1977-02-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Minister of Justice is sitting with me at this moment. I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity with reference to the invasion of privacy provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada which were designed to protect the privacy of individuals by prohibiting all interceptions of private communications except where permission is granted by a judge.
The annual report of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada states that in 1976, 1,062 persons were arrested as a result of interceptions by authorization and only 13 of those said 1,062 persons were convicted directly as a result of the said interceptions. I therefore move:
That the Minister of Justice retreat from the position that he took in Bill C-83 to abolish the 90 day notice clause demanding that the attorney general of a province or the Solicitor General of Canada be required by Section 178.23(1) to give notice to the person who is the object of the said interception that his telephone was wiretapped.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ABORTION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Canadian taxpayers have paid to have booklets on sex education published by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and in view of the fact that one of these booklets claims to take its definition of abortion from the Criminal Code and that the
information cited is not in the Criminal Code, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That this House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to recommend that such false and misleading information, which is being printed with public money, be corrected.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the precarious position of manufacturing milk producers, especially in Quebec, whose income is clearly inadequate; since the situation has deteriorated from year to year as a result of federal policies; and since the control of the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Department of Agriculture constantly perpetuate a standstill in that industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the federal government give up all direct or indirect jursidiction over dairy production, leaving to the provinces the exclusive power to organize its operations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

February 16, 1977
Marin Report


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which I believe deserves a similar response to that given yesterday to a motion moved by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp). Yesterday at long last the House approved the conveyance to the government of the Soviet Union the disappointment and deep concern of the elected representatives of the Canadian people in parliament regarding the Soviet Union's disregard of the Helsinki Agreement in respect of human rights. Because similar breaches of this agreement resulting in a multitude of arrests in other east European countries are taking place, namely in Rumania and Czechoslovakia, I move, seconded by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs convey to the governments of Rumania and Czechoslovakia the disappointment and deep concern of the elected representatives of the Canadian people in parliament at the arrests being made in those countries contrary to the terms of the Helsinki agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be-


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order before the request is put to the House. Inasmuch as the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not present in the House today and inasmuch as he is requested to make these representations, I would suggest that the request be made when he is here tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation of the motion at this time can only be made with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
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 involving the RCMP; because of delay by this government in acting on the recommendations of the Marin Commission of inquiry which has perpetuated the very inequitable situation in which RCMP personnel, particularly those in the lower ranks, find themselves, whereby they are still being denied rights to elementary principles of natural justice with respect to their own positions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):

That the recommendations of Judge Rene Marin be brought forward by the government for consideration by parliament so that the present status of RCMP personnel can be improved, particularly in eliminating existing double standards in dealing with personnel of low and high rank when they encounter problems, one such prima facie case being the recently set out by the well known Canadian journalist Marjorie Nichols with respect to Chief Superintendent Robert Vaughan.


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


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) claimed in this House yesterday that there are only 34,000 hidden unemployed who have given up looking for work that is not available, and in view of the fact that data from Statistics Canada labour force survey plainly shows this to be false, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns the minister for misleading the House on the true extent of unemployment, and instructs the government House leader to take steps to ensure that spokesmen for Statistics Canada and the Economic Council of Canada appear before an early meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to explain why in their view the official monthly unemployment figures seriously understate the real extent of unemployment.


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


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: 
Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 16, 1977

Act and the Customs Act under which applications are made by members of the RCMP Police for writs of assistance for unlimited periods of time, to unknown individuals allowing unmitigated powers to enter and search unspecified premises. In light of this very strong criticism contained in the recent judgment and by the two jurists, can the minister advise the House whether he is aware of the applications being made by the RCMP for these writs and does he approve of same?


Hon. Ron Basford (Acting Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the applications nor of the comments by Chief Justice Jackett to which the hon. member referred. I will immediately undertake to review those comments and review the situation. Generally, I would want to say to the hon. member that I have been concerned about some of the powers provided under the Criminal Code and otherwise to investigative agencies. I have discussed this question with my officials and with members of the Law Reform commission who are examining the whole of our criminal law and criminal law procedures. That is among the matters which the Law Reform commission is examining.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this question has now been raised in the House twice, will the minister look into it as quickly as possible, for it is important? And, having regard to the basic principles of Canadian common law against unlimited and indefinite warrants, principles so dearly cherished by Canadians and all who believe in democratic freedoms and rights, will the minister not undertake to have amendments to present legislation introduced, in order, at the very least, to allow courts discretion in the granting of writs of assistance? I ask this in view of the mandatory basis upon which they must now be granted upon application.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to give that undertaking until I have reviewed the judgment to which the hon. member referred.


SUGGESTED DETAILS REQUIRED BEFORE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE ISSUED
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a final supplementary question? In view of the statement of Mr. Justice Collier that he was "shocked and incredulous that the court should be asked or required, on such fragile and unenlightening material, to lend its authority to the clothing of an unknown government officer with such extensive unlimited powers," will the minister now undertake that, henceforth, all applications for writs of assitance being made by those coming under his department, or by the minister, in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada, will be supported by the fullest possible disclosure of facts as to why the issuance of the writs is required, those facts to include details of the premises, persons and areas affected, and the minimum period of time for which the writs are required?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would readily agree that applications in the name of my
Oral Questions
department will be in such a form as to comply with the legal requirements under which they are made, and I will review the judgment of Mr. Justice Collier.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice? It has to do with an apparent conflict of interest in that, technically, applications for such writs of assistance must be issued by the Attorney General, but that same minister has the responsibility to parliament and the country for the Canadian Bill of Rights. I ask the minister if he will examine the question of applications by himself, as Attorney General, for the issuance of those writs? On the surface this matter seems to involve a serious conflict of interest with the minister's responsibility in protecting those very rights of privacy of Canadians set out in the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs? I believe they are both the same person, which ought to make this easier.


An hon. Member:: He has two heads.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: He can argue with himself.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it is reported that the European Economic Community will some time this week offer Canada a so-called compromise nuclear safeguard agreement, which would apply to seven of the nine EEC countries, exclude France, but enable France to secure uranium from the other members of the EEC, despite the Canadian embargo, without accepting the stronger safeguards formula demanded by Canada. Can the minister tell us whether that is correct? Is such agreement being sought, and if so, what is being done about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that there have been discussions and negotiations between the community and Canada on the question of safeguards. According to my information, at the beginning of last week no conclusion had been reached. Of course, I do not have further up-to-date information. I will have to check the various facts alleged in the

February 16, 1977
Oral Questions
statement of the hon. member and have the minister report tomorrow, when he returns to the House.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister offer assurances to the House that no agreement moderating, compromising or dispensing with the safeguards requirements by Canada will be entered into with the EEC or any other country, so that adequate safeguards, which are extremely important, will be maintained?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can give that general assurance to the hon. member that we have stated our safeguards policy and in all cases our objective is to have it implemented.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Beilechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
Yesterday was a very important day in the House of Commons, an opposition day, which was devoted to a very special subject, one that concerns all Canadians, and last night the French CBC network did not even mention what went on in the House of Commons. Yet they went all over the world to report what happened there. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister responsible for the state network to be so kind as to check on the reason for that lack of public information on strictly Canadian matters, which are of interest to all Canadians, and to report to the House.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot help but agree with the hon. member that the proclamation of the New Citizenship Act yesterday was a matter of great importance to this country, one in which all members of this House share great pride. The ceremonies which took place yesterday to mark that were an indication of the importance members of this House and members of the other place have given to this legislative step. I therefore feel no compunction whatsoever in drawing the attention of the CBC to the remarks of the hon. member. I will endeavour to report to him the results of my inquiry.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, from the minister's answer I see that we are not on the same wavelength. This does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that the reference to the other event he mentioned in his answer was not important at all. I do not question that, but my query deals specifically with the proceedings of the House. Television is supposed to inform the public. Now, the House is willing to spend millions to inform people, and for the moment the state television network is responsible for keeping people abreast of the important things

that go on in the House. It is on that subject that I invite the minister's answer. Will he investigate to see why the state network did not echo the very important proceedings which took place yesterday in the House of Commons?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, you can readily understand how, when the hon. member referred to a matter of major importance, I automatically assumed, as I think most members would, that he was referring to the proclamation of the new Citizenship Act. In relation to the other matter, to which I confess I do not give quite the same importance as the hon. member, I will be happy to add this to my inquiry. I would point out that the sooner we get on with this business of televising the House, the sooner this problem will no longer arise.


PRIVACY
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. It arises from my proposed motion under Standing Order 43. Having read the annual report of His Excellency the Governor General, which states that 1,062 persons were arrested as a result of interceptions by authorization whereas only 13 of those persons were convicted of some offence as a direct result of wiretapping, is the minister now prepared to retreat from his position of abolishing the notice to the person who is the object of the said interceptions in the light of these figures?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The report also indicated that electronic surveillance was an indispensable instrument of proper investigation in this country. I think my position was set out in amendments made to Bill C-83 in the last session-that there should be a change in the notification requirement allowing the law enforcement officers to apply to court for an extension of time for notification.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As the Minister of Justice knows, though he doesn't state it, he was going to repeal the very notice in that Bill C-83 and there was some objection to his doing so by the committee. Is he aware that the courts have now ruled that evidence from authorized interceptions has been declared admissible in the courts even if the Solicitor General of Canada and the attorneys general of the provinces failed to give the 90-day notice to the person who is the object of intercept. In other words, even if the Solicitor General or the attorney general fails to carry out his obligations under the Code, and there is no penalty, the evidence is still admissible in court. Will the hon. gentleman take that into consideration when looking at this matter again?
February 16, 1977


Stanley Ronald Basford: The answer to both parts of the question is, yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Justice says that having looked at the legislation he feels it is necessary because the report indicates that it is. But I should like to refer to page six of the report, and I put this question to him again: does he think it is good legislation when they arrest 1,062 people and only 13 are convicted, and now he is about to abolish the notice to those who are the objects of that kind of intercept?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I believe that basically the legislation, which was very carefully debated in the House before it was passed, is necessary legislation. 1 do not think its effect is quite as the hon. member states it on the basis of that report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the explanation for the announcement, six days before the visit of the Prime Minister to Washington, of the return to Ottawa of Canada's ambassador to the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not believe there is any explanation which is related to the timing of the Prime Minister's visit. My information is that our distinguished ambassador to the United States indicated some time ago that at a certain point he would like to return to Canada and resume some activity in the public sector. That is the significance, and the only significance, which should be attached to Mr. Warren's return. All of us know he has performed very ably and effectively as our ambassador to Washington.


Mr. Fairweather:: There can be no doubt as to the distinguished service of the ambassador. But is it possible to find an example of more inopportune timing for an announcement than the one made yesterday?


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is two weeks and two days since I asked him whether he had seen the report of a near-miss at Victoria International Airport. I ask him again whether he has seen that report.
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have, and also the version of the report as put forward by the hon. member in the House was a gross exaggeration of what had occurred. I have received a report on the distance between the aircraft and the action which was taken and I think nothing further need be added.


Donald W. Munro: It is obvious that the minister has not seen the captain's report in which he clearly stated that had they not been looking out, had they been looking at the instruments, there would have been a disaster. Has the minister changed his mind at all about the disposition of the radar equipment which is being taken out of Vancouver Airport and, presumably, being sent somewhere else? Why is it not being sent to Victoria where it is needed?


Otto Emil Lang: The equipment is used where it is most adequate. The two instances are not at all related.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and has to do with CBC broadcasts of news to Cuba and South American countries. It is with particular reference to the story that it carried in connection with the removal of certain Cuban officials because of their co-operation in espionage while they were resident in Canada. The report on the CBC international service to Cuba and South America was quite different from the domestic service report. It gave the Cuban denial of wrongdoing but did not give Canada's official reason for expelling the diplomats.
I should like to find out from the minister whether there is a special handling of broadcasts, featherweight broadcasts, pussyfooting ones, to Cuba and South America and whether or not these broadcasts emanating from Montreal are passed by any officials in the CBC or are simply the product of the actions of the individuals who are broadcasting?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, may I say how pleased I am to receive a question from the right hon. gentleman. Like him, I do not believe in pussyfooting around and I shall undertake to make some inquiries about the matter and report to him.

February 16, 1977
Oral Questions HEALTH


REASON FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF ARSENIC IN THE AIR
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering that in a letter dated January 9, 1976 signed by Mr. J. R. Hickman, director of the bureau of chemical hazards in the minister's department, a copy of which I have before me, it is said that "it is now reasonably established that workers that have been exposed to arsenic over long periods of time because of their occupation have suffered increased mortality from cancer", and considering that this letter was sent by a department head within the minister's own department more than a year ago, would the minister explain how it is conceivable that up to this point nothing has yet been done to establish acceptable health standards as they pertain to arsenic levels in the air?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party has a document I do not possess myself. I would be pleased to look at it and give an answer to the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. While the minister is undertaking to investigate this document would he also consider the implications of another quote from the letter, in which Mr. Hickman says that "the purpose of this letter is to request you to initiate action under the provisions of the Clean Air Act". In order to remove this significant health hazard to workers, would he investigate that; and if, as seems to be obvious, appropriate action was not taken more than a year ago on this matter, will he take the appropriate disciplinary steps and also consider his important obligations in this area as a minister?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to listen to the admonitions of the leader of the New Democratic Party. As for the second quotation he referred to, he clearly indicated that my department has indeed asked that steps be taken; this seems to contradict the first quotation. Therefore I cannot see why he makes selective quotations such as these. It would have been simpler to send me the complete text of the letter. We could then exchange views more intelligently.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has clearly misunderstood my second question but I shall take steps to see that he gets a copy of the letter immediately. My final supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the absence of the minister who is responsible for bringing directly before the House or to cabinet regulations to enforce the Clean Air Act, would the Acting Prime Minister explain how it has been possible, given a memo dated February 6, 1975, which is almost two years ago, this time sent to a different minister in a different area of
responsibility but precisely on the same subject matter of clean air, that no action was taken regarding that recommendation which came from a second department of the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no ready answer to the question. Probably I could contrive one but I will be happy to look into the matter and see if indeed no action has been taken as alleged by the hon. member. I would be very doubtful that his suggestion is correct.	.


REPORT ON CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES-ACTION TO MAKE CANADA SELF-SUFFICIENT IN BIOLOGICALS
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has had the opportunity of studying the CMA committee report on Connaught Laboratories and when he will take steps to make Canada self-sufficient in the manufacture of biologi-cals necessary for the health needs of the nation?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed received a copy of the report from the CMA which was made public a few weeks ago and I have asked my officials to examine it. I was very happy to see that this particular report proved that the allegations that had been made by various organizations and media people against Connaught were unfounded. At the same time, that particular report included some recommendations having to do with self-sufficiency in biologicals, and I have asked my officials to examine this matter. I expect a comment from my officials within the next few weeks. At that time I hope to be in a position to state what government policy will be in this respect.


GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO STIMULATE EXPORTS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As Canada's share of world trade has recently slipped from 8 per cent to 6 per cent, and as we have a yearly deficit of $10 billion in manufactured products, the ones that produce the jobs, I ask the minister whether the program which he announced last week of combining six existing programs, none of which has been effective in increasing our sales of manufactured products, is his only answer to increasing exports of these products? If not, when does he expect to announce a really effective program?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to indicate that I reject the hon. member's suggestion that the deficit amounted to $10 billion. I think it was lower than that and the hon. member forgot to mention that in 1976 we had a surplus of $1.3 billion

February 16, 1977

in our balance of payments. In my opinion, the hon. member is very selective when it comes to statistics. As for the program, we decided on the procedure which is to take what I call the alphabet programs we used to have and simplify the formula thus enabling Canadian businessmen to call on our department's services to improve Canadian exports. Incidentally this morning I had a meeting with my department's businessmen advisory committee and I am glad to tell the hon. member that this meeting was extremely productive.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister will find out if he consults his agency, Statistics Canada, the deficit in manufactured goods was $10 billion last year and is well on the way to being the same kind of deficit this year. Does he not realize that any increase in exports which we show this year is solely due to increased sales of raw materials which other countries want to turn into manufactured products, and thus derive the benefit of employment in manufacturing industries which this country will have if the minister were on his toes and did something about it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I hope the hon. member will talk to some of his colleagues who are complaining because I am trying to do something about the textile industry in Canada.


TRANSPORT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport about shipping which also affects taxation. The east coast motor vessel Marine Cruiser is chartered by the CN at approximately $1,400 per day, which revenues appear to be going to an off-shore corporation in the Bahamas, which is presumably not paying the type of corporation tax which would be the case if it were a domestic Canadian corporation. Would the minister review charters of this type to see whether there can be a tilt in favour of doing business with companies which are willing to pay regular Canadian tax, and thus avoid the leakage of Canadian tax revenue?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as a general proposition, I can certainly say yes to that question without necessarily confirming it in this case.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I thank the minister for his answer. Would the minister indicate, while he is looking into this matter, whether he will ascertain and report to the House the identities of all the shareholders of the companies which are getting the benefit of revenues from this government's shipping charter, since my research indicates a very interesting corporate structure?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: I will be glad to look into it, and I will be glad to have the benefit of the hon. member's research.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs who is responsible for CIDA and ask him whether or not it is the usual course for CIDA and the Department of External Affairs to authorize a spiritual community based in Tennessee called "The Farm" working under the name "Plenty" in Canada, to collect funds to be sent to Guatemala, because CIDA has approved the submission and has agreed to provide $80,000 worth of materials.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That information should be sought in another way.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-STUDY BY FENCO ENGINEERING OF POSSIBLE COST OVER-RUNS-COST AND DATE OF COMPLETION
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Apparently Fenco Engineering is doing a study for the government on possible cost over-runs in connection with the Mackenzie pipeline. If so, can the minister tell us what the study's parameters are, when it will be completed, what the likely cost is, and whether or not it will be tabled in the House?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that the department has commissioned such a study concerned with over-runs. There have been leaks in the press as to what it has to say to the government. If the hon. member has a copy, I hope he will send me one. We have not received it in my department nor have we received it in my office. I hope that the report will be completed and placed in my hands within the next few weeks.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-SUGGESTION COST OVER-RUN STUDY INDICATES LACK OF FAITH IN ENERGY BOARD
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when the report is tabled and the minister receives it and has time to consider it, can the minister tell me, since the National Energy Board is conducting hearings into this whole matter, including costs and cost over-runs, is the fact that the government is having an independent study done not an indication of a lack of faith in the National Energy Board, or is the government

February 16, 1977
Oral Questions
assuming that the National Energy Board will recommend the necessary permits?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the government would be criticized if the National Energy Board were to report and the government did not have some way of assessing the cost over-run question other than perhaps the views of the National Energy Board itself. Quite clearly, with respect to the Alyeska oil pipeline there were enormous over-runs, so much so that the financial viability of the project down Mackenzie, if the same were to occur, would be in great doubt. For those reasons the government has commissioned that study. I can assure the hon. member that it will be made public, and not only will it be available to members of parliament, it will also be available to the National Energy Board if they wish to use it.
* *
*
[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I should like to know whether the minister got a firm and irreversible undertaking from the government of New Brunswick for the reconstruction of the Trans-Canada Highway in the area of Edmunston, at the initial cost of $8 million. I ask that question, Mr. Speaker, for I want to know whether that undertaking was confirmed in writing, in some way or other, and if so, is he prepared to release that document in the interest of the people who want to know how their taxes are spent and how that agreement was reached?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to inform the hon. member and the House that during our negotiations leading to the signature of the three-year agreement on the development of the road system in New Brunswick, I had indeed received some representations with a view to improving the Trans-Canada Highway near Edmunston. While negotiating, we agreed as a matter of fact with the provincial government that it would be in charge of that section of the system in return for federal participation in other sections of the road system in northern and northeastern New Brunswick.
There has been an exchange of letters between myself and Premier Hatfield, and I am asked to release them. I will check with Mr. Hatfield and if he does not object, I see no reason why those papers should not be made public.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs who is in charge of CIDA and ask him if he is aware of the fact that CIDA purchased some 20,000 tons of corn at a cost of $2,340,000 for sale to Ghana, only to find that Ghana does not have the facilities to handle bulk corn. The outcome of all this nonsense has been the additional purchase of 160,000 bags into which the corn will be loaded-


An hon. Member:: Metric bags.


Jack Burnett Murta: -in order for the corn to be put ashore in Ghana, and the additional expense will come from the demurrage charges, which will amount to some $5,000 per day-


George Harris Hees: And the shovel they are sending over.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Information of such a detailed nature should be sought on the order paper and perhaps by correspondence.


Jack Burnett Murta: I am coming to my question, Mr. Speaker.


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


RESOURCES
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or possibly to his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio who has an ever-consuming interest in Manitoba. In view of the question I asked the minister last week, namely, that export permits for the export of cesium to the U.S.S.R. had been granted for the past seven years and were not granted in 1976, has the minister taken any steps in that regard and can he indicate whether steps have been taken to stockpile cesium as well as to develop research in order that cesium can be brought to a higher grade, thus creating and maintaining jobs not only in eastern Canada but in our manufacturing areas as well?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the question last week, I think it was directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the issuing of an export permit with respect to a strategic material, namely, cesium. The government decided that no export permit would be issued at this time for those reasons. As to the second part of the question, as to whether or not we would examine the possibility of

February 16, 1977

having material converted into a different substance so that it might be exported, I will be pleased to look into that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: May I ask the minister, in view of grants that have been given to companies such as the Tantallum mines in Eastern Manitoba, whether the government is taking steps to maintain the operation of these mines in view of the fact that export permits have not been granted. What future do these places have in view of the declaration of cesium to be a strategic material and without any alternative policy?
Oral Questions
completed. I do not agree with the suggestion of the hon. member that these cheques should be delayed until the preparation of those figures in a printable form. I think the cheques should continue to go out to the farmers as fast as possible, and then the information should follow as fast as possible.


POST OFFICE
Alastair William Gillespie: I will have to make some inquiries with respect to the technical question which the hon. member put to me and I shall get back to him.


WHEAT-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF SELLING COSTS AND LOW PRICE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the great dissatisfaction with the recent final wheat payments and the feeling of many producers that they have been shortchanged, can the minister explore ways in which the Wheat Board can produce more information as to the cost at which the grain was sold and why the price seems to be low?


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Has consideration been given to discontinuing or monitoring the circulation of outdated government information, including outdated press releases from all ministers' offices? I cite as an example material from the office of the Prime Minister dated November 3, 1976 which was delivered to Alberta radio stations on January 18, 1977-


An hon. Member:: By mail.


Thomas Gordon Towers: -not only wasting postage but clogging up the postal system thereby delaying first class mail.


An hon. Member:: They should try the pony express.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what the hon. gentleman is referring.


George Harris Hees: That's the trouble. That's why we never get any action.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is taking steps to give information to producers about the selling price which is reflected in the final payment. A booklet, or information piece, describing the total financial situation with regard to that crop year is about to go into the mail. It is being sent by the Canadian Wheat Board to all producers. Canadian Wheat Board commissioners are holding meetings throughout the prairies, and they are hoping to meet as many farmers in person as possible.


WHEAT-SUGGESTION INFORMATION BOOKLET ON SELLING COSTS ACCOMPANY FINAL PAYMENT CHEQUES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that in future years the minister ensure that that booklet is included with the final payment cheque, a booklet including a full breakdown as to demurrage charges and all expenses taken off gross sales, so farmers can make an analysis when they receive their cheques without going through a long period of frustration.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the final payments of the Canadian Wheat Board are sent out in the New Year just as fast as the calculations can be


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Solicitor General has returned to the House. My questions are with reference to the matters raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. Mr. Justice Collier, in a recent judgment of February 10, said the following:
... the powers given under the writs are extremely wide and, but for any legal sanctification in the statute, would otherwise be an invasion of privacy and property and civil rights.
In view of that statement, and in view of a practice which I am sure must alarm the minister as a member of the bar, would he undertake to adopt the practice of personally reviewing and approving any further applications by the RCMP for writs of assistance under these statutes until an investigation is completed?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to make an exhaustive inquiry on this matter, but I must indicate to my hon. colleague that applications for a writ of assistance are made through the Attorney General of Canada as far as the Customs Act and the Excise Tax Act are

February 16, 1977
Oral Questions
concerned and through the Minister of National Health and Welfare as far as the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act are concerned.
However, hon. members should be reminded that, if we consider the Customs Act and the Excise Tax Act, there are more than 70 million visitors in Canada each year and if it were necessary to ask for a search warrant each time there should be a seizure, the evidence might disappear in several cases. I hope the hon. member does not question the very principle of a writ of assistance but rather that he considers the process of application for these writs.


Walter David Baker: I appreciate the difficulties with respect to law enforcement which have been raised by the Solicitor General, but I hope he will not balance those against the rights of individuals and the clear principle which has long been embodied in our law that the rights of individuals should be safeguarded. Surely, with the number of judges there are in this country and with the number of opportunities for applications to be made, the Solicitor General would not consider it unreasonable if I asked him whether he would make a general review of statutes with respect to the application of these wide, sweeping powers so that any police force, even the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, does not have the power to act arbitrarily in this situation.
After the review would the minister undertake to come to the House and make a statement on motions with respect to the findings of his investigation?
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think I have no authority to review the Customs Act and the Excise Tax Act, nor the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act. Of course, I shall be pleased to study closely the procedure followed by the RCMP.
I would also like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that in several cases, for example in remote areas, it is necessary for the RCMP, under certain circumstances, to be able to use the kind of instrument described in a writ of assistance.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent water transportation dislocations in the federal ridings of Comox-Alberni, Coast Chilcotin and Skeena, can the minister advise the House when his announced transportation inquiry will take place regarding water transportation on the west coast of Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an indication of that kind of inquiry at this point

because any such proceeding may be affected by certain discussions which are taking place at the present time between the province of British Columbia and ourselves. I hope those could conclude at an early date, and then we could take the next step.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED ROLL-BACK OF BREAD PRICES IN VIEW OF DECISION ON SALARIES OF FLOUR MILL WORKERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO SETTLE STRIKE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance, and it is in relation to the strike of flour mill workers in the city of Montreal. Is the minister aware that the decision of the AIB, which was supported by his government, rolls back the wages of workers in the flour mills but does not roll back the price of bread in the city of Montreal, and that as a result of that the companies are now accumulating an extra profit margin of some $400,000? Is the minister going to do something about that situation, where the wages of workers cannot be increased but that the price of bread is not rolled back?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the roll-back by the AIB was to prevent any further increase in the cost of bread and other flour products to consumers, not only in Montreal but also in other parts of Canada. With respect to the profit margin of the millers and with respect to the extent to which it has been expanded I would have to make a specific inquiry of the board. However, that profit margin is under the restraint of the anti-inflation program, as is the case with other companies.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister very recently said that the strike was under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec, and I would like to know if the minister will now admit that he was wrong, in view of the fact that the strike is really taking place against the AIB. Would the minister tell the House what recommendation he is making to the cabinet to settle the situation in the city of Montreal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am quite prepared to admit to the House that I was wrong in that statement, but not because it is a strike against the AIB. The millers in question are governed by the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and in that sense they are under federal jurisdiction rather than provincial jurisdiction. I am glad to have this opportunity to correct the record.
It seems to me that it is in the interests of Canadian consumers and Canadians generally that we have this restraint against further increases in costs in the food industry. Locals in Alberta and Ontario have accepted similar terms as being reasonable for settlement of the contract, and it seems equally reasonable that those in Quebec should do so as well. We
February 16, 1977

passed a law in this parliament to restrain increases in costs in this as in other areas, and I think it should be respected by that particular bargaining unit.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Lapointe, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who is responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission, said that he did not have the authority to implement the suggestion of the hon. member, namely to remedy the gross injustice suffered by persons of 65 years of age who, having been misled by employees of the government, were deprived of their unemployment insurance and who further, having applied to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan now are told that they will not receive what other 65-year olds are being granted, all that as a result of an error which the government has admitted. Consequently, and for the sake of justice, I would ask the minister if he is willing to recommend to the cabinet that the situation be remedied as soon as possible so that justice be done to those persons of 65 who were misled, which error the government itself has recognized.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what correction the hon. member has in mind. As I understand it, the provisions relating to persons aged 60 stem from the law itself. I am not sure whether he has in mind a change in the law to overcome that particular point, or whether he wants better information.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
For the minister's guidance, may I say that since those people of 65 were cut off unemployment insurance from December 1975 and since the courts upheld those persons' rights, the government announced this week that it will resume unemployment insurance payments to people of 65, except for those who have applied for the Canada or Quebec pension. As civil servants had said to those persons that they would no longer get their unemployment insurance, the latter were in fact forced to apply for their pensions. That mistake was made by civil servants and I ask that justice be done to those persons of 65: only a decision of the cabinet can redress that injustice.
Privilege-Mr. Alexander


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a number of representations that are self-evident.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege as a result of information brought to my attention which concerns the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). I was very pleased when I received a letter dated February 10, just before I came into the House, regarding the new legislation dealing with amendments to the Citizenship Act.
I read the minister's letter with a great deal of care and interest. He mentioned the ceremonies that were held on February 15.1 became more interested when he stated that the purpose of these manifestations is to publicize the new act and encourage potential new Canadians to take advantage of it. I jumped for joy at that, Mr. Speaker, because I thought it was important and I would want to become involved with it. It made a great deal of sense. Then the minister advised that on February 25 the Department of the Secretary of State will hold a reception at the Hamilton Multicultural Centre "which you are personally invited to attend."
Here is the key sentence, Mr. Speaker.
1 am enclosing herewith 20 invitations which you might want to address to different individuals in your riding on my behalf.
Then the minister honours me with a list of some 50 people.
What I take exception to is that the invitation reads like this:
To mark the Proclamation of the New Citizenship Act The Honourable John Munro on behalf of
The Secretary of State of Canada request the pleasure of the company of


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) does have something to do with multicultural-ism, but I think that what the Secretary of State is attempting to do is nothing but a cheap political trick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I cannot understand how the minister would want me to be enjoined with him in something that is misleading. If I did insert a name on that invitation it would appear that it was not put there on the minister's behalf by me but rather by the Minister of Labour.
I just want to let the minister know that this is no time to play tricks with a very important act-an act some one million people want to become involved with by taking advantage of the situation. I would have been pleased to co-operate with the minister, but he could have sent me an invitation reading "The Secretary of State for Canada requests the pleasure of the

February 16, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Alexander
company of-As a result of this very cheap trick I intend to use the list he gave me to send invitations to the ceremonies being held on Friday, on my own stationery. I hope the minister will govern himself accordingly in future.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I am astonished-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: A series of these celebrations will be taking place across the country. I could not possibly attend all of them although I would like to be able to do so. These are celebrations undertaken by the government under the responsibility of my ministry quite properly for the purpose of ensuring that those most likely to be able to take advantage of the provisions of this act-


An hon. Member:: -are the Liberals.


John (Moody) Roberts: -will be informed of the details of how they may do so. It seemed to me appropriate to involve members of parliament from all parties in the celebration of this extremely progressive legislation. Members of all political parties in the area concerned have been invited, and in many cases they have accepted. Indeed, colleagues of the hon. gentleman have wholeheartedly accepted invitations to take part in similar celebrations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has a fascinating grievance. However, in its substance or form it is not a question of privilege. Both sides have made a contribution to this interesting grievance, but in so far as it relates to a question of privilege under the terms of the rules and precedents of this House, the discussion ought to stop there.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order stemming from the earlier exchange between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien)-I am sorry he is not in the House-and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). I take exception to the fact that at the conclusion of his answer and, after he sat down, the minister was yelling my name across the floor attempting to insinuate that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings' attempts to clarify the reasons for the country's high level of foreign deficit are contradictory to my request made earlier this week for exempting small businesses from the government's textile quotas.
My point of order is to clarify this misleading information that the minister was trying to yell across the floor. Our party's position is that at no time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member seeks to rectify some irregularity in today's proceedings I would have to be persuaded that such an irregularity has formed part of

the record before giving him an opportunity to raise, by way of opposition thereto, the position of his party or himself in respect of the particular argument. At the moment what the hon. member describes is not something that has formed part of the record in today's proceedings. If it has, I would be prepared to hear the hon. member tomorrow. At the moment he is describing something that could be part of today's proceedings. I cannot conclude how that could form a point of order because the irregularity would have to be part of the proceedings before I could give the hon. member the floor.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I will be very brief. It arises out of the question I was attempting to put to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).
In retrospect, I agree that the explanation to my question may have been somewhat lengthy. Nevertheless, I felt it was necessary before the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs could answer the question to put a lot of pertinent information on record. The question, really, had to do with the incredible bungling of CIDA. If I may have your indulgence, Sir, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to permit the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is in charge of CIDA, to reply to my question. Does he know about the problem, and will something be done about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have taken the decision in respect of the hon. member's question, as I have in respect of questions asked in similar circumstances by many other hon. members, that the information sought ought to be sought in some other way. The hon. member put forward greatly detailed information about a particular transaction. I have often said to the hon. member's colleagues in respect of similar questions which have been raised, as I said on two similar occasions this afternoon, that that kind of information ought to be sought in another way. It would be grossly and manifestly unfair to permit the hon. member to have a second run at the same question, unless I would be prepared to do this for his colleagues as well.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1978, was presented by the Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
February 16, 1977
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I heard hon. members across the floor from me commenting that I was being disrespectful to the Governor General in not standing up when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) announced that he had a message from His Excellency, signed by his own hand. I submit that estimates are concerned with the raising of money, and my not standing does not carry any implication whatsoever of disrespect for the Governor General or others. If other hon. members wish to stand up because the cabinet is asking for money, that is their business, but my not standing should not be interpreted as disrespect for the person of the Governor General.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the main estimates of federal expenditures for fiscal year 1977-78, which I am tabling today, should dispel any remaining doubts about the government's determination to restrain the growth of federal outlays and to ensure, with the co-operation of other levels of government, that the trend in total public spending does not rise more quickly than the trend in the gross national product. This essential goal of the government's expenditure policy was unequivocally restated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in his budget speech last year.
My colleague indicated at that time that our target rate of increase for total federal outlays, in fiscal year 1976-77, had been set at a maximum of about 14 per cent, while our forward planning for fiscal year 1977-78, beginning April 1, was based on a growth rate of the order of 11 per cent.
Today I am able to inform the House that increases in both forecast expenditures for the current fiscal year ending on March 31, and planned expenditures for the new 1977-78 fiscal year, are expected to be lower than the targets announced by the government last year.
First, as a result of the relentless monitoring and control of spending plans exercised by the Treasury Board throughout the fiscal year, the most recent forecast indicates that total federal expenditures in 1976-77 will be less than the S42.2 billion projected by my predecessor last February. As a result, the percentage increase in total spending to be recorded in the current fiscal year is likely to be lower than the government's target of 14 per cent, and also lower than anticipated GNP growth.
I emphasize that, when I speak of total spending, I really mean total spending-all budgetary outlays and all nonbudgetary financing, both statutory and non-statutory, included in the main estimates, supplementary estimates A, B and C, as well as any other supplementary estimates which may be tabled before the end of the fiscal year 1976-77.
Second, I am able to announce that federal expenditures are expected to be about 7 per cent higher, in fiscal year 1977-78, than the level of spending planned for 1976-77. That percentage increase will be marginally higher if, as currently forecast, we manage to hold expenditures in the current fiscal year below the target figure of $42.2 billion.
Main Estimates
The 1977-78 expenditure plan adopted by the government therefore provides for total federal expenditures of approximately $45.1 billion. Hon. members will note that the plan aims at an over-all percentage increase considerably lower than the 11 per cent target posted last May by the Minister of Finance. Barring unforeseen developments in general economic conditions, the growth of federal spending will be cut almost by half; it will have been cut for the third consecutive fiscal year; and it will be lower than the rate of growth in the country's GNP.
In other words, the main estimates for fiscal year 1977-78 reflect current concerns in Canada about public spending trends. It responds to these concerns in a responsible manner. If I were at liberty to put a label on the bluebook, Mr. Speaker, I would call it responsible and responsive.
Two factors account for this achievement. One is the government's decision, after consultation with the provinces, to propose new financing arrangements for hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education-programs launched jointly, several years ago, by the federal government and the provinces, and which are now well established.
While the new arrangements involve the transfer of tax revenues for the federal treasury, they also reduce substantially federal statutory payments to provincial governments by approximately $970 million in fiscal year 1977-78.
The other factor which explains why the government has been able to best its own spending target for the coming fiscal year is summed up in one word: restraint.
It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that the review screening and pruning of departmental spending plans which started a year ago and ended barely three weeks ago-much later than usual-has been conducted with a rigour almost without precedent. It has been a tough year for the Treasury Board, a tough year for its secretariat, and a tough year for all federal departments and agencies.
"Vingt fois sur le metier remettez votre ouvrage", the French rhetorician Nicola Boileau instructed poets, a couple of centuries ago. Although there are few poets on the Treasury Board, I can assure you that on more than a couple of occasions since last spring we instructed our officials to put spending plans once again through the grinder.
The results of these successive and detailed reviews of departmental submissions are now self-evident: the dollar increase in planned federal expenditures for the new fiscal year is $3 billion-$2 billion less than the dollar increase forecast for 1976-77, almost $3 billion less than the increase recorded in 1975-76, about $3!6 billion less than in 1974-75, and $l'/2 billion less than in 1973-74.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, despite much lower but still significant inflation, and despite the ever-increasing demands for federal services caused by population growth and the continuing expansion of the Canadian economy, the increase in planned federal expenditures during the coming fiscal year will

February 16, 1977
Main Estimates
actually be smaller, in absolute terms, than in any of the preceding four fiscal years.
Needless to say, a great number of highly commendable proposals to expand and improve federal programs has to be sacrificed or postponed. In fact, the Main Estimates for 197778 include financial provisions for only one major new program, namely, the employment strategy to be implemented in the course of the new fiscal year by my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). Yet the Treasury Board has been able to restrain the growth of expenditures in a socially-progressive way, without distorting government priorities and without unduly impairing the ability of departments and agencies to deliver to all Canadians the essential public goods and services they expect from their federal government.
To achieve these goals, I asked, I expected, and I obtained the co-operation of the public service; I will ask for and anticipate receiving it again this year.
It would have been too much to expect ministers and departmental managers, concerned as they are about the effectiveness of the programs they administer, to enjoy the cut of restraint; but I must commend them for having accepted it all, if not with equanimity, at least with a good measure of stoicism and fairly restrained protest.
To avoid any misunderstanding about our expenditure policy, I emphasize that the $45,120 million figure for total spending projected for 1977-78 includes all budgetary and non-budgetary outlays by all federal departments and agencies for the 12 month period beginning on April 1, 1977.


An hon. Member:: What about supplementaries?


Robert Knight Andras: It includes the anticipated supplementaries.
It includes not only the Main Estimates of $44,142 million which I am tabling today, but also reserves of $1,850 million for the supplementary estimates which may have to be tabled in the course of the fiscal year; and the aggregate of these two figures has been adjusted to take into account the customary lapses in credits voted, which are conservatively estimated at $872 million.
The Main Estimates proper include $41,145 million for budgetary outlays, the bulk of which will finance programs which are essentially redistributive in nature.
Many Canadians still have the notion that the money they pay in taxes to the federal government serves mainly to finance huge bureaucracies and remote agencies. Yet the operating and capital expenditures of all federal departments and agencies are expected to account in the coming fiscal year for less than one third of budgetary estimates, namely, $12.9 billion; and this includes the $3.8 billion required for National Defence.
I hardly need to remind hon. members that public servants, like other Canadians, spend most of their income on consumer goods, and that the federal government as my colleague the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), can attest-is the largest single customer of Canadian industry; so that what

we will spend on goods and services during the coming fiscal year will sustain, as in previous years, output and employment in the country's private economy.
But the point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that almost 69 per cent of the budgetary expenditures forecast for 1977-78 will not really be "spent" by the government, in the sense that these moneys will not be used to pay the salary of public servants, or to build new federal buildings, or to buy furniture, paper clips and typewriters for government offices, tanks or planes for the Armed Forces, uniforms for the RCMP, and so forth.
Over $26 billion worth of so-called government "spending" will actually be paid back to individual Canadians in the form of social security payments, grants and subsidies, or transferred to their provincial and municipal governments, or used to pay interest to government bond holders, the vast majority of whom are Canadians. Therefore the federal government will directly plough back into the Canadian economy more than two-thirds of tax revenues and borrowings required to finance its budgetary expenditures during fiscal year 1977-78.
The same can be said of the $3 billion dollars required for non-budgetary outlays. These will be used to make investments in Crown corporations and to extend loans or advances to various departments and agencies such as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Export Development Corporation, the Federal Business Development Bank and the Farm Credit Corporation. Consequently the bulk of the federal government's non-budgetary outlays will indirectly finance private expenditures such as housing, business and farm investment, or exports of goods and services.
I should point out that the 1977-78 Main Estimates include for the first time all non-budgetary items which are expected to be made under existing legislation, as well as those which must be included in appropriation bills.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to a further dimension of the Main Estimates, namely, the manpower requirements of the public service during the next fiscal year. You will recall that my predecessor announced in the fall of 1975 the government's determination to curb and eventually stabilize the growth of the federal public service. The percentage increase of authorized manpower resources was reduced to 4.1 per cent in 1975-76; and the ceiling on public service growth was drastically lowered to 1.3 per cent in 1976-77.
A thorough review of manpower requirements in departments and agencies has enabled the government to project the growth of the public service at a still lower level in 1977-78- in effect, virtually to stabilize it. We have set the maximum level of authorized man-years in departments and agencies under Treasury Board Control at 323,272 in the new fiscal year-an increase of 2,081 man-years, or about six-tenths of 1 per cent, over the 1976-77 Main Estimates level. This is close to the "zero growth" target which has been suggested by some in recent months; but it has been achieved through successive assessments and reassessments of just what minimal manpower requirements were in each department or agency, rather than
February 16, 1977

through the setting of an arbitrary target for the public service as a whole, or the imposition of across-the-board percentage cuts.
We have thus been able to streamline the public service without impairing its ability to produce and deliver essential services; and we will press on, in the new fiscal year, with improvements in public sector productivity, notably through better and more extensive measurement of performance.
I hope to have established, Mr. Speaker, that the government is in firm control of both the public treasury and the public service. In the framing of our expenditure plan for fiscal year 1977-78, we have taken steps to make that control more effective; and we will continue to do so during the next budgetary planning period, which has already begun.
Restraint must not be confused with stagnation. The government must continue to respond to essential public needs. But it must ensure that its expenditure planning is responsible as well as responsive.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset thank the minister for providing me with an advance copy of the statement he has just delivered to the House, and also for giving me a sneak preview of some of the salient points in the estimates which have been tabled this afternoon.
On the basis of a quick examination of the estimates we have been given, and assuming we can accept the sincerity of the minister's statement, I believe I can say on behalf of my party that we generally approve of the government's desire to moderate expenditures, and the direction it is taking in this regard. I only hope the government's aspirations will be translated into reality. I trust, as I say these things, that in the course of our examination of the estimates and the specific proposals contained therein we shall not discover any surprises or juggling of figures which would contradict the position which seems to be inherent in the minister's message this afternoon.
I should like to take this opportunity to say that we in this party have provided a large measure of leadership in badgering the government to act more responsibly in relation to its expenditures. I trust the minister has paid heed to some of those speeches. I hope he will bear in mind that we have stressed the need for moderation in the growth of federal expenditure for a long time. We have also been concerned about the ever-increasing percentage of the gross national product being extracted by all levels of government, and to judge from the minister's statement this afternoon it would seem the government has taken heed of this aspect, too. I congratulate the hon. gentleman and I trust he will be successful in bringing in the degree of moderation which, I believe, all Canadians want to see, in government expenditures at all levels.
While the government has demonstrated a certain moderation, and while it has imposed restraint upon all Canadians, I have to say it appears to have imposed a lesser degree of restraint upon itself than upon Canadians generally. The esti-
Main Estimates
mates tabled today show that restraint is painful for government, that is, if we can call an additional expenditure of $3 billion an example of restraint. It must be pointed out that in this case the pain is lessened by exporting most of it to the governments of the provinces. While the percentage increase indicates moderation in spending at the federal level, it is, to some extent, illusory rather than real.
As the minister has stated, we must add at least $970 million to the planned 1977-78 figure if we are to compare it with the figures for the last fiscal year with any degree of consistency. That $970 million represents the additional amount the government would have been called upon to pay in fiscal 1978 if it had not transferred the burden of what used to be cost-shared programs to the provinces. While fiscal transfers to provinces amounted to 11.7 per cent in the main estimates last year, we find that the amount shown in the estimates tabled today accounts only for some 7 per cent, indicating a major shift of the burden to the backs of the provinces. If we are to be consistent when comparing actual spending this year with spending last year, it would seem to me that the real increase would be closer to 10 per cent rather than the 7 per cent about which the government is gloating.
When we look at percentage figures, increases or decreases may look somewhat modest. They should not be allowed to obscure the overwhelming sum with which we are dealing. After all, $45.1 billion is a huge sum of money. As far as the operation of trimming government fat and excessive expenditure is concerned, I have to say that it has been largely a cosmetic exercise. We find the first acknowledgment of the need for restraint in the budget of January 23, 1975. On July 7, 1975, and again on December 18 we were presented with itemized accounts of planned reductions in expenditure. It now seems only normal that we should ask the government to table an up-to-date accounting showing precisely whether and where those cut-backs took place. The government should identify the areas in which restraint was shown, and I urge the minister to do so in order that we may know precisely whether or not a true effort has been made to trim government fat and unnecessary expenditure.
We need only look at the Auditor General's report to find many opportunities of cutting back on waste and extravagance. For example, in December, 1975, the then president of the treasury board indicated that planned expenditure on accommodation for the Public Service had been cut, particularly as a consequence of the greatly restricted growth in numbers. He told us that the provision in the Main Estimates in 1976-77 for the construction of public buildings would be $30 million less than in the 1975-76 Main Estimates. What did the Auditor General have to say in his report tabled in November? He said at page 17 of the Conspectus: "We found that the present use of space exceeds the guidelines by more than 30 per cent." That is the sort of waste which we consider should be looked into and dealt with.
In the area of consultants' services, here again the former president of the treasury board, speaking on July 2, 1975, as reported at page 7182 of Hansard, had this to say:

February 16, 1977
Main Estimates
My deputy minister wrote to deputy minister and organization leaders urging them to take measures aimed at lowering consultants' and travel expenses during the present fiscal year. That letter has to do with expenses that are not essential to the permanent efficiency of programs.
Have we seen any cut-backs in expenditure on consultants and professional services? I have just glanced at the bluebook and it seems to me the figure is still around $1.2 billion. The minister smiles and laughs. Where are these cut-backs? Where are these reductions in expenditure?


Robert Knight Andras: That figure includes manpower training, occupational retraining-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The fact of the matter is that what the government says it will do is a far cry from what it does.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: When we are dealing with figures of the magnitude of $42 billion we should bear in mind that small percentages are translated into huge amounts. For example, an increase of six-tenths of one per cent in the numbers in the Public Service produces an additional 2,081 man-years, and an increase of 7 per cent in federal government expenditure increases total spending from $42.1 billion to $45.1 billion. Therefore while the percentages are modest, the aggregate totals become increasingly overwhelming.
I am sure that Canadians are going to be concerned about the size of federal government expenditures. I think they are also deeply concerned about another matter, namely, how the money is managed after it is allocated. As one travels across the country and witnesses the number of editorials written in daily newspapers, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canadians are worried. They are worried when the Auditor General says that parliament, and indeed the government, have lost or are close to losing effective control over the public purse. It seems to me that if the government were really serious about the concerns of Canadians, accompanying these all time record spending estimates we would have had the announcement by the minister of the appointment of a comptroller general who, coupled with the senior financial officer of every department, agency and Crown corporation, would be charged with seeing that after spending is allocated it is properly controlled.
Even more basic, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has stated that one of the major barriers to restoring parliamentary control is the form of the estimates themselves. I regret to say to this House that I have not seen a significant improvement in the form and content of the estimates themselves. There has been no substantial change. The committee structure which is set up to analyse and scrutinize these estimates is insufficient to deal item by item with matters that have to be studied in detail. They are then subjected to the guillotine rule, which assures that many of these items will not be thoroughly examined. Many will not be touched at all.
We have all read the Auditor General's remarks on Financial control of the government of Canada. A large part of the

moneys that we are dealing with today are going to be distributed to Crown corporations. In this area all semblance of fiscal responsibility is lost. As Mr. Ross of the Auditor General's office said before the Public Accounts Committee, Crown corporations have not been subjected to a high degree of accountability, and they have received an unusually high degree of financial freedom.
We have only to look at the events surrounding AECL and Polysar to indicate what has happened to the freedom which has been granted to these Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker. We have so many Crown corporations today that the federal government and Auditor General have found it impossible to tabulate them all. There is no complete list of federal Crown corporations available. Hopefully we will be able to prepare one some time during the course of the this year.
Crown corporations too should be subjected to an in depth examination annually or biennially by a committee with adequate resources. Any Crown appendage must be subjected to the provisions of the Financial Administration Act if there is to be any degree of effective monitoring and control.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, arguing over which one of the government's illusory figures showing how much spending has increased is correct will not arrest the fears of Canadians regarding how their money is spent. This is money held for them in trust by the federal government. I say to this House that positive and immediate action is needed to reform the estimates, to appoint a comptroller general to examine the management of Crown corporations, and to strengthen our committee system. Then, and only then, will we be able to restore faith in our system of parliamentary democracy.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, if I were to paraphrase the coy and ingenuous manner in which the minister put forward his description of his statement, when he called it responsive and responsible, I would have to put it in somewhat more simple and, I am sorry to say, accurate language, and describe it as just plain stupid. It may be responsive in the sense that a Liberal government has picked up every antiquated idea of the Tories. The government has taken a look at the Gallup poll and it has seen that the Tories are doing very well. It has then asked its own people, why are the Tories doing so well?


An hon. Member:: Because we will do well.


Max Saltsman: Well, hon. members are a noisy lot, but that is not why they are doing so well. The Tories are doing well because they found some terribly old-fashioned ideas and have taken them right out of the eighteenth century and are dragging them around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Just listen to the Tories cheering.


Max Saltsman: Yes. Therefore, "Let us not look at how outmoded, outdated and inappropriate those ideas are", says
February 16, 1977

the government, "they seem to be working so far as the Gallup poll is concerned, so we will adopt them."
It is one thing for us to sit here in the social democratic corner and wince. But, Mr. Speaker, if there are any true Liberals in this country they must be crying today when they see the kind of estimates that have been tabled in this House. They are irresponsible in the extreme. This government-any government-has the responsibility to lead, not to knuckle under to the hysteria created by an irresponsible opposition which is sitting opposite and grinding its own axe. In tabling its estimates the government is behaving in the way that is usually attributed to generals-it is fighting the battles of the past instead of looking at the problems of today.
The government's estimates reflect an economic ignorance matched only by a blind disregard for the crisis of unemployment. The estimates that we see today would have been more appropriate for an economy that was bursting at the seams. If the government had brought these estimates in four years ago, there might have been some sense to them. But to bring in this kind of restraint at a time when there are one million unemployed in this country, and when the major objective of the government, indeed of any government, is to put these people back to work, is criminal.
It is senseless in another way, Mr. Speaker, and let me give a number of examples of the kind of senselessness that we are being asked to accept. On the one hand the government is holding down its manpower requirements in the coming year to virtually zero. Then it turns around and brings in a program called Canada Works, designed to create jobs elsewhere in the public sector which are going to be more costly and less effective. We have people coming out of universities who are looking for jobs, yet the government is going to bring down the guillotine on jobs. The government is compounding the unemployment problem.
The government's position for a long time now, aided and supported by the official opposition, has been that it has to get out of the economy. It has to get out of stimulating the economy and let the private sector in. To some extent, if that were going to work, it would be understandable. But instead the government is getting out of the economy, the private sector is getting out of the economy, and no one is getting into the economy. Under those circumstances even the most free enterprising of governments-for example, the United States-should recognize that there is a heavy responsibility on government to provide employment if the private sector has failed to do so. And the private sector has failed to do so, Mr. Speaker.
Some 83 per cent of our plant capacity is being used. There is an enormous gap in confidence, and lack of stimulation. Instead of the government stepping into the breach, even a private enterprise government, and saying, "All right, we have to supplement what is going on in the private sector", and instead of stimulating the economy, the government is walking away from its responsibility. It is the R. B. Bennett of the depression days; it is the Hoovers all over again, talking about balancing budgets when in fact the government should be
Main Estimates
creating employment. In my view, it is a most irresponsible thing for the government to do.
To take another example, the government is holding its capital expenditures, the amount of money it spends on capital works, to about the same level as it has over the previous years, this at a time when the private sector is not engaged, when we have one of the highest levels of unemployment in the construction industry which this country has seen, when we need houses, when we need sewage disposal plants, and when we need to upgrade insulation in public and private residences in view of the higher cost of energy. At this time the government is opting out. When is the government going to do all that?
Public transportation should be improved. When will the government do it? Will it wait for full employment and then decide to stimulate the economy and create inflation? Or perhaps it figures we will never have full employment. If it continues in the direction in which it is going now, we will never have full employment or anything approaching it.
I gave the government credit-perhaps I should not have- for having a little more sense than it has, but it does not seem to have any at all. It is one thing for ministers to take the heat off themselves, as apparently they have done, but I found the Conservative party's response to the government measures was awkward. The Conservatives were finding it difficult to criticize the proposals which the government introduced. If it was the government's objective to neutralize the Conservative opposition, it has achieved it. In the criticism levelled against the government's estimates, the official opposition stopped criticizing the contents of the estimates and reverted back to saying they do not like the form in which they were introduced. That is the most biting criticism they could mount on the estimates. That is the kind of thing that has been put forward to the House.
I think that the government's behaviour at a time of enormous unemployment in the country is absolutely disgraceful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: A reduction in government expenditures may be a virtue under certain circumstances, but in the light of the one million unemployed in this country, the government's conduct is callous, misguided, and is boot-licking the rich in Canada.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) for providing on time, to me and my colleagues, the French background information on the main estimates for the financial year 1977-78.
These estimates amount to some $45.1 billion for financial year 1977-78 and show a real increase of $3 billion over financial year 1976-77. I would like to make an immediate reference to the Reader's Digest of January 1977, page 80,

February 16, 1977
Main Estimates
where it is stated-and it does not come from Socred analysts but the Reader's Digest-and I quote:

In ten years, the budget has skyrocketed 350 per cent from $8.8 billion to a forecast $39 billion in this fiscal year (April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977).

Well, Mr. Speaker, in light of such estimates I would like to correct the Reader's Digest's report that the budget rose from $8.8 billion to $45.1 billion, an actual increase of about 500 per cent over a ten-year period.
The government is trying to hide that increase by manipulating the figures and presenting the budget increase in regard to the gross national product in an attempt to sell us the idea that it accomplished financial miracles in connection with its budgets or the gross national product. I do not care for comparisons in increasing expenditures or estimates in relation to the GNP because if you take out of the GNP the drop in the value of the dollar caused by the increase in the cost of living you come to a first conclusion that national output in 1976 in terms of real dollars amounts to about 10 per cent more than the national output ten years ago. If, on the other hand, you exclude the output by new Canadians who have entered the labour market over the last ten years from the 1976 national output you realize that the per capita GNP in 1976 is the same in terms of real dollars as in 1966. So there was no actual increase in the GNP per capita during the 1966-76 fiscal year. That increase is due to inflated figures as shown by the consumer price index which rose by 72 per cent from 1965 to 1975.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an extremely important second point about the GNP and it is this: The GNP figures include amounts that are more a liability than an asset for this country. Let me explain. The gross national product includes-to use only that example-all sales or exports of raw materials such as asbestos ore or various forms of energy, or all other sales of iron ore or non-renewable natural resources. Those sales have inflated our GNP whereas if our natural resources were processed in Canada they would increase the gross national product much more and at the same time help reduce unemployment.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the House that 55.7 per cent of the budget expenses tabled this day are statutory expenses, which means that the House cannot discuss nor change them, and that the first item, the largest statutory expense, amounts to $5.38 billion. These undebatable $5.38 billion statutory expenses are not meant for unemployed, handicapped or sick people, and even less for provinces strangled by finance to such an extent that unfortunately several of them are, like Quebec, thinking of separation, with the thought and belief that they will all by themselves get strangled less severely and less quickly without the co-operation of the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, these $5,388 million will go to the little people, the little people of the financial world for having financed 94 per cent of Canada saving bonds or of our national debt, a financing which should have been done through the Bank of

Canada, as it was suggested yesterday by my hon. colleague, the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) in a motion tabled and discussed in the House.
The transfer of monies to the provinces for fiscal year 1977-78 will be around $2.88 billion whereas the transfer to the financiers of saving bonds will be twice as high. If they want transfer payments, the provinces have to beg the federal government, discuss, fight and be disappointed, while the chartered banks do not even need to attend federal-provincial conferences because, by statute, they come at the top of our spending to such an extent, Mr. Speaker, that we are not even allowed now to discuss it in the House. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we shall soon see the day when the federal government will have to choose between financiers and their annual transfer payment of $5,388 million and the Canadian provinces which are fighting to get $2,880 million in transfer payments.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister. It is obvious we will not get a change in the form of the estimates we talked about earlier this year when the Auditor General's report came down. As members of parliament, who have the primary responsibility of examining government estimates before granting supply, we are still faced with the same problem.
Given the fact that as of this moment there are 14 standing committees examining the estimates of approximately 32 government departments, not counting government agencies, and given the fact that Standing Order 58(14) requires that all the estimates will be deemed to have been reported back to the House and approved as of midnight, May 31, can the minister assure us now that all the estimates which he released today will be examined in committee? I ask that question because it has been the experience of the last few years-and if we examine the record we will find that this is a fact-that there has not been a year in which all departments came before the committees for an examination of their estimates, and consequently some of the moneys had to be voted by the House without any examination whatsoever. In light of what the Auditor General said about the government and parliament losing control over spending, can the minister at least assure us that every department will be scrutinized by a committee of this House?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reflect on that. I might as well admit frankly that I am not exactly sure of any plans to change the process by which we examine estimates from what it has been in the past, at least between now and the deadline of May 31. All I can say is that the hon. member can be assured of my co-operation to the degree I can influence a thorough examination of the estimates. I know the problem. It is not entirely a matter of the attitude of the government. It is a problem of the complexity and volume of issues with which we have to deal compared with the number of hours in which we can deal with them.
February 16, 1977

As far as the comment about the form of the estimates is concerned, I indicated shortly after 1 took this portfolio, I think in response to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), that with regard to the question of the form of the estimates I was sympathetic to the need for more detailed information but that I doubted very much if it would be possible to introduce those changes for the main estimates this year for a reason I knew then, and that was that it would be a commitment to the members of the Public Accounts Committee particularly in their participation in the revision of the form of the estimates.
I can say now that 1 am more familiar with the problem than I was then, and there is a great deal of work and planning for some improvements which is going on and which, I hope, I will be in a position to announce with a fair amount of conviction in the not too distant future.
As to the estimates, I would be glad to co-operate to the degree I can, but I cannot make more time than has been available.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps by way of a supplementary I can amplify or crystallize exactly what I am looking for from the minister. Will the minister give us an undertaking that he will examine the experiences of the last three years? Such an examination would demonstrate to him that there were departments last year, the year before, and the year before that which never did get before committee for examination of their estimates. Since we are talking essentially about the management of the House, can the minister at least give us an undertaking, given the concern about government spending- and rightly so-that he will consult with his colleague, the government House leader, so that we can be assured that there will be a sense of priority on the part of the government House leader and the committees of the House with regard to the examination of estimates and that, notwithstanding any other government legislative program, estimates will receive priority by the committees?


Robert Knight Andras: I will certainly examine the practices. I myself have been party to those practices in terms of having taken the estimates of my former ministries before committees. To the best of my knowledge they have been examined before those committees. I appreciate that when we get down to the deadline there is often not enough time to go over them in detail. If that is what the hon. member is referring to, I will co-operate to the maximum, but I think it becomes a question of procedures to which all of us are party rather than government initiative by itself. However, I would be glad to look into it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) a question. Given the fact that the amount of spending increase the minister has indicated is virtually nullified by the increase in inflation, and if we are spending about the same amount in this year's estimates as last year in real dollars, and if we have one million and more unemployed, would the minister please try in a brief way to justify what kind of fiscal conservatism we have at this time, and specifical-
Main Estimates
ly, could he explain to us why such important human and job-creating areas as housing, for example, have been cut by $30.6 million for next year, and urban renewal spending by $1.6 million, and could he explain to the people of Canada why the government embarked on that course of action?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion 1 do not want to go into detail on all the figures in the bluebook, but with regard to housing I believe there was a reduction in the capital budget estimate, to which the hon. member referred. However, as I recall there was an increase of about $267 million in the operating aspect of the housing program, and I think that represents a 70 per cent or 75 per cent increase. One would have to take the whole thing together. I appreciate that the hon. member has not had an opportunity to do more than pick out a few things-and I am not making any accusations or allegations-but I think there is a deeper consolidation he might want to make before he gets too far out on a limb and makes that kind of statement.
With regard to general philosophy we have experienced substantial increases year on year over the last several years, as the hon. member well knows. There are many philosophical differences which could be debated here as to which way is the best way to stimulate the economy or the best way to attract investment, create jobs in the private sector, or spend our way through the public sector, but as the hon. member knows, he is arguing about the degree of these things. There have been increases for job creation and manpower training. These are designed to increase the opportunity for people to get gainful work while the economy is still slack. I suppose it is a question of philosophical argument.


John Edward Broadbent: Assuming that the philosophy of the government remains constant-and that is politeness on my part-I would like to ask the minister how he can explain the difference in spending from the 1971-72 period, when roughly three times the amount was allocated to direct job creation programs, from that being allocated now in the estimates for the forthcoming fiscal year when unemployment in the coming fiscal year is expected to be much higher than it was back in 1971-72. If there is any consistency in the philosophy of the government, why is spending not at least at the same level in direct job creation programs now as it was back in 1971-72?


Robert Knight Andras: I must seriously argue with the hon. member as to the accuracy-albeit inadvertent-of that comparison. It has been a few months since I was directly familiar with tracing the size of expenditures through those years, but I certainly do not recall a three to one difference in those ratios, as the hon. member has indicated. I would certainly want to see a consolidation of the job creation, employment producing measures today compared with what they were in 1971-72 or in any other year. If the hon. member brought them all together, I really believe he would find that there has been a steady increase. I have some personal familiarity with this, so I will try to get the figures together in an honest comparison to see what the relevance is.
3112

February 16, 1977
Main Estimates


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the area I represent there is a trend in the estimates which worries me, and that has to do with the Public Service of Canada. The minister made a great play of reducing the size of the Public Service, although not by much, but in terms of the people and the families which will be involved by quite a considerable amount. At the same time the estimates indicate an increase in the cost of outside consultants. I just wonder how the minister can justify that kind of thing, which is really exchanging, I suggest, one form of expenditure for another, and in fact is moving more and more in the direction of not using the talent which is in the Public Service already. Would the minister care to comment on that?


Robert Knight Andras: I think the hon. member would be wise to reflect for a day or two on his comment about the increase in the cost of outside consultants. This is most frustrating for me because I have been trying to explain privately to some of my colleagues on the other side that this has got off the track. That billion dollars includes the purchase through the provinces of manpower training and adult occupational training.


An hon. Member:: Give us a breakdown.


Robert Knight Andras: There is a special breakdown in the blue book. I cannot remember the number of the page but I hope hon. members read that thoroughly. I do not think they will find there is a significant increase in outside consultants. There may be a significant increase in the totality of those expenditures, some of which are related to the desire of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) to see employment inducing measures in our expenditures. That particularly is manpower training with which I have some familiarity. In the generality, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has indicated that he said "a reduction" in the Public Service. That is not the case. It is a reduction in the increase of the growth of the Public Service; it is not an absolute reduction. Frankly I wish we could have zero growth. By rather detailed analysis of various departments, we have come to the conclusion that a 2,081 increase in the Public Service is what we can live with for 1977-78. I will be very blunt about it; I intend to keep examining that.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I undertake to look at the matter of consultants and I would like to have an opportunity to study the breakdown. I put to the minister, by way of preamble to a second question, that one of the concerns in the Public Service is the increase in the use of outside people to do jobs for which there is already expertise within the Public Service. I think we ought to use that expertise.
The second matter I wanted to raise is the question of the rules of this House. This is a matter I raised with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the day before yesterday. I refer particularly to the power of the Public Accounts Committee to subpoena, to examine, to choose the evidence it would bring forward. The minister has indicated he is prepared to look at the committee procedures. Is he prepared to recommend to his

colleagues an increase in powers that would give the committee more of the investigative potential it has within the parliamentary system? Is he prepared to stand behind the Public Accounts Committee and the powers it needs to investigate government expenditures?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty wide-ranging probe that the hon. member is enticing me into. I may have sympathy but I am not going to express it today. I will re-examine that with the utmost care.
If I may come back to the preamble, Mr. Speaker, if we have the expertise inside the Public Service for analysis of a particular subject, obviously we should not go out and duplicate that.
There are cases, however, when we want confirmation or a different approach, and I think this is reasonable if we do not carry it too far. Surely the hon. member, as protective of his constituents in Ottawa as he is, would not suggest that we should create a permanent establishment of consultative requirements when we could get the information required in two months by paying a fee. That way we would not have the growth in the Public Service that goes with a permanent employee, a secretary and all the other things concerned. Surely if this is done within reason it is the wiser approach.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the minister that it is my contention that the Public Service of Canada is in many ways under-utilized and under-challenged. One of his predecessors indicated that was a problem but we could pursue it in another forum.
With respect to the discussion of the estimates, it is a fact that many estimates are not examined by committees, and it is a fact that parliament approves billions and billions of dollars in estimates without any scrutiny whatsoever. Is the minister in a position to say what his view is with respect to the rules of the House? Can we find a proponent for change to allow scrutiny on an unlimited basis of some departments in some forums of this House, either this Chamber or some other forum-a forum for the examination of the policies of the government, its expenditures and programs? Do I find a sympathetic ear within the government for that purpose?


Robert Knight Andras: Within reason, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuing that line of questioning, I do not have to remind the minister about one of the most important functions of parliament, a traditional role and a very important part of our responsibility, that is, to examine the expenditures of government.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) brought to the attention of the minister that in the last three years there have been examples where some departments have never had the first item of their estimates considered. One example is the Post Office. I find this to be incredible in view of the problems we have experienced with the Post Office over the past three years. When we think of the operation of that
February 16, 1977

important department we wonder what kind of planning the government undertakes with respect to scrutinizing the affairs of its departments.
May I ask the minister if, with the government House leader, he will ensure the right of each committee to determine its own activity, and ensure that government estimates receive high priority in the organization of the affairs of the House? Will he give that undertaking now, notwithstanding the fact that he is not now going to institute other changes of a more substantial nature?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of question I have been receiving in different forms. I do not think I can add to what I have said already. The deeper I get into this the more I understand the need for time to move on it with better concentration. My information is that as a government there are some adjustments we are going to have to make in discussions with the Auditor General etc. A great deal of the rest of it is the decision of this House. I can only indicate some understanding of the concerns and a sympathetic response, but I will not make any specific procedural commitment at this stage.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a proposal for the minister to consider with the government House leader. It seems to me it would be sensible for the minister to give an undertaking that he will at least ask the government House leader that these estimates be brought to the Committee of the Whole so that we can be assured no department will be left without being examined. That way we would know, with the time limit involved, that we have an opportunity of examining every department. That is a simple proposition. It does not require the instigation of any fundamental change in the procedures. It seems to me the minister could give that undertaking.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look carefully at that representation.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), followed by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I think that should conclude the questioning.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, one of the matters which has concerned members for a good many years is the apparent lack of effective control over Crown corporations, not just with respect to their day-today operations and not just with respect to little scandals which turn up, such as payments by AECL and kick-backs by Polysar, but the control of the expenditures, the borrowing and priorities which are pursued by the Crown corporations.
I want to ask the minister two questions. What effective control is exercised by Treasury Board over Crown corporations? Does Treasury Board have complete control of their budgets, that is to say, both their current and their capital budgets? Does it exercise control over their borrowing powers,
Main Estimates
and over priorities to be used in establishing borrowings? Does it have any role with respect to the disposition of surpluses which Crown corporations may have accumulated by the end of the year? Is any surplus remitted, in theory, to Treasury Board; does Treasury Board decide whether all of it or some of it shall be returned to the Crown corporation for development, in addition to other funds for which the minister responsible may ask? What type of control does Treasury Board exercise? It is extremely important for the House to know this. Certainly there is no adequate opportunity for hon. members to acquire this information.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it would take a fair amount of time to respond to the specific parts of that question. Without generalizing too much let me say that so far as I am concerned there must be greater control of Crown corporations. I will be making specific recommendations, to which I may reasonably anticipate my colleagues will agree.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Will there be recommendations for greater parliamentary control?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes. They may include greater control by the government, greater parliamentary control, and greater access by parliament to the whole system of information, annual reports, etc. I will not anticipate because I do not have those recommendations in my hot little fist yet; but I share some of the concern which has been raised.
This question brings to the fore another question, that of avoiding or at least of recognizing the danger of using financial control to gain other kinds of control over a Crown corporation. As you know, it is a fact of life that those who have the bucks have a lot to say about what should or should not be done.


An hon. Member:: Why not have such control?


Robert Knight Andras: I am sure that there are a great number of enthusiasts in this House, in all parties, who would exercise such control in some Crown corporations, but we had better understand what we are getting into. As for financial control, I really have no argument about that aspect of the question. I think we all recognize that it is time to step in and gain a much clearer understanding as to the kind of authority which exists with regard to capital budgets, operating budgets, etc. Certainly parliament should have access to such information, to the maximum possible degree. It is time for certain procedures to be reconsidered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will be pleased by the minister's reply. We shall be looking for action along the lines he indicated. I point out that it is the right and obligation of both the government and parliament to exercise financial control, because public moneys are being spent, and if a Crown corporation incurs debts and cannot by virtue of its operation retire them, the taxpayers of Canada, finally, will have to repay the money owing.
80008-S9V2

February 16, 1977
Main Estimates
The minister partly anticipated my second question. I should like to know not only what control Treasury Board has but what control parliament has. During all my years as a member of parliament I have never seen a thorough investigation by any committee of the House of Crown corporations. I recognize that it is not possible to do this between the present time and May 31 because the committees to which estimates are referred will be dealing with those departmental estimates. Therefore it is not likely that they will be able to devote much time to Crown corporations. But it seems to me that it would be possible, if the government were prepared so to do, to refer the annual financial reports of Crown corporations to appropriate committees, which could deal with those questions after we have disposed of the estimates. That procedure would give the respective committees the opportunity to look into such entities as Canadian National Railways, which has not been examined for many years, Air Canada, and other Crown corporations about which the public knows little and about whose financial management the members of this House know little. I do not know how much the cabinet knows about the financial administration of some large Crown corporations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Right on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask the
minister if it is not possible to work out with his colleagues and with House leaders a modus operandi whereby it would be possible to bring the financial reports of each of our Crown corporations before some standing committee of the House some time during the year? We could do this even if it means that some committees must come back for a while during the recess and spend some time considering these questions. Personally, and I am sure the minister must feel the same way, I feel guilty when I go back to the public and tell them that we have not looked at these-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I anticipated some of the hon. member's comments with regard to access by parliament to annual reports, etc. Really, I cannot say more than I said a few minutes ago. However, I will raise one point. I shall need a few more weeks, hopefully, to digest some of the details, and formulate some ideas which are developing along the line indicated, as well as other ideas. If this matter is treated as hon. members seem to agree it ought to be treated, we will need to consider the question of time and availability. This point is not unrelated to the earlier point concerning the examination of estimates of each department.
One should stop to think of the incredible amount of detailed work the committees will need to do and the time it will take to conduct such an examination. If we go that route, we shall need to be selective. We shall need to rotate our examinations perhaps over a period of two, three, four, even five years, to make sure that every department is examined. We shall need to be selective if we are to examine in detail, or if we are concerned for any reason. I will be glad, when we

have time, to sit down with hon. members and work this matter out on a productive and prospective basis.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to endorse what already has been said by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) with regard to the examination of estimates. Having served for two years as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and waded through the Wilson committee report, and the report of the independent review committee, all of which dealt with the evident lack of control over government spending, I would endorse what has previously been said and suggest to the minister that some vehicle must be found whereby not just one or two departments but all departments of government are examined by parliamentarians. When we return to our constituencies and are asked why we allowed certain expenditures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While I appreciate very much the sentiments of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), I must say that this period is provided in the Standing Orders for the putting of questions to ministers, not for the making of statements on remarks already made. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, perhaps he will put it forthwith.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to lay the groundwork for my question. Since it is proposed to televise the proceedings of parliament, and since implementation of that proposal will make it almost impossible for members to sit in committee while the House is being televised, may I ask the minister if he has discussed this matter with his colleagues, in the hope that the estimates of at least six departments will be brought to the House? We, as members of parliament, should have the opportunity to examine estimates here, in committee of the whole. I ask this question, bearing in mind the May 31 deadline.
We examined neither the Post Office nor the Department of Labour estimates last year or the year before. Would the minister consider referring those estimates to this House, so that the committee of the whole House will have the opportunity to consider fully such departmental expenditures? Would the minister say what he plans along these lines?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can elaborate further on what I have already said. With respect, the hon. member has asked very much the same kind of question to which I have been responding, but I will be glad to consider it. 1 will not give a precise and detailed commitment now. I must do an awful lot of work on this question before I can do that.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
February 16, 1977
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 294, 794, 1046, 1124, 1416, 1477, 1511 and 1561.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member mentioned questions Nos. 1124 and 1416.


Ralph Goodale: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. There was an error in the list that was circulated earlier for the information of hon. members.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-76, 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 Atlantic Development Council?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-74?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Atlantic Development Council is as follows: 1. Nil.
2.	Nil.
3.	Please refer to Sessional Paper No. 301-2/556 of June 2, 1975.


Mr. Leggatt: As of this date and as of January 1, 1977, what types and numbers of ships and aircraft of the (a) Canadian Armed Forces (b) Canadian Coast Guard (c) Department of the Environment on the (i) West coast (ii) East coast will be or are available for deployment within the new 200-mile sovereignty zone to defend national security and to protect fisheries and natural resources on the seabed?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of National Defence, Transport Canada and the Department
Order Paper Questions
of the Environment as follows: (a) (i) November 1, 1976; Destroyers, 8; Operational Support Ships, 1; CP-107 Argus Aircraft, 6; CP-121 Tracker Aircraft, 3; January 1, 1977: The same as for November 1, 1976. (ii) Destroyers, 12; Operational Support Ships, 2; Submarines, 3; CP-107 Argus Aircraft, 20; CP-121 Tracker Aircraft, 15; CH-124 Sea King Helicopters, 35; The same as for November 1, 1976. (b) Since the new Sovereignty Zone will not come into force until January 1, 1977 no requirement exists for ship deployment and no resources can be identified as being available for the period October 25 to December 31, 1976. (i) On the West Coast, the two weatherships Vancouver and Quadra will be available for 30 ship days from January 1, to April 1, 1977 for deployment within the new 200-mile Sovereignty Zone for protection of fisheries and natural resources on the seabed. These two vessels based at Victoria, B.C., are sister ships and have the following particulars:
Horse
Length	Breadth	Draft	Power	Displacement	Endurancem.	m.	m.	kW	mt	n miles(ft.)	(ft.)	(ft.)	(HP)	(L.T.)	123.23	15.24	5.33	5.597	5,694	(404.29')	(50')	(17.5')	(7,500)	(5,605 tons)	10,400
(ii) On the East Coast, it is planned to make available, on a part time basis, 13 Canadian Coast Guard vessels for a total of up to 135 ship days from January 1 to April 1, 1977 for deployment within the 200-mile zone. The ships involved include Search and Rescue vessels and icebreakers which have primary tasks that cannot be changed under the existing order of government program priorities and, the use of these vessels for dedicated surveillance will be dependent on weather, ice regime, and emergencies at sea. Because of these factors affecting normal Canadian Coast Guard operations, some of the surveillance planned by Canadian Coast Guard vessels may only be possible by multi-tasking these vessels. The vessels and their particulars are listed in the following statement. (c) (i) Dedicated Fisheries Surveillance: three offshore and 51 inshore vessels; Multi-tasked Research Survey and Surveillance: three offshore and 45 inshore vessels; (ii) Dedicated Fisheries Surveillance: Currently four offshore vessels with two additional vessels scheduled to join the fleet in early 1977; and 41 inshore craft; Multi-tasked Research Survey and Surveillance: six offshore and 39 inshore vessels.
Name	Length	Breadth	Draft	Horse Power	Displacement	Endurance	Basem. (ft.)	m. (ft.)	m. (ft.)	kW (HP)	mt (L.T.)	(n. mile)	Narwhal	76.66	13.79	3.71	1,238	2,257	9,200	Dartmouth(251.4)	(45.23)	(12.3)	(1,660)	(2,222)	N.S.Sir William	83.05	13.71	5.33	3,171	3,606	12,000	DartmouthAlexander	(272.4)	(44.96)	(17.4)	(4,250)	(3,550)	N.S.Wolfe	67.05	14.64	4.96	2|985	3,042	6,000	Charlottetown(219.9)	(48.00)	(16.2)	(4,000)	(2,995)	P.E.I.Walter E. Foster	69.84	12.94	5.01	1,492	2,907	3,000	St. John(229.0)	(42.4)	(16.4)	(2,000)	(2,862)	N.B.Thomas Carleton	50.79	12.83	4.11	1,492	1,635	2,200	St. John(166.5)	(42.08)	(13.4)	(2,000)	(1,610)	N.B.
February 16, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Name	Length	Breadth	Draft	Horse Power	Displacement	Endurance	Basem. (ft.)	m. (ft.)	m. (ft.)	kW (HP)	mt (L.T.)	(n. mile)	Alert	71.40	12.12	4.87	7,462	2,164	6,000	Dartmouth(234.1)	(39.7)	(15.9)	(10,000)	(2,130)	N.S.Daring	54.25	8.84	2.74	1,985	667	4,000	Dartmouth(177.9)	(28.9)	(8.9)	(2,660)	(657)	N.S.Louis S.	111.71	24.38	9.44	17,910	14,508	16,000	DartmouthSt. Laurent	(366.4)	(79.9)	(30.9)	(24,000)	(14,280)	N.S.John A.	96.01	21.33	8.56	11,194	9,306	20,000	DartmouthMacdonald	(314.9)	(69.9)	(28.0)	(15,000)	(9,160)	N.S.Labrador	82.0	19.52	9.51	7,462	7,051	23,000	Dartmouth(268.9)	(64.0)	(31.1)	(10,000)	(6,940)	N.S.Fraser	62.24	12.79	4.22	2,164	1,899	6,000	Quebec(204.7)	(41.9)	(13.8)	(2,900)	(1,870)	Que.Sir Humphrey	67.05	14.62	4.98	3,171	3,053	12,000	St. John's,Gilbert	(219.9)	(47.9)	(16.3)	(4,250)	(3,005)	Nfld.Bartlett	57.66	12.90	3.81	1,567	1,722	3,300	St. John's,(189.12)	(42.3)	(12.4)	(2,100)	(1,695)	Nfld.
It is planned that the Canadian Coast Guard will also provide some 200 ship days for Fisheries Surveillance in 1977-78 and in subsequent years, but the number to be provided in each year and the proportion on each coast has yet to be determined and will depend on the capability of the Department of the Environment to meet the requirements of the Surveillance Program with their own vessels and those of the Department of National Defence. Other than ship-based helicopters, which may be used when available for transfer of personnel and short range surveillance, it is not planned to use Coast Guard aircraft in support of this Surveillance program.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Flas construction of the post office at Deschambault in the Constituency of Champlain been stopped and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason?
2.	Was the work, undertaken by the Department of Public Works, approved by the Quebec Department of Cultural Affairs and, if not (a) for what reason (b) did the plans of the future post office meet the specifications of the Quebec Department of Cultural Affairs?
3.	Which firm obtained the contract and for what amount?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes. (a) October 6, 1976; (b) discussions between the Department of Public Works of Canada and the Department of Cultural Affairs of Quebec lead to mutual agreement that the originally proposed design should be modified.
2.	No. (a) Approval was not requested; (b) discussions between the Department of Public Works of Canada and the Department of Cultural Affairs of Quebec lead to mutual agreement on certain design revisions.
3.	Les Entreprises Justin Desy Ltee, Saint-Severin-de-Proulxville, $102,992.
RESEARCH PROJECTS ON THE EFFECTS OF PONCEAU SX (RED # 4)


Mr. Yewchuk: What research projects is the Department of National Health and Welfare
sponsoring or conducting on the effects of Ponceau SX (Red # 4) on human health?


Marc Lalonde: At the present time, the Department of National Health and Welfare is not undertaking any research studies on the health effects of Ponceau SX (Red # 4). This colour has been tested in several species of animals both by the Department in the 1960's and several other institutions in subsequent years. No adverse effects have been noted in the past regarding cancer or reproduction nor is there any new evidence to suggest this colour poses a health risk. This colour has a very restricted use in foods. Scientists of the Department are not aware of any studies presently underway on this colour. However, they are continuously monitoring world literature for new developments.


Mr. Wenman: 1.	As of December 1 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how much oil spill containment and removal equipment did the government own on the British Columbia coast and, in each case, how many were (i) slicklickers and what was their type, optimum rated capacity and locations (ii) slurp skimmers and what was their locations?
2.	For the same years, what was the length and type of oil boom in each west coast location?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a)
1976		
Type	Amount	LocationsSorbent-synthetic	20 cartons	Prince Rupert20 cartons	Vancouver20 cartons	VictoriaSorbent-Peat Moss	200 bales	Prince Rupert100 bales	Victoria

February 16, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Type	Amount	Locations	
Dispersant Spray-gear			
off-shore	2	Prince Rupert	
	2	Vancouver	
	2	Victoria	
back-packs	2	Prince Rupert	
	2	Vancouver	
	2	Victoria	
in-shore	3 (ordered)	Vancouver	
Dispersant			
Oiisperse 43	10 Drums	Prince Rupert	
	10 Drums	Vancouver	
	20 Drums	Victoria	
Steam-cleaners	1	Prince Rupert	
	1	Vancouver	
	1	Victoria	
Adapts Transfer Pump	1	Victoria	
1,000 gallons per minute			
Adapts Chemical modifica-	1 (ordered)		
tion		Victoria	
) (i) Type	Capacity	Locations	NumbSlicklickers	145 tons per day	Prince Rupert	2Vancouver	1Victoria	2(ii) Slurps	5 gallons per hour	Vancouver	3Victoria	3(iii) Komara mini-skimmers (ordered) 2 tons per hour	Vancouver	2Victoria	2(6) 1974	Type	Amount	Locations	Sorbent-Peat Moss	200 bales	Prince Rupert	100 bales	Victoria	Dispersant Spray Gear	off-shore	2	Prince Rupert	2	Vancouver	2	Victoria	Steam cleaner	1	Prince Rupert	1	Vancouver	1	Victoria	Adapts Transfer Pump	1	Victoria	) (0 Type	Capacity	Locations	NumbSlicklickers	145 tons per day	Prince Rupert	2Vancouver	1Victoria	2(ii) Slurps	5 gallons per hour	Vancouver	3Victoria	3. (a) 1976	Boom Length	Type	Locations2,000'	Bennett 36"	Prince Rupert2,000'	Bennett 36" (ordered)	Prince Rupert1,600'	Vikoma inflatable (ordered)	Prince Rupert6,000'	Bennett 36"	Vancouver1,600'	Vikoma inflatable	Vancouver2,000'	Bennett 36"	Victoria2,000'	Bennett 36" (ordered)	Victoria1,500'	Bennett 72"	Victoria1,600'	Vikoma inflatable	Victoria(6)1974	2,000'	Bennett 36"	Prince Rupert6,000'	Bennett 36"	Vancouver2,000'	Bennett 36"	Victoria1,500'	Bennett 72"	Victoria
February 16, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: 1.	Are any specific research activities taking place at the Agricultural Research Station at Fredericton, New Brunswick under the heading of Horticulture and, if so, what are they?
2.	(a) What research, if any, is being conducted in New Brunswick regarding the development of strains of grain adaptable to local growing conditions (b) what is the budget for this research (c) in what location is it being conducted?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. In 1976-77 the following programs are included: (a) Potato production, 17.7 man-years, $1,427,000.; (b) Blueberry, 1.0 man-year, $75,000.; (c) Tree fruit, 0.3 man-year, $23,000.; (d) Environmental quality, 2.2 man-years, $201,000.; Total, $1,726,000.
2. (a) The Fredericton Research Station shares with other Stations a portion of the corn and cereal breeding program for Eastern Canada which amounts to 9.2 man-years and $780,000., which places emphasis on breeding, cultivar evaluation, early seeding, winter hardiness and harvesting losses, (b) and (c) The 1976-77 budget for the corn and cereal breeding program at the Fredericton Research Station is: (a) Wheat, 0.1 man-year, $9,000.; (b) Barley, 0.1 man-year, $9,000.; (c) Oats, 0.1 man-year, $9,000.; (d) Corn, 0.1 man-year, $9,000.; (e) Problem soils, 1.0 man-year, $73,000.; Total, $109,000.


Mr. Herbert: Has the government considered incorporating the present maximum supplement to the old age security payments as a total universal payment and, if so, what is the estimated saving in administrative costs?


Marc Lalonde: No. However, if maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement payments were incorporated with all Old Age Security as a universal payment, there would be an annual saving of approximately $10 million in administrative costs, and an increased cost in payments of about $1.3 billion.


Mr. Marshall: By constituency, between April 1 and September 30, 1976, what is the breakdown of the loans made in Newfoundland under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The requested data is not maintained by electoral district but only by province, by lender, and by purpose, for the following reasons: (i) Loans are made by banks to customers who may not live in the same constituency as the. bank, (ii) Constituency boundaries change from time to time; thus comparative statistics cannot be maintained on a consistent basis.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 37 is acceptable to the government.
[ Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. MacKay:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all memoranda issued by the Chief Statistician of Canada or other officials of Statistics Canada, dealing with the implementation of the Public Servants Conflict of Interest Guidelines (Canada Gazette, January 9, 1974).
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 67 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.
[ Text]
RADIO CANADA INTERNATIONAL-VISIT OF SOVIET NEWS REPRESENTATIVES Motion No. 67-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	In or about August 1975, did two men visit the offices of Radio Canada International in Montreal to discuss the content of programming to the Soviet Union by the CBC (a) did they represent a Soviet news service or any other Soviet organization and, if so, which one (b) did they introduce themselves as representing APN (c) who are the individuals and their job designations with whom these men met (d) what are the names fo the visitors (e) was an attempt made by these visitors to persuade members of the Russian section of Radio Canada International to eliminate any political events or comments from coverage of the Canadian scene in Russian language broadcasts?
2.	Was the Department of External Affairs aware of this visit prior to its taking place and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, on what date did it become aware of the visit (c) did the Department take any action on the matter (i) if so, what (ii) if not, for what reason?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 36?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents relating to the establishment of a uranium refinery near Warman, Saskatchewan, or elsewhere in the Province of Saskatchewan, by Eldorado Nuclear Limited, and copies of any agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province of Saskatchewan or their respective agencies.
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Eldorado Nuclear Limited
February 16, 1977

reports that any existing documents relating to the establishment of a uranium refinery in Saskatchewan are commercial documents and the information is proprietary. Consequently, 1 respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a stonewall, Mr. Speaker. I will transfer it for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The Elouse proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2, to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Hon. Judd Buchanan (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: motion No. 1:
That Bill C-2, an act to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 5 to 7 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
""crop" means grains, oilseeds, root crops, such other field crops as are prescribed, honey and maple syrup;"


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It might be useful to draw to the attention of the House that there have been the usual discussions with regard to our proceedings on Bill C-2 this afternoon. 1 understand there is general agreement that any recorded votes that might be required to dispose of the report stage proceedings of Bill C-2 will be deferred.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved: Motion No.
2:
That Bill C-2, an act to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops, be amended in Clause 4, by adding immediately after line 33 at page 3 the following new subsection:
"(3)Where a suitable organization willing to assume the obligations of this Act does not exist, the Minister may guarantee to a bank the repayment of a loan made to a producer under the same terms and conditions as prescribed in this Act for an advance made by an organization.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Motion No. 2 is contrary to the bill. It goes beyond the scope
Advance Payments for Crops
of the bill. We would appreciate the guidance of the Chair as to whether this motion is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has had some occasion to examine the motion in a cursory way, with the suggestion of some reservations about the procedural regularity of the proposed subclause. However, I think there ought to be an opportunity for the hon. member to hear the objections to the motion and to defend, if he wishes, the procedural regularity of his motion. It is obvious that any division to be taken on this motion is to be deferred. Perhaps we might now hear the argument of the parliamentary secretary in support of his contention that the motion in some way offends the procedures of the House, after which I could perhaps review the matter and see if it is possible to give a decision immediately or, if not, defer it until the time the division is to be taken.


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-2 is to allow groups of producers to get advance payments. The government undertakes to pay interest costs and so on. The hon. member's motion says, I quote:
"(3) Where a suitable organization willing to assume the obligations of this Act does not exist, the Minister may guarantee to a bank the repayment of a loan made to a producer under the same terms and conditions as prescribed in this Act for an advance made by an organization."
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this bill which aims essentially at helping organizations of producers would not be applicable any more; it will be applicable only to individuals. For this reason, it differs little from other bills adopted by the House to assist farmers and we believe that it changes considerably the philosophy of the bill. At least that is what the minister thinks at this time and we believe, Mr. Speaker, that this would not be the purpose of the bill which was to help organizations of producers and I think that the philosophy of the bill will be changed, and that is why we think it is not acceptable to the minister at this time.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with the hon. member. The royal recommendation states that this is an act to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops. The bill proposes that an organization be the intermediary between the farmer and the bank. All my amendment intends to do is state that where no organization exists there is no need for an intermediary and, as a result, the farmer should be allowed to go directly to the bank. As I read the bill, that in no way takes away from the ability of an individual or group of farmers to facilitate their interest in getting an advance payment for a crop. I do not believe that this amendment is out of order.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns and the sentiment which the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) is endeavouring to bring before the House in the form of this amendment. I do not in any way wish to stifle his opportunity to discuss those concerns, which I am sure he holds very sincerely. However, the amendment he
3120

February 16, 1977
Advance Payments for Crops
has presented in the form of motion No. 2 is in danger of being out of order.
I would refer Your Honour specifically to the royal recommendation. In its own words, it recommends "the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and amounts and, for the purposes set out in the measure entitled "An Act to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops." The only mechanism specified in the legislation for accomplishing the purpose of that recommendation is to provide for the availability of cash advances through the auspices of farm organizations. This is clearly explained in the definition clause of the bill and, later on, in some of the clauses dealing with the mechanism to be used. In other words, cash advances to producers of the crops defined in the legislation would be available through farm organizations. This is clearly the intention of the bill.
The hon. member's amendment seeks to depart from that principle by providing that cash advances, or loans as they might be called, I suppose, in layman's language, should be available not only through farm organizations but under other arrangements subject to a government guarantee. This is really quite a different principle from that outlined in the bill, wherein it is stated that cash advances may become available only where farm organizations are involved. This is clearly set out in clause 4(1). I will read the opening words: "Where an organization proposes to make an advance to a producer-", and so on. The hon. member's proposed subclause would go beyond the provision set out in clause 4 and would provide that individuals would be in a position to secure advances without availing themselves of the services of a farm organization. It goes not only beyond the terms of the legislation as presently drafted, but beyond the terms of the royal recommendation, for which reasons I respectfully submit it is out of order.
I do not wish to stifle the hon. member's opportunity to present his views on the subject, but I suggest that at a later stage he will have an opportunity to express his concern. Unfortunately, he might not be able to present his views at this stage, because the amendment he proposes is, I suggest, out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of necessity, Mr. Speaker, much of what has been said on the procedural point has really been addressed to the specifics of the amendment. However, it seems to me we have heard more argument against the substance than we have heard in favour of it, and I think it might be easier for Your Honour, as well as for the House generally, if we could hear more argument about the merits of the proposal. I should like to indicate my support for the suggestion Your Honour made earlier-that it might be the fairest thing to do to let the debate take place and defer any ruling until it has been completed. I notice there has been no argument raised from the government side to the effect that this proposal would involve the expenditure of money.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes it would.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not of more money than would otherwise be expended under the bill. The argument has been directed to the avenues through which the money goes, not to the total amount involved. In any case I hope Your Honour will permit the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger) to present his motion and defer your decision until later.


Mr. Speaker:: For two reasons I am prepared to do precisely that. The first is that from a procedural point of view the matter leaves me in some doubt and therefore I should like to defer a decision on purely procedural grounds. Moreover, I would need to understand more clearly the technical operation of the part of the statute under consideration. I know it is contemplated in the bill that payment be made through producer organizations, but whether that is a principle of the bill or simply a method of carrying out the principle of the bill is not clear to me at the moment, and the only way to resolve this doubt is to hear argument in debate which may throw some light on the technicalities of the measure. I will therefore call the motion in the name of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the second reading of Bill C-2 I rose to take part in the discussion. At that time, along with colleagues on both sides of the House, I expressed approval of the minister's proposal to provide for advance payments for crops. Since 1958, western farmers under the auspices of the Wheat Board have been receiving advance payments for cereal crops, and I feel it is only right that other farmers who produce crops capable of being stored should receive cash advances as well, in order that they might be able to take advantage of the best possible prices for their commodities.
The bill is basically a good one, but I believe there is room for improvement. It is thus with the intention of strengthening the measure rather than weakening it that I present the following amendment for consideration:
Where a suitable organization willing to assume the obligations of this Act does not exist, the Minister may guarantee to a bank the repayment of a loan made to a producer under the same terms and conditions as prescribed in this Act for an advance made by an organization.
Adoption of this amendment would allow for added flexibility in the administration of the legislation. As the bill stands at present, an individual producer will be excluded from the benefits of the legislation if (1) there is no organization in close proximity to the farmer concerned, (2) there is an organization but it is unwilling to undertake the responsibility of administering the act, or (3) the individual producer concerned has no desire to join an organization. Let me take a few moments in which to discuss these three contingencies in a little more detail.
In many cases there is no organization in existence which could perform the intermediary function of providing advance payments. Despite the minister's devotion to supply management systems, many farm products are still not covered by such a scheme. To exclude these products because of the lack of an organization structure would be unjustifiable. Even where organizations do exist, they may not meet the definition
February 16, 1977

of the word "organization" contained in the bill and hence they would be excluded from the benefits of the legislation.
I offer here the statement by Mr. Kleiman, the chairman of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. He has acknowledged the lack of suitable organizations in some areas and for some products, and has suggested that the banks could replace the organizations for the purpose of administering the advance payments in such cases. In his appearance before the Standing Committee on Agriculture on December 14, 1976, Mr. Kleiman said:
Since so few organizations exist that could fit the description, we have questioned whether or not the banks, as defined in the bill, could act as a lending body. We realize there is a great need for the lending body to be close to the actual marketing functions to administer the loan but still do not see how some producers are going to be able to avail themselves of the benefits of the legislation.
Mr. Kleiman pointed out that farmers are accustomed to dealing with banks, so that they would already be in a position to have an avenue open to them for a further loan. By allowing the banks to undertake the advance payments, all Canadian farmers who have storable crops would be given an equal opportunity to take advantage of those advance payments. The legislation would thus be more democratic and a larger number of Canadian farmers would derive benefit from it.
During one of the committee hearings the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) suggested that in cases where a proper organization did not exist the producers could go to a bank and the bank would transfer the contract for the administration of its marketing provisions to any area where an organization existed. From reading the committee reports of the discussion on Bill C-2, it is evident that a number of witnesses and members were very concerned about what would happen to producers for whom no suitable organization was available. In its present form the bill also denies payments to a producer who belongs to an organization which is unwilling to undertake the responsibilities of administering the advance payments. This lack of willingness on the part of producer organizations is a very real possibility, a possibility that the officials of the Department of Agriculture have not really looked into, in my opinion.
During the December 8, 1976, meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), questioned the minister as to what organizations he had consulted with and what their reactions had been to such consultation. The response of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was unequivocal. He stated:
I have not personally met with an organization on this bill at this point in time.
Pressing his point, the hon. member for Moose Jaw asked whether officials of the Department of Agriculture had met with any organizations to discuss the terms of this bill and whether they were agreeable to operating under such terms. Replying for the minister, Mr. Leggat, director of the grains and crops division of the Department of Agriculture, stated:
Advance Payments for Crops
A very few, Mr. Chairman. I have talked it over with the Ontario wheat producers and I think there was one informative session with potato producers from P.E.I., but we have had no real consultation with them, though we intend to do so and hope to do so before the regulations are written, so that we can get some of their ideas incorporated into the administrative end of operating this scheme.
The fact of the matter is that the Department of Agriculture has been very lax in its consultations with producer organizations which, under the terms of this bill, are the only groups that are allowed to make advance payments. The proposals for the "after the fact" discussions are somewhat senseless. Since producer organizations are to be given the entire responsibility for administering the act, they should have been consulted from the beginning. There are a number of organizations which have yet to be heard from. Their input is important and their views should not have been neglected.
Producer organizations may well find that the cost of administering the act is prohibitive. As pointed out by Mr. Kleiman during the December 14 meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
The cost to an organization to administer such a program is not a small undertaking, and we are concerned that the organization should have to accept the risk of default proposed in this bill.
In order to be in a position to administer the advance payments, an organization will need bookkeeping facilities, a filing system, secretarial help and numbers of forms. They will have to get in touch with farmers. If the loan is not called in, they will have to send out notices. If the producer does not pay or if he has not yet sold, the organization will have to get in touch with him.
The Department of Agriculture has stated that the Canadian Wheat Board has experienced little difficulty in terms of the cost of administering the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and that therefore there will be no problem with producer organizations meeting the administrative costs of Bill C-2. They state that this point is not really relevant here. So far as Bill C-2 is concerned, we are talking about large and small organizations. These organizations will be asked to administer the act. Structural changes in the organizations and among staff members will be necessary before they are in a position to administer these payments. For a small organization, the cost of bringing about these changes may be a burden; as a result, they may decide simply to opt out of this provision in the legislation.
During the committee hearings it was pointed out that a $5 levy has been imposed by the elevator companies to help defray the cost of administering the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. While this is a relatively nominal sum, I feel that the fee charged by organizations for administering Bill C-2 will have to be much higher. Regardless of the size of the organization, there will be a basic level of administrative cost. Because costs are not necessarily proportionate to the size of the organization, smaller organizations with fewer members will have to charge a higher fee than the larger organizations, and a much higher fee than the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is set up in such a way that they have elevators and agents throughout the prairie region. This the
3122

February 16, 1977
Advance Payments for Crops
organizations do not have, so they would have to be close to the farmers and producers in order to provide the service that is necessary. It is possible that the fee may be very, very high to keep the organization above ground when it is administering this plan.
As it stands now, Mr. Speaker, the bill also denies cash advances to producers who do not wish to belong to an organization. There are many independent farmers in this country-and I pat them on the back-who have made their way in this system without belonging to any organization. This was brought forward by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) during the committee hearings. He said that all the producers who are accustomed to selling at the retail level and storing their own production, because they were smart enough to organize their marketing, are not covered by this bill.
I feel it is most unfair to exclude non-organized producers from the benefits of this legislation. The banks should be given the power to perform the intermediary function in cases where farmers do not want to join an organization. Officials of the Department of Agriculture state that they are reluctant to get banks involved in administering the advance payments because it would impede the orderly marketing of crops. However, my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw rebutted this argument very effectively at the committee hearing of December 7,1976, when he stated:
I do not think the fact that the loan if it were made through a bank would have any effect on the orderly marketing aspect of it at all because if you make the loans through an organization you still do not have any more control of directing the time and place of marketing.
Banks are uniquely suited to the administration of the advance payments act. Having dealt with farmers for a number of years, the major banks are keenly aware of the risks and constraints involved in agricultural production in Canada. They have the staff and the ability to do these things without extra cost. The successful handling by banks of the government guaranteed farm improvement loans program and a number of other programs is testimony to their competence in farm lending.
I hope that the House will give serious consideration to the proposed amendment which, I believe, is in order and does not take away from the royal recommendation. As I have stated before, the amendment only gives flexibility to the administration of advance payments. It does not detract in any way from the principal intent of the bill.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that we in this part of the House have some sympathy with the amendment. What the amendment proposes is what producers have to do quite often in any case.
If a producer has a cellar full of potatoes or has sheds full of other storage products such as corn on the cob, and the market is not readily available, either locally or at a distance, it is common practice for him to go to his bank manager or credit union manager and get a loan until such time as he can market some of his crop. The only difference is that he has to pay

interest on that loan from the first day. In this case, if the amendment is adopted, the producer could still go to the same credit union or bank manager and get a cash advance on his crop, which is what he might have done many times before, only this time it will be under a government guarantee.
I agree that there is no doubt that with many types of produce in different parts of Canada there are few if any producer organizations in existence and, if there are, they are not very strong. The amendment states: "where a suitable organization willing to assume the obligations of this act does not exist..In such a case the individual producer should be able to go to his bank or credit union manager for a cash advance under the provisions of this act. Where there are marketing co-ops, for example, in potatoes or other commodities, and they are fairly widespread, undoubtedly the producer will go through that marketing co-op.
I should like to sound one cautionary note here. I presume that in the administration of the act, assuming the amendment is accepted, one thing that the bank or credit union manager will have to do will be to ascertain, if I have three or four cellars of potatoes in storage and am unable to market them for some period of time in the future, and want a cash advance, that I have those potatoes properly stored and that they are not rotting in the cellars. This would mean that there is an onus not only on the producer but also on the institution lending money under this act. I know that under the cash advance program many farmer friends of mine who come to the elevator with oats or barley are well known by the agent. That agent would know if a farmer has not a bushel left in the bin and therefore he will not get a cash advance. He might be able to get it somewhere else, but the elevator agent knows all his customers, and knows when a fellow did not have a good crop that year, or had fed most of his grains to his cattle and bootlegged some of it to other places. His bins are empty, and if he tries to get a cash advance the elevator agent would know about it.
The lending institution would have to bear some kind of responsibility under the provisions of this act for the loans that are made, but I do not see that as a handicap. It would not hurt the credit union or bank manager to be more aware of the situation of his individual customer in any case.
Assuming the amendment is in order, Mr. Speaker, of which you will advise us later, I see no harm in it. In fact there is no doubt that in some parts of the country it will not be particularly useful, such as in my province, but there is no doubt that in other parts of Canada it will be very useful to thousands of individual producers until such time as they get larger and more effective producer organizations which can look after this for them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of the amendment.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), let me begin by saying that during the rather brief second reading debate and throughout the committee proceedings my colleagues and I have raised several questions with respect to the provisions of
February 16, 1977

this bill. It is interesting to note at the same time that to a very large extent the same questions or problem areas were raised by the witnesses who appeared before the committee and presented briefs.
I would like to commend the hon. member for Wetaskiwin on the amendment before us. The amendment deals with our main concern. We are convinced that, without this amendment, advance payments under this legislation would not be available to a significant proportion of otherwise eligible producers-producers who are not served by a properly constituted producer organization.
We recognize that grain producers in central and eastern Canada and grain producers outside of the designated area of the Canadian Wheat Board have been seeking this kind of legislation for some time, and for very good reasons. We recognize as well that this government and this parliament have an obligation and a definite responsibility to provide such a program, particularly in view of the fact that a similar program has been in effect in western Canada for some time. In fact, the government has attempted to defend the provisions of Bill C-2 by drawing a comparison to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act introduced about 19 years ago by a Conservative government.
On the surface this might appear to be a logical and appropriate defense to use, but does the government suppose that the situation as it was 19 years ago, in an area fully represented and served by the Canadian Wheat Board, is comparable to the present situation in central and eastern Canada where loans will have to be made by a multitude of marketing boards, agencies, commissions and producer organizations?
For this reason alone, the conditions and circumstances of those producers within the Canadian Wheat Board area and of producers to be served by this bill, although similar, are certainly not identical. It must be evident now to the government that the bill as it stands cannot give equal access to all eligible producers because not all of them, by any means, can be represented for the purposes of this bill, by a properly constituted producer organization.
If, on the other hand, the amendment before us gains the support of hon. members opposite and becomes part of the bill, a major inequity would be removed, and the same service which is rendered to producers within the Canadian Wheat Board area by the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act would henceforth be available to all other producers in Canada.
During the earlier debate on this bill my colleagues and I raised a number of questions, and in a prepared opening statement the minister tried desperately to dismiss these questions, devoting six of his ten page opening statement to an attempt to refute what we thought were constructive criticisms. It should be noted that those very same questions were raised by witnesses who appeared before the committee and, indeed, some of our doubts were shared by government members opposite. In particular I might mention the hon. member
Advance Payments for Crops
for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) who, although he represents a strictly urban riding, must be complimented for his contribution to those committee hearings.
I sincerely hope that in the future the hon. member will maintain his interest in legislation directed primarily to rural communities and that he will attend the Standing Committee on Agriculture on a regular basis.
During the second reading debate I suggested that in view of the way this bill was drafted its title should more accurately read "advance payments with limitations on some farm stored crops". Since the first meeting of the standing committee I stressed that our major concern is the inability of some producers to take advantage of this bill because of the absence of an adequately constituted organization or merely because of an insufficient volume of crop in the producers' areas.
Since the introduction of this bill I have indicated my party's support for the intent and principle of this type of legislation and, indeed, our desire for its early passage. In fact this debate would not be taking place today had we not given encouragement and certain commitments to the government House leader.
In all fairness I want to indicate as well that many of the questions raised in the second reading debate have been answered by departmental officials, and I thank them for their input and for their clarifications. However, let me remind them that in future the simple addition of explanatory notes would save us much valuable time. This observation is not purely a personal one; it is shared generally. In fact my good friend from the county of Oxford, Mr. Charles Munroe, the current president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, delivering his brief to the committee, noted the following:
The main questions that can be raised about the bill relate to uncertainties as to how the bill, if it becomes law in its present form, might or should be interpreted, and whether some further spelling out of the intent might not be included in the text of the bill itself.
Those words support my contention and underline the need and desirability of more explanatory notations.
We can see no major problem in most areas because of the existence of many marketing boards, agencies, commissions and producer organizations, but it is very possible to foresee that there will be producers in areas where properly constituted organizations do not exist for a variety of reasons. For this reason and for others-for example, an insufficient volume of product from a certain area or region-we can easily predict that a number of producers will not be eligible for advance payments under this legislation. This is what the amendment before us today is all about. This amendment, if accepted, would not destroy the thrust and intent of this bill. On the contrary, it would simply ensure that all producers could participate in this program. It would ensure that all producers are extended an equal opportunity of access to the legislation.
I submit that without this amendment this bill would create disparity between producers and would deny advance payments to a significant proportion of otherwise eligible producers.

February 16, 1977
Advance Payments for Crops
I readily admit that in areas where there now exist producer organizations, or organizations consisting primarily of producers, or even in areas where producer organizations can be formed without major difficulty, these organizations are the appropriate bodies to administer and operate this program. I would like to repeat that because I think there might be some misunderstanding among government members as to the thoughts of my colleagues. We support the idea that, where appropriate organizations do exist, these organizations should administer the program.
Surely this minister and this government must realize that their responsibilities extend not just to some producers and not just to most producers, but to all producers. I draw the attention of all hon. members to a portion of the brief of the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board in which the following is indicated:
Since so few organizations exist that could fit the description, we have questioned whether or not the banks, as defined in the bill, could act as a lending body. We recognize there is a great need for the lending body to be close to the actual marketing functions to administer the loans, but still do not see how some producers are going to be able to avail themselves of the benefits of the legislation.
The Ontario Wheat Board chairman, Mr. Kleiman, went on to support the intent of the proposed amendment by stating the following:
Yes, because most producers deal with banks, we would like to see the opportunity for all producers. As you say, a number are not covered, and one would think all farmers should have equal opportunities.
Those are the words of a well qualified farm leader who heads an organization which, even in its present form, no doubt could participate in this program. Elowever, because of his knowledge, experience, and understanding of the agricultural industry, Mr. Kleiman was quick to point out the problem and, in turn, to offer the obvious solution.
The hon. member for Scarborough East, a member of the government party and a former cabinet minister, said in committee that he would be interested to know whether some lender other than an organization as defined in the bill might not still be a possibility. He said he was encouraged, in the search for an alternative, by the brief of the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board. In fact the hon. member was encouraged to the extent that he suggested an amendment to the effect that where no organization exists in an area, or some association of producers exists but cannot qualify under the act and where significant amounts of a crop are grown in that area-an area, I repeat, where there is no properly constituted organization-a producer might obtain an advance from an approved lender which is not an organization, provided that the lender enters into an approved form of contract. That is precisely what this amendment provides, and the minister himself indicated the worthiness of such a provision and said he wanted his officials to consider it in greater depth.
It should be noted that in addition to the hon. member for Scarborough East, my hon. friend on the government side, the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote), has shown his interest and concern about this very same point. My hon. friend, who has been a member of this House for a long time and who has

taken an active role in the standing committee, and in all matters dealing with agricultural legislation, expressed a personal desire in committee to see the banks acting as lending agents.
Those who oppose this amendment do so on the presumption that this provision would destroy the orderly marketing thrust in this bill. This objection deserves to be met and discounted. We know, for instance, that there are presently approximately 100 marketing boards, commissions, agencies and producer organizations in various forms. Departmental officials have indicated that 30 to 40 of these are likely in a position now to provide advance payments to their producers, and if we give the government the benefit of the doubt it is possible, after some changes within the remaining organizations, to meet the requirements of the legislations and to provide advance payments to their producers as well.
In all, I think it would be reasonable to assume, in view of what presently exists, and in view of what could take place in the near future, that about 80 per cent of producers of storable crops could have access to advance payments under this bill. Thus it would be fair to assume that the encouragement and development of a more orderly marketing system will be extended to 80 per cent of producers. We think that the impact of such an orderly marketing thrust upon 80 per cent of producers will be no mean achievement. And there is nothing in the amendment before us which would diminish this achievement or undermine the orderly marketing thrust of this bill which, as it stands, will reach only 80 per cent of producers-those producers who belong or can belong to a properly constituted producers' organization. The amendment, Mr. Speaker, concerns itself with the remaining 20 per cent-a significant number of producers who would not be eligible for advance payments simply because they are not represented by an acceptable organization.
The orderly marketing of storable crops is a fine objective, but relief for the individual producer is a far finer objective. This government and this parliament cannot be satisfied with less than making that relief available to every producer in every area, whether he is served by an organization or not. Of course, I realize Mr. Speaker, that in so saying I might run afoul of the Department of Finance which sees the whole question in a different light. The Department of Finance takes the view that the whole philosophy behind the bill is that of accomplishing orderly marketing. According to the Department of Finance there can be no provision for unorganized producers because there is no reason for the government to pay interest if it is not accomplishing something, and if the producers borrow directly from a bank the government would have no reason to pay interest.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if the Department of Finance thinks that for technical, legal, or other reasons some 20 per cent of producers cannot be accommodated within the scope of this bill, then it should tell us. It has not done so and therefore I take it that there are no such objections. If, on the other
February 16, 1977

hand, the Department of Finance wants to assist agriculture or, at least, is content not to hinder agriculture, it would be better advised to direct its attention in future to tax reform and, as agricultural critic, I might suggest it begin with the capital gains aspect.
One would expect the Department of Agriculture to consult with the Department of Finance on the monetary and financial aspects of all legislation, but I would hope that we have not yet reached the point where the Department of Agriculture takes its advice on agricultural policy from the Department of Finance.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, on this amendment, and I plead with all members for their support. If accepted, Mr. Speaker, a greater measure of orderly marketing will be accomplished, and an equal opportunity will be extended to all producers of storable crops, regardless of where they live.

The Advance Payments for Crops Act should reduce the pressure on farmers to market in a period when a heavy influx of the crop into commercial channels generally depresses prices. It will produce a more orderly marketing pattern. It should decrease, if not eliminate, potential transportation bottlenecks at peak postharvest periods. And it will help Canadian farmers to get reasonable returns for their products.
The legislation will also have benefits for the consumer. By not flooding the markets after harvest, Canadian producers will be able to provide a continuing flow of produce to the consumer, at a reasonable cost. Because Canadian producers will have access to the advance payments program and because the crops could be stored after harvest, the produce could be brought into the market when required. This ensures consumers a continuous supply, eliminating possible shortages and the consequent price rises later in the season.
It is a pleasure for me to support an amendment to Bill C-2. After consultation with and consideration by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, we have agreed to amend Bill C-2 to include honey and maple syrup as crops eligible for advance payments. The Advance Payments for Crops Act has been kept flexible for just this purpose-so that as many Canadian farmers as possible can take advantage of the benefits under
Advance Payments for Crops
the legislation. The act provides the legislative authority for the federal government to guarantee the repayment of advance payments on storable crops. In addition, it will guarantee the interest on such advance payments when they are made in accordance with the provisions of the act.
Honey and maple syrup producers have similar problems to other Canadian farmers. The Canadian honey crop, which was about 46Vi million pounds in 1975, had a market value of over $23 million. Our maple syrup industry, which is centred in Quebec and Ontario, produced 1.4 million gallons of syrup in 1975 with an estimated value of over $12 million.
The advance payments program will enable Canadian honey and maple syrup producers to receive interest-free advances in the critical post-harvest period when they need cash to cover their costs of production. All to often, the rush to sell the crop results in congested markets or depressed prices. In addition, it can result in the loss of efficiency in marketing and loss of profitability. We have in the past assisted different producer groups of honey and maple syrup under several other federal acts. Although these two commodities were not mentioned in the original draft of the legislation, I agree with the Standing Committee on Agriculture that these resource-based products should be covered specifically in the act to avoid any confusion.
For the producer organizations set up to market and promote honey and maple syrup, only slight modifications will have to be made to their present organizational structure so that they can take advantage of this legislation.
Farmers can make use of that legislation by gathering within legally incorporated associations. For the time being, more than 20 organizations or groups will be eligible as soon as the legislation is passed and the related regulation introduced. Some other farm organizations, 10 to 15, will be able to avail themselves of the legislation by bringing a few changes to their structure so that they meet the requirements of the act. The rationale for the bill is nothing new in Canadian agriculture. The act will allow farmers to get a cash income for their storable crops when they need it most. That is why farmers and wheat, oats and barley producers out of the area under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board also asked to make use of interest-free advance payments.
The objective of the program as explained in the bill is to allow producers to get cash payments. The government undertakes to pay the interest, and in case of non-payment by a producer, it ensures that payment to the association. For the crops covered by the bill, there are no such marketing controls as those applied to wheat, oats and barley under the Canadian Wheat Board system concerning delivery quotas and common pricing. To assess the best means of giving advance payments to the producers, as provided by the law, we had to draft a bill which would limit the guarantee given by the government to producers and organizations providing adequate controls to guarantee the repayment of the advance. I should draw your

February 16, 1977
Advance Payments for Crops
attention to the fact that producer organizations, and consequently the individual producer himself, must expect to pay for the administration of this program. However, it should be possible to come to an agreement similar to the western agreement, making it possible for the producer organizations to get part of the administration expenses back.
My last words are for those who spoke before me; I want to thank them for their positive attitude towards this bill, which without any doubt will serve all Canadian agricultural producers. Western wheat, oats and barley producers have been given these advance payments for 20 years now. For 20 years now other Canadian producers have wanted to take part in similar programs.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). He mentioned that the minister had seldom sought advice on that bill. Mr. Speaker, if indeed there is a government minister who seeks advice, it is the Minister of Agriculture. Two, three or four times each week he meets producer organizations. This week, for example, he did not attend our sittings because he met seven different producer organizations for western Canada. This shows how much the Minister of Agriculture is interested in meeting farmers where they are, that is at home or out in the field.
Therefore, when the hon. member claims that the minister has not had enough consultations, I think he is not being fair because, quite the contrary, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) consults a great many people. Another thing I would like to add on this point, Mr. Speaker, is to point out that it is impossible to consult everyone for the simple reason that there are organizations which speak on behalf of groups of people. For instance, the Quebec Federation of Agriculture has openly endorsed this bill; this federation groups several producer associations and none has raised objections to the principle of the bill. That is why the minister did not see fit to have them come up to the department for consultation, since they were in agreement with the principle of the bill right from the beginning.
On other occasions when the Minister of Agriculture introduced other bills in the House, he never failed to consult the organization or associations of producers or farmers concerned by the bill being introduced in this House.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is the fact-as the last speaker mentioned-that many farmers in Canada have managed well without belonging to an agricultural organization. They have succeeded without having to organize. Mr. Speaker, I say to these farmers: Well done! But I think it is ever more difficult for a farmer to manage without the help of an organization to protect his interests because it is a well known fact that competition is fierce in many areas of agriculture. It takes only a little opening in our borders to affect an entire production or an entire farming sector and without organizations to bring pressure to bear upon the government to take remedial measures, the farmer has a very hard time managing his farm.
That is why I think the minister is right when he urges Canadian producers to organize, to get together and set up

marketing boards. I think that if we could define the minister's personal philosophy, we could say that since his appointment, the current agriculture minister has tried to see to it that farmers are no longer the underprivileged of our society and are considered in the same way as other agencies, associations and organizations, able to claim their rights. It is with this in mind that the minister has always asked the producer organizations to get together and defend their rights. I know something about these farming areas, I am thinking for example of New Brunswick where I come from, the potato area. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) knows what I am referring to and if this sector has been in trouble for many years, it is simply because of the lack of organization, of a potato marketing board.
Some years are tremendous, but sometimes the price is so low that some farmers must abandon their farms; I know it is so; I knew many farmers, many potato producers in the 50's and 60's who who had to give up their farm for lack of organization.
These are my answers to certain arguments presented in the House. Again, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister I would like to thank hon. members who took part in this debate for the positive way they did so.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I know that a commitment has been made and I will not abuse it. I wish to speak not much more than two or three minutes. I suggest that the hon. member who just spoke should speak in support of this legislation in that area to which he just referred. He ought to speak about the requirements for organization in New Brunswick and elsewhere. Such organization is needed in the worst way.
I agree with virtually everything he said about this legislation, but for one thing. I believe the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) touched on this point. Those hon. members represent widely separated geographic areas, but all were agreed in saying that this bill discriminates. It says to those who are not organized, "If you wish to take advantage of this legislation, you must organize." If the Department of Agriculture thinks that the amendment before the House will cause difficulty in administration, perhaps the minister, by virtue of the power to delegate which is vested in him, can say to provincial ministers, "Well, you can administer this provision for us in cases involving certain unorganized agricultural entities."
During discussion of this bill there was great doubt as to which entities can be considered as organized. Actually as things now stand it is questionable if the Prince Edward Island marketing board for potatoes, in its present form, could be considered an eligible organization. This bill, therefore, casts doubts on virtually every organization in the Atlantic area. There is doubt as to whether they would have authority to administer and guarantee loans.
February 16, 1977

I am concerned about the compulsory nature of the legislation. It says to people, "You must organize." I am concerned about the elimination of a great many people from eligibility. I say this because occasional crops are grown in many area of Canada. They are storable and marketable, and deferred sales may lead to requests for loans. These producers are left out. Many market gardeners operating in the peripheral areas of cities will find themselves locked out, because there is no marketing agency for them. As the hon. member for Wetaski-win said, by virtue of their own capabilities they have developed their own marketing system. Are they to be eliminated from eligibility, under the terms of this act?
This is not democratic legislation. It is very definitely autocratic legislation. It is compulsive. It is discriminatory.
Has the minister consulted or in some way been in touch with independent farmers? I realize the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa would be faced with certain administrative problems if it were to go to individual farmers. I suggest it delegate that to the provincial ministers who, through their various structures, can on occasion come to the aid of farmers who need this help.
It is high time the government took a look at the democratic requirements of all society rather than being discriminatory and selective in the application of its wishes and compulsive in respect of agricultural organizations. It does not fit with the reality, dispersal and the nature of the men who farm in this country.
I ask the government to accept this amendment so that not a percentage but all farmers in Canada with storable crops are eligible. I agree with the spokesman on behalf of the government in virtually everything that he says. However, when he was through speaking, it was extremely obvious that the bill is discriminatory. It deletes a multitude of farmers from eligibility. It is not democratic. I ask the government to reverse its position. It is bad to make a mistake, but it is most regrettable to make a mistake, recognize it, and make no change. That is precisely what is happening with this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: There are no further speakers. In accordance with the announcement made earlier today, the decision as to the acceptability of the amendment stands deferred.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 11, 1977, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-25, to extend the present laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination and that protect the privacy of individuals, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Canadian Human Rights
Mr. Pierre De Ban6 (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, when I started to speak on this bill last Friday, I mentioned some evidence of progress made in the present situation. Today, I would like to speak about certain weaknesses in this situation, and I shall speak first of the part concerning the protection of the privacy of individuals, and then of the part concerning discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, what strikes me about this bill as it concerns protection of the privacy of individuals is that it contains many weaknesses which must certainly be corrected during the study in committee if we really want to protect the rights of the individual. The right to privacy is one of the main ingredients of the right to integrity and basic liberties.
As emphasized in the legislation passed by the American Congress in 1974-

The privacy of an individual is directly affected by the collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of personal information by federal agencies.

There cannot be any real privacy when tens of people are collecting data about each citizen who are denied the right to have access to their files and who do not know to what extent these files to which they cannot have access have an incidence on their daily lives.
Once again, this bill is surely an improvement over the present situation but, in so far as we can compare it with the one which the American Congress adopted two years ago, I think we will notice at the committee stage that further important improvements should be made. I shall give you only a few examples. The first clause relating to the protection of privacy says peremptorily that the law cannot be applied, when a citizen is denied some information, pursuant to any agreement between a minister of the government of Canada and a minister of a provincial government.
To my mind, setting such a principle in the first clause of a bill amounts to admitting that governments have priority over the individual and, as far as I am concerned, I believe in only one principle, namely that governments, states and nations should stand for the individuals and not against them. When it is said at the beginning of a bill that governments can always agree not to respect the right of the citizen to privacy, without giving any reason, I think of the principle in clause 2(b) of the bill which says, I quote:
(b) the privacy of individuals should be protected to the greatest extent consistent with public order and well-being.
I say that principle is not being respected when you go on to read right after that governments can agree among themselves that they will not publish information gathered about citizens without giving any reason.
Another example, Mr. Speaker, is clause 52(2) which stipulates that when a government agency collects information concerning a citizen for specific reasons, it can pass them on to other federal agencies. The first thing that strikes me here is that the agency is in no way obliged, contrary to the situation in the United States, to see to it in every way possible that the

February 16, 1977
Canadian Human Rights
information is accurate and that it does not exceed the needs for which it is being compiled.
A second thing strikes me: the ease with which the information can be spread around: that is found mainly in clause 52(3) where it is stipulated that the consent of the citizen is taken for granted when he fails to reply to a letter requesting his authorization; then, his consent may be presumed to have been given. Here is once again another example of a situation that I find unacceptable.
Similarly, clause 53 states that a minister may always refuse to divulge information if that is detrimental to federal-provincial relations. Similarly, clause 56 states that federal information banks must wherever possible, and I quote, those are the words used in clause 56, operate in compliance with the law. Mr. Speaker, from a technical point of view, I have rarely seen more laxism because it states that the law must be complied with wherever possible. What is that if not giving an arbitrary and discretionary power to the various federal agencies collecting information?
Furthermore, clause 59. (l)(b) empowers the minister who has received a recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner recognizing that a citizen's complaint is founded, not to take any action on the recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner. What difference is there with the American 1974 Privacy Act system where the administration must, as it should, obey the recommendation of the privacy commission, otherwise it will be liable to be sued for damages. In this instance, if a department does not comply with the law and the Privacy Commissioner serves notice to that effect and recommends to the government that it take action on the founded complaint of a citizen, a minister may always ignore that recommendation and throw it to the garbage.
Once again, though an improvement, and I agree it is, this bill contains a lot of gaps, and it seems reasonable to me that we should hope that it would give people the same protection as in the United States. Certainly we cannot through one law ensure that men's and women's rights, individuals' rights to privacy will be as protected as in the United States since over there part of their individuals' rights are protected by the Constitution; unfortunately, the rights that the federal government also wanted to protect in the Constitution through amendments did not go through at the time the Victoria Charter was put forward, but we could at least hope that this bill, insofar as it involves citizen privacy, include similar safeguards as in the act passed by our American counterparts.
As I said the principle embodied in clause 2(b) of the bill is the recognition that:
(b) the privacy of individuals should be protected to the greatest extent consistent with public order and well-being.
In view of the loopholes included in Part V it is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that such a basic and commendable goal has not been reached, and I shall take the opportunity at the committee stage to put forward amendments which hopefully should be considered favourably, both by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General.
As far as Part I is concerned, that is the part dealing with discrimination, it is an improvement over the First legislation that was introduced some months ago, especially since it includes a new ground of discrimination, the one involved with physical handicaps. But the list included in clauses 2(a) and 3 are far from complete in my view. I would refer for instance to the proposed prohibited grounds of discrimination which are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, convictions for which a pardon has been granted and, in matters related to employment, physical handicap.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the list is faulty in many respects. First, the terminology should be changed. For instance, I feel that "religious persuasion", or better still "religious liberty" would be much preferable to "religion". Second, certain recognized grounds of discrimination are not covered, such as political opinions, social circumstances, sexual orientation or illegitimacy, which is a lifelong stigma.
Similarly, when referring to a conviction for which a pardon has been granted, there is reason for concern at the outset because, if I do not misinterpret the legislation, it is forbidden to reveal that a person has already been granted a pardon since the very objective of the Criminal Records Act we passed in parliament is to alleviate the burden of a mistake which has already been made and regretted, and from which a person has been rehabilitated. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, how long can we discriminate against a person who has not been granted a pardon but who has been rehabilitated and who paid his or her debt to society? I recognized that there was great progress as far as employment for the physically handicapped is concerned. Even epileptics are mentioned in this legislation. Could we not extend this further to include those handicapped who suffer from mental weakness but who have not lost all their faculties?
Mr. Speaker, I also have a few amendments to put forward, just as some members of the committee have, I am sure. They relate to clause 3, which is the fundamental clause of the bill.
I see that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 17, 1977