affront to parliament. We would call it arrogant. That is particularly true in this case as it was made quite clear the last time that as far as we were concerned the bill was not going to pass, and we gave our reasons for it.
It bothers me to some extent. I am not the type of person who normally likes to dig in or embarrass anyone or even to say, "Look, I am doing it to inconvenience business." If business comes to me or to other people in my party, we are quite willing to listen and be accommodating to the extent it is possible. If the interests of business and the interests of the country can be demonstrated, we are not going to put up a great fuss. The point is that such a relationship is not clear in this case. There is something about this whole thing that puts me on edge.
What bothers me is that the people in IAC, highly intelligent people, obviously able to run a very large corporation and make a success of it, simply do not understand a darned thing about parliament. They think that if they want something, they can come here and get it without any great debate

November 25, 1976

arising, or they think along these lines: It is going to be debated some time, but what is all this nonsense about holding us up while they get on with their debate? Again, this has not been said to me directly but it has got back to me indirectly. They ask, "Why are you persecuting us?"-as though we were doing something out of vindictiveness. They cannot understand that what they are asking parliament to do is forget about debating the Bank Act and accept the fait accompli.
They have argued in committee that this would in no way set a precedent. Can you imagine letting this bill go through, allowing IAC to convert itself into a bank, holding certain assets and releasing certain other assets, and then, when somebody else comes along asking for the same treatment as IAC, the committee saying, "Oh, no, IAC was all right, but we cannot give the same treatment to you"?
Let me put a hypothesis before you. Suppose the government was satisfied that matters affecting banking corporations ought to be removed from private members' business and that new banks ought to be incorporated in future by letters patent. Would the government introduce this kind of legislation into the House and make it a government bill? Would it dare grant letters patent, knowing it would be called upon to answer questions in the House and explain why enormous concessions had been made to IAC such as had never been made to anyone else, particularly on the eve of amendments to the Bank Act? It is inconceivable to me that a government in its right mind would do such a thing. Yet that is what they are asking private members to do. They are asking us to do some of their dirty work, and we are not going to do it for them.
What is involved in this bill is the very thing we are about to debate in the Bank Act. Should banks be allowed into the leasing field? This is a big question, and not everyone agrees it is a good idea. What are the taxation effects of being able to convert leased assets into other assets? What hidden tax shelters will arise as a consequence? What is the effect of possible conflict of interest, with so many interlocking directorships? What will be the effect of competition? Do we really need competition in the banking system?
The banks and others involved are making a great fuss about the benefits of competition. The chartered banks are saying it is a good idea to have competition. The new entrant says it is a good idea. Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have ever seen established businesses come out to welcome new competition in their field. I have to ask myself, what are the reasons? The banks we have incorporated so far have proven to be non-competitive as far as the established chartered banks are concerned. Though there is no direct relationship, the case for competition has not been made because there has not been any effective competition. In the period in which some of these new banks were being incorporated, the chartered banks have registered the largest profits in their history.
It appears to me that one of the reasons the large, chartered banks welcome competition, or so-called competition, is so that they can say, "We are not a monopoly; we are not dominating the field; there is lots of competition." But the competition has proved to be ineffective. Let me quote a statement by Profes-
Continental Bank of Canada
sor Friedland of York University-this is from the Globe and Mail of November 3. The headline is, "Friedland contends proposed act changes could increase possibility of bank failures". The article reads in part:
The Bank Act changes proposed in the federal government's white paper may have a much more far-reaching impact than is anticipated by either government or deposit-taking institutions, according to Seymour Friedland, professor of finance and economics at York University.
Mr. Friedland suggested that since banks are such an essential part of the Canadian economy it is not clear the same standards of competition should be applied to them as to other industries.
Until now, our banking institutions have been very stable. They have been carefully inspected. If they do not serve the public as well as they might, it is not because of the structure of the banking system but, rather, because of the failure of the government. If interest rates are high, it is not because of the absence of competition but because that is the way the government wants them to be. If there is tight money, it is not because of decisions by the chartered banks but because the government wants it that way. Admitting additional banks into the system will not change that situation. The banking system does not respond in the same competitive way as do other businesses. It responds to the direction and guidance of the Bank of Canada and of the federal government, and the situation would not be changed by admitting the Continental Bank or any other bank.
It would be wrong, in my view, and a disservice to parliament as well as to the debate on the important matters to be dealt with in the amendments to the Bank Act, for us to permit this bill to be passed. This bill should be withdrawn, thus saving the House the time of talking it out and saving the finance committee the trouble of going over the subject again. I realize it might be inconvenient for IAC to wait until the Bank Act has been amended, but the inconvenience to them will be no greater than the inconvenience suffered by other Canadians who are obliged to stand in the wings and wait until parliament reaches a decision upon one matter or another. At present, IAC is saying, "We cannot wait for parliament. We have 12,000 shareholders who are more important than debates in parliament or decisions parliament is taking." Such an attitude should find no reflection here.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, circumstances have us discuss banking problems once again. Inevitably our banking system implies the word "credit". In a system the like of which we now live in, loans are made specially in the form of credit entries to the borrower in the bank's books. A loan creates new credit that did not exist before the loan. I feel it is quite normal, under the circumstances, to underline to some extent the workings of the banking mechanism which contributed and still does to the creation of a feeling of anxiety among the peoples of various lands. Here, in Canada, we are at grips with a system like that one, and before supporting a bill that recommends the setting

November 25, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
up of a new bank, it is wise to pause and glance at what that system produces.
As I was saying, a loan creates new credit that did not exist previously. That credit has all the virtues of solid money; it circulates through the cheques the borrower signs to make payments; it is withdrawn from circulation by the sale of goods, through the taxes levied by public bodies or in reimbursements to the bank to wipe out the loan. If the rhythm and volume of loans exceed that of the reimbursements, credit expands, and therefore more money circulates. If, on the contrary, the rhythm and volume of reimbursements exceed that of loans, less money circulates. That decrease can be the result of harsher conditions imposed upon the borrowers through higher interest rates or simply, by refusing to lend; that is what is known as compressing or restricting credit, which is the main form of money in the modern world.
Financial credit depends mainly on the action taken by banks, central or commercial, it does not matter much which type of bank we intend to set up. If true credit is a social credit, therefore financial credit is a bank credit. Let us not forget that no Financial credit is possible without true credit. The money used to pay producers and production would be of no use if there were no producers or production. Real credit, the country's capacity to produce, is the real basis and the only value warranty of financial credit. People seem to have a hard time understanding this, yet it is so perfectly clear.
And since true credit is a common good, a social good, financial credit, in order to mobilize it and redistribute its profits, should be in the hands of society. To me, it is easy to understand. Control of financial credit by profit-making institutions is an usurpation and the usurper acts as dictator when he refuses the financial credit necessary to establish true credit. The capacity to produce is then hampered by the inability to pay. The capacity to produce depends on the country and on its population; the inability to pay depends on the inadequacy of financial credit.
Thus, the production of goods manufactured to meet human needs is subject to the decisions of the banking system, and is either facilitated, hindered or completely prohibited, according to its actions. This is a dictatorial system, our entire economic life depends on its decisions. Those who control money and credit hold our lives in their hands. You probably already know who said it, and he knew what he was saying then. I think it would be in order now to recall what a former Prime Minister of Canada used to say, and you know him it was the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King who said: Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.
Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and democracy is idle and futile. I will carry on with another quotation taken from a former President of the United States, Lincoln's monetary policy summarized and certified by the Library of Congress: The government should create, issue
and circulate all the currency required to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, it is the government's greatest creative opportunity to create wealth.
In modern time money is nothing more than an item of accountancy. But this accounting is wrong and does not correspond to reality. We have a fraudulent Financial system which does not Fit with our real needs and possibilities. When a banker makes a loan he creates money based on the work of the producer who is the one who really creates wealth. The banker creates figures, puts into debt the wealth producer, although he is the one who supplies our goods. He gets him into debt for a greater value than the produced wealth, since the producer must add to his debt the interests which he owes on it. What nonsense! This is why the more a country is developed, the more it is collectively in debt to financiers who do nothing. We have reached that point in Canada.
Since I have been elected here in 1962, I no longer hear members in the House dealing with Financial matters and steps they would take to pay our national debt. We do not hear about that. All their efforts are centered on ways to pay the interests-


An hon. Member:: That's it!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: -on the debt they run up. Sheer nonsense! It should be normal to consider how to proceed with our investigations to improve the financial system which has put us in an untenable position. This is the origin of and explanation for the worst swindle of all times. Its extension to all civilized countries do not justify it, but only makes it worse and strengthens it.
History shows that the Creator First created goods, man to his image with an intelligence and a free will. The goods are spread in abundance throughout the earth-air, light, water, even valuable ore burried in the earth and in our mountains of rock. However nothing in the history of the creation shows that the Creator created money. Later, a historical fact reminds us that Christ chased the money handlers, the peddlers and the traders out of the temple.


An hon. Member:: The thieves in the temple.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Unless they are without any sense of observation at all-


An hon. Member:: That hasn't changed.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: -all will admit that money is not of divine creation. Why then want at all cost to continue to worship the golden calf? Many historical facts prove that we cannot serve two masters well at the same time-God and money. We are favoured with an abundance of goods of all kinds and we would not be smart enough to find the way to distribute the goods we have and that could be greatly increased with the modern methods of production that can

November 25, 1976

steadily be improved. By continuing to keep that upsidedown system we will prove right the one who wrote that we are living in a mad world administered by the maddest of them all.


An hon. Member:: That is right!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: The endless studies on poverty will not give any practical results. The first thing to do is to put order in the monetary system, a human institution controlled, monopolized and rarefied at will by those who handle money and credit, and denounced by the highest doctrinal authority in the world.
We live in a system in which we must pay financially during 20 years, three times the value of what we received once physically. Why that reluctance to change a system that gives us such bad results? Money does not come out of the sky. It is manufactured, controlled and rarefied by men. We must be able to make a well oriented decision that will allow us to find a place for everything and put everything in its place but money is a way to allow the goods to meet the needs, provided those who make it or handle it take into consideration the value of the human person and the right of everyone to live. A natural birth given right must come before the rules set out by those who handle money and credit.
We are seeing all sorts of inflationary and deflationary situations; governments are fighting what they helped create, inflation, when they manage or think they can manage to arrest or curb it, to use a well known expression.
Inflation and unemployment reappear and again thousands of Canadian workers suffer from a lack of revenue as they are out of work and, of course, unemployment persists and we tolerate the situation without making any serious effort to change it.
I am quite aware of the powers held by banks and I am not very favourable to the creation of other institutions like this. As I already told the House, I think, I have never forgiven the system that kept us during 10 years in the famous depression of the thirties when people of my age were quite prepared to look after their own future by trying to organize their life according to their aspirations, but the answer that union representatives or others received from the government of that time was: "We lack money." Always the lack of money. Why do we not try to find a way to resolve that problem? As I said earlier, it is a fact that no one can deny, money is not a godsend; it is made, handled by men. Why is humanity not able to put some order in this chaotic system?
According to clause 75 of the legislation, we see that banks enjoy several privileges. Paragraph D mentions: "acquire, deal in, discount and lend money and make advances upon the security of bills of exchange..Most members know or should know that banks are entitled to make loans 10 to 12 times higher than the amount they have on hand and the currency they have in deposit at the Bank of Canada. We see that banks have discretionary powers and control the economy of Canada. I do not see many reasons why we should establish new banks. Usually, during the hour allotted to private mem-
Continental Bank of Canada
bers' bills, there is always a team on the government's side ready to prevent the adoption of those bills.
When it comes to bills related to the creation of new banks, I can see that government members seem rather in favour of their adoption.
Consequently, I think that most people seem ready to bow as usual to the wizards of finance. The government of a country, the body which has the power to legislate, should be willing to create a sound domestic economy. This is what should be. We could give many examples of the implications of the present loan system. Public buildings, bridges, roads have been paid three times. You cannot contradict me, I have facts, I have evidence with me. Bridges, roads have been paid three times because of the present loan system of the banks. Costly wars have been won, costly wars as far as lives and equipment was concerned. We had to pay for them years after they had ended. This is simply illogical. The very understanding mayor of a town in our province, a man at grips with a constant debt problem, summarized not so long ago what had happened when bonds for a total of $573,500 were issued. First the town had to pay $17,211.60 in brokerage fees and $2,051.15 for the printing of the bonds, to which were added the legal fees. Furthermore, the discount cost $17,000. When the first instalment of that loan will be redeemed, an amount of $486,000, they will have to pay, on top of that sum, a total interest of $494,157.50. So, over a period of 40 years, this form of financing which gives the town less than $475,000 in real terms will have cost $980,157.50. And we still use such systems.
Interests and charges more than double the cost of the loan. The city will have to pay interest not only on the money it is getting but also on money it will not have, namely brokers' share, discount retained by the bank, and so forth. The same thing applies to school board loans, and this applies throughout Canada. No wonder things are getting so bad. No wonder governments are starting to fall. The people are now realizing that their elected representatives in Parliament or provincial legislatures must be changed, if they cannot do anything with a system that has been eating us continuously.
The Bank of Canada should take the initiative on such a service, to cut in half the cost of municipal loans. The Social Credit Party has been urging this throughout Canada for a long time. Why isn't it done? This would have a tremendous and basic impact in relieving ratepayers and helping municipalities and school boards to better balance their budgets. They are all in the red and ratepayers are crying everywhere.
If the Bank of Canada truly was a bank for Canadians at the municipal, school board and provincial levels as well as on the federal plane, Canadians everywhere would not have to pay $900,000 to get $450,000, in the municipal loan example I was referring to. Surely the difference is not going to those working to develop this country. This we all know. I submit the Minister of Finance and every Canadian aware of his respon-

November 25, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
sibilities should strive to understand the difficulties in our upside down system, they should look for a practical solution.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever wondered why the wage spiral is always rising rather than decreasing? Economists and governments alike never refer to stopping or reversing inflation. Their only reference is to controlling it. This is clear proof that we are enslaved to the current method of increasing the money supply. It is impossible to reverse the inflationary trend as long as we pay a duty for the coinage of our money.
Who in Canada prevents the Bank of Canada from acting in the best interests of the Canadian people? Who benefits from the present ways of issuing credit to the government? The people? Not at all! Private banks take advantage of it, at the expense of the people. Here is how: It is often said that public debts do not mean anything. I have heard it said for at least 35 years and there is nothing bad about it because we owe them to ourselves. We are in debt to ourselves!
They say that many people have Canada savings bonds. Mr. Speaker, do they know that almost all Canada savings bonds are invested in the banks as a guarantee for borrowings? Therefore, who holds the controls, who is in control of the coinage of money in Canada? Private banks are.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has now expired.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to add-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready to give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: 1 thank my hon. colleagues as well as the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) who was telling me about political economy courses. He will have to be patient and wait until I finish because it will take me a few more minutes. I am pleased to be allowed to continue my speech. A large part of the public debt is to be paid to chartered banks. Everybody knows that a $1,000 Canada savings bond constitutes a reserve for the private banking system through which they can loan up to 16 times the amount of that $1,000 savings bond. Therefore, the bank is entitled to grant $16,000 in loans thanks to this $1,000 bond. This is clear enough, I think. Nobody will challenge that, it is the law that allows it.
The major portion of the debt is directly payable to chartered banks. I recall that several years ago I asked a minister of finance to whom were Canadians indebted. In reply, he sent me a letter saying that it was difficult to answer exactly such a question and he poured out a lot of statistics. When I showed this letter to people, they could not believe what I had been telling them and concluded that even the Minister of Finance of Canada was unable to prove and explain to whom Canadians are indebted. They said that is why we are so concerned about such debts, because even the Minister of Finance does not know to whom we owe money.
The major portion of the debt is directly payable to chartered banks. Here is how it works: The government issues a bond of $1 billion or $1 million. The Bank of Canada buys it outright and credits the government's account. This immediately creates a reserve for the private banking industry which is entitled to multiply by 16, that is to grant $16 million credit on $1 million collateral. Then the government borrows five or six additional million dollars, loaned by a private bank and generated by the private banking industry. Later the Bank of Canada will be responsible for only $1 million as a guarantee for the new credits by chartered banks.
While the man in the street gets his money through his work, banks generate their money through a procedure which does not cost them anything except ink, a writing pen and a clerk. The Bank of Canada states that figures have to be set, and the government does set them. The only thing which is to be paid for is the salary of the clerk. They create money by means which cost them virtually nothing. The issue at stake is to determine who is running the country. Parliament was not elected to serve banks. We were all elected to serve our voters, the Canadian people and our country. We are here to serve Canada.
We must drag Canada out of the claws of financiers who are devouring it. That is what we must do. So let us take the necessary means. This is not in any way a matter of partisanship. What we are proposing is an economic system which is sound, based on something true and which would prevent Canadians from fighting among themselves and arguing whether we must get ready or not, whether we must think this or that, whether we should start endless strikes, whether our governments will be able to settle them with pieces of legislation which complicate matters instead of improving them, and which will teach Canadians to work together for the progress of their country.
As Social Crediters, we make suggestions. If the government and a number of hon. members do not seem to agree with them, let us hope they will find reasonably good means to put some order in the current chaos. Otherwise the situation would not make sense and could not continue.
To give you an example, in conclusion, on March 25, 1976 a citizen from the Sherbrooke area wrote a letter to Le Soleil, and I quote:



SKUNK ECONOMY

[Stage Direction]
Through the action of interest, a huge financial web surrounds and binds us more and more, leaving us only with our lives ... or barely.
Snowballing, the interest accumulates and centralizes the money in the hands of a small group of financiers. The interest. . . this parasite which has never lifted a shovelful of dirt to build a country, steals, takes without producing and is added to the price of goods, which is the cause of ever increasing prices and inflation today.
Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is six o'clock.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock and the hour appointed for the consideration of private members'

November 25, 1976

business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[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.
John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was completing my remarks regarding Bill C-19, and specifically regarding the repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act. I want to point out one additional factor regarding the implications of withdrawing this section. It has been estimated that by eliminating the present subsidy Canada could lose about $855 million in value added processing activities. Many of the 3,000 persons presently employed will be without jobs, and it has been estimated that complementary industries would lose up to $865 million a year.
As I indicated at the outset of my comments, which commenced yesterday, I welcome any legislation which implies restraint and cutbacks in government spending. However, I suggest in all sincerity that the proposal to repeal section 272 of the Railway Act is ill conceived and will cause irreparable damage to the shipping, longshoring, and flour sections of the economy.
I made reference to other clauses of the bill where there is an obvious need for additional explanation so that we can determine if in fact restraint is in fact being practised in each instance and determine if certain parts of this bill would not be counterproductive and therefore more costly to the taxpayer.
I therefore wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This Bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time
this day six months hence."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not six years hence?
Restraint of Government Expenditures


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your recognition, as I rise in my place to join in this debate on Bill C-19. It is certainly an honour and I gladly second the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes).
This bill is to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures. It is quite amusing that this should come forward in the midst of all the financial trouble the government is in and in the midst of all its financial mismanagement. According to the dictionary "restrain" means to check, to hold back from action, or to bring under control. It is about time that the financial administration and the spending of taxpayers' money were brought under control, but I am not optimistic about their being brought under control by this Trudeau government. For the past decade or more there has been no restraint and no control of government expenditures either by the Pearson or the Trudeau administrations. This lack of control has been the main cause of the condition of the country, the .main cause of inflation, depression, unemployment, unrestrained and misdirected government spending which is unproductive and wasteful. The Canadian people are fed up with this; the Canadian people are sick of Liberalism.
Last week in the province of Quebec we witnessed the repudiation of Liberalism by the prudent people of that province. When I was asked for comment, I said that we are witnessing the dissolution of Liberalism in Canada and the next to go will be this Trudeau government.


Ralph Goodale: You are so far off.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Did I hear some hecklers over there? I am not so far off as the government is in its financial administration of this country.
This government is paralyzed and the condition is of its own creation. Its ministers stagger from one day to the next, from one scandal to another, their credibility a shambles, their probity in ruins, public confidence in them non-existent, their ranks split in differing factions. Its ministers and quite frequently its backbenchers are no longer willing to serve abjectly-and I congratulate them-the whims of front benchers and some are stirred to mutinous revolt.
We have a strange anomaly here, Mr. Speaker. On November 23, as reported by page 1,274 of Hansard, when the opposition asked questions about better financial administration, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replied:
It seems to me that any parliamentarian should be able to understand that our institution does not necessarily have to be run the way accountants say it should.
That short answer will go down in history as the hallmark of Trudeaucratic liberalism. Right there the Prime Minister again showed his utter disregard for sound administration. He revealed his swimming pool syndrome.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What about Bill C-19?

November 25, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: We are talking about Bill C-19. We are talking about restraint. Would the hon. member like to get up on a point of order?
Right there, in this House on the record on page 1274 the Prime Minister showed his utter disregard for sound administration. He revealed his swimming pool syndrome which is very evident here and so is the Sky Shops syndrome still prominent in this Trudeau liberalism of mismanagement and "blow the works", "spend money". That is all their policy amounts to. The Prime Minister's philosophy is now "To hell with the auditors and chartered accountants"-and that is tantamount to what he said at page 1274 of Hansard. He added that "our institution does not necessarily have to be run the way accountants say it should."
I challenge the Prime Minister on this, Mr. Speaker. Take away audits and auditors, which is the apparent present Liberal policy, and there is nothing left on which you can depend. There would be almost instant bankruptcy of the country. Liberal credibility is at an all time low but it would be lower if audits were taken away.
The government did not like Mr. Henderson because of his strict findings and stringent opinions, so it moved him out and appointed Mr. Macdonell. He is doing the traditionally good job of all auditors general and is serving parliament and the Canadian people well. I say thank God there is an Auditor General doing his duty. He declares that fiscal control by this government has almost vanished.
I say to the Prime Minister that this institution must be run along the lines of strict, direct, sound and solvent accountancy, not the way he infers at page 1274 of Hansard. The ethics and laws which govern the profession of accountancy are quite a bit above those of politicians and most other walks of life. I would remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that a politician can lie, and a merchant or farmer or any other non-professional- even a preacher-can lie if they should be foolish and deceptive enough to do so, but an accountant, chartered or otherwise, in carrying out his duties cannot lie. That is why Mr. Henderson never lied to this House or the Canadian people, and neither did Mr. Macdonell. They cannot misrepresent. Should an accountant misrepresent anything, his credibility and his business are finished. He must report the fiscal and financial truth and that is what has been revealed this week to the Canadian people.
I say again to the Prime Minister that he should take note of this. Last Tuesday he referred to matters of political science and the parliamentary system when he said that we do not have to heed accountants. Neither political science nor the parliamentary system can endure without strict accounting by honest, unbiased accountants.
I should like to refer to some of the comment of the day on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The Montreal Gazette is certainly not a Conservative newspaper; I believe it is basically Liberal in thought and doctrine. This morning's edition had this to say:
The Trudeau government has become mere grease for the mandarin machine that runs the Canadian public administration. Parroting old speeches of top civil servants, Prime Minister Trudeau told the House of Commons the reverse of the

truth when he said appointment of a financial comptroller would detract from parliamentary control of public spending. The truth is, rather, as Auditor General J. J. Macdonnell stated it: a comptroller-general would be responsible through a minister to parliament, enabling parliament to keep tighter financial control.
Prime Minister Trudeau is feeding the Commons a diet of solid red herring when he again parrots the mandarins and says government cannot be run like private business. The mandarinate, whose incompetence in financial management has been uncovered by Mr. Macdonnell, has reacted as though to a takeover bid by private industry. Baloney. What Mr. Macdonnell demanded was the following:
"A financial plan that serves as a cornerstone for managing and controlling financial resources.
"A central system of budgetary control, based on effectively functioning control systems in each department and agency.
"Complete and appropriate financial reports.
That is something we never get any more in question period, and we cannot even get them by resorting to the order paper. The editorial continues:
"Effective financial control based on a system of continuous and automatic checks on expenditure decisions."
What better could parliament want as a means or gaining accountability from the government? It is not to big business that government and parliament are losing control over spending, it is to big bureaucracy.
The final sentence of the editorial refers to the actions of the government in its stopgap efforts to put on a show of finally trying to bring our financial condition under control. It reads:
It is enough to make a taxpayer puke.
That is the opinion of most Canadian people. When the Prime Minister put on a new suit and went on television to speak about what happened last week in Quebec, he was only putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the country's disastrous financial condition, a condition resulting from Liberal mismanagement and poor policies of the past decade. We do not need to worry about Quebec. When they next vote the people of Quebec will be just as prudent with regard to the future of Canada and their future in Canada as they were last week when they repudiated Liberalism. I congratulate the people of Quebec on the latter action.
In the early days of the present government members on both sides of the House used to greet announcements of fiscal restraint with good natured banter. Somehow such announcements made us laugh, but only before the Prime Minister pulled out all the stops and went on an uncontrolled spending spree which is now completely out of hand. The Auditor General in his report said earlier this week that the government has lost effective control over spending in our country. I am afraid it is long past the time when we could laugh at the government's ineptitude and fiscal irresponsibility.
If there were one iota of evidence to be garnered from Bill C-19 showing it will lead to fiscal restraint such as hon. members opposite were claiming a few minutes ago, I cannot imagine any member of the House voting against it. We have reached the point at which we must save every dollar; even so, this country will be dismally in the red. We in this House, and Canadians everywhere, are getting ever more alarmed at the
November 25, 1976

recklessness of the present government, particularly of some of its ministers. If ever a Prime Minister of Canada regarded the public purse as his own private reserve, it is the present one. He has imbued his ministers with the spirit of reckless abandon in the spending of public tax moneys. When the Prime Minister himself shrugs his shoulders and greets any comments on his fiscal recklessness with a glib remark and leaves the impression that "It's only money", we can expect his hand-picked, buddies, and party hacks to respond in the same way when they get their own hands on the public purse.
The Prime Minister must have suffered a great shock on the evening of November 15 when he discovered that the billions of dollars he had lavished on Quebec over the years had not bought the respect and support of the people of that province. His way is not the way of assuring the respect and support of right thinking people. It must have been a great let down when he discovered that the spending of billions of dollars on his ill-conceived bilingualism program in English Canada has not impressed or fooled anyone, either in English Canada or in Quebec.
One can only hope that the Prime Minister now will take time to review programs such as bilingualism; in these areas we can save billions of dollars without cutting back on social programs with which we are at least doing some good. I might add that we can do this without cutting back bilingual service where it is needed in this country. When fiscal restraint means that we have to cut into programs which are assisting Canadians in need of help, we are being penny wise and pound foolish. Of course you may not hear people talking about being "pound foolish" in future if the pound continues to lose value. That is not fiscal restraint. It is fiscal confusion, in many cases fiscal foolishness.
The shaving of funds from social programs should not be attempted in an omnibus bill such as the one we are considering, in any event, Mr. Speaker. We are considering a bill which is to give official and final sanction to the demise of two agencies, Information Canada and the Company of Young Canadians. I think we can well dispense with them. Those agencies have been dead for several months and, as some in this debate have already said, good riddance to both. But it was not really necessary or even proper to try to lend dignity to Bill C-19 by throwing in, as it were, those two dead agencies. A short bill to bring about the official end of those agencies could have been introduced at any time. I doubt if anyone would want to waste time debating such an issue except, possibly, a couple of members of the NDP.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) called on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) last week to remove from Bill C-19 those portions dealing with the Railway Act so that they could be debated separately. I thought it was a good idea. However, I am sure that the hon. member knew that this government is not going to do anything so rational or reasonable as to allow us to debate bills containing only related and complementary issues. Omnibus bills are more to the liking of this government and, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) noted earlier, this government is
Restraint of Government Expenditures "hung up" on bills which are open-ended, in which the blanks are filled in after the bills secure passage through the House.
We have seen all too often how the government uses omnibus bills. We are debating an omnibus bill at present. Frankly I do not think the government should try to amend the Railway Act with an omnibus bill. The Railway Act should not be amended as the government intends to do it. Passage of the amendment will mean, for one thing, more expensive feed grains in eastern Canada and Quebec, and more expensive western feed grain east of the Lakehead.
When the government introduces an omnibus bill, it sweetens the bill by throwing in a couple of things which appeal to the majority of members; then the government sits back and waits for us to object to the onerous parts of the bill. When we complain that it is a bad bill the Prime Minister says, "Oh, I thought you wanted to get rid of Information Canada; I thought you wanted to get rid of the Company of Young Canadians." The answer is that we do want to get rid of both those agencies. Mercifully, we are already rid of them. I object to having them used at this date as red herrings to allow the government to get out of still more cost-sharing programs involving provincial governments. The government seeks to do this in the way it weaseled out of shared-cost medicare and hospital programs a few months ago with Bill C-68.
I also object to the ministers' self-righteous claim about how much money will be saved with the passage of Bill C-19. Sir, we are all well aware why the Prime Minister established Information Canada. It enabled the Prime Minister to pay off a number of party faithful in one fell swoop. We know that those people have since been shifted into equally well paid positions, many of them sinecures, no doubt. Certainly there is no reason for our supposing that we are saving nearly as much as the minister claims. Information Canada was the absolute epitome of senseless duplication of effort and an appalling waste of tax moneys. I for one hope that we have seen not only the last of Information Canada, but the last of any such agencies of government.
I want just as much to be rid once and for all of outfits like the Company of Young Canadians; but there are still some unanswered questions about the CYC, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka pointed out in his remarks earlier. I want to know how the Company of Young Canadians, or at least the officers of that group, were able to get so close to the public purse. I want to know how they were able to pay themselves $185,000 out of the public treasury, under the nose of the minister responsible for the CYC, when it was known that the CYC Act did not authorize any such payments. It was also known that this occurred after the date the Company of Young Canadians was supposed to be disbanded.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just a bunch of young Grits.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes, it is a very easy way to get money out of the Trudeau government. If the responsible minister was aware that these payments were being made and in fact

November 25, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
authorized such payments, he should be brought before a committee of this House. Of course it is not Liberal policy to do that. They prefer to name another royal commission and spend more millions of dollars.
If the minister did not take steps to prevent the payments being made, he in fact authorized the payments with his failure to act. If that is the case, the minister should be forced to resign. Unfortunately, it would not be punishment for a misdeed because we know only too well the minister would be brought back into the cabinet within a few days or weeks. He would then hold a press conference and chide his colleagues in the House of Commons who were so naive as to believe he could be kept out of the cabinet.
I would like to renew my call for a complete and thorough investigation of the activities of the Canadian International Development Agency. I asked for this months ago. If the government is interested in fiscal restraint, here is one area where it can get some results.
I do not see how it can object to parliament being informed as to just what Mr. Gerin-Lajoie is doing with the billion dollars of Canadian tax money, he is being allowed to dispense each year in countries of the "Third World". Gerin-Lajoie has too much of a free hand, and in my view too much of a good thing, being allowed to spend that kind of money without a dollar-by-dollar accounting to parliament.
According to a reliable and completely unimpeachable source, the Auditor General, this government has too many little agencies and corporations acting as though they can have access to the public treasury without having to account for their actions.
Not long ago the salaries of members of parliament were cut back. We are still repaying that portion that it is claimed we should not have received. I and other members are willing to do this. We are not kicking about it. We want the financial books of Canada to be in the black and to be properly handled and balanced.
As I say, we are all accountable, and the Prime Minister cannot be allowed to continue this charade of his, appointing an army of cronies to sensitive posts in the government, telling them in effect that they can spend from the public treasury and just tell any inquisitive members of parliament to mind their own business if they ask too many prying questions. Well, Mr. Speaker, prying into the multitude of questionable uses of public funds happens to be my business, and since we are talking today about fiscal restraint I should put another little thought into the record. I have a very suspicious mind when it comes to political patronage, nepotism, and cronyism, especially of the type practised so widely by the present Prime Minister and the Liberal party.
I do not feel comfortable knowing that there are so many people who have a key to the public treasury without a corresponding level of accountability. Revelations by the Auditor General certainly brought that forward this past week. I am sure all members of parliament feel uncomfortable about so many people having a key to the public treasury without a

corresponding measure of accountability. If I am asked a direct question as to whether I question the integrity of some of those people appointed by the present government, the answer is an unqualified yes.
I question the integrity, and the judgment of many of those who are presently in a position where they can authorize expenditures of tax moneys. A look at some of the items left out of annual fiscal reports and accounts, as documented by the Auditor General, and some of the fictitious listings in some other reports and accounts, would lead any reasonable person to believe that there is something seriously wrong in the public service of our country.
With regard to the CANDU deals, about $10 million is missing. No one knows where it went or for what purpose. So far there is no indication that that amount was ever audited.
Before I run out of time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to the clause in Bill C-19 that will allow the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to exercise the kind of latitude in the field of adult training that the ministers of this government insist on having. The ministers across the floor do not want to tackle a cabinet post unless they are allowed to make up their own ground rules as they bungle along from day to day. That statement is true. This government has bungled along for eight years.
For the past eight years we have had an ad hoc government, with no long range plans, no set rules of conduct, and no conception of what would be best for the majority of the people in our country. In fact where this government is concerned, its members themselves are the country, and they themselves are the only people whose interests matter. As an old French king once said, "l'etat, c'est moi".
With regard to the matter of adult training, I believe that it is time now to rethink the whole matter, to accept the fact that it should be considered a brand new ball game, and write a new set of rules. This process should take into account that there are two major or significant classifications of unemployed, the skilled and the unskilled.
I had a case last week. I am sure other members have had similar experiences. A young lady called me. She stated that the local Manpower office had enrolled her in a retraining course, hairdressing. She was very anxious to have that training. After having enrolled at the school, she returned to the Manpower office to get their O.K. They then told her they were very sorry, and that even though she had enrolled and was ready to begin the course, this could not be done because they did not have any money. That is great service to the Canadian people.
We should take into account that there are basically two classifications of employer in the private sector, the large industries and small businesses. Many of the speeches that I have made in this House and in my riding have touched on the subject of small businesses, and the fact that at least 50 per cent of wage earners in Canada are employed by small businesses.
November 25, 1976

I am glad to see that a minister has been appointed to look after small business. If he is given the encouragement and support he deserves, he will very likely improve the lot of small business in Canada. I myself was in a small business for 25 years before I was elected to parliament. My hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka has stated that if all small businesses in Canada were to close down suddenly the country would come to a standstill. That is true. And that is why the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) has a tremendous responsibility. I think he deserves the support which the nature of his portfolio warrants. If there were no small business, not only would the public be deprived of a tremendous variety of services now available to them, and largely taken for granted, but there would be a dramatic increase in unemployment levels.
At the present time there are approximately three quarters of a million people without jobs in Canada. That is what Statistics Canada says. I believe, in my own mind, that there are at least one million people unemployed in Canada today, because in addition to the 750,000 who are registered there is a faceless mass of people-we do not know their numbers- who are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. No record is kept of them, and I do not think the government is interested in knowing how many there are because the figure would be a further embarrassment to it. The present level is scandalous, not only because so many people are out of work but because the government seems incapable of devising any orderly action to deal with the situation.
I sometimes wonder whether our millionaire Prime Minister fancies himself as a latter day Marie Antoinette, raying with an arrogant shrug of his shoulders that if thousands of Canadians are without bread, let them eat cake. It is a different matter, though, if it happens to be a crony of the Prime Minister. In that case, anything goes. Let him have the key to the public treasury and tell parliament to stop harassing him with silly requests for accounting and accountability. But to get back to the subject of unemployment and adult retraining, I have some thoughts on the matter and I will use my remaining time in which to express them.
As I mentioned earlier, there are two classes of unemployed, in the main, and two classes of employer. In the case of the small business employer, we can assist him by helping him to get started, helping him to survive, and helping him to expand. Today the government is doing quite the opposite. It harasses small business to the point at which increasing numbers of them are packing it in. Thousands of small businessmen have given up over the past eight or ten years, and you cannot really blame them. It is only within a healthy, growing economy, one in which industry and small business can thrive, that we shall be able to put people to work if they really want to work.
On one hand we must provide industry with a continuing supply of skilled labour, and on the other hand put in place a program capable of providing industry with a pool of young
Restraint of Government Expenditures
people who have demonstrated their ability to absorb and apply the levels of skill needed by industry. The most practical way to train people to work in the trades is to develop a co-ordinated program involving industry and the Department of Manpower. The only people who really know what is required by way of skills and training are the people who actually do the hiring.
We have seen too many examples of the folly of allowing bureaucrats sitting in their offices in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto to decide how training programs are set up and what trades are to be emphasized. All too often we see programs set up to train people for jobs which do not exist, or to train two or three people for every single job available in a given trade group or specialty.
The answer is a broader program of on-the-job training. We must take care to train people for jobs which actually exist, and for jobs which have a good chance of lasting more than a couple of months. We have had enough of the government's ad hoc make-work programs which provide low paying jobs enabling people to do their own thing for two or three months before rejoining the ranks of the unemployed. Every industrialized country in the western world, with the exception of Canada, has in place a co-ordinated on-the-job training program, an on-going program, which ensures that from day to day and month to month industries have available to them the types of skill they need in order to operate and expand.
Mr. Speaker, this bill requires considerable amendment before it is worthy of passage. I support the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from Lambton-Kent.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my ideas on Bill C-19 have changed, I have to admit, since it was first introduced. There are many segments of our society that have forced these changes and I think that people are probably more aware of the government's hurry to get this bill through. We shall probably have to stop to cover up some of the folly in government management spending.
I shall probably be asked to be a party to giving parliamentary approval to the write-off of almost $6 million in questionable loans and advances from the federal treasury, and I can say now it will be against everything I believe in with respect to good business practice and sound government. I refer to the $2.8 billion advanced to the unemployment insurance account, to the $2.4 billion in loans to certain Crown corporations, and $1.2 billion in loans to developing countries. This represents part of a large percentage of the total national budget which the Auditor General states was misspent. Along with this I would mention too the $800,000 which was spent for a boat which would not float. We could make many snide references with respect to this boat costing $800,000, which would not float. We shall probably talk about that later on. All these sums were inadequately accounted for last year out of a total budget of $42 billion.

November 25, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
The Canadian government is the largest corporation in our country. 1 ask this House what corporation could survive with such questionable financial practices, such sloppy accounting procedures, and such arrogant disregard for principle and integrity?


An hon. Member:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member that if he wishes to rise on a point of order he should do so from his own seat.


An hon. Member:: In other words, Joe, you are out of order.


Mr. Flynn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am in my proper place now and I would ask you to instruct the hon. member to keep to the point of the bill he is discussing. He has not talked about it yet. I have not heard a word mentioned in reference to the bill directly.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he has not been listening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest to both hon. members that they are getting into a matter of debate rather than a point of order.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the practice of this House I will keep to the principle of the bill being debated. I will address myself to a number of specific items that fall within the broad category of fiscal restraint, in order to please the hon. gentleman from whom we should like to hear.
Let me refer to areas of activity where gasoline is necessary for the operation and the conduct of business. I am sure that were the hon. gentleman to speak for some of the businessmen in his community he could make the same remarks. This additional tax on gasoline is hurting industry whether it be in western Ontario, central Ontario, eastern Ontario or, for that matter, in northern Ontario. Tourism in Ontario is the second largest segment of our provincial economy. Nationally it is the fourth largest segment accounting for $1 in every $18 of the gross national product. Let me read briefly from a speech delivered by the Hon. C. Bennett, the Ontario Minister of Tourism. He stated:
The economy has slipped over the past few years, and you don't need to tell me that you are feeling the effects, if not actually hurting. Your prosperity, based as it is on leisure time and on the patronage of such people as sales representatives, is perhaps more vulnerable than that of any other service sector. When companies and individuals cut back, you feel it first. You are a part of an extremely important industry-tourism-which in dollar terms comes fourth in Canada after automobiles, oil and gas, and wheat, which contributes almost $8 billion a year to the national economy. That's about one dollar in eighteen of the gross national product. In the province of Ontario, tourism is the second largest industry, and last year it generated $2.6 billion. This year (1976) we expect it to increase slightly, and achieve a level of $2.8 billion, of which $900 million will come from other countries.
In the larger perspective, damage to Ontario's tourist industry affects Canada's balance of payments. Ontario is in relatively good shape, but let us look at the national deficit. Between 1974 and 1975 this deficit, both U.S. and overseas,

grew from $284 million to $706 million. If the trend continues this country may soon be a billion dollars in the red on the tourism account.
Having regard to the United States account, in 1974 Canada had a $132 million surplus with the U.S. This dropped last year to a deficit of over $234 million. In 1976 this deficit could double. In a nutshell, too few Americans are visiting Canada and too many Canadians are visiting the United States. This has to be turned around. The provincial Minister of Tourism has indicated that he plans to recommend at the upcoming federal-provincial conference that the provinces, regional associations, and the private sector assume full responsibility for domestic advertising.
Let me refer to the ten cents excise tax on gasoline to which I referred earlier. Granting the fact that moneys were needed to balance out the price of oil between Canadian provinces, I believe this ten cents per gallon tax imposed upon a vital and already heavily taxed commodity has already hurt many industries in Canada. We are told that the government hopes to raise $350 million through this tax. The government could have raised money less painfully, and without hurting our businesses and industries, simply by using some common sense in managing the country's finances. The Auditor General gives scores of examples. Let me point out some of them.
First there are these questionable payments to unknown foreign agents to promote the sale of CANDU atomic reactors. These payments amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that our major allies have questioned Canada's practice of selling atomic reactors to countries that do not guarantee that the reactors will not be used for the manufacture of atomic weapons.
Secondly, there is the questionable and inefficient use of public moneys for travel and relocation expenses, some $200 million. These are expenses that have not been properly identified. As the Auditor General reported, the guidelines for spending money for these purposes were "either inconsistently applied, or substantially ignored".
Untold millions of dollars are being wasted or misspent since, in the words of the Auditor General, "financial management and control is not a priority within Crown corporations". The Auditor General stated further that financial management and control in Crown corporations are grossly inadequate.
We are all aware that the House of Commons is known as the senior branch of government in Canada, followed by many lesser bodies at the provincial and various municipal levels. Having had the privilege of being a member of a municipal government I often wonder how long such a government would be allowed to carry on if it proceeded in the same manner as the federal government in respect of financial management. I may say at this time that while the municipal governments in Canada handle far less money, the business practice is much more efficient, and there is a great deal more scrutiny by fewer people. A municipal council cannot spend even $1,000 today without being questioned. Yet this government spends millions of dollars for which it cannot account.
November 25, 1976

Let me refer now to the increased cost of agricultural production. We all know many factors contribute to this increased cost of productivity, including the ten cents excise tax on gasoline. We are all aware of the monumental problems facing those involved in agriculture today. Instead of providing a metric calendar and questionable humour regarding the effects of eating too much beef, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would do better to concern himself with promoting the consumption of Canadian agricultural products.
The recent revelation today by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt), in a proposed motion under Standing Order 43, that Air Canada's tender for beef calls for Australian or New Zealand beef rather than Canadian is astounding. This is inexcusable.
We have a government which on the one hand squanders billions and on the other hand ignores the Canadian producer in an attempt supposedly to save a few cents per pound on foreign beef. Crown corporations should set the example in promoting Canadian products. This certainly should include the agricultural sector.
Another thing I should like to bring to the attention of the government is something about which I am sure the minister and many other members on the government benches are aware. I refer to the cost to the farmer of producing beef. That cost today is 50 cents a pound. It requires about eight pounds of grain to produce one pound of livestock. This beef sells on the market in Toronto at from 38 cents to 48 cents a pound. In other words the farmer is losing six cents to eight cents a pound by producing and selling beef on the Canadian market today. How long can the agricultural industry stand such a situation? In my opinion the agricultural industry today is living off its depreciation. How long can we have a viable industry in Canada with this situation? Members of the agricultural community have lost animals and I do not think they have been adequately compensated under the health of animals legislation, but no one sees fit on the government side to do anything about this.
I recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in reply to a question, stated that Mr. Caron is a worthy individual who has contributed much to this country as a member of royal commissions. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that thousands of other Canadians have contributed as much as Mr. Caron, and probably for far less remuneration. These Canadians have made their contribution for the good of the country and ask very little in return. I cannot help but wonder about this matter and the question raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the House yesterday. He asked whether Mr. Lambert had been appointed to the recently announced royal commission because of his desire to control salary levels, he having previously recommended that deputy ministers should be paid up to $60,000 a year. He also wondered whether Mr. Stoner was being appointed because he was the former deputy minister of transport during the Sky Shops affair.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
Under these circumstances, general platitudes assuring the House of the noted competence of these individuals is far from reassuring. I suggest it is now too late for a royal commission to be appointed. What is required and what is owing to the Canadian people is a full judicial inquiry. Such an inquiry could consider the specific instances of waste and mismanagement referred to in the Auditor General's report. Some of the money which has been misspent could be given to the small businessman who still employs 60 per cent of the labour force in Canada.
The small businessman is supposed to have access to guaranteed loans, but when he goes to the bank, especially in the province of Ontario, he finds that this money is not available. The bankers say that when they can loan money for ten per cent, 12 per cent or 13 per cent, why should they loan it to the small businessman when all that is permitted under the government's guidelines is 8 per cent? The government has forgotten about the small businessman in Canada. In the province of Ontario this situation is even more acute than it probably is anywhere else.
There is a question I should like to ask the minister in charge of DREE. In the last few days I have attempted to ask this question in the House of Commons. Will he expand on the criteria that govern whether or not an area is included under the DREE grants?
Now I should like to return to the question I mentioned earlier and said I would come back to in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not find too much fault with the people who are involved in the implementation of the act in the local offices, but there are a few things 1 should like to bring to the attention of the government. Some of these matters where drawn to the attention of the government by myself as long ago as 18 months, but nothing has been done about them. The fact is that claimants for unemployment insurance continue to be penalized under the four-week nil pay clause legislation. This involves a case where someone who is receiving unemployment insurance in good faith voluntarily withdraws, possibly because he is absent from the area or otherwise. He receives no pay for four weeks. He is still disqualified according to his contributions and stamps, and when he returns to apply again for benefits from the commission, because of four weeks nil pay he is disqualified.
I brought that situation to the attention of the government 18 months ago and nothing was done about it. Last June I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration about people being called in from long distances. Some offices were processing over 600 people a week. I call it a harassment program. These people were called in each week, and I think the intention was that eventually they would become tired of coming in and would discontinue claiming unemployment insurance benefits. The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) also referred to this matter. He said there were untold numbers of unemployed about whom we probably know nothing. The government has been made aware of this situation by opposition members but it has failed, as it has in respect of many other things, to take action.

November 25, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
In closing may I say I think there is something definitely wrong with many aspects of the government's program.


Robert Knight Andras: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek approval of the House to table a document.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, referring to the proceedings in the House earlier today, including the comments of Mr. Speaker, now that I have been given permission I should like to table a copy of a letter which has been delivered to me from Mr. H. Marcel Caron, which letter indicates his decision not to serve on the recently announced royal commission of inquiry on financial organization and accountability in the Government of Canada. The text of that communication was made available to members earlier today upon Mr. Caron's request that this be done at the first opportunity. I now table the document.



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.
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to have the opportunity to rise and speak on the amendment to Bill C-19 and especially on clause 15 of that bill which, among other things, relates to the movement of grain and flour from the inland terminals on the Great Lakes to the Atlantic ports. With the implementation of this bill and clause 15 the present movement of these commodities will be altered, with far-reaching and drastic consequences to all concerned.
Before I continue on this subject I should say I am happy to hear the government has finally admitted that the bill would inflict serious damage on the milling industry. I understand

that the government is introducing a $9 million subsidy to alleviate the problems that would be created with the passage of this bill, and I am sure that this transitional assistance will be welcomed by the milling industry.
Unfortunately the government is still proceeding on its haphazard course, one that is plagued with lack of foresight and planning. The reason I say this is that the government has not yet outlined the formula for the distribution of this subsidy to the milling industry and, what is even more disturbing, it has failed to provide a program of transitional assistance to many other segments of the Canadian economy that will be affected by the removal of the subsidy called the at and east rates. The other segments of the economy that I am talking about are the inland rail terminals along the Great Lakes, the Atlantic ports, and the shipping fleets of the Great Lakes. I wonder if the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) is planning to have similar discussions with these affected industries, and if he is not, I say that he should.
I know that representatives from these segments of the Canadian economy would be most happy at and receptive to the possibility of continuing discussions with the minister in the hope of arriving at a similar solution to their problem. It should be emphasized at this time that these discussions should take place as soon as possible because the problems encountered in these industries are the same as those that were encountered by the milling industry. That is why we should like this bill delayed, as the amendment states.
Let me tell the House what will happen to these industries if clause 15 in Bill C-19 is passed by the House in its present form. First of all, it will have a detrimental effect on all the inland terminals located in the Great Lakes area. The specific terminals in question are those located along Georgian Bay and along Lake Huron. They are Collingwood, Midland, Port McNicoll, Goderich, Owen Sound, Sarnia, Toronto, Kingston, and some others.
These grain elevators, whose primary function is to store grain moved by ships from Thunder Bay and later on by rail to the Atlantic sea ports of Halifax and west Saint John, will be forced to close. If this bill is passed most of these grain elevators will be by-passed, and they will no longer be needed to store grain because many of them depend either entirely or substantially on this winter export movement for their operations. A great many of them will be forced to close down. The facilities now available for feed grain supplies and for surplus storage will then disappear. Then too, if the St. Lawrence Seaway were to close for any period of time due to an unforeseen incident, there would be no elevator facilities to take up the slack caused by any such misfortune.
These inland terminal facilities should be kept operating, for if they are not someone will be responsible for further unemployment and economic hardships to the communities in the Great Lakes region.
The government has already admitted, by granting a subsidy to the milling industry, that it has moved too fast for them
November 25, 1976

to have time to adjust to the change. I contend that this same government by moving too fast and without any foresight is causing the same problems in respect of these inland terminals.
This same argument can be applied to the Great Lakes shipping fleet which would be affected if clause 15 is passed by this insensitive government. These ships are responsible for the movement of grain from Thunder Bay to the inland terminals and the eastern ports. With the removal of the subsidy they would have to change their traffic patterns. This will result in a loss of revenue to the ship owners, decreased productivity of the shipping fleet, plus the usual detrimental effects of unemployment.
The same list of arguments can be made for the Prairie farmer, the Ontario farmer, the Quebec farmer, and the feed grain industry. How many of these lists must be produced and how long must they be before this insensitive government realizes that this clause is creating an injustice to another part of the Canadian economy?
If the government cannot realize it, let me tell it that there are people in this country that do. The Halifax Mail Star in an editorial on April 3, 1976, had this to say about the situation:
One of the silliest statements to emerge from the matter is that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture when he told the Commons that the government plans to follow through in its intention to drop the subsidies. "A strong case has not been made", he said, "as to the magnitude of these effects".
-of dropping the subsidy, he meant. After this famous quote it goes on to say:
What kind of government is it that measures the validity of an act against the measure of protest it received from the public?
It should be enough when the people of Canada elect members to represent them and their interests. It is a strange kind of representation that has no knowledge either of needs or of attitudes other than that which is generated by public outcry.
As you can see, this statement shows that the rest of Canada knows what the Government of Canada is trying to do. The million dollar question is: when is the government going to realize it?
When this bill was first introduced in the last session, it became evident that it was hastily conceived, without proper or prior consultation with the people who are to be affected by its implementation.
It was and it is still evident that the bill lacks any real direction or positive motive for the inclusion of clause 15.
Clause 15 of this bill with its proposed savings is of relatively little consequence when you compare it to other examples of flagrant government spending, some of it by the Minister of Transport himself. Just the other week the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) uncovered some interesting information about the expenses of this particular minister who takes a $10,000 trip to go and see his brother-in-law in Regina. The same minister-


John Carnell Crosbie: And his nanny.


Robert Elgin McKinley: -and, as my colleague says, his nanny-has charged the public treasury over $740,000 for similar trips in
Restraint of Government Expenditures the past three years. Now he has the arrogance to eliminate the assistance provided for the movement of grain and flour from the inland terminals to the Atlantic seaboard.
Another criticism of this clause is that before it was introduced there had not been adequate prior consultation with the people or industries that were to be affected by it. The proof of this surfaced recently when the government was forced to introduce a subsidy program for the milling industry, nearly one year after the initial announcement of the intention of the government to cut back on this same subsidy. Granted, the present subsidy is taking another form, but it still goes to the same end. This decision and this type of program should have been discussed before the announcement was made back in December, 1975. At least then the government would have given the people of Canada the impression that it knew what it was doing. As it stands now the government leads us to believe that it has no direction and that it has arbitrarily introduced this unpopular cutback.
In its same piecemeal fashion the government is now introducing another program without any prior thought or consideration. Who knows, perhaps within the next year we will find out that this subsidy for the flour industry is inadequate? Even now there is some thought that the subsidy which will be introduced shortly will not be compensation enough to overcome the proposed increase in freight rates which will come about by the dropping of the subsidy.
The last point I would like to make regarding the government's lack of foresight is that even if the government's main intention with Bill C-19 is restraint, I say that the implementation of clause 15 and the subsequent removal of this subsidy will not in the long run, or in any real sense, contribute to restraint of government expenditures because the removal of this subsidy will have more serious results through unemployment and regional economic hardships. This statement is especially relevant to the area of Canada I have the privilege to represent, an area which has an unemployment level which is already at the maximum tolerable rate, and where any further cuts would result only in further aggravation of the problem.
The question most often asked in my part of the country is, why bother to cut this subsidy at all if the only results are to be negative? The subsidy is in the neighbourhood of only about $11 million annually, and that is quite a small amount. It is not at all staggering, especially when we compare it with others. For example, $150 million is being spent annually on the subsidy for the movement of grain from the prairies to Vancouver and Thunder Bay. If the government wants to bring about some savings, simple arithmetic tells us that $150 million is a lot more than $11 million. This is only one of the many examples of grain being moved at statutory rates. There has been no government active to change any of those other rates, but I wonder if clause 15 of this bill is perhaps the start of some changes in those rates in western Canada. Then I think there would be some cries from other sources as well.
1402

November 25, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
Another question often asked is, what will happen to this 35 million bushels of grain which moves through these inland terminals after the subsidy is removed? That subsidy should be kept in force. I believe that the Minister of Transport, who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, was fooled a little bit this year because of the drop in sales of western grain, particularly wheat, to the rest of Canada and also the drop in the price per bushel of wheat. The terminals he thought would not have to be used for the storage of grain any more have been used this year for that purpose. The way world markets are going, they will probably need to be used next year and for years after that.
We return to the old question of the alternative for the movement of grain. As usual, and in its most inefficient manner, the government has failed to provide one. Under close and intense questioning the government often gives the impression that it has not even thought about it.
At this time I would like to comment on a statement which was first made popular by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), and later picked up and made famous by the Minister of Transport in his speech. The text of the statement is as follows:
Clause 15 of Bill C-19 refers to what is commonly known as the "at and east subsidy" or section 272 of the Railway Act. I think it is clear that this provision in the Railway Act supports what has become an expensive and inefficient system of grain movement which is not in the interests of producers nor in the interests of Canada, It is interesting to examine the kind of grain movement this particular section of the Railway Act tended to foster in the past. If you move grain from the farm to the prairie elevator, out of that elevator into a train which goes from the prairies to Thunder Bay, unload it at the lakehead into a terminal, clean it, store it for a while, load it on a ship, move it across the lakes-not down the Seaway, but just across the lakes-take it out of the ship and put it into an elevator, take it out of the elevator, load it on to a train and move it further east-if you do all that then you get a subsidy. If you do it any other way you do not get a subsidy. I think that demonstrates the problem with this type of provision in the Railway Act. It is a subsidy which is uneconomical and counter-productive, and which does nothing to enhance the system of grain movement we have in Canada.
The government opposite is very lucky to have in its midst a member who is able to deliver such a knowledgeable passage on the movement of grain from the interior of Canada to the eastern ports. I must also say that he has a unique gift of being able to simplify a serious and complex process, put it into one small paragraph, and call it "uneconomical and counter productive". It is no wonder that the government is in trouble as it tries to implement these changes in its transportation policy. I wonder if the hon. member opposite in his next rendition can tell us in explicit terms what will happen to each prairie elevator, to the owners and operators of inland terminals, to the farmers who are dependent upon them, to the shipping fleets on the great lakes, and to the feed grain industry, if this subsidy is removed. I would be most interested if the hon. member could simplify some of the problems these people will suffer.
I would be even more interested if the hon. member could perhaps offer some helpful solutions. It would be appreciated by all concerned, for his own government has failed to provide any. I hope the hon. member will continue with the conception that this problem is simple and that the removal of this subsidy
is going to be easy. I encourage the government to do some more research to find out that the situation has not changed very much since the sudsidy was first introduced.
The special rates were first fixed on the movement of grain and flour to the eastern ports for four principal reasons. The first was to encourage the use of eastern ports; the second, to help keep Canadian flour companies competitive in world markets; third, to promote and assist the development and expansion of Canada's grain industry, and fourth, to benefit the Canadian economy by providing mill, transportation and port employment as well as helping Canada's balance of trade position in manufactured goods.
You will find that this subsidy has been effective in assisting the grain and milling industries, supporting industries, the wheat producers of Canada, the economies of the Great Lakes, and the maritime provinces. In fact you will find that it has generated benefits throughout the entire economy since 1961. Elimination of the subsidy will cause irreparable damage in all of these areas, especially if it is removed immediately and without any viable alternative proposed by the government.
It is very easy to summarize a major problem into one paragraph and then call the scheme uneconomical and counter-productive. It is relatively more difficult to analyse a problem carefully and come up with a viable alternative policy that will not cause major disruptive changes to large parts of the Canadian economy. It is very easy to see that the government has chosen the easier of the two approaches with no apparent concern or sensivity for the people who are to be drastically affected.
What is even more ironic is that it has not proposed any alternatives for the problems it is creating, problems that are the result of the government abandoning two basic principles that were brought forward in its transportation policy paper of 1975. The two basic principles that it is abandoning are those that said that the government's transportation policy would be a tool of regional development and an instrument of national policy, designed to achieve broad social and economic objectives.
The abandonment of these two principles, and this inconsistent behaviour of the government is one of the many reasons why it is so unpopular. As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) so aptly put it, the government continues to plough blindly on, insensitive to the wishes and concerns of the people of the nation. I say it is time for the government to mend its ways, to become consistent and sensitive to the needs of the country.
It does not take much insight to see that these industries, particularly the inland terminals, are having a crisis forced upon them by an arrogant government using shock treatment type methods. They are not being provided with any type of phase-out period. Instead these inland terminals that have served the Canadian Wheat Board for so many years are suddenly finding their main source of revenue cut off, leaving them in a most precarious position. This form of policy

November 25, 1976

implementation will most definitely result in the forced closure of these inland terminals along with further alienation of the people of Canada from this government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have no alternative but to support this amendment at least until the minister puts forward his alternatives and we have a chance to consider whether they are suitable. Until a suitable alternative is proposed I want to assure the inland terminal operators, the farmers who are dependent on the feed grains they supply, and the Great Lakes shipping fleet, that we on this side of the House will continue to fight all our resources to make sure that these industries are not adversely affected and that the employment opportunities that they provide continue. We will not stand idle and let an insensitive government ignore the valuable services that these industries provide to the surrounding areas and to Canada.
Let me also say that the government should delete clause 15 of this bill until such time as a viable alternative is found. Let this alternative be the result of some serious discussions and studies and not of some irresponsible plan like the one that the government is presently trying to introduce.
Just this week the Auditor General made his report which was tabled in this House. It brought to light many of the ways that the government has wasted money, and it has been the subject of questions and discussions both in the House and in committee. I should like to suggest some further reasons why this situation has been allowed to develop. According to the Auditor General spending is nearly out of control and, in my opinion, one of the main reasons for this is that the rules of this House were changed by closure in 1968. I remember that summer very well because we sat through most of it.
The estimates of the departments of government are now shipped off to committees instead of being examined in the House as had previously been the case, and a time limit was imposed upon their passage. Ministers now know that all they have to do is stonewall their estimates in committee until the time limit expires, and then they are automatically passed. They really do not have to answer for their expenditures and there is no way the opposition can make them answer.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the rules must be changed so that some of the estimates come to the House every year without any time limit. Over a term of four or five years all the estimates would be examined in the House without a time limit being imposed. It seems to me that there has to be greater scrutiny of the estimates so that we do not have to depend entirely upon the Auditor General to point out the wasteful spending that has taken place. When such a situation exists and the government has the nerve to bring in a bill to cut out an expenditure that has meant so much to so many people in the past, there is something wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak again on Bill C-19 to support the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent
Restraint of Government Expenditures
(Mr. Holmes), to the effect that this bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time six months from this date.
There is no doubt that some parts of the bill are good and warrant support, but the bill also contains a clause that, if anything, will damage and hurt our economy, an economy that is in a very fragile state right across the country, an economy that desperately needs bolstering and not to have brickbats thrown at it as this government is threatening to do by including clause 15. Implementation of this clause will remove the subsidy paid to railroads for moving grain and flour from the lake ports to the eastern seaboard for export. Despite the short term effect of the $9 million subsidy to millers, which was recently announced, removal of the subsidy in the long run will raise the cost of our exports of these commodities to a point where we will no longer be competitive with other countries. Our export markets already in dire straits will plunge even lower to a point close to oblivion, resulting in even higher unemployment not only in the elevators of the Great Lakes but in the other allied industries as well.
Although the government hopes to save $11 million in subsidies, it will be losing many times that amount in lost revenue, wages and productivity at a time when such loss is so clearly contra-indicated in our sagging economy.
Sometimes I wonder what the government uses as a measuring indicator. What other criteria is the government using to arrive at priorities, I mean honest priorities which would have the useful purpose of serving Canadians best from one end of Canada to the other, true to the mandate this government received a little more than two years ago to serve the people of Canada? That mandate, Mr. Speaker, has been violated on numerous occasions by this government whose wasteful extravagances are reported ever more frequently in the media and in the newspapers. Rather than being the exception, those extravagances are the rule almost on a day to day basis.
All the frailties of the government are well known not only to all members of this House but to Canadians across the country as well. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that these frequent government misdoings by this time are well documented and embedded in the minds of all Canadians. I am also sure that the same discrepancies and wrongdoings of this government will be in the minds of voters in the next election and Canadians will vote accordingly to oust this government from power.
By introducing this bill, Mr. Speaker, without doubt the government is acting true to form. There is no doubt that it is trying to add confusion at a time when we need clear and precise legislation.
Let me come back to clause 15 of the bill which states unequivocally that section 272 of the Railway Act will be repealed. As has already been said many times during this debate, repeal of section 272 would abolish the subsidy on the movement of export flour and grain to eastern ports. The repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act represents increased railway rates, between $17.64 and $22.05 per metric ton, on
80005-21%

Restraint of Government Expenditures
flour exports. In the opinion of the Canadian National Millers association it will, and I quote, "virtually guarantee the speedy demise of Canada's already eroded export flour trade."
If this proposal is to be an example of the user-pay concept of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) it is most apparent that this action will impose real hardship on a small sector of Canadian industry. Such hardship is completely unwarranted and shortsighted. I realize that this proposal comes from a minister who thinks nothing of spending $742,000 of taxpayers' money in flighting, not flying, across the country, to satisfy his own whims and vanity. Certainly it was not spent primarily in the interest of the public's business. It is just another case of this government's arrogance, of "Do as I say, not as I do."
If section 272 is repealed there will be a greatly detrimental effect on Great Lake ports and grain elevators situated there, grain elevators which depend to a large extent on revenues received for storing grain until it is transported to our eastern ports for export. It would be questionable indeed if such elevators situated in lake ports like Owen Sound, Port McNi-col, Tiffen and Mid-Simcoe would be able to remain solvent.
It would also mean that many jobs would be lost and, as my colleagues said, unemployment would go up just when our unemployment has reached its highest level in 20 years. I say nothing of the human misery which passage of this measure would cause as well. Industry in Canada and the Canadian people will certainly be the real losers if the clause to repeal section 272 of the Railway Act is left in the bill. Our people will be the losers, but east coast United States ports will be the winners because they will be the recipients of export markets for grain and flour. I say this because we will no longer be competitive if we remove the subsidy to the railroads, as repeal of section 272 will surely do.
If the minister is not able to see the repercussions of his gambling, of repealing $11 million in subsidy payments to the railroads, which will bring greater unemployment, loss of productivity, the loss of approximately $828 million in value added processing activities and the loss of $865 million by complementary industries, he must be literally blind. Surely this minister and this government are not that hard skinned, that hard nosed, as to consider by any stretch of the imagination that the removal of this subsidy is a restraint measure. The repercussions of implementing the repeal of section 272 will be far-reaching in their effects on people, jobs, and our already sagging economy. Surely even this government can understand that this action will be a backward step, a retrogressive step unworthy of a government representing the people of Canada.
Earlier in my speech I said that with some parts of this bill I do not quarrel, because they warrant support. In that regard I suggest that no tears will be shed over the official demise of Information Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Amen!


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: If Information Canada had lived up to expectations and supplied, as its name implies, information, and gone
about its job diligently, without doubt no one would have sought its demise.


Mr. Johnston:: It was nothing but a Liberal boondoggle.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: As a previous speaker said, Information Canada became nothing but a glorified book store costing the taxpayers of Canada upwards of $10 million annually.
One other good aspect of this bill is that the rates paid to individuals involved in the adult occupational training program will be more realistic and in line with inflationary times in which we live. As hon. members are aware, those individuals who enrol under this program do so with the express purpose of upgrading their education and training in order that they may qualify for better jobs, which otherwise they would not be in a position to obtain. As I said, I totally agree with this part of the bill which will help many people at a time in their lives when such help is most necessary. However, I do not think Bill C-19 will have any real effect in reducing government expenditures. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than sheer wishful thinking on the part of the government.
Without question, if the government sincerely wanted to cut expenditures and save taxpayers money, it could investigate many possibilities, since this could be done in many areas. Those areas are not hard to find. The government need only follow the recommendations of the Auditor General's report, which is 631 pages long and filled with examples of departmental discrepancies, misspending, bad judgment in transactions, and other mistakes and extravagances not worthy of people in positions of trust and responsibility. I suggest that the government study this important document with the same diligence that ministers and priests give to the Holy Bible. There is no doubt that if our so-called mandarins had paid more attention to the Auditor-General and his recommendations, perhaps our finances would not be in the state they are in today.
This by no means excuses those ministers of the Crown whose departments have been singled out and who as heads of their departments, must bear the ultimate responsibility for the conduct and dissemination of funds for the departments entrusted to them on behalf of all taxpayers of Canada, to carry out on their behalf their duties and functions to the best of their ability. This erosion of their responsibilities, whether intentional or as the result of inability or ineptitude on their part, is no excuse to maintain any longer those inept people in positions of trust.
In conclusion, I suggest that now is the time to act and get rid of such individuals before compounding this mess to the extent where the stench that will arise will make a barnyard smell like a rose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, some interesting things have been happening in parliament lately. The

November 25, 1976

Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has expressed a deep concern about Bill C-19. He wants to get it passed. I wish to inform him through you, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side will be prepared to pass Bill C-19 when we see some evidence on the government side that they really want to cut back on some of their wasteful, extravagant expenditures.
If the government wants this bill, it can have it tomorrow by clearly demonstrating that it is cutting back on some of the extravagant waste we have seen. Why do we say this? It is because we share the deep concern that the Auditor General expressed in his report. The mechanism of checking government spending is nearly out of control. The Auditor General stated and I quote:
I am deeply concerned that parliament-and indeed the government-has lost, or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse.
We agree that the government and parliament have lost effective control of the public purse. The government has come forward with Bill C-19 which really does not cut back very much on its extravagance. We say we will pass that bill when the government visibly demonstrates to those in this House and to Canadians in general that it is prepared to cut back on this extravagance.
In his report the Auditor General criticizes the federal government for wasting money on expensive office space, allowing public servants to indulge in extravagant tastes in office space and travel. That should not be in a government concerned with thrift. That should not be in a government concerned about expenditures. That message should be delivered clearly to senior civil servants, their office staff, government members-


John Carnell Crosbie: And clearly to their nannies.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, and clearly to their nannies. The Auditor General also found that controls on public servants' travel expenditures are lax and recommended a number of improvements. That is interesting. It pretty well covers the nanny question.
This is a grave situation. The country is in deep trouble with regard to its balance of payments. We should be doing something with this tremendous country rather than quibbling about excessive extravagances by a minister.
Bill C-19 does some things that are interesting. It allows the government not to put money into the grain stabilization program until that money is needed. Clause 10 deals with research, but it does not do anything about directing that research to where it is needed. Research should be directed toward increasing our productivity. That would help us out of this present situation. By cutting back on scientific experiments and other research, we are not doing anything to help our industries or in the transportation of their goods.
Today we saw an increase in unemployment in the maritime provinces of something like 1,200 men involved in construction. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have taken a great deal of time during the question period from time to time questioning the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) with regard to his car rental policies at airports. In the limited time available to me I want to point out that there have been a great many inequities. The manner in which the minister accepted the tenders does not necessarily mean that more money will be paid to the federal government.
Canadianization of the car rental business has not increased to what it should be. In a press release issued November 18, 1976, the minister stated:
I am satisfied that the intention of the policy of July 13 to provide open, competitive access for Canadian companies while maximizing our revenues has been accomplished.
He went on to explain that the policy was established to give an advantage to Canadian companies by allowing them to submit bids in more than one category, while foreign-owned companies were restricted to one.
Let us examine what happened. Most members of parliament received a copy of a brief submitted to the minister by The Committee for an Independent Canada. I recommend it as required reading for all people, particularly those who are interested in this subject. They clearly stated that the Canadian companies were actually the losers in the manner in which the government accepted the tenders. They clearly stated that two Canadian companies, Tilden and Holiday, were hurt by the manner in which the government accepted the tenders. They also said there would not be any more money received by the government because the total amount derived from car rental at the airports is determined by the number of passengers using the airport-whether it was taken from six companies or four companies, the total number of passengers would determine the amount of money the government would receive. The passengers would rent the cars and the percentage would be there for the government in any case.
To my mind, the inequities were large and numerous. First of all I would call attention to the award procedure which reads:
Where a tenderer is successful within more than one counter group, only one counter will be awarded and the award will be made on the basis of the highest offer made by that tenderer in any group.
Tilden's offer was the third highest tender in the open groupi Tilden also tendered in the domestic group and were second highest in the domestic group.

November 25, 1976
Adjournment Debate
In his press release of November 18 the minister had this to say:
Mr. Tilden is not contesting the fact that it was his lower bid that was accepted. What he is arguing is that while he is paying the fifth highest rent he should be granted third place in ranking on the strength of his higher offer which was not accepted. In short, he would pay fifth highest money but get third place in choice of counter and parking space.
The point is that Tilden's did not want their lowest bid to be accepted unless they were granted the rating of their highest bid. This was clearly understood by the minister. Yet he says in the press release they are not contesting their lower bid because they believed they would be ranked in accordance with their highest bid. This is clearly spelled out in the tendering formula where it states:
Counter space within the terminal building will be leased to car rental concessionaires for the term of their agreement with location preference in accordance with the offers received.
Tilden should have been awarded third preference in the nine major airports in which the package deal was awarded. But they were not. They were forced to take the domestic counter and this put Holiday, a Canadian company, out of the nine major airports.
How can the minister issue a press release saying the department had maximized Canadian content in the car rental situation? This was certainly not the case. There is no consistency in the manner in which the bids were accepted. On one occasion it was awarded on the basis of the percentage of the bid. On another it looks as if it were awarded in accordance with the minimum guarantee and not the percentage. In one place, at Timmins, it was awarded when the sales forecast was not given. But in Chicoutimi a company was refused a contract because it did not submit a sales forecast. I could go on for a long time calling attention to the inconsistencies in the handling of the tenders received. In Charlottetown they awarded Hertz a counter although that company had already gone broke in Charlottetown.
I see my time is nearly up, but I wanted to bring this matter before the House and recommend as required reading for all members of parliament the article put out by The Committee for an Independent Canada, which summarizes the whole situation very well.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) clearly stated that the policy was established to give an advantage to Canadian companies by allowing them to submit bids in more than one category, while foreign owned companies were restricted to one. There are now two Canadian car rental agencies at the nine major airports and a third one at seven of the nine, where previously there was only one Canadian company operating at the nine.
Let me point out that the difference between acceptance of Tilden's higher offer in the open category and the lower offer in the domestic category would mean a loss of $1.5 million in total revenue to the public.

May I now mention the criteria used to judge bids by car rental companies for space at airports. The following steps were taken in the evaluation of the subject tenders.
1.	The evaluation committee listed and checked all bids received by airport, showing: (a) the airport where the bidders would operate if successful; (b) percentage offer of gross sales per annum; (c) minimum guarantee per annum, on three year basis; (d) sales forecasts per annum, on three year basis; (e) the estimated rent based on bidder's sales forecasts and percentage offers per annum, on three year basis.
2.	Converted all bids to "present value" for more equitable comparison recognizing the effect of annual revenue contributions over the three year term.
3.	Combined three year figures into a working total.
4.	Established sales level that would be required for the highest percentage offer to exceed the highest minimum guarantee. Wherever the highest percentage offer and the highest minimum guarantee did not come from one bidder we determined the level of sales needed by the high percentage bidder to equal the high quarantee bidder. This we call the breakeven point. If the sales forecast by the bidder having the highest percentage offer was above the break-even sales level it was more advantageous to accept this bid over the high guarantee bid.
I could continue to mention the criteria used in this judgment, but I realize time is limited.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-PURCHASE OF CRUISE SHIP BY MAGI-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON SUITABILITY OF INVESTMENT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to a question I posed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) the other night regarding the activities of the Metropolitan Area Growth Incentive Corporation in Halifax, called MAGI, set up as a bit of a political pork barrel during the election campaign in 1972, but in fact without a chief officer until sometime in 1975. I think the chief executive officer was appointed on September 26, 1975. This was roughly four years later, so you will pardon me if I am a little bit disturbed about a battle that went on for four years between the federal and provincial governments as to who would have control of this political pork barrel.
After this apparent battle, and superficial-let us use the word "apparent" because things are so damned secret in respect of MAGI you never really know what is going on-we learned that we are going to invest some $1.5 million or $2 million-God only knows what it is because the figures are really very secret-in a luxury cruise ship. This is a great thing. It is going to operate out of the port of Halifax. Mind you, it is going to be registered in Bermuda with Cayman islanders for a crew. There is an ad in the Halifax paper, but they are not looking for a master, they are looking for a maid and a couple of engineers so they will have some Canadian colour. It is not going to have the Canadian flag. The hon. member for St. John's over there knows what I mean, but the

effect of that will be avoidance of Canadian tax laws, and to deprive Canadians of employment. On the face of it the only one who will benefit from it is a subsidiary group owned by the Mercator group which will be the basic and primary suppliers. They will take the profit, and then what will happen?
I am not about to downgrade private initiative but I should like to point out that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, as reported at page 1,331 of Hansard, took the trouble to point out the following:
I am not saying that this is the best investment this corporation could make, I am not implying this at all...
Even he disagrees with it and finds some difficulty in accepting the principle of a federal-provincial Crown corporation operating in secrecy while investing Canadian taxpayers' dollars in a ship to be registered outside this country, one which will provide no Canadian employment although between 200 and 300 people will be required to man this ship, and perhaps even more, as a basic crew, not to mention turnover and relief crews and so on. Indeed they call it Mercator I, the implication being there will be two, three or four, God forbid, paid for out of the Crown purse. This ship is to be registered offshore in order to avoid Canadian duties and Canadian labour law.
What about the boys in the CBRT, the SIU, and the Canadian Merchant Officers Guild? What will they have to say when they see tax dollars being invested in a vessel that will be registered offshore. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has had before us a bill which I staunchly defended. I refer to Bill C-61, the new Maritime Code. Part of that Code, for example, would have prohibited the practice of bringing foreign ships into Atlantic Canada and running them between one Canadian port and another, and then ducking into St. Pierre-Miquelon in order to avoid the regulations under the Canada Shipping Act.
The very government which is trying to bring about a good rationalization in respect of the old Canada Shipping Act in terms of a new Maritime Code sits idly by and watches MAGI invest Canadian taxpayers' dollars in a group whose specific purpose is to go offshore to avoid paying Canadian taxes. I ask what is moral about that? I ask whoever is to respond, and I hope it is the parliamentary secretary, what the government intends to do about it. Does the government intend to sit idly by and watch this happen, in the face of the minister's admonition that he does not believe this is the best way in which Canadian dollars should be spent?
We have heard nothing from MAGI. We cannot obtain any information. It is only when people with an investigative bent become insistent that we are able to obtain any information. There are charges concerning the ownership of Mercator. Mr. Nugent, a former seafarer, if not the senior executive officer of MAGI, is at least the most visible head. There is nothing wrong with that. I am a seaman and I am very proud of it. When I see Canadian taxpayers' dollars being invested in ships which will not be registered in Canada, and which would not be subject to Canadian taxes, labour law and customs law, ad
Adjournment Debate
infinitum, at the expense of Canadian seamen of whom, there are many in this country who are very able, very proud, and capable, I become a little incensed and irritated.
I wonder tonight if we can have something more than a lecture from the government benches on why MAGI was set up, how it was set up and what its purposes are, but rather some direct responses with respect to the disgraceful attitude on the part of MAGI.


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not agree for a moment with the preamble to the hon. member's comments regarding the initiation of MAGI. I think it is imperative that we understand the composition of MAGI as this is all important with respect to this question.
As the hon. member knows, Metropolitan Area Growth Investment Limited-I think the hon. member used the word "incentive" instead of the word "investment"-operates under the direction of a board of directors of which four are appointed by the province and two by the federal government, with the seventh being the chief executive officer. The shareholders, Nova Scotia and Canada, exercise the normal powers of shareholders, to appoint the directors, but decisions affecting the development of the company are made by the board and the executive of the company, not by either government.
I think the hon. member as a former businessman knows that we have a minority share in a provincially incorporated company. It is imperative that everybody understands this with respect to the question posed. MAGI is not an attempt to subsidize unprofitable ventures, but a company expected to pay its way and earn its profits. I am sure the hon. member would not want MAGI intervention which would result in a loss. The kinds of businesses pursued by the company are decided by the board within broad limits established by an existing memorandum of association dealing with the geographic area of activity and other basic parameters. The gentlemen serving in these capacities exercise their combined judgment in arriving at what they consider to be the appropriate businessman's decision after weighing all factors.
With specific reference to the question posed by the hon. member to which the minister responded yesterday, let me say that MAGI holds only a minority position in this venture. Nevertheless, they were given assurances that Nova Scotians and other Canadians would be given an opportunity to man the ship. Advertisements have been or will be made in Nova Scotia in support of this policy. It is expected that most if not all senior deck engineer officers will be Canadians, and it is hoped that Canadians will also respond in a positive manner to the other positions.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-ALLEGED HARASSMENT OF DR. MORGENTALER-POSSIBILITY OF MINISTER INTERCEDING
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, this short debate was inspired by an answer which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) gave on November 2 to the question I asked concerning Dr. Henry Morgentaler. At that time-prior

November 25, 1976
Adjournment Debate
to the recent events in Quebec, I might say-the minister indicated that he did not think it was appropriate to intercede in regard to that matter partly as a result of his view of the role of the minister of justice and also in terms of the jurisdiction of the Quebec authorities who have ordered Morgentaler to stand trial again on December 13. This will be the fourth charge. Three times Morgentaler has stood trial on charges of performing an illegal abortion, and three times Quebec juries have acquitted him of that charge. Are we to expect a fourth trial and another acquittal, a fifth trial and another acquittal, a sixth, seventh and eighth trial, because that is the procedure that has been followed?
I know the parliamentary secretary will wring his hands and say, "Well, I am sorry, there is nothing we can do, because after all that matter is in the hands of Quebec." In view of the fact that we will have a new provincial Minister of Justice in Quebec appointed very shortly, it seems to me a marvellous opportunity now for the minister to quit playing Pontius Pilate, pick up the telephone and make a call, on behalf of all Canadians I think, to seek some fairness and justice in our legal system.
The activities surrounding the Morgentaler case have dragged the standards of justice all over Canada to a level which has never been so low. Let us bear in mind that when someone says, "I do not want to interfere with the affairs of Quebec," those are Quebec juries which have acquitted Dr. Morgentaler. Those juries are made up of people from Quebec. Are we going to continue to empanel juries in Quebec and keep at it until finally we get a jury which will convict him? That seems to be the attitude which prevails among the authorities in Quebec, and I say that is the attitude of the Minister of Justice if he will not see fit to do what is obviously required in these circumstances.
This is a new ball game, we will have a new provincial Minister of Justice, and justice itself cries out for a phone call or for some intercession in what is now a disgrace to the judicial system of Canada.


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is consistent. He consistently refuses to face the facts in relation to this matter. On July 17, 1975, the then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice explained the facts to the hon. member. On January 22, 1976, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) issued a news release explaining the facts to him.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There is some merit in persistence.


Mike Landers: On November 2, 1976, the Minister of Justice once again explained the facts to the hon. member in this very House. Now the duty falls upon me to explain the facts to him.
On the outside chance that the hon. member's failure to understand is based on a hearing deficiency, I shall raise my voice in an attempt to penetrate the barrier of misunderstanding which surrounds the hon. member.
In spite of a number of editorial comments to the contrary, the responsibility of the Minister of Justice extends only to ordering new trials. Prosecutions under the Criminal Code are undertaken by provincial attorneys general, and the federal government has no control as to how they are conducted.
I invite the hon. member to direct his comments to the national assembly of the province of Quebec in Quebec city.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I have done so.


Mike Landers: I will take this opportunity to remind the House that in consequence of the unprecedented result in the first Morgentaler trial the government legislated in parliament Bill C-71, an amendment to the Criminal Code, which removed the right of a court of appeal, when hearing an appeal from an acquittal by a jury, to enter a verdict of guilty, limiting it either to ordering a new trial or to dismissing the appeal. This provision assures that henceforth all persons tried by a jury can only be convicted by a jury.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, November 26, 1976