1977-06-27

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 23, consideration of Bill C-27, to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration; and motion No. 23 (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) and motion No. 24 (Mr. Alexander).
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday we discussed motion No. 23, which calls for the House of Commons to fix unemployment insurance premiums. We think, since the House of Commons is the supreme body in the land, it should have authority to fix premium rates and to review those rates, for such a review would give the House the opportunity to review the commission's administration of the act.
We pointed out on Thursday how concerned we are about the perceptible and deliberate shift of control from the hands of elected members to the hands of bureaucrats. Increasingly, our bureaucrats are taking over the decision-making function. This bill would lump responsibility for immigration, manpower and UIC under one deputy minister who would be responsible to the minister. Surely that prospect ought to send shivers up our spines. Yet, lo and behold, in the bill as written we are to allow the commission to set its own rates and effectively to avoid the control of the House of Commons. I was first elected to this House in 1972, but only three years later were we able to bring the Unemployment Insurance Commission before the standing committee of this House to explain the shortfall of between S800 million and $900 million in the unemployment insurance fund.
It is said that the estimates give us the opportunity to question. I point out that by May 31 all estimates are reported
back to the House. Even those not passed by the committee are deemed to have been passed and are reported back. Therefore, no matter what members of parliament think about the estimates, come May 31 the estimates leave the committee and are reported to the House. That is why this amendment is important, for it would vest the control of unemployment insurance premiums in the House of Commons.
I said on Thursday evening that members on my side of the House are increasingly concerned about the power of this country's bureaucracy. It seems that the minister is no longer responsible for the policy direction of his department. The previous minister told us about a year and a half ago that the whole question of the minor attachment period was a red herring thrown across our path, that there was no evidence of abuse, nor evidence to show it was a disincentive to work. Now, 1 Vi years later, the newly appointed minister says, "The minor attachment is a disincentive to work. We have the evidence." What has brought about this change in position in 1 Vi years? Clearly, the reason must be advice of bureaucrats. It seems that a war is going on within the bosom of the minister's department, one group of bureaucrats pushing one course and one set of policies, another pushing another set of policies.
Clearly, one group was in the ascendancy 1 Vi years ago and had the minister's ear; now the other group is in the ascendancy. Unless we can reverse the trend, the minister will lose control of his department. As it is, our ministers do what the bureaucrats tell them. When we were in committee we noticed how the $62,000 a year men and the $50,000 a year people were annoyed when we asked them how they administered the department. They resented specific questions on details of the unemployment insurance program.
It seems, therefore, that the minister is losing control of his department and it is time to vest control of the program in parliament where it belongs. Mr. Speaker, far too many of these issues are taken from the hands of elected representatives; and then we are told parliament is downgraded. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) earlier today at a press conference outside the House announced a new program for home insulation. Notice, he did not announce it in the House of Commons where elected members could have dealt with the matter. That minister and others accuse opposition members of not dealing with matters important to the nation. How can they say that, when the government opposite does not allow parliament to debate and deal with these serious questions?
Our amendment would return to the House of Commons control over the setting of premiums. Many have said that unemployment insurance is not insurance, per se. We agree.


Employment and Immigration
You can look at the program as term insurance for a group, each member of which is insured against the unfortunate loss of his job. We also say that because of the nature of our country such an insurance program must be universal. Those who participate in it should pay premiums, the amount of which is set by the House of Commons. When the minister says that the program will cost us $3.8 billion this year and $4 billion next year, the people working and contributing to the fund are entitled to know, when they see large pay-outs being made from the fund, that people are not cheating.
A person should not say, "I see so-and-so is collecting unemployment insurance. He should not be collecting it." On the other hand, the unemployed should not be made scapegoats for the shortcomings of the program. Therefore, premium rates must be protected. Parliament is responsible for ensuring that premiums are set at levels which will not whip, so to speak, the unemployed. A person may have always worked and paid $2, $3 or $4 a week in premiums. There are those who have a low attachment experience with the work force. This is usually the young and the female sector of the work force, those whom the minister called women and kids. Those who work regularly become the whipping-boy for those who take advantage of the program only to be able to collect unemployment insurance.
The minister is responding by tightening up on unemployment insurance. This party does not approve of people stealing from the unemployment insurance fund. We have an act which provides for benefit control. We ask the government to carry out this benefit control in a fair and judicious manner, not in the manner which has been followed in the past. The computer can select groups. They can run benefit control on these groups in a wise and judicious fashion, not in the present manner. The minister and his bureaucrats have stated that there is an unwritten law for setting quotas with regard to how many a benefit control officer will eliminate from the unemployment insurance rolls. It becomes a kind of game.
The government reacts to the right-wing movement of the country which says the program must be tightened up. It states that $135 million will be saved by tightening up the program in this fashion. We have said that with one million unemployed in Canada, this is not the time to start fooling around with the minimum attachment period and the length of benefit. The Economic Council of Canada have stated that with our present high unemployment this is not the time to start fiddling around with the minor attachment period and the length of the benefit period. We have urged this upon the government. However, the minister has proceeded with this bill.
This place is no longer a debating forum. No longer is the minister touched by any debate or argument. The bureaucrats have sold him this bill of goods, and his mind is set like concrete: it has completely hardened. Rather than this place being a forum for debate, it is strictly a matter of time. That is what we have come down to, a matter of time. We on this side certainly do not approve of this type of move where the

minister looks at the amendments and accommodates by accepting those which obviously have some benefit.
With regard to this amendment, parliament ought to set the premium for benefits to be paid. The argument that we have to move quickly on premiums does not hold water. The premiums are not set today for tomorrow. They will not be set tomorrow for the day after. Surely, the Unemployment Insurance Commmission have made projections with regard to the number of unemployed one can expect in the future. There are bodies within Canada, such as Statistics Canada, which have made projections with regard to the number of people who will be unemployed next year. These have been broken down into age groups. The OECD countries have broken down the projected unemployed into age groups and sex groups. Using those projections, surely they can project the cost of the unemployment insurance fund. Having projected that cost, they can then assign the premium rates for participating in the unemployment insurance program. That is the crux of the matter. The minister would have us believe he might accept this amendment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand why the government is unwilling to accept this amendment. It sets forth a very basic principle of responsible government. The legislation which the government is proposing allows the Unemployment Insurance Commission, with the approval of cabinet, to set the rates which workers in this country will have to pay under the unemployment insurance plan. My colleagues, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), urge that this matter ought first to be submitted to the House of Commons.
We already require the consent of the House to impose very minor tax changes upon the people of Canada. Here is a power which we are giving to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and to the cabinet to levy what could amount to millions of dollars upon several million Canadian workers. The old principle is that taxation without representation is tyranny. The right of cabinet, on the recommendation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, to raise the rates which workers in this country will pay under the unemployment insurance plan is something which ought to be referred to parliament.
This parliament, and this parliament alone, should have the power to levy what is virtually a tax on the workers of this country. The House of Commons should have the opportunity to review the operations of the act to see whether those increases are necessary and are in keeping with the benefits which are provided. However, under the government's pro-


posed legislation no such opportunity will be provided. This is a negation of everything we have come to believe is part of the democratic process and the principle of responsible government. 1 cannot understand why the government is balking at accepting this amendment. We ought to have some explanation from them as to why they think, in levying a tax upon several million workers in this country, the House of Commons should be bypassed and the power placed entirely in the hands of the governor in council.
I recall the days when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) headed a government in this country. The Liberals were on this side of the House. They were constantly crying out that the Diefenbaker government was exercising arbitrary and dictatorial powers. I would like to know what they consider these powers to be, namely, the powers to levy taxation without reference to the elected members of parliament. We are entitled to something better than stony silence from the government, particularly the minister, as to why they are not prepared to refer back to parliament any changes in the rates which are charged the workers of this country under the unemployment insurance plan, so that the members of this House may know in detail what the rates are, why they are being increased, and whether they are being increased equitably across the work force of this country.
Surely, these are basic rights. I know the government has become very arrogant of late. Its attitude is very different from that taken when it found itself in a minority position and when the poll returns were somewhat discouraging. But its present arbitrary attitude is not justified. The government owes the House some explanation, and if it cannot supply one then the people should be appalled that hon. members opposite are taking this dictatorial attitude, assuming the right to impose levies on the workers, to take money out of their pay cheques in the absence of approval by the representatives of the members of this House.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the concern of my party about what is happening under this amendment as it applies to the setting of premiums for payment by both employers and employees. I listened to hon. members on my left, and I can only say 1 am in some doubt as to whether parliament has the competence to do what they want done. I was here last Thursday until 10.15 p.m. However, I believe the House went on until 10.30 p.m., so I missed a small part of the debate. Nevertheless, 1 read the argument put forward by my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who expressed concern about the difficulty which might arise if the House of Commons were to attempt to set the premium. In fact, 1 do not know exactly what is meant by that phrase, "the House of Commons fixing a premium". Do hon. members to my left suggest the House should become involved in the mechanics of sections 62 and 63, extremely complicated sections having to do with the fixing of these rates? With all due respect, I do not know whether we have the competence to do so.
Employment and Immigration
Nevertheless, I can well understand the point the hon. member has just made. It is, in effect, taxation without representation. As I have indicated, it might be doing a disservice to the Commons to involve it in an attempt to determine a formula, and so on. But perhaps what they are having in mind, really, is to let the government bring in a figure, subject to approval by this House. Is that what they are suggesting?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he realize that what he has just said is the case, rather than what he said earlier? Will he look at both our amendment and his own, and realize that in both cases it is the commission which sets the rates? The difference between us is this: we ask that what the commission has done should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons. The hon. member's amendment asks that what the commission does should be the subject of a statement in the House. In neither amendment is it proposed that the House of Commons should do the technical work of fixing the rates.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me read through the NDP motion. I was under the impression that it read, "the House of Commons, fix the rates".


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is just one line.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't get all shook up and say, "It is just one line". I think what the hon. member is talking about is approval given by the House after the governor in council has fixed the rates.


An hon. Member:: The same as ours.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All right. Don't get carried away. I am trying to understand the NDP motion and determine whether or not it is practicable. It seems the motion put forward by members to my left is similar to ours, except they want the approval given by the House of Commons before the rates come into effect.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let us review the history. First, it was the commission who set the rates, and no one had anything to say about them whatsoever. The minister then proposed that there should be some accountability. So the commission will set the rates and the governor in council will approve them. There is that further step included. In effect, it means that ministers on the front benches of the government side will have to approve the rates. After approval, the minister would come into the House and make a statement, whereupon the spokesmen for the opposition parties would have an opportunity to make statements in response, and to ask questions.
Mr. Speaker, we have found in the last two or three years that ministers are disinclined to make statements in the House. They would much prefer to go before television cameras or talk to newsmen outside. What I was seeking in my amendment was at least to ensure that changes in premium rates, or


Employment and Immigration
the stabilization of those rates, should be the subject of a ministerial statement in this chamber. We would then, at least, have an opportunity to talk about the subject and to criticize the minister if necessary. In short, we would become a part of the procedure. As things stand now, if the minister does not accept either of these amendments, it would be the same old chestnut: it would be a case, as the hon. member has said, of taxation without representation. We shall have nothing to say on the matter whatsoever.
1 feel a little embarrassed because of what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has said on the subject. He placed before the House an excellent argument for not moving in this regard in terms of accepting the NDP motion. But I think, on reflection, I shall have to wait until 1 can consult with him about what we in the official opposition are going to do, because I would like to be on the side which is pressing for something more from the minister, whether it is approval of the rates or an opportunity of hearing the minister tell us what the rates are so that we can at least respond and ask questions.
As it stands, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has indicated he would be opposed to it. I want an opportunity to discuss this matter with him, because I would not want to embarrass him. As hon. members will understand, 1 will discuss this matter with him, and whether we vote with the New Democratic Party will depend on our discussion on the other motions. I still intend to move my motion. If we do not get the NDP motion, then I want an opportunity to state that at least we tried in both instances: the first one by way of approval and the second one by way of a ministerial statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The motion now before the House is No. 24 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
It is my understanding that motions Nos. 25, 26 and 31 are to be debated separately and voted on.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved:: Motion No. 25.
June 17, 1977-That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 54 by striking out lines 40 and 41 at page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall cease to hold office on attaining the age of sixty".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 25 before the House today is not very important to most members of the House. The effect of the motion is to change the age of people who are chairmen of boards of referees appointed by the governor in council for a three-year period. The change proposed is to 65 years of age instead of the present 75 years of age.
I am not against older people providing a very valuable function in the public life of Canada. I move the motion only because of consistency with previous government legislation- the Unemployment Insurance Act itself. The age of retirement from the Public Service of Canada is 65, and it would be


consistent if we had the chairmen of the boards of referees retiring at age 65. That would be consistent, also, with legislation affecting the Public Service of Canada. The chairmen are not public servants, per se; but they are still part of the general public service and have the same public input into our country.
The age of entitlement for U1C runs out at age 65; once you are over the age of 65, you can no longer draw unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore, with respect to consistency, once again, the chairmen of the boards who are going to be judging those people applying for UIC should probably be the same age as those who are applying, namely, age 65. If the mandatory retirement age for chairmen of the boards of referees in our legislation is 75, which is recommended in Bill C-27, the only thing that is consistent with is the age of senators. Senators must retire at the age of 75. Anything that is consistent with the Senate is not consistent with party policies for which 1 stand. Because of matters of consistency and matters of logic, the age of retirement for chairmen of the board should be 65 rather than 75.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a few points which I should like to make with respect to this amendment which we have put forward. This gives us an opportunity to make some points. It is my experience, and the facts have borne this out, that the chairmanship of boards of referees has become a political appointment by this government. It has become part of the whole operation of appointing chairmen of boards of referees on the basis of names probably submitted by Liberal riding associations across the country. It has become part of the whole patronage system, in the same way as senators are appointed on the basis of their contribution to political parties. There is a system set up whereby the Canadian Chamber of Commerce recommends names to represent employers on the board, and the Canadian Labour Congress recommends names to sit as employees' representatives.
Does the government put out an advertisement showing that they have 18 vacancies in chairmanships of the boards this year, and that anyone can apply? Do they send around letters to members of parliament, of any political stripe, saying that there are "X" number of positions available? Do they ask for possible names to be submitted with attached curriculae vitae? No, that is not done. It is said that any member of parliament can send in a name. It is difficult to do that when one is unaware of vacancies. As long as this is done, it becomes a parliamentary pork-barrel. We know about the former minister of state for urban affairs sending letters to Liberal lawyers asking who could be representatives of CMHC to negotiate with prospective purchasers of homes. That is one of the things which makes the people of this country very cynical about the manner in which the government operates.
We have taken the opportunity to move this amendment in order to get the whole question raised and considered in this House of Commons. With regard to Bill C-69, the minister brought in age 70 as being the limit for persons to make contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, or to collect. A year ago the government brought in an amendment
Employment and Immigration
which provided that at age 65 no one really is a supporter of a family, no one really has dependent children, no one really has to work at that age, and therefore there is no point in having them contribute to the unemployment insurance fund. Our party opposed that amendment. We said we knew there was at least one Canadian in his early sixties who had three dependent children. In our constituencies there are many men and women who are still supporting children, and those children are either in the late years of elementary school or are in high school. Many of the parents of those children have to work, and some of them have no skills. We argued against any change in the Unemployment Insurance Act which would cut off Canadians at age 65 from either contributing or collecting.
This government is not consistent. Perhaps it follows the principle that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds and has, therefore, not maintained consistency with respect to the whole question of the pork-barrel clause. Pork-barrelling is the hallmark of this government. We have challenged the government to be consistent with its own act. What we want for the workers of Canada who come under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the government should also want for those it appoints to those nice, cushy jobs which pay perhaps $150 per day. That is a nice little sinecure for a Liberal hack, but it certainly does not give people who appear before boards any assurance that the chairmen of those boards of referees are really there to try to find a solution to their problems.
I have had much to do with boards of referees. I know other hon. members have, as well. I am amazed when I think of some of the individuals who have been appointed chairmen of these boards. I have made written complaints to the commissioner. My correspondence has been legion with respect to the manner in which chairmen have dominated boards and have not carried out the decision-making duties that they should. We are not saying that people who are beyond 65 are not capable of working, because we have always held differently. But we are saying that the government ought to be consistent. These chairmen ought to be consistent in their administration of the act. After all, the chairmen will also be making 'decisions with regard to people who are not eligible contributors or collectors.
That is basically why we proposed this amendment. We proposed it to draw to the attention of the government its inconsistency with respect to this point and to deride, once again, the pork-barrelling which goes on within this government, specifically with regard to chairmen of boards of referees. If the government wants to be fair and square and above board, it ought to place advertisements in local newspapers and send letters to members of parliament asking for nominees. That seems to me to be the only fair way to appoint chairmen of boards of referees.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I have just one comment to make. The hon. member indicated that this amendment is inconsistent. In fact-I indicated this in the committee-it would be consistent with the mandatory retirement age of persons hold-


Employment and Immigration
ing judicial and quasi-judicial appointments. Given the fact that these people are holding quasi-judicial positions, it seems appropriate that the retirement age should remain at 75.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 25 (Mr. Nystrom) negatived.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended by deleting clause 55 at page 29 and substituting the following therefor:
"55. Section 92 of the said act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after subsection (1) thereof, the following subsections:
[DOT]"(1.1) Subject to subsection (1.3), any judge of a superior, county or district court in Canada and any person who has held office as a judge of a superior, county or district court in Canada may, at the request of the chief umpire made with the approval of the governor in council, act as an umpire, and while so acting has all the powers of an umpire.
(1.2)	No request may be made under subsection (1.1) to a judge of a provincial court without the consent of the chief justice or chief judge of the court of which he is a member, or of the attorney general of the province.
(1.3)	The governor in council may approve the making of requests pursuant to subsection (1.1) in general terms or for particular periods or purposes, and may limit the number of persons who may act under this section.
(1.4)	A person who acts as an umpire pursuant to subsection (1.1) shall be paid a salary for the period he acts at the rate fixed by the Judges Act, for a judge of the Federal Court of Canada, other than the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice of that court, less any amount otherwise payable to him under that act in respect of that period, and shall also be paid the travelling allowances that a judge is entitled to be paid under the Judges Act." "
He said: Mr, Speaker, the motion I am proposing to amend clause 55 of Bill C-27 is for the purpose of permitting judges

of superior, county or district courts to act as umpires. Clause 55 as presently worded in the bill would authorize the use of deputy judges of the Federal Court of Canada as umpires for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The chief justice of the Federal Court has recommended that this provision be reworded to provide that the chief umpire may have any judge of a superior, county or district court act as umpire without requiring him to be appointed as a deputy judge of the Federal Court. The provisions of this motion-also at the request of the chief justice-set out the conditions under which such judges could act as umpires, and the salary rates to be applicable to them. The wording proposed is analogous to that contained in section 10 of the Federal Court Act.
Motion No. 26 (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At this time I would like the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: What about motion No. 31?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister wants to proceed to motion No. 31, and I will bow to his request. I do, however, want to bring in a proposed motion, No. 27. A similar motion was proposed by the minister but it was found to be beyond the scope of the bill and therefore was disallowed. However, it is my understanding that unanimous consent is required-I believe it would be forthcoming from both sides of the House-to move a motion similar to that which was moved by the minister. I will pursue that matter after we deal with motion No. 31.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 69 by striking out lines 30 and 31 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
"31st day of March, 1978, based on estimates 1977-78, or for any previous
fiscal year".
He said: Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation, the motion 1 am proposing would amend clause 69 of Bill C-27 for the purpose of updating the references to fiscal years contained in this clause. Clause 69 provides that the funds voted in fiscal year 1976-77 and previous fiscal years for existing organizations reporting to the minister may be applied to the new integrated department. In view of the lapse of time which has occurred since the drafting of the bill, this clause must be updated to refer to fiscal year 1977-78 rather than 1976-77.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, obviously this clause reflects the 1976-77 estimates and the minister has to bring in the amendment to update them. Hon. members know full well that Bill C-27 was based on studies reported in a document called "A Comprehensive Review of the Unemployment Insurance Program in Canada". This document was


obviously available to the department and to the minister back in 1976 because it was on its basis that Bill C-27 was drawn up. The minister admitted that he had to change the figure because the bill had been drawn up some time ago.
I think it reprehensible that this review was not made available to members until February of this year. The minister stated that the review was supposed to be the Valhalla for all the changes in Bill C-27, but now he has sprung Bill C-27 on us and admits it was drawn up some time ago. One must remember that these changes were alluded to in the 1976 budget, yet we did not receive the bill until 1977. Now we are told the bill must be passed in haste so that parliament can have its recess, and extra sittings have been arranged so we can get it through in time. Here is a bill that has been sitting in the government's store place, wherever it might be. Perhaps they keep it in the same place as the chipmunks store their nuts. Now the minister comes forward and amends it because it is a year old. 1 do not think that is treating parliament with dignity and respect. This review was done in 1973 and 1974, and it was based on the situation at that time seen from the viewpoint of Canada Manpower Centres and the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
I think it is treating the House with disrespect for the minister to bring in a bill that is a year old and has had to be amended so as to bring the estimates in line with the situation this year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the House will adjourn at 12:15 in order to take part in Canada Week celebrations. However, I think we can dispose very quickly of the matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the House. Motion No. 27 on the order paper was introduced earlier by the minister, but because of a procedural difficulty in that it went somewhat beyond the scope of the bill, Mr. Speaker did not allow it. However, as I understand it, the House can accept a motion if there is all-party agreement. This is what I am now seeking in moving the following motion:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended by adding immediately after line 2 at page 31, the following new clause:
"60.1 Section 114 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted
therefor:
"114. Information, written or oral, obtained by the commission of the Department of Employment and Immigration from any person under this
Employment and Immigration
act or any regulation thereunder shall be made available only to the employees of the commission or the said Department in the course of their employment and such other persons as the minister deems advisable, and neither the commission, the said department, nor any of their employees is compellable to answer any question concerning such information, or to produce any records or other documents containing such information as evidence in any proceedings not directly concerned with the enforcement or interpretation of this Act or the regulations."
The essential words in the section which I am seeking to amend are "such other persons as the commission deems advisable". In other words, confidential information would not only be restricted to the employees of the commission, but they could give it to any Tom, Dick or Harry who came knocking on their door. The minister understands it is wrong, 1 understand it is wrong, and I am sure hon. members to my left understand that such a procedure is not only wrong but is totally unacceptable. So the minister, in his wisdom-which sometimes comes forth very rapidly-moved an amendment, which I am moving now, whereby information obtained by the commission shall be made available to employees of the minister or persons whom the minister deems advisable. We now have some ministerial responsibility and I am sure hon. members will find no fault with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) seeks the consent of the House to move the motion which he has just read. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Alexander) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: As this is the last motion before the House, perhaps we might vote on motions on today's order paper.


Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual discussions with respect to deferred votes on motions under Bill C-27, and I think there is a disposition to defer voting on all the items until at least this evening. I understand the precise time will be specified later in the day.


Mr. Paproski:: It is so agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we agree; but this is the first time 1 have heard it suggested that these votes would not come until 9.45 p.m., as indicated by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFar-lane). There are 10 or 12 votes, and I think they should take place at an earlier hour than 9.45.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, at this stage the time has not been specified. It would be fixed in the normal course of negotiations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed?


The Late Andre Fortin


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed, and so ordered. Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): One o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m. later this day.
At 12.13 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
THE LATE ANDRfi FORTIN

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members, like myself, were shocked and saddened last Friday on learning of the death of our late friend and colleague, the leader of the Social Credit Party. The tragic nature of his accident en route to his home after visiting western Canada only emphasizes the dedication he brought to his political role not only in this House but in the country.
I, personally, had the privilege of working closely with Mr. Fortin during the years when he served his party as House leader. As most members appreciate, it often takes time to adjust comfortably to the procedural functioning of this chamber. As one of the new and most youthful members of the House of Commons in 1968, Mr. Fortin was assigned a challenging role which he mastered quickly with skill and enthusiasm. That same spirit was evident in recent months as he undertook the leadership of his party. He was determined that his view of politics and his country would not be confined only to his own province, and his visit to the west coast last week was evidence of his desire to communicate his ideas to other parts of Canada.
The tragedy of his death is a cruel one for his wife and young children who until last week stood to benefit for many years from his guidance and affection. It is also a very real tragedy for this House and politics generally to lose at the age of 33 a young Canadian who had volunteered to accept the challenges and sacrifices of political life in order to serve the citizens of Lotbiniere and the larger constituency in the rest of the country.
On behalf of the government, I wish to extend our deep sympathy to his constituents, his colleagues in this House and, most particularly, to the members of his family.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues associate ourselves with the words expressed by the Acting Prime Minister.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]

It was a tragic accident which ended the unduly short career of the leader of the Social Credit Party. The hon. member for Lotbiniere died in the prime of life and with a promising future ahead of him. Those who had the opportunity to work with him more closely know what eagerness to work and what determination were those of the youngest party leader of our political system. Like his predecessor, the late Real Caouette, the young leader of the Social Credit Party put all his energies into identifying the needs of Canadians to respond to them. He worked hard in all parts of the country to consolidate the foundation of his party, which was essentially a populist party, and he died at that task.

It is for me a very real personal loss as well. I, as did many of my colleagues, had the opportunity to work closely with the late Andre Fortin. We came to respect him as an individual and as a very dedicated member of this chamber, a man and a party leader who respected and sought to serve the traditions and develop the potential of our country.

Canada is mourning today the loss of a good politician, but as the saying goes, the good die young, and I am deeply touched by this loss not only of a colleague, but also of a sincere friend.

In my name and in the name of the members of my party, I want to offer to his family, his colleagues in the House of Commons and his constituents our most sincere condolences and deep regret on the death Friday morning of an outstanding member of parliament and a young man full of promise for the country.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I join in paying a sad tribute to an able and hard-working Canadian. Like Andre Fortin, I was elected to parliament in 1968. Although I did not know Andre well, our associations throughout this brief period were always frank and cordial. At all times I found him to be a man of his word. In politics, that is very important.
As has already been noted, less than a year ago he became the leader of a political party. During that period he learned the remarkable and pressing intellectual as well as the physical challenges that are involved. I do not think it is too much to say that part of the physical endurance of that task in this vast country probably contributed in some way to his sad death in the early hours of the morning last week.
Andre Fortin believed both in Quebec and in Canada. Before he died, he was working on that difficult formula which concerns all Quebecers, particularly those of a federalist persuasion, how to develop and maintain this important and historic dual life for his people and province and also his country. I am sure he had much to offer all of us in this country on that important question as well as others. There-


fore, from a political perspective, we have all lost an important person.

He leaves behind him his wife and two young children, to whom we offer all our sympathy. This is a sad event for his family as well as for Canadian politics.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues and in my own name, 1 want sincerely to thank the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen), the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), for their moving and comforting expressions of sympathy.
The warm tributes we just heard are a great comfort to us and will help bear the grievous loss we are experiencing as the result of the tragic event which caused the premature death of our young leader, Mr. Andre Fortin, whom we had learned to know as a dynamic organizer, aware of his duties and responsibilities.
It was at the end of a four-day tour of British Columbia from where he returned with much enthusiasm about his meetings with the supporters and organizers of our party that Andre undertook his fatal trip from Ottawa to his Victoriaville home when fatigue overcame him and put an end to a very promising career.
Andre Fortin was not only the national leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada but he was to us all a friend. He always showed an acute sense of timeliness and he was gifted with a great clarity of mind which enabled him to find the right word at the right moment. I think that under the circumstances it would be appropriate to quote an excerpt from the last speech he delivered in the House of Commons on June 15, 1977:
If we want law and order, we will adopt mechanisms and legislation proving that we are serious and consequently we will punish those who violate the law and encourage those who abide the law. I think that is essential.
Andre Fortin will remain a friend in the memory of all those who worked with him or came in contact with him in political quarters, and in the memory of all Canadians, whatever their social standing. During his short political career, he gave the example of a model worker who knew the needs and yearnings of the Canadian people.
To his wife, his children, his constituents of Lotbiniere and his relatives, we extend our deep sympathy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to add a few words, although the leaders of the various parties have already expressed the general feelings of the House. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), Andre Fortin and 1 were elected to Parliament for the first time in 1968, and we have been very good friends ever since. We began our work here at the same time in a very deep and sincere spirit of mutual co-operation. On behalf of all hon. members, I wish to extend to Mrs. Fortin and her family my deepest condolences.
Oil

I should also like to associate myself with the remarks already expressed, both here and in the press. Undoubtedly, like so many other members who are attempting to devote their time to the responsibilities which all members take so seriously-their work here, their duty to be among the electors to explain the doctrines of their parties, their duty to be with the workers in the province, especially at this critical time in Quebec, and, finally, a commitment to spend some of that time with members of the family-Andre Fortin was led into a schedule which contributed to his fatigue and to his fatal accident. We all, as members, understand that. I believe every citizen of the country should realize it was his tremendous devotion and commitment to duty as a member and as the leader of a major party in this House which contributed to his death and should pay him tribute because of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, that being the restoration of funds by the United States Congress for the further construction of the Garrison Dam Project in North Dakota. Because of the serious implications of this action for the province of Manitoba, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House, through the Department of External Affairs, contact the president of the United States giving Canada's unconditional support for what will hopefully be a presidential veto on this most urgent matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSAL THAT EXTRA REVENUE BE PLACED IN FUND FOR OIL EXPLORATION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the announced price increases for oil and gas over the next two years, an


Dominion Day
announcement which was made directly to the press and not to the House, thus preventing proper parliamentary questioning concerning the government's intentions. Given that these increases are the largest made in recent years; and given that they will give the petroleum companies an additional $1 billion annually in profits without any guarantee that these company revenues will be devoted to oil and gas exploration and development; and given that previous price increases have been siphoned off by the companies into dividends, into exploration abroad and into financing of marketing wars for the gasoline market; and given that the companies continue to refuse to commit themselves to continued exploration in Canada, unless the terms are exactly what they demand as evidenced by the recent drilling slowdown in the Mackenzie Delta, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the government to withhold these extra revenues from the oil companies and place them in a separate fund from which the companies could withdraw funds for exploration and development purposes only.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DOMINION DAY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity in that this parliament, and the people of Canada, have the right to demand that on the national celebration of Dominion Day either Her Majesty the Queen as head of state, or her representative, the Right Honourable Governor General should give the message to the nation. If that is not to be, then I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the Prime Minister, the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party and a representative of the Social Credit Party should join in speaking in support of national unity, which is not the monopoly of the Prime Minister and the government, but of all Canadians. Otherwise, having regard to the election atmosphere that has been prevalent in the government ranks of this House in the last few days, Dominion Day, Canada's national birthday, will be used on parliament hill as a launching pad by the government for a general election this fall.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROHIBITION OF ASBESTOS FILTERS IN PREPARATION OF FOOD, BEVERAGES OR PHARMACEUTICALS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the recent revelation that asbestos fibres have been found in Canadian and European wines. The fibres apparently get into the wine because it is filtered through asbestos filters. Because of the dangers of accumulated asbestos to health, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the government to prohibit the use of asbestos filters in the preparation of any food, beverage or pharmaceutical product in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from a press conference statement by the Prime Minister at the recent Commonwealth Conference that democracy can exist in forms other than parliamentary and that there is such a thing as one party democracy, and finally, as it is essential to my motion, I should like to quote the following sentence directly:
I wouldn't be prepared to think I would be successful in arguing that for Canada at the present time, but such times might come, who knows?
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester North (Mr. Coates):
That the Prime Minister immediately advise the House whether it has been, and now is, government policy to create in this country a dictatorial one party system, and particularly that he give an explanation of the meaning of his dictatorial, arrogant and demagogic utterance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Instead of the urgent and pressing necessity required by the rule, that seems to have some political overtones to it.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning our unaccept-


able and deteriorating postal service. Due to the growing dissatisfaction and anger of Canadians because of unreliable postal services and particularly extended delays in mail delivery, including notices of meetings, conventions, receptions and other important functions which do not reach their destination in time in spite of the fact that they are posted three to four weeks prior to the date of the event, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the Postmaster General be requested by parliament to convene meetings with city postmasters in each province to hear their complaints and recommendations with a view to taking remedial action to re-establish acceptable postal service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the acting Prime Minister, and it concerns the revelations which have just been made known with respect to the investigation being carried out by the government of the province of Quebec with respect to a second break-in at L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec offices which is alleged to have occurred on October 12, 1973, a break-in which was performed for the purposes of installing wiretapping equipment, according to reports. Was there any Royal Canadian Mounted Police involvement in the second break-in, and if so, was the solicitor general of the day, who is now the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, aware of it before or after the raid took place?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have very little information. According to press reports a letter was received by the then solicitor general in connection with that, but that is about all the information I have at the moment. The present Solicitor General is attending a federal-provincial meeting of corrections officers, and 1 will see that the House is given more information.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, at a press conference on November 21, 1973 the APLQ claimed that it sent a telegram as well as a letter. The minister has confirmed that a letter was received, and he is going to inform the House with respect to its contents. Would he also confirm, if he can, that in fact a telegram was sent and received-particularly the
Oral Questions
latter-and include that in the answer he intends to give to the House at a later time?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the press reports mention of a telegram in earlier press conferences. I have no information on that, but we will determine it.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of this further indication of a course of events in police practice, a course of events which is clouded even more by confessions at a trial and allegations by a former RCMP officer, I wonder if, in the course of his activities as acting solicitor general, Minister of Justice, Attorney General or in whatever capacity he is answering today, the minister will advise his colleagues in the government that perhaps the time has come in Canada for the traditional line of the government, to disregard the necessities of an inquiry, to be changed so that this whole matter can be moved from the political arena to a proper arena of inquiry where all the facts surrounding this whole history, of which I am sure the government is not proud, could be brought forward and dealt with in a proper judicial fashion.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I note that the minister of justice in the province of Quebec has indicated that the inquiry which has already been established is sufficiently wide to examine this matter. Of course, he is the appropriate authority in terms of any criminal activity that might be involved. So there is already an inquiry under way.


Walter David Baker: There is a meeting of provincial attorneys general and the Attorney General. Is this matter on the agenda of discussion? I am referring to the question of the propriety of an inquiry.


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, because it does not involve other provinces. Undoubtedly there will be conversations between particular ministers.


Walter David Baker: How do we know that?


PROCEDURES FOR MONITORING DESTRUCTION OF FILES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Solicitor General. In view of the vague answers given lately on a wide spectrum of RCMP and ministerial activities, I want to ask the acting minister the following question. In view of the very sensible procedures by which National Health and Welfare officials monitor destruction by the RCMP of narcotics, are similar measures or procedures undertaken to monitor the destruction of RCMP files, tapes, ledgers and other materials of this nature? Was this done with respect to the 20 linear feet of files and other materials that the minister conceded were destroyed at Montreal June 3, 1977 on the basis of a report made by the


Oral Questions
divisional audit officer, curiously enough on a statutory holiday?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Solicitor General has explained that that destruction occurred in the normal course of record destruction, common within agencies. 1 do not have the details of those procedures, but I am sure the Solicitor General will be happy to give them.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The Solicitor General indicated that some of these files dated back to the year 1966, but he specifically did not say how current some of them were. 1 ask the acting minister to take as notice that perhaps the Solicitor General should reassure the House and the country that the operational case records classification and retention system specified in the manual of the RCMP procedures for destruction of files has been followed in all respects here. Perhaps I could refer the acting minister to some of the relevant material, that is pages 10 and 11 of appendix 2-3, records management manual of the force.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will refer that to the Solicitor General.



CANADA WEEK


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two questions about the need of a royal commission to inquire into the obvious series of RCMP misdeeds, but in the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Solicitor General and the inadequacy of existing answers, I will switch topics.
I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware of the fact that at noon today at a function allegedly to be of a non-partisan nature, the kicking off of Canada Week to emphasize national unity, at which the Leader of the Official Opposition and I were invited to participate along with the Prime Minister, after the opening comments by the Minister of National Defence on behalf of the Prime Minister and following 50 minutes of entertainment, neither a representative of the Official Opposition nor of the NDP was called upon to speak at this non-partisan gathering accompanied by jets flying overhead in the front of the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that.


An hon. Member:: Liberal arrogance.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the importance of maintaining a non-partisan approach to the question of national unity at this time and considering the importance of the rest of the week's activities, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that he will investigate that incident and that the rest of the

events this week celebrating our past and looking forward to our future will be of a non-partisan nature?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be eager to investigate what deprived the leader of the New Democratic Party from making a statement this morning. I will agree with him on the necessity of a non-partisan approach to the question of national unity where it is possible because there are certain interests in the field in which there can be differences. 1 agree with the hon. member that the maximum amount of unanimity on this subject is desirable.


John Edward Broadbent: Certainly, it is important that the Prime Minister of the day act as Prime Minister at certain of these activities. 1, for one, do not begrudge that and I will make that clear. He is spokesman for all Canadians. His party happens to have a majority and in certain functions 1 agree he should speak for the country. 1 should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will assure the House, however, that at those other functions this week which are officially described as non-partisan in which the other parties have been invited to participate, they damn well will participate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I said, 1 will investigate the circumstances but 1 have been informed that the organization, the selection of speakers and so on for today was under the auspices of a private organization.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



DOMINION DAY


Mr. Gordon L. Fairweather (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to contain one's amazement at that answer. Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could dispel the mystery surrounding this week's events if he would say whether the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party and a spokesman for the Social Credit Party will participate and speak on July 1 in front of the Parliament Buildings.


An hon. Member:: Just a simple answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker, 1 am not in a position either to verify or disagree because I am not involved in the preparation of the program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You have to be a Liberal to be a good Canadian?


Mr. Grafftey:: You make Mackenzie King look like a statesman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask if he had any consultations with the Prime Minister last week in light of the extraordinary events that unfolded in connection with the extraparliamentary opposition scandal and the break-in at Praxis Corporation in Toronto, particularly those events which led this House to believe there were threats to life from an unknown source. Has the minister been consulted and asked by the Prime Minister to launch an investigation through his department?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention of course to reveal the names of agents and collaborators which the Solicitor General knows about, but certainly it should have been the intention of the minister to assist in revealing the names of people who are making threats to the life and safety of people. Is it the intention of the minister and his department to involve themselves in this rather critical situation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General indicated last week that the matter had been referred to the attorney general of Ontario who is responsible for breaches of the criminal law which occur within the province of Ontario.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Frank Oberle: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. I should like to ask the minister if he, like myself, has been contacted by persons unknown to me and if he has been threatened if he revealed any of the facts connected with this extraparliamentary opposition scandal?


An hon. Member:: You ask no questions you get no answers.
Oral Questions INDUSTRY



FOOTWEAR-REQUEST OF MANUFACTURERS FOR REDUCTION OF IMPORTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As no less than 21 Canadian shoe manufacturing companies have been forced out of business in the last 18 months because of imports from low wage countries such as Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, does the minister intend to accede to the request of the Shoe Manufacturers Association of Canada that imports of shoes be reduced to 40 per cent of domestic consumption from the present 55 per cent to bring them more in line with what the United States and the European Economic Community have done to obtain a reasonable share of the domestic market for their domestic producers?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I met the representatives of this organization who have agreed with me that the best way to proceed was to ask the Anti-Dumping Tribunal to carry out a study at its earliest convenience. The tribunal was to carry out this study within a six-month period. 1 shall therefore send a message this week to the effect that I should like to be provided very shortly with an interim report, so as to act, should the need arise, on the findings this tribunal may have come up with.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. As the anti-dumping tribunal has evidently submitted its interim report, with which the minister does not seem to be conversant, stating that it does not recommend such a course and the Canadian Shoe Manufacturers Association is urgently requesting that the government take action to stop Canadian shoe manufacturing businesses from rapidly going out of operation, will the minister take action?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as soon as this report is received, we shall make the necessary decisions. Indeed, we must comply with the current legislation in this area and we do not enjoy the same flexibility under this legislation as in the textile industry, where we demonstrated last November that we could act quickly.



BANK OF CANADA


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. As it is 17 months since we had the last estimate of the cost of the new Bank of Canada building on Wellington Street in spite of many inquiries in this House and in commit-


Oral Questions
tee, and as the Minister of Finance stated last month that a major review of cost estimates of the Bank of Canada is underway and will be completed by mid-June and that we would be informed after that time, would the parliamentary secretary now indicate the current estimated cost of this hall of mirrors, bearing in mind that it was originally estimated to cost $36 million but at last count 17 months ago the cost had jumped to $56 million.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we expect to have these figures before the end of June. One of the problems the Bank of Canada has in preparing estimates is that the last operation, namely the renovation of the original building has not been costed. Tenders for the cost will be made available hopefully before the end of June.



ALLEGED REFUSAL OF GOVERNOR TO HALT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OFFICE BUILDING

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I put my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board in the absence of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that construction continues on the building of this temple of finance on Wellington Street which will be the most luxurious central bank building in the world, can the minister indicate if he is aware that at the time the government was moving to slow down the rate of impact of government spending on the economy, the Minister of Finance intervened with the governor of the Bank of Canada asking that he hold up construction of the building and was refused? If the President of the Treasury Board is aware of this would he now intervene directly in the hope that this building spree that is so unnecessary can be halted as quickly as possible?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that detail in the history of this transaction.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. On January 13 this year speaking to the Conference of Defence Associations General Dextraze said: "Rather than destroying the airborne regiment, I am expanding it." In view of that remark can the minister explain how he is going to disband the airborne mechanized commando, one of the three existing commandos in the regiment and still expand the regiment?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there are two commandos at the present time. There were plans for a third. If this is adhered to both will be going

to Petawawa rather than one to Petawawa and one to Ottawa and then re-forming the third in Petawawa.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is a little confused about the third commando I can tell him it has been in Germany and is no longer going to be there which leaves a net loss of one commando. The often repeated excuse for the otherwise inexplicable move east of the airborne regiment was the fallacious statement that, as a result, some 1,200 extra men were going to be deployed at the sharp end. It now appears that quite the opposite is taking place and the government is now being forced to disband one of the three existing commandos of the airborne regiment. Will the minister now reconsider the whole disastrous idea, since the last viable reason for the move seems to have disappeared?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion in the hon. member's mind about the formation of the commando force that is to be changed. No, I do not intend to reconsider it. It has already been considered seriously. The troops' reposturing is a necessary part of the structuring of the armed forces. That one part of it is in abeyance, and will be until I have had the opportunity to look into it further.



STATUS OF QUICK REACTION FORCE

Allan Bruce McKinnon: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Chief of Defence Staff, General Dextraze, went to great lengths to explain that the quick reaction force is going to be a French speaking commando unit stationed at Uplands Airport. Now that it is not going to be there can we assume we have no quick reaction forces, because we have the aircraft at Trenton, the airborne regiment will be at Pettawawa, and the parachute packing will be done at Edmonton?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, certainly, for any conceivable situation in which a fast reaction is required there is a fast reaction force, for example, special units engaged in the search and rescue role. However, other types of fast reactions can still be achieved in adequate time for any foreseen eventuality. Of course, that is one of the things I am looking into and one of the reasons for not proceeding with the third matter at this time.



HOUSING


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is with regard to the statement which he and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources issued this morning with respect to the home insulation program for conserving energy. Since 1 assume CMHC will administer the program, l


ask the minister what provisions are to be made for financing on the part of those who seek to benefit from the program? The statement says that some $350 per unit will be paid. Since it costs approximately $900 to insulate a home, how is the home owner to procure the other $550? Does the government intend to do as it did in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, guarantee the loans, or will it make arrangements with the provincial governments for them to guarantee the loans? What has the government in mind with respect to the disparity per home of between $350 and $900?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The utilization of government hot air.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the figures mentioned by the hon. member. It is undeniable that the program we are putting forward for all Canada is not as generous as the program which has been going on in the two Maritime provinces for some months now. Besides, this program is an incentive to encourage people to insulate their homes, and we believe that the amount offered will generate enough response from the public to meet our objective.



HOME INSULATION PROGRAM-CONDITIONS TO BE MET BY PROVINCES PRIOR TO RECEIVING GRANTS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It should be noted that the two provinces with Liberal governments are to get more generous treatment than the other eight provinces. That will be of some interest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That will certainly help national unity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the
statement the two ministers issued they spoke of the conditions which participating provinces would have to meet-I will not read the list. I ask, will these grants be effective only when the provinces have put in place the lengthy program outlined in the statement? Since most of the required conditions will require legislation by provincial legislatures, does this mean that the program will not come into effect in the eight provinces of Canada until provincial legislation is passed, or will individuals be allowed to insulate their homes and be paid retroactively when provincial governments decide to participate?


Walter David Baker: The government is not sure.


André Ouellet: In answer to the hon. member's question, I feel it is clear that the residents of those provinces will not benefit from this program before the provincial governments have approved the conditions put forward by my colleague the Minister of
Oral Questions
Energy, Mines and Resources and before he has discussed them with the provincial premiers or his provincial counterparts. I cannot accept the hon. member's point that legislation will be needed, for I am told that following those preliminary consultations with the provinces, the necessity to legislate has not been raised.



HOME INSULATION PROGRAM-APPLICABILITY OF PROGRAM TO RENTED PREMISES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister is aware that, according to his own statement, the provinces will be required to remove the sales tax on insulating materials. I am not aware that any provincial government can do that without legislation. I ask, what provision is being made to insulate the homes of renters. I point out that 40 per cent of this country's residents are renters. In Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, 97 per cent of the grants went to owners, only 3 per cent to renters. There is no provision in the statement for providing assistance to renters to insulate their homes. 1 point out that renters are usually people with smaller incomes and need to conserve energy just as much as home owners. I ask, what provision does the minister intend to make for those who live in rented accommodation, provided the owner of that accommodation is agreeable to having the home insulated?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: In answer to the first part of the hon. member's question, I remind him simply that often, through the budget, a decision can be made which comes immediately into effect, without having to wait for the passage of a bill giving effect to such a budgetary decision. Furthermore, as to the hon. member's concern about tenants 1 can assure him that the eligibility requirements apply to resident owners, tenants and non resident owners and therefore, if he looks at the release, he will see that there are credits not only for private homes but also for apartment buildings which have not more than three floors.



HOME INSULATION PROGRAM-DELAY IN APPROVING APPLICATIONS IN NOVA SCOTIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister on the same matter? The program in effect in Nova Scotia apparently is fully endorsed by the public, but there are substantial delays in the approval of applications. 1 do not complain about the numbers of people submitting applications for assistance. Unfortunately, there are not enough on the staff to handle all applications coming forward. Could the minister assist the people of the area? Could he see to it that the office has a large enough staff to process applications, so that the work can be done before the fall when the people will want the insulation in place?


Oral Questions


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the hon. member recognizes the intrinsic value of the program and admits that it is working marvellously well in his provinces. I can assure him, on the other hand, that we decide from day to day, according to the influx of applications, on the means to be taken to answer as quickly as possible the applications of the people in his province.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I direct my question to the Minister of Justice. It concerns the ongoing RCMP investigation of AECL's involvement in the sale of Candu reactors. The Financial Post of June 18 says:
.. .the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have actually broadened the ambit of their criminal investigation to include a number of newly discovered suspect payments made by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
1 ask the minister, to what newly discovered suspect payments does this story allude? Second, when will the RCMP make its report? The Solicitor General said some weeks ago it would be tabled by now. Finally, because of the important work the public accounts committee is doing in this regard, when will this new evidence be referred to that committee?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, 1 doubt very much whether the nature of that evidence can be disclosed until the investigation is completed and it is indicated whether criminal charges should be laid. 1 will, of course, refer the question to the Solicitor General and see that any additional answer that might be made will be made.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my party's original stand vis-a-vis marketing boards, I put the following question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the spokesmen of Canada. It has come to our attention that a government report states that the recently approved national chicken marketing agency will cost consumers $89 million during its first year in operation and in some cases certain individual Canadians will be paying twice the amount for chickens. As spokesmen for the consumers of this country, has the minister brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and discussed it with

him, outlining the grave consequences of this action? Who prepared this government document? Where did it come from?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the report to which the hon. member is referring is one released by the Consumers' Association of Canada. 1 understand it has not been obtained from my department. I would point out, as the hon. member is aware, that the system of supply-management marketing boards contemplated under the National Farm Marketing Act and the chicken broiler plan does contemplate some border controls to stabilize the industry here in Canada. I suppose it is fair to say, if experience proves any guide, that Canadian consumers will regrettably be faced with price increases. However, 1 certainly do not wish to provide any such estimate as that contained in the hon. member's comment. I can only hope that the price increases will be as modest as possible.



POSSIBILITY OF MILK PRICE WAR BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL AUTHORITIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION

William Heward Grafftey: Was not this a confidential report prepared by the minister's department? I will reiterate my question. Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs raised this matter with the Minister of Agriculture now that the recent report has indicated that the Canadian consumer may be the victim of a price war between the federal authority and the provinces in relation to milk? These are two important problems involving the Canadian consumer. One, we assume, is based on a confidential report from the minister's department. Has he raised these serious matters with the Minister of Agriculture and what kind of a break, as a result of the minister's representations to the Minister of Agriculture, can the Canadian consumer expect?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the suggestion about the price war that the hon. member refers to between the provinces and the federal government on milk. Also, 1 cannot confirm or deny the existence of the study to which he refers because, as I suggested to him, what he refers to is not something released by my department, to the best of my knowledge. The hon. member asks if I have brought my point of view or that of my department to the Minister of Agriculture. I point out to him that the National Farm Marketing Act contemplates a poultry marketing scheme. Hearings were held under the act. A recommendation was made by the Minister of Agriculture to cabinet which bore a positive response from those hearings held under the act. I cannot go beyond that and discuss with the hon. member what my views might have been at that time when the recommendation was made by the Minister of Agriculture.



OIL-SUGGESTION EXTRA REVENUE BE PLACED IN FUND TO BE USED ONLY FOR EXPLORATION

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it correct that the increase in oil and gas prices recently announced by the federal government will result in windfall revenues of some $1 billion going to oil companies, largely foreign owned, without any obligation on their part to use any of this money for exploration for and development of oil and gas resources? If this is so, as appears to be the case, will the government take immediate steps to protect the interests of Canadian consumers, on whom the burden of these higher prices will fall, by ensuring through legislation that the oil companies will get this additional revenue only if, as and when they carry out exploration and development work additional to what they have been doing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm the alleged facts pointed out by the hon. member. His question is in the nature of a representation which will be considered.



SOCIAL SERVICES


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the charge by Mr. Lazure that the federal government uses cost-sharing programs to enter into areas that the constitution closes to it and is justifying expansion of the civil service by going into fields not part of its jurisdiction, has the minister considered whether his-proposed social insurance services act is an infringement upon provincial jurisdiction?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


William Gordon Ritchie: As Mr. Timbrell has said that the conference was so empty it could have been preceded by a one-page memo rather than a two-day conference, will the minister advise whether anything useful was accomplished at the conference?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



ACCEPTANCE BY PROVINCES OTHER THAN QUEBEC OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, now that the province of Quebec has registered its very adamant objection to the introduction of new social services legislation, can the minister advise whether in fact all of the other provinces accept the legislation as introduced? If not, is it his intention to in any event push ahead, notwithstanding the fact that he does not have full support?
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the provinces and the federal government together studied six different projects before chosing the one that was tabled in the House. No province, other than Quebec, has indicated any disagreement with the one tabled in the House which corresponds to the sixth version distributed for consideration to the provinces. I must point out, in addition, that at no time prior to the conference last week, either during discussions held in recent years or on several occasions since November 15 last, did the Quebec government indicate, through its officials or otherwise, that it did not agree with the proposed legislation.



SUGGESTED DELAY OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION PENDING


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The province of Ontario is a big province, as is the province of Quebec. In light of the fact that we want equality of treatment and if Quebec insists on not giving its consent to this very important piece of legislation, will the minister advise whether he is prepared to withhold second reading of this bill until he has had further consultation with the provinces, in particular the province of Quebec, in order to see whether we can find some common ground in order to proceed?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, not only are the provinces of Ontario and Quebec important, but we do have ten provinces in this country. We had intensive consultations with all provinces and I intend to resume the consultations which took place in the past, in the same spirit, with all provinces. 1 do not think federal-provincial relations can lead to a situation where the provinces of Quebec and Ontario would have a sort of right of veto over all projects which could include federal-provincial cooperation. I can assure my hon. colleague that I will do my best to get continuous cooperation from those provinces which are of particular importance due to their population. I can also tell the hon. member that the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs said that he would send me additional comments in the near future. I am looking forward to receiving them. 1 do not intend to proceed to second reading of this bill until 1 receive the comments of my colleague from Quebec.
[ English |



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. As a
7100


Oral Questions
result of questions put to him on April 25, the minister indicated that the time honoured policy of separation of politics and politicians on Department of National Defence bases has been altered. Can the minister now confirm that he changed this time-honoured policy so that he could accommodate a fellow Liberal, the hon. member for York Centre, so that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance could put his red, party-coloured trailer with his name emblazoned on the outside of the National Defence Air Base at Downsview?
Some hon. Mlembers: Oh! .



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Has an official decision yet been taken with respect to the establishment of a judicial inquiry into the sinking of the CN ferry William Carson and, if so, when will such an inquiry be established?
Perhaps the minister could take this opportunity to tell us what steps the government has in mind to find a replacement as soon as possible for this ferry since many thousands of reservations have had to be cancelled because of the loss of the vessel.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Final details in connection with the inquiry have not yet been arranged but I hope it will be possible for this to be done soon. We have been looking at the question of alternative vessels and their availability; we have also been examining ways in which to use the total fleet on the east coast as effectively as possible.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Now we have had some indication from the Council of Maritime Premiers and the Province of Newfoundland through their respective highway ministers relating to further meetings with the minister regarding the $100 million highway program for the Atlantic region, would the hon. gentleman indicate whether he intends to carry to that meeting a much broader outlook with respect to the $1 billion program which has formally been asked for by the four provinces or whether he intends to consider only some modification of the $100 million program he recently announced?


Otto Emil Lang: The very first proposals from the Atlantic provinces which did involve a program of just under $100 million was seen as being one which would extend over a period of years-perhaps at least ten years. What we have proceeded with at this point is a proposal for a cost-sharing arrangement for three years in relation to a cost-sharing arrangement involving, on our part, $100 million, which is a very significant step toward the accomplishment of the ultimate objective. At the meetings this afternoon 1 shall obviously be discussing with the Atlantic transport ministers the question of the relationship between the first phase of the program and the long-term objectives.


J. Michael Forrestall: So, we are to understand that the minister's position with respect to this introductory offer of $100 million is essentially the position he will be putting before the four Atlantic highway ministers or transportation authorities.


Otto Emil Lang: It would really be inappropriate for me to deal in the House today with the full range of discussions to be held this afternoon. I am surprised the hon. member can so offhandedly refer to $100 million as though it were an insignificant sum. It seems to me it is an important contribution toward highway improvement in the Atlantic region and I had hoped Atlantic members would recognize this and welcome it accordingly.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It is in two parts. In view of the fact that the people of Ontario are shocked and disgusted that a member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, Edward Ziemba has been held in the Don Jail in Toronto for refusing to reveal to a court the name of the person who gave him confidential information, would the minister immediately contact the Attorney General of Ontario and ask him to stay the proceedings of the trial and refer the matter to the Ontario Court of Appeal? The second part of my question is this: would the minister bring in legislation to prevent a recurrence of this situation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I shall be having dinner this evening with the Attorney General of Ontario and shall inquire what he intends to do. As to the second part of the question, which is an important one, it is necessary, of course, to consider and balance the interests of the accused in a full and fair trial by having in court all possible information which may be helpful to the accused. On the other hand, of course, there is the interest of people concerned with maintaining confidential privileged communications. The Law Reform Commission has, in its study of the Evidence Code and in its consideration of trial procedures, been looking into the ques-


tion of privilege and has recommended a discretionary privilege in cases which may be similar to the Ziemba case. I would suggest that such a discretionary privilege has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, and Mr. Ziemba's solicitors may want to consider that case, in particular, the case of Slavutych and Baker, and determine whether it is applicable to the present situation.


John Gilbert: Will the Minister of Justice translate into legislation the case heard before the Supreme Court, one which is of interest not only for Edward Ziemba but for other Canadians?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As the hon. member knows, the Law Reform Commission in its proposed Evidence Code recommended a discretionary form of privilege. I have indicated that the Evidence Code is a matter for consultation with provincial governments and members of the bar associations. This consultative process is almost completed and we shall be discussing this subject further at the forthcoming meeting of provincial attorneys general.



PROPOSAL THAT UNAUTHORIZED WIRETAPPING EVIDENCE BE INADMISSIBLE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question, it deals with the debate which is to take place on Bill C-51. The purpose of the question is to shorten the time likely to be taken up, particularly on the report stage. The reason I ask this is in reference to the invasion of privacy and the hon. gentleman's amendment with reference to the admissibility of evidence from authorized or unauthorized wiretapping leaving it to the discretion of the judiciary, and the Supreme Court of Canada having laid down in the Wray case the kind of discretion which must be exercised, leaving the rest of the judiciary in Canada effectively without discretion, will the minister now reconsider his position, myself having put that proposition to him, and accept my proposition which would make any evidence derived from unauthorized wiretapping inadmissible, either part of that conversation or the derivative evidence?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As the hon. member knows, this matter was very thoroughly discussed in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and it will be debated again before passage. It would seem to me that the amendment worked out in committee and approved in committee is a very good one and falls within the concept of the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission which studied the whole field of evidence over a long period.
Privilege-Mr. Coates



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am tabling today, in both official languages, a paper on the automobile industry in North America.


PRIVILEGE
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which in my opinion affects all members of the House. Most of my remarks will be directed to you, Sir, as the guardian of our rights as hon. members.
Today we begin what is known as Canada Week, and already questions have been posed to the Acting Prime Minister in relation to some of the functions which are taking place today on the Hill and to others which will be taking place later, most of them on July 1. My concern arose before today's events. The leader of the New Democratic Party today highlighted what can happen when the events are not handled in a proper manner from the point of view of parliament and members of this House.
I should like to stress that Parliament Hill comes under Your Honour's jurisdiction. The events which take place on this hill from time to time are Your Honour's responsibility. If something is going to transpire here, then you must be contacted and approve of what is happening. I would not want any member to think what is happening, at this time and in this way revolves around Your Honour in such a way as to leave the impression in the minds of the public that there is a partisan endeavour on the part of the executive of the government to usurp the responsibilities of all members of parliament to participate in a positive way toward making Canada a greater place than it is at this moment in time and to promote the theme of national unity, which appears to be the objective the government is striving to attain.
As a member of parliament who has been here for some years, I have participated at other times in significant events on Parliament Hill. Without exception, on every one of those occasions, every individual member of parliament, as well as those from the other place, were made aware of what was happening and were asked to participate in a positive way. 1 remember the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, when she was secretary of state, doing everything she possibly could in 1967 to involve
80018-47V2


Privilege-Mr. Coates
every individual member of parliament in what was happening on Canada's 100th birthday.
On this particular occasion, I have been informed of what was happening by what I read in the newspaper, heard from the media and from the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He has become aware of what is happening and has tried to make this House aware of the fact that what is happening is not in the best interests of this nation as a whole. It is urgently necessary for Your Honour to assume responsibilities on the part of all members of this House to see that all members are included. With the Speaker of the other place, Your Honour should see to it that all members of parliament from both Chambers have an opportunity to participate in every way they can at this late date. Canadians should be made aware that this is not some kind of partisan endeavour on the part of the Liberal government, but it is something in which all members of parliament wish to participate, in the hope that Canada will be a stronger and better place to live.
We look forward to Canada being a better place for our children to live in as a unified nation. If something is not done right away, I am fearful we will find ourselves in a position where the people of this nation do not even realize that there are other leaders and other political parties in this country. That may be something to laugh about, if you happen to come from the Liberal Party, but that is what irritates me no end. This should not be some kind of a partisan endeavour in which Liberals have a special right to participate. This is something for all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: It is time for all Canadians to see all their members of parliament participating. No government has the right to spend taxpayers' dollars to finance a special show for the Prime Minister of this country, which excludes everybody else who happens to be a member in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: No government has the right to set up the Prime Minister of this country as some sort of saviour of this nation. Every member in this House has a very determined desire to participate and make Canada a stronger place than it is right now. We have no available way of doing that. The government has precluded us, one and all, unless you happen to be a member of the Liberal Party, from participating in any way.
It is nothing short of shocking and scandalous, as far as I am concerned, to think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) kicked off Canada Week. Canada Week is something we have never heard of before. It is not part of our constitution, unless hon. members on the other side are writing it day by day. The Minister of National Defence, speaking for the Prime Minister, appears to be the only member opposite who has anything to say about Canada Week, aside from the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). In a letter I have, the Prime Minister refers to Canada Day, which is a new day as far as I

am concerned. There is no legislation in existence which signifies July 1 as Canada Day. Up to now July 1 has been Dominion Day. If the government wants to change Dominion Day to Canada Day, let them introduce legislation into this House and let them pass it. If they can introduce it and if it can secure majority approval, then I have no argument about it. I accept July 1 as being Dominion Day. By writing letters, the Prime Minister cannot legislate for this country; but it may be we are not too far from the day when he will be able to legislate by edict under his signature. I hope that day never arrives.
This is not going to be a week in which unity becomes highlighted in this nation. If this government continues to use this week for partisan political purposes, which is what it is doing right now, I have to object to that as strenuously as I can. I ask Your Honour to protect us as individual members of this House and to see to it that every member has the same rights. When we came to this Chamber, we elected you to protect each and every one of us. I ask you to give us that protection through your office. We do not have that protection right now, when one considers what has been planned for this week. It will be a terrible atrocity if this government is allowed to go forward with the program they are presenting to the people of this country.
As was indicated today, unfortunately the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) does not know anything about it. He cannot even answer the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) as to who is putting on the festivities and what they are about. Everybody in this Chamber now realizes the Acting Prime Minister has been eliminated from participating in any way, shape or form. That is a terrible thing to be happening in this country at this stage of our affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some information on what did happen today. Canada Week was inaugurated by the Council for Canadian Unity, a private organization which has requested permission to use the platform in front of the Parliament Buildings to launch Canada Week.
I can seek information to know if the federal government contribution was limited to lending the platform but 1 do not think so. I could bring some details tomorrow. I believe that the private organization which has inaugurated Canada Week is the Council for Canadian Unity.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Guilbault) has not lost sight of the fact that the question of privilege which was launched by my colleague goes far beyond the matter of Canada Week. It was not a private organization which sanctified July 1 as a date of some impor-


tance in our country. The parliamentary secretary may have forgotten, but on that particular day we will celebrate the birth of a nation. It was a birth which had some difficulties, but in 1867 it was supported by all parties and by all elements generally in the legislatures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Over the years the nation has had some rather tough times. Some of those rough times came about because governments did not care. I am not necessarily talking about this government, but governments have sometimes forgotten the importance of certain symbols and minorities. They have been just a little neglectful, and as suggested by my colleague, who spoke with much eloquence with respect to July 1, 1977, this matter should not be allowed to continue in this way.
If none of the leaders of the federalist parties in this House-except of course, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-are allowed to participate officially in the festivities of that day on Parliament Hill in front of the building which is supposed to signify in some way our sense of national unity, then with respect to the institution of confederation this government will not only neglect that institution but also harm it.
I hope you, Mr. Speaker, as the first commoner, will not allow that to happen.
Last year I asked a question of the then secretary of state, who is now the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner), whether is was the intention of the government to provide $200,000 to assist in the promotion of a program celebrating Canada's birthday in 1976. I was told by the minister-in fact, I was jeered by him-that I must remember that the restraint program was in operation. This year when the corpse which was supposed to be dead, namely separatism, has announced that it is alive and kicking in one part of the country, it is interesting that this government should not spend merely $200,000 on an important event but that it is prepared to spend in excess of $3 million on an important event because the circumstances are different.
Circumstances certainly are different. Canada is facing a problem now, and its solution will depend on good will in this chamber and in every part of this country. If this kind of insipient partisanship which seems to have developed over this holiday-and I am using the real sense of the holiday; it is not just a day off-is allowed to happen, Canadians will be given a one-sided view of our interest as parliamentarians in celebrating that day. That is why I admire the hon. member who raised this question of privilege. It is important that we understand that no matter where we sit in this House of Commons, whether it is to Your Honour's right, to your left, or where you sit, it will be an important day not just for the Prime Minister, for the government of the day or for the Liberal Party; it will be important for all Canadians and all their representatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Coates


Walter David Baker: I cannot believe, Sir, that it is beyond the imagination of yourself, of hon. members of this House or of a representative group to decide the best way in which this parliament as a whole-without regard to parties in the partisan sense but with regard to parties in the sense that we represent all Canadians who sent us here-should celebrate. Particularly the leaders of all the parties-and a representative of one party because of an unfortunate circumstance last weekend-should be allowed to participate openly in the celebrations on this bill for Canada's birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some serious difficulties with the fundamental aspects of questions of privilege as they involve any kinds of celebrations taking place anywhere in the country and certainly the role of the Speaker in attempting to decide the agenda of any event anywhere. However, there is an aspect of this question which does fascinate me, and that is not so much the arrangements about the expenditure of funds or the arrangements made by the government of the day. What interests me from the point of view of the privileges of all hon. members is the setting for these celebrations on July 1 being the House of Commons itself. Were they in the building, it would of course be clear that they would be subject to considerable jurisdiction on my part. As they will be located outside the building, that raises some more interesting questions of precise and exact jurisdiction.
In any case, I think all hon. members would probably realize that it is most doubtful that my jurisdiction in this matter would extend or would be expected to extend to the precise agenda or to the individual arrangements whether it be on a question of protocol or otherwise. That would be very difficult to expect each time I am asked to extend to hon. members of any party the use of these rooms and these buildings which, as I think all hon. members know, is a matter to which I have directed my attention several times in the past.
I have attempted to develop a policy that whenever these premises are used by hon. members to receive Canadian people who are taxpayers or visitors, there ought to be some parliamentary connection. We have attempted to do some things which would on the one hand encourage that activity to take place, because it is at the very root of our democratic system. However, on the other hand we must see to it that this does not become a commercial establishment and that events are not held here when they ought to be held in commercial premises. Therefore, what I am attempting to do is to exert some influence over the content of what takes place on these premises and to bear in mind that when the buildings of parliament are being used the activities should have a parliamentary flavour and a parliamentary purpose. Even if that were the motivation, which I feel all hon. members endorse, it would not be expected that I would want to inquire on every occasion into the full details of the agenda and of the arrangements, but I think it ought to be expected that since the parliament buildings are being used, I, on behalf of all members of parliament, ought to attempt to encourage the highest possible


Privilege-Mr. Coates
use and the appearance of the highest possible use, to the best interests and motivations of the premises.
Therefore, I could indicate to the hon. members who have participated in this discussion that while I do not see myself now-or at any time that I give my permission to any hon. member or group of hon. members to use these buildings-in a position to insist upon certain arrangements in their agendas, I certainly see myself in a position to encourage as much as possible the best possible use of the buildings in every sense and the appearance of that, and perhaps therefore I will take the matter under advisement and see what might be done in this regard.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been standing for some time in anticipation of being recognized. I realize that Your Honour is taking the whole matter under advisement, but while you are doing that may 1 be permitted to make a couple of remarks that I think are germane to your consideration of the matter.
The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) has put forward his point very well to the effect that you are in fact the person who had a direct involvement in the use of the parliament buildings and, I suggest, the grounds that surround the parliament buildings. But I think there is another consideration and, I suggest with the greatest respect, you should take it under advisement. That is the fact that we in the House are only one part of parliament. After all, Sir, you as the Speaker of the House who are seized with the responsibility of judging matters of privilege with respect to every member are also a person who must in fact give consideration to the protection of the rights of parliament. As you know, Mr. Speaker, parliament consists of three parts, the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons. What 1 am suggesting to you is that there is a fundamental question in the use of the grounds and of the parliament buildings as a backdrop for national television during this week and particularly on July 1st. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Guilbault) suggests that the government has no control over an independent body which is organizing celebration on July 1st. Yet, if that independent body, whoever they are, did not have $3.5 million to use for this function, we would not have the backdrop, we would not have jets of the Department of National Defence planes flying over or a fly past of Jet Stars, whatever, and we would not have any celebration at all. So the point that the parliamentary secretary makes that there is no involvement by the government is a facetious point.
Secondly, I say that a double standard is developing here with respect to the operation of Canada Week and July 1st by this government of which I think you should be aware, Mr. Speaker. In the province of Quebec we witnessed the spectacle this weekend of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) participating at the celebrations there on behalf of the government. So far as the government is concerned it was quite satisfactory for representatives of the

opposition party in Quebec, which I believe is the Liberal party, to be invited to participate, but when it comes to the national day in the capital of Canada, no provision is made for representatives from both sides of the House of Commons to participate.
I tell you, Sir, that this is not a matter which we take lightly. I know that in my own province in western Canada people are terribly concerned about the fact that there is no place in this participatory program for the Governor General. After all, he, not the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is the representative of the head of state. The fact is that the Prime Minister has been received as head of state in foreign countries, that he has developed a large bureaucracy around him and that, in answers to the right hon. gentleman in his own words, he holds himself out as leader of this country. This implies that he considers himself to be leader of our country rather than the Governor General, and this is something that you, Mr. Speaker will have to consider. Unlike the situation in the United States we have a separation between our political leader and our head of state. Our Governor General is non-partisan, and we have a Prime Minister who is a partisan, political figure. Whether we like it or not, when someone speaks on behalf of all Canadians, it should be the representative of the head of state, the Governor General. Until that is changed, the use of parliament buildings, with the large flag flying over our building, with the expensive stage out in front, with the use of Department of National Defence planes and large expenditures of money, should be considered by you, I suggest with all respect, to be indirectly a challenge to the rights and privileges of every member of the House of Commons.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from a question which I raised in the question period. I caught Your Honour's eye to ask a question in which 1 was seeking information. On April 25 of this year I put a number of questions to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) concerning the fact that he was allowing members of parliament to put constituency offices on national defence bases, something which has never been allowed here before. We have not been allowed on national defence bases before unless invited by a resident. There has been a great change in policy on this matter. Today I sought information on this matter because this time honoured policy had been changed and I wanted to confirm when and at what time it had been changed. I feel that my privileges have been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member knows very well that if he wishes to differ, as he is attempting to do, with the decision I made in respect of the handling of a question during the question period, it is a decision I have taken which is not subject to appeal. Secondly, this matter would never amount to a question of privilege, and thirdly, if the hon. member wishes to seek information, it is a valid objective during the question period. However, he must realize that the form in which he put his question today was clearly objectionable on the grounds of being argumentative. It was seriously argumentative.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to clear up the record regarding a point of order I raised on June 22, as reported at page 6994 of Hansard, on which Your Honour deferred your ruling last Thursday because you wanted clarification and, as you put it "precision", may I put forward this point as briefly and precisely as I can. I will narrow down my point of order to the argument that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), as reported at page 6968 of Hansard, made reference in his speech to two letters. It is these two letters that I would like to have tabled in accordance with the practices of the House. In support of my argument may I quote citation 159(2) and citation 159(3) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. I would also put forward in support of my contention a ruling of Your Honour of April 8, 1976 to be found at page 12612 of Hansard, and I respectfully submit to Your Honour that you take these under advisement. That is my point put as precisely as I could, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I would want some indication as to whether or not there are to be counterarguments, and then I will take the matter under advisement. If there is to be any counterargument, it will be made one day from now, and then I will take the matter under consideration.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As reported at page 7015 of Hansard of June 22, during a speech I was making on opposition day dealing with the matter of Cardinal Family Farms of Alberta 1 posed a series of rhetorical questions. However, my concluding remark was that the Cardinal Family had equity of $10,000 and received $153,000. That is a clear statement of fact rather than a rhetorical question.
I would have raised this point previously-and I will get to the point of order-but I did not have Hansard to refer to, it was in the hands of Hansard. There is no question that Hansard reported me correctly, but I would like to seek an opportunity, in light of my statement and in light of the statements of officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that subject to the dedication of all parties serving on the Standing Committee of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and as an indication of my dedication and the dedication of other members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have to make it clear whether he is attempting to make a correction to Hansard or to clarify what he said on an earlier occasion.


Robert Hylton Brisco: It is not a correction of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, it is a withdrawal of a remark I made which appears in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not aware of any procedure by which that can be done. Certainly, it cannot be done by way of a point of order in these circumstances. The hon. member might want to attempt to do that in some other way. However, it would require considerable consent and some examination as to the procedural basis for doing so. It cannot be done by way of a point of order under a correction to Hansard. The hon. member might want to give it some
Business of the House
thought and to seek some advice as to how the matter might best be approached.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the untimely death of our friend and colleague the hon. member for Lotbiniere, the leader of the Social Credit Party, I understand there is a proposal with respect to the sitting of the House tomorrow. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council could advise us of that and then there is another matter I should like to raise.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual consultations and it is agreed that the House of Commons shall not sit tomorrow afternoon as a gesture of our profound respect for the late hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, since we are getting close to what might be construed as the end of the session, perhaps I could ask the question about the business of the House today. Could the parliamentary secretary confirm that it would be satisfactory that the votes on amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation be held this evening with the bells commencing at 9.45 p.m.?


Stanley Howard Knowles: For 15 minutes only.


Walter David Baker: We will do our best on that. Could the parliamentary secretary inform us prior to beginning debate on Bill C-20, the legislation respecting the Auditor General, whether it is the intention of the government to bring in changes to the Standing Orders, or whatever is necessary, in order that the understanding that has been reached that the report of the Auditor General be automatically referred to the public accounts committee instead of being referred in the usual way can be put through? This is important from the point of view of the debate that is about to take place and it is a matter upon which I understand there is no difficulty between the parties in the House. If the parliamentary secretary cannot give me that information now, would he be prepared to do so later today?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, to deal with the several points raised, perhaps I should go back a bit and conclude with some information about the hours for tomorrow. As I indicated, it would be appropriate that the House not sit tomorrow afternoon, but sit the normal hours in the morning and the evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think this has been agreed to but I think it should be made clear in the form of a House order and that a minister should request a House order. It is my understanding that we will sit tomorrow from 11 a.m. to one p.m. on government business,


Business of the House
rising until eight p.m. and sit from eight p.m. until 10.30 p.m. on government business. In other words, we are aware that in doing this we are making no provision for routine proceedings or the question period tomorrow afternoon. It seems to me that this should be cleared up by a Elouse order. There are still a couple of ministers in the House.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there may well be a couple of matters in the course of dealing with the business of the House that would require House orders. Perhaps we should go through the list and determine what we need in the way of a House order. I could then ask the President of the Treasury Board to seek the orders.


Walter David Baker: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker. I think my friend means he will be dealing with the matter later today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps there will be some consultation. We will be coming to motions shortly so perhaps there will be an application for a House order then.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, am I allowed to speak on this?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, of course the hon. member is allowed to speak. We are attempting to clear up a matter of House business and other hon. members may want to speak on it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the committee meeting in the afternoon. One is scheduled for tomorrow and if it should have to be rescheduled out of respect for our late friend I should like to set the wheels in motion now.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we could certainly cover that point in the House order that is to come later in the day. It would seem to me if the step we contemplate is a gesture of respect for one of our colleagues it would follow that neither the House nor committees would meet.
To revert to the point raised by the Conservative House leader, may I say it is agreeable to the government and I hope there will be unanimous consent, that votes on Bill C-27 deferred earlier today be taken tonight at 9.45 p.m.; that is, the bells would begin to ring at 9.45 p.m.
In connection with the other items of business, we intend to proceed this afternoon with Bill C-20, the legislation on the Auditor General. If standing divisions are called for during the course of that discussion it might be appropriate that those votes, if required, be deferred until 9.45 p.m. as well.
After we dispose of the Auditor General's legislation there are two finance bills waiting at report stage, the legislation dealing with the Bretton Woods Agreements and the legislation relating to currency and exchange. Thereafter, it would be our intention to move to Bill C-49 relating to the Canada Pension Plan. That is the order of business we had in mind.
Regarding the automatic reference of reports of the Auditor General to committee, I would have to leave that point for further consultation. The President of the Treasury Board may
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
have something specific to say about it at this stage, but if not, I will undertake to consult on that point and report to the opposition House leader later in the day.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I was given to understand a few days ago that from five p.m. to six p.m. tomorrow a number of private members' bills would be brought forward. They are simply measures to change the names of some ridings and would not take very long. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could advise when they might be rescheduled so that this legislation can go through before the session ends.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that precise information at this time, but I will consult with the House leaders and hopefully will be able to give the hon. member the information before the end of the afternoon.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could negotiate quickly as it might be possible to deal with this legislation today between five p.m. and six p.m.


Ralph Goodale: I will try, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think things are sorting themselves out but I was a little puzzled about why the parliamentary secretary included potential votes at report stage on amendments to Bill C-20. We already have 10 or 12 recorded votes to be taken tonight. Unless we have completed Bill C-20 and want to add those votes on tonight, I would suggest that we should not have any but the votes on Bill C-27 and hold Bill C-20 votes. Let us be satisfied with 10 or 12 votes tonight.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, that was my intention when I raised the issue. If we finish Bill C-20, we could tonight dispose of the votes which may be deferred. If we have not finished with Bill C-20 tonight, I think we should deal with the deferred votes on it all at the same time, but at a later stage.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Conservative party's House leader raised the point concerning referral of the Auditor General's report. I believe the chairman of the public accounts committee would confirm the communication sent by the House leader of my party to the effect that this matter would be dealt with through the procedures of the House, and that there will be favourable consideration of the matter at that time; the matter ought not to be dealt with in the Auditor General's bill or the amendments thereto, but ought to be dealt with in its appropriate forum.



[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr.   J.-Roland@: for leave to introduce Bill C-427, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Blainville-Deux Montagnes).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Comtois:: Mr. Speaker, I simply introduce this bill because the Electoral Boundaries Commission did not draw the required attention to the feeling of belonging to a region when choosing the name for a new riding, and did not take enough into account the importance of the number of citizens identified to that region for geographical, political and historical considerations, especially the area of Blainville, which is a part of it.


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

Jacques Guilbault: for leave to introduce Bill C-428, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Saint-Jacques).


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-429, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Saint-Leonard-Anjou).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of a constituency, and I am introducing it on behalf of the hon. member for Saint-Michel who is also the Minister of National Revenue, and is absent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there have been certain discussions, and I would now seek the concurrence of the House to defer the votes on Bill C-27, the unemployment insurance bill, until 9.45 p.m.; also, to accommodate our desires for some special time to be available tomorrow in light of the death of one of our colleagues, I would ask that the House not sit between 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon and 6.30 p.m.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the committees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that on the request of the minister the House is prepared to consent to an order deferring the divisions on the report stage of Bill C-27 until 9.45 this evening, and to an order that the House and its committees shall not sit tomorrow afternoon between the hours of 2 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., but that otherwise the House shall sit at the ordinary hours for this month, that is to say from eleven a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 8 p.m until 10.30 p.m. in the evening, for the consideration of government business.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,333, 2,426, 2,736 and 2,753.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, how many federal employees were charged with policy-making, or interpretation of policies, regulating the production and control of alcohol, tobacco and firearms?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: (a) Nil; (b) four.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What additional staff was hired and what was the cost to operate the Student Summer Employment Programme (a) Reserve Training (b) Community Assistance (c) KATIMAVIK (d) Cadet Training and Activities under the Department of National Defence?
2.	Are any other programmes available for students under the Department?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
7108


Order Paper Questions 1977
Number Planned Planned Costs to be hired
(a) Reserve		
Training	4,000	$6.029M(b) Community	1,450	1.885M(d) Cadet	Training	1,053	2.998M(c) KATIMAVIK	This program is not a DND program. The present pilot project
is planned for 1,000 participants at an initial cost of $7.9M
2. No.


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of Defence Construction (1951) Ltd.?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)	Executive	Title	Salary Range
President and General
Manager	$31,500 to $41,500
Vice President Treasurer
Secretary	$27,500 to $36,500
(b)	, (c), (d) and (e). The Chairman is the President and General Manager of Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. There is no Vice-Chairman. The Board members of Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. are all directors and they are senior officials from other government departments and they receive no remuneration from Defence Construction (1951) Ltd.


Mr. Fairweather: As of April 1, 1977, how many members of the Canadian Armed Forces and civilian support staff are located in (a) Halifax-Dartmouth (b) Moncton (c) Fredericton (d) Saint John?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Location	Military	Civilian	TotalHalifax-Dartmouth	8,240	5,004	13,244Moncton	150	459	609Fredericton	14	18	32(Gagetown)	2,920	1,081	4,00!Saint John	65	18	83Totals	11,389	6,580	17,969


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2326 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	What was the (a) cost (b) schedule (c) disposition of the display cars in the Centennial Train which toured Canada during 1967?
2.	What were the design plans for such cars?
3.	Who was responsible for organizing the display cars and who worked on them?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege. Following the ancient customs of the House, I do it at the first opportunity, in this case about ten seconds after the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) resumed his seat. A number of us have been struck by the fact that the order paper seems to grow larger and larger and the amount of information provided by way of answers to questions on the order paper smaller and smaller. Accordingly, I took it upon myself this afternoon to look at the first part of the order paper devoted to questions and I found that 31 questions, all set down on the same date, have not been answered. I refer to that list of questions beginning with No. 1 and ending with No. 121, all in the name of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) none of which has been answered. In other words, 31 of the first 121 questions on the order paper still remain unanswered.
The next question listed is No. 138, in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). It is apparent that the questions of one hon. member have received a singular lack of attention from the government. That has provoked my question of privilege and 1 intend to found a motion upon it. Certainly, in this House we confront a most serious situation.
Sir, 1 know that some of the questions which have been asked in recent years can be pretty annoying and pretty stinging, but in the first 30 questions set down in the order paper by the hon. member for Leeds the strongest language I can find, to which not even the most exceptional person could take exception, is contained in a phrase found in both questions 29 and 30 which reads:
.. .included attendance at Liberal party functions or political business of any kind, directly or indirectly?
1 do not think there is enough sting in that to merit the stonewall thrust up before the hon. member for Leeds.
[Mr. Danson.)


I remember the answers to other questions, and remember the famous exchange which arose from the statement the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) made in western Canada, the statement that ferocity toward love might be inspired by the eating of beef. Some bright soul in the bureaucracy-I would not give the Minister of Agriculture credit for it-was able to fish out an appropriate quotation from Shakespeare. That was part of a beautiful game. But 1 cannot see that the government's stonewalling tactics are any part of a beautiful game. I think they are an affront to us. If we ask a question the least bit penetrating, or with even a tincture of political punch-and I have not read them all because some are too long-they are not answered. However, I think the hon. member for Leeds has a complaint, because his questions have not been dealt with seriously by the government in the House of Commons.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the lack of responsiveness of members of the ministry to questions placed on the order paper within a reasonable period-
For the purposes of this motion I will state nine months as being reasonable.
-constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House, and that this failure should be sent at once to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to determine whether there is a deliberate decision not to reply.
In support of my motion I merely make this comment. Up to question 871 of October 29, presented by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), that all falls within the nine-month period that I suggest is a reasonable period. There are pages and pages to support my motion that we should become an open parliament and should have freedom of information.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in recent months that I have risen on the same point of order with reference to question No. 506 which was placed on the order paper on October 14. The last time 1 raised this question I received the personal assurance of the parliamentary secretary that he would look into this matter and that I would, indeed, receive a response. 1 have heard nothing from him since then. 1 very much resent the fact that I have not had a reply to that question which until now I had assumed was an innocent and innocuous one. I now gather that there is more beneath the surface than meets the eye in relation to the question that I posed. I again draw this most forcibly to the attention of the parliamentary secretary and you, sir.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add just a brief comment to the question of privilege raised a moment ago by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). At approximately 2.30 this afternoon my office received a communication from a high-ranking member of the public service. I have since checked out, by telephone, this person's identity and the information left at my office. I find it, beyond any doubt in my mind, to be authentic.
Order Paper Questions
The information is that answers to questions Nos. 1196, 1197, 1198 and 1199 have been prepared for some considerable time, and that a stop order has been issued on the answers to these questions being placed before the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer).
I feel I have the right to outline these questions. They all concern the constituency of Matane. They ask for information as to how many cabinet ministers visited that constituency over a set period of time; why they went there; how much public money was spent while there; who accompanied them, and why those people accompanied them.
It also asks for information with regard to cheques issued to the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), on his behalf, and paid for by the Department of Supply and Services. It also asks for information about payments on behalf of the hon. member for Matane when he was parliamentary secretary to the minister of state for urban affairs and when he was parliamentary secretary to the secretary of state for external affairs, including trips made and paid for by the government, people who accompanied him, and the whole gamut which 1 previously mentioned with regard to cabinet ministers. This is a very serious situation. It becomes very serious when a member of this House asks questions in all sincerity, requesting information about expenses of members of the cabinet or others, where the expenses seem to be grossly out of line. This is something taxpayers have a right to know about. It becomes a very serious matter when the government stonewalls the answers.
In the case of these particular questions, 1 realize it can be said as it is often said and quoted from the rules with regard to questions-that there is no obligation or necessity for a minister to answer questions. However, as I have said before, there is a moral obligation on a minister to answer a question from a member of this House, and, through a member of this House, to the people of Canada as a whole. That moral obligation is not being fulfilled, for reasons I can only interpret as political. The person who contacted my office this afternoon advised that the answers to the specific questions which I have named would be so politically damaging to the government that they would never be answered. In fact, that person stated that the stop order said they must die on the order paper in this session of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If that is so, and I believe it is so, parliament has seen this government sink to a new and dirty low. It is time the parliamentary secretary ceased to sit there and shake his head or rise to say that he will answer my questions, as he did a few weeks ago, when I become civil. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. His personal opinion of me is no answer as to why he or the government should not be answering questions in this House. They are not being answered for obvious reasons.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants cited the general concept of what has gone unanswered on the part of a number
80018 -4 8 Vi


Order Paper Questions
of members who have placed questions on the order paper. I mentioned certain specific ones of my own. Some of us are like voices crying in the wilderness when we rise day after day asking why these things go on. This government sits here, ministers joy-riding around the country on government aircraft, and will not tell us how much they are paying from government funds. That is another set of questions that 1 have. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) apparently thought he made a fatal error in answering one of my questions by stating that he had spent three quarters of a million dollars on his own behalf. Why can we not know what all the other ministers have spent of taxpayers' funds, riding around on government aircraft such as Jetstars?
I placed another question on the order paper with regard to the Minister of Transport. 1 can get its number, if the parliamentary secretary wants me to look it up. Last November, over "Cross-Country Check Up", the Minister of Transport was asked by a telephone caller why shortly after his arrival on a Jetstar at Saskatoon airport another Jetstar arrived with five female passengers. The caller asked who were they and what they were doing on a government aircraft. The minister undertook, over CBC radio, to tell that listener that he would investigate, find out and give that as soon as possible. That was last November. It is now June. That is not "as soon as possible".
I also have a similar question on the order paper as to why private individuals should be tooting around the country on government aircraft. Who are they? Who gave them permission? What were they doing? The Minister of Transport sits idle, says and does nothing, as do most other ministers on the front benches. I know that one cabinet minister prepared an answer with regard to his personal travel and handed it in. It is being held up because other ministers refuse to prepare theirs. This is a disgrace.
I have no more to say other than I fully support the point raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). It is time this House was turned into what it should be-a place where the people of Canada can get information and where this government can no longer conduct a farce instead of a government.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief on this. I seconded this motion because I agree entirely with it. The part that puzzles me is why the questions are left unanswered. For example, on February 8 I asked question No. 1772. It asked for the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the constituency of Victoria who performed services during 1975 and 1976 for the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and, in each case, what was the total amount paid to them. I had on the order paper 15 or 20 similar questions dealing with Crown agencies. Every other one has been answered. It makes me suspicious that something funny has been going on with the CRTC in that area. Surely, it is just as easy to get an answer from the CRTC as from any other agency of government. The government was able to answer all the others, and to do so in prompt fashion.

I have another question, No. 1915, which should have gone to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson). It was asked over four months ago. It is a very simple question. The minister announced in one of his press releases that he would be making certain changes with regard to the closing of bases. He said they were going to dispose of 1107 Avenue Road, Toronto. My question was:
What is the target date for closing or disposing of 1107 Avenue Road, Toronto, Ontario?
Four months later there is still no answer. I would even accept the answer that they do not know, or that they do not have a target date. However, for the question to be left on the order paper as if it were of no consequence is certainly not satisfactory to me. I am forced to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this government is too incompetent to be mendacious in an orderly fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now that we are having this little session of raising points with respect to questions, I suggest that some very important questions remain unanswered. I cannot understand why. I have one particular example, a question I asked, which has been on the order paper since October 13, seeking information relating to our penal system and inmates in Canada with respect to indefinite sentences, dangerous sexual offenders, habitual offenders, and the number on parole. This can hardly be considered as political; it involves factual information which the government should have at its disposal.
Many people are interested in statistics of this kind. I would not object to a reasonable period of time elapsing before questions are answered, but this question cries out for an answer and I ask the parliamentary secretary to use his good offices to see that it is answered without further delay. The number is 487.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are departing from the original argument, which is part of the cause for the procedural difficulty we are in. The original motion was under the heading of privilege by the member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I am sure he will realize, along with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) who seconded the motion, and the other hon. members who supported it, that the comments of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) were accurate when he said in the course of his contribution that of course there is no legal or technical obligation, under the rules-or whatever the language was-and no specific obligation on the ministry to give answers under our rules, as is well known; but there is a moral obligation.
That was the basis of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Leeds. That may be so, and that has been the subject of discussion today. It is the subject of discussion almost every day when questions are answered. But each day when questions are answered, of course, a number of questions are not answered. They become the subject of attention and discussion each day the parliamentary secretary does that.


However, that has always been part of our practice, and that was basically what was being done a moment ago by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
The House will realize, I am sure, that since there is no obligation on the ministry to make answers under our Standing Orders, it would not be possible for the Chair to find that the failure to give answers either to one set of questions or to one member would in any way constitute a breach of privilege. As to determining whether or not the failure to answer questions is a deliberate decision not to reply, 1 would have grave difficulty, even if I knew it was a deliberate decision not to reply, to constitute that as a question of privilege; because since there is no obligation to reply, it can hardly be called a breach of privilege or a breach of the rules in any way to fail to reply. Whether that be deliberate, or whether it be negligent, whether intentional or unintentional, since the rules do not require a reply, I cannot find the basis for a question of privilege in failure to reply. Therefore, with regret, I set aside the matter of privilege.
It still remains, as was done a moment ago as part of our regular practice, that each day when the question is put as to whether or not the remaining questions should be allowed to stand, members contribute any grievances they have respecting questions which are outstanding. So long as that intervention is in good faith and makes reference to questions which have, indeed, been outstanding for some time, the Chair has never interrupted.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the point, because you have already disposed of it as a question of privilege. However, I was going to make the point Your Honour has just made in dealing with it procedurally. But to deal with the substance of the issue which was raised, quite apart from the procedural question, may I say that the government does, of course, take very seriously all questions which appear on the order paper.
An hon. Member; Oh, oh!


Ralph Goodale: I have noted the representations which have been made today in a serious fashion, although some of the gratuitous explanations surrounding them might not be all that well taken. I do take the points that hon. members have made as a clear indication of their desire in good faith to secure information. A few days ago, on a similar point of order, I replied at some length about the answering of questions which appear on the order paper. I do not intend to repeat all that argument today. It served, I think, to illustrate the magnitude of the task which has to be done in answering 2,823 questions which appear on the order paper as of today's date. I can only add at this point-this may be of some reassurance to members-that it is still my intention to proceed to answer all questions which appear on the order paper before the end of this session.
I will take particular note of the specific questions referred to today and see if there are ways to expedite those items in particular since they are of interest and concern to members. I
Order Paper Questions
trust they will believe in the good faith which exists on this side, just as I believe in theirs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of my colleague from Winnipeg North, draw attention to six questions, four of which were filed on October 12, 1976, and two of which were filed on October 13, 1976? I am sure the parliamentary secretary realizes that to be told that hundreds of questions have been answered is no answer to its taking more than eight months to answer these questions. I have looked at them and 1 can understand it taking a month or so, but not eight months.


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


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, there is just one point I would like to make. What concerns me, sir, is some of the remarks you have made which I think are proper. I do not argue that under the rules we have now, there is no obligation on the part of the government to answer questions, except for the fact that we have two forms of questions. We have those questions that are put in the question period in an oral way. Then we have written questions which the table is very careful to make certain are factual questions, seeking only information. There is a very significant gap between-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a complaint about a specific question, I am quite prepared to have him make it. I was not aware he had risen to make a contribution to the question of privilege.


Robert Carman Coates: I have some specific complaints to make, but I want to get down to the fact that every question here-and I have quite a number which are eight or nine months old-is the result of members working quite a long time to prepare and seek information of a factual nature. I do not think the excuse is good enough that there are 2,800 questions left on the order paper which are unanswered. If there were 2,800 questions on the order paper, put there last week and not answered, I would say that was all right. But some questions I have on the order paper are nine or ten months old. As the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) said, it is quite obvious that he is being discriminated against. There can be no other conclusion reached, because almost all the questions first put on the order paper were his questions. The government has determined that his questions are not to be answered. That is a breach of his personal privileges as a member of this House-


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Robert Carman Coates: There are no two ways about it. The fact of the matter is that questions which have been on the order paper for ten months or more have not been answered. The hon. member cannot be singled out, no matter whether it is information which is damaging to the government or otherwise. He is asking for factual information, and that is his right.


Auditor General Act


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, further to the remarks made by the hon. parliamentary secretary. 1 am sure he would not want unintentionally to mislead the House or the country concerning the number of questions outstanding. The top question is No. 2823. He fails to take into account that all questions which have been answered have to be subtracted from that number to arrive at the number outstanding. There may be 400, 500 or 600 left to be answered. There are certainly not 2,800 left to be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood the parliamentary secretary to be referring to the number of questions he was attempting to answer, and not the ones outstanding.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the total number of questions which have been asked in this session. I am glad my hon. friend has drawn attention to the fact that we have done rather well in answering questions, in that more than 70 per cent have been answered.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the revised practices of this month, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised at six o'clock this afternoon are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-Canadian International Development Agency-Request for names of countries which allegedly do not honour their commitments- Attitude toward aid to Indonesia; the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp)-Immigration-Request for minister's permit for the Rae family.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-20, respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Mr. Speaker:: There are seven report stage motions for which notice has been pursuant to Standing Order 75. On a very cursory examination of them, the Chair has serious misgivings about the first four. In my view, motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are related motions, in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Upon my initial examination of them, the motions introduce a rather new proposal which goes beyond the scope of the clause of the bill which is sought to be amended by the motion.
I am prepared to hear argument from hon. members who are putting these motions forward at this time, which I will take under reserve. Then the House might want to proceed with consideration of motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7, if that is agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the government that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), will not be here for another hour or so. I requested that discussion of the motions in his name, Nos. 1, 2 and 4, be deferred until a little later. I wonder if I could modify that request and ask that the discussion on the procedural aspects of motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 be delayed until my hon. friend arrives from Winnipeg, as he will in an hour or so.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just indicated, there were discussions earlier about how we might accommodate the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). It is certainly agreeable to the government if the items of business with which he is concerned could be stood aside until he arrives. Perhaps we could deal with other items in the meantime.


Mr. Speaker:: That would leave us with some discussion on the procedural regularity of motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Peace River. If the hon. member is prepared to do so, I might hear that argument now. Then the House could move to the discussion of motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 until we receive some indication as to when the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is prepared to defend the procedural aspects of his motions.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved:: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-20, an act respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be amended by inserting immediately after clause 8 the following:
"8.1(1) The House of Commons shall establish a committee to be styled the "Committee on Public Accounts" at the commencement of the first session of each parliament or within thirty sitting days thereafter.
(2)	The committee shall be composed of nineteen members of the House of Commons appointed in accordance with the custom of the House and shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, have the same powers and be subject to the same rules as a standing committee of the House of Commons.
(3)	The chairman of the committee shall be elected from among members who are in opposition to the government.
(4)	Every report of the Auditor General made pursuant to this act and every report of the Receiver General, called the public accounts, laid before the House of Commons pursuant to the Financial Administration Act stands
June 27, 1977	______________COMMONS
permanently referred to the committee, and the committee may, on its own initiative, consider any evidence heard or tabled before it in a previous session or a previous parliament.
(5)	The committee shall
(a)	examine every report of the Auditor General or Receiver General made
to the House of Commons,
(b)	enquire into any matter referred to it by the House that relates to the
report, and
(c)	make recommendations on anything in the report that, in the opinion of
the committee, requires the attention of the House of Commons.
(6)	Notwithstanding any act, rule of law, custom or prerogative, every person who is competent and compellable under the Canada Evidence Act to testify in a court of law is a competent and compellable witness before the committee, and the committee may deal summarily with any contempt committed before it in the same manner and to the same extent as the House of Commons.
(7)	Every person required to give evidence before the committee may invoke the protection of the Canada Evidence Act in the same manner and to the same extent as a person required to testify in a court of law.
(8)	For greater certainty, in this section, "person" includes an employee of the Public Service of Canada."
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two general observations I should like to make. For Your Honour's information, motion No. 3 simply seeks to set out in detail what is left silent in the act itself. Clauses 7 and 8 of the bill provide for the Auditor General to report annually to the House of Commons on the work of his office and whether, on carrying out the work of his office, he received all the information and explanations required. In addition, clause 8 refers to a special report being made by the Auditor General to the House of Commons. The bill stops there and, as hon. members opposite will argue, we are then driven back to the normal procedure which has existed heretofore. It is a normal procedure which has not worked.
I think the Chair can take judicial notice of the length of time which has elapsed on so many occasions between the reference by the Auditor General to the House, through the intervention of the Minister of Finance, of his annual or special reports and the time spent before those reports actually arrive for consideration by the public accounts committee. The time-span is so lengthy for hon. members to secure that desirable objection that it was thought there should be some detail spelled out in the legislation which would rectify this glaring omission. It is an obvious and intentional government omission as to how the report gets into the public accounts committee. I have sought to do this by the establishment of a statutory committee. 1 realize that appalls hon. members opposite because it has never been done before. I have heard the argument that we should not do things which have not had the approval or sanction of tradition in the House. If we ever get into the substance of it, that will be the argument made.
If Your Honour examines with care what clause 7 does, you will see it is a provision for reference to the House of Commons. I can see nothing inconsistent in that. I will make my argument brief because it is one which does not lend itself to longevity. It is an argument which will or will not be accepted by the Chair.
The way in which the report gets from the House to the committee is what I am trying to achieve by this amendment. I
DEBATES	_____________
Auditor General Act
should hardly think it can be argued that that is not germane to the provisions of clause 7. The report comes to the House, and my amendment takes it a step further by saying, having come to the House, this is what we should do with it. It is not opposed to the provisions of the bill and it is not divergent from them merely because it has not been covered by the bill.
The government is not anxious to see anything in the legislation which would provide for some authority in the House to get the report into the hands of the committee as soon as possible. Because it is not intended by the government is no reason to argue that it is a principle which is divergent and different from that which is in the bill. Therefore, to hold that this amendment is inapplicable and out of order is to hold that it is impossible for members of this House, when the government introduces a bill, to set out in more detail the means by which the purpose of the bill can be achieved.
The purpose of this particular aspect of the legislation is to obtain means by which this House can most adequately deal with reports of the Auditor General. Rather than leaving them to be discussed and dealt with by the House, for the reasons which I have mentioned-the laborious way in which the government in the past has attempted to prevent this from taking place at a reasonable time-I have said we should set out in detail an extension of the principle of bringing the reports to the House to cover the manner by which they reach committee.
I do not think there is anything in that which offends the House rules. We have in the Statutory Instruments Act a provision which gives to a scrutiny committee the right to examine statutory instruments and provides that there shall be a permanent reference of statutory instruments, which are defined in that act, to this committee, which can be, under the terms of the Statutory Instruments Act, either a committee of the House or a joint committee of the House and the Senate. As Your Honour knows, we decided in our wisdom, coupled with the wisdom of the other place-which together constitutes a mighty torrent of wisdom-that we should refer these matters to a standing joint committee.
That is a precedent whereby in a bill there was a means established by which statutory instruments which were the subject matter of the bill were referred for discussion, consideration and report to a committee of parliament. While it is true that I have sought to go into more detail on how this should be done, the principle is on all fours with the principles in the Statutory Instruments Act. The reason I sought to do this in more detail was the very considerable problem this joint standing committee ran into in its attempt to set up ways and means by which it could fulfil its responsibilities. I think we had a very long period of gestation, almost two years, from the time it was thought advisable to have this committee established until it first started to function. I have sought to rectify that omission by providing in my amendment how this should be done.


Auditor General Act
1 am simply trying to extend in some detail the means by which the House, having received a report from the Auditor General, then proceeds to deal with it. Second, this is not without precedent. Similar measures have been adopted with respect to other legislation. I suggest to Your Honour that while it may be appalling to members of the House because it is an innovation, if there is a reservation in Your Honour's mind as to the bona fide nature and regularity of this proposal, I think Your Honour should take this well known principle into account and give the benefit of the doubt to the regularity of the motion so that it can be debated.
I am not saying that at this time in order to persuade the government to accept it. The only alternative is that at third reading I would, of course, be free to make a motion to refer the bill back to committee for consideration, without specifying anything. The committee could deal with an issue of this kind. The difference is that I could have 40 minutes instead of 20 at that time, which is, of course, to my advantage. I do not know whether it would be to the advantage of the House, but I can advise the House that it can look forward to a 40-minute speech from me at third reading rather than a 20-minute speech at this time.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I hope what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and I have to say meets the point of potential difficulty Your Honour might have. To my mind, the question is whether this amendment introduces a new principle to the bill. The plain and simple answer to that is that the amendment is merely a continuation of a point on which the bill is totally deficient. After all, clauses 6, 7 and 8 would refer reports to the House of Commons. Clause 7 says that the Auditor General shall report annually to the House of Commons, but it says nothing about what the House of Commons shall do.
These are reports to the House of Commons, not to the government, yet it is a well known fact that under the rules there has to be a motion from the cabinet to refer an item to any committee of this House, with the exception of the estimates. Therefore, the fact that the Auditor General is responsible to the House of Commons with regard to his annual reports can be totally and utterly blocked by the government by its refusal to call that order of business or by its refusal even to put it down. Therefore, it seems to me that the motion of the hon. member for Peace River is the most natural thing to include in the bill in order to dispose of these reports.
Our rules are totally sound. The Chair would be the first to admit that despite the almost weekly requests that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization consider this or that aspect of difficulties in the rules, it is still the government House leader and the government who refuse to put forward motions to refer to appropriate committees. All the committees have been boning-up until now, save and except the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. It had its organizational meeting, but since that time it has done nothing. I think that has been an act of total contempt of this House by the government House leader.

Considering the representations which have come from the Chair and from various members, it seems all agree that changes have to be made. However, nothing is done about it. To that extent, proposed motion No. 3 is quite in order and does not introduce a new principle in the bill, because all it sets out is what the House of Commons shall do with the report. In order to handle the report, there has to be a committee. The House is not going to consider the report of the Auditor General in committee of the whole, because with the exception of budgetary measures the House does not sit in committee of the whole unless there is specific agreement to do so. I find it just a little difficult to understand why there might be any objection to motion No. 3 on the ground that it might raise another point.
Second, in most ways motion No. 3 embodies what is already a matter of practice, but it puts it down. I admit that I might have preferred seeing a good deal of what appears in motion No. 3 in a special section of our rules dealing with committees, but the point is that there are two avenues to go down, and the government has chosen neither. As will be remembered, when the bill setting up the committee to deal with statutory instruments was dealt with the procedure had to be spelled out in the bill, but under our rules it is totally deficient. The same could be said about certain tax convention bills where, due again to a refusal by the government House leader to refer matters to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, the appropriate changes have not been made in the rules with regard to affirmative and negative resolutions.
Unless Your Honour is able to indicate to me a particular point he may have as the objection, it is a little bit, shall we say, like punching a pillow to have to consider it in advance. It always seems that the proposers of motions have to prove themselves innocent as far as their motions are concerned. If you, Mr. Speaker, could enlighten us as to what is concerning you with regard to this motion, then perhaps we could discuss that point.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will, I am sure, be aware, because he addressed himself to the point very directly, as to whether or not the amendment goes beyond the scope of the clause which it seeks to amend and in fact introduces a new principle into the legislation. The hon. member addressed himself to the point rather ably, I thought. That is the concern the Chair has expressed in procedural terms, and I will have to give careful consideration and examination to the proposed amendment and will endeavour to return to the chair as soon as I have an indication that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is here to make an argument with respect to his other motions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Now that you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, the point that concerns you-


Mr. Speaker:: I identified that point when I spoke on the motion of hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not understand, Mr. Speaker. When 1 asked a question of you, Mr. Speaker, you intimated that I was on that particular point. 1 wanted to add that it was simply that the recommendation in the bill is not a great recital, and that if one is not on the list of the elected, one must consider oneself to be non-elected. It states:
-and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled "an act respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto".
The field is wide open.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, there are some major concerns about new concepts being introduced into the statutory law, not only of this act but those which affect other statutes. In any case, I will have to examine them carefully and return to the House as soon as I can. This leaves us with motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for consideration. Motion No. 5 is in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Perhaps the House might want to consider it at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must admit right away-and I hope Your Honour will take judicial notice of this-that when I believe I am wrong, I always say so; but when I do not admit I am wrong, there is a fair presumption that I may be right. Clause 11 of the bill reads:
The Auditor General may, if in his opinion such an assignment does not interfere with his primary responsibilities, whenever the governor in council so requests, enquire into-
At the committee stage I had two amendments. One read, "whenever the governor in council or the House of Commons so requests". Then I proceeded to follow that with motion No. 5, which stated:
"(2) Notice by the House of Commons under this section shall be deemed to be given when not less than 50 members have filed a request with the Speaker to the effect that the Auditor General enquire into and report on a matter"
It is quite obvious that without the first part of the motion, the rest is meaningless. In other words, if there is no reference to the House of Commons inserted in subclause (1) of clause 11 that the House of Commons, as well as the governor in council, has the right to make a request if in its infinite wisdom it thinks it is necessary that the Auditor General should make an inquiry, the rest of the motion is meaningless.
I am, of course, in the hands of my friends and enemies-I do not know where they sit on either side of the House-but without the first part of the amendment, which got lost in the woodwork between the committee and here, it is useless for me to proceed with motion No. 5. I simply ask Your Honour to ask for the consent of the House and of the minister to have this issue brought forth and discussed, because it would take the unanimous consent of the House for me to be able to move, at this stage, the first part of the change in the clause, namely, that the House of Commons, as well as the governor in council, should have the right to make this request of the Auditor General.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the hon. member to say that the amendment was put forward in the committee, but was lost?
Auditor General Act


Gerald William Baldwin: No, I was away and it did not come forward here. I brought forward 11 or 12 amendments in the committee. This is one which was part of the other clause, but was not carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I gather, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is saying that by oversight subclause (1) has been omitted from what is now before us. That being the case, I certainly hope the House will consent to the hon. member presenting his motion in the form he wanted to present it, that is, including a subclause (1).


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if there might possibly be some consultation on that point. Clearly, the procedures of the report stage allow an hon. member to restore before the House motions that might have been put forward in the committee. Evidently, what has happened here is that the hon. member has put forward the substance of his motion without consequential aspects which give the sense and meaning intended in the amendment he proposed before the committee. In the circumstances, in order to give the hon. member permission at this stage to change the text of his amendment to restore its full meaning, the consent of the House would have to be given. Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to do that?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I read my amendment? I move:
That in the fourth line of clause 11 at page 5 of the bill, after the words "governor in council" the words "or the House of Commons" be added.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that with due respect I put the words "House of Commons" after governor in council, where it belongs.


Mr. Speaker:: It is understood that the text of the motion of the hon. member will have to be amended in order to give a proper description to his intention. But for the purpose of this discussion the House can assume that this will be done, and when the question is put the amendment will include language which will achieve the objective of inserting in line 4 of clause 11 on page 5 of the bill, after the word "council", the words "or the House of Commons", and that the rest of the subclause will continue; and that the same amendment moved by the hon. member as motion no. 5 will add subclause (2) to clause 11 as stated in motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Gerald William Baldwin: I see I carried the government as far as I can. Now I will have to work a little harder to persuade them to adopt my motion. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to the present effect of clause 11, which reads as follows:
The Auditor General may, if in his opinion such an assignment does not interfere with his primary responsibilities, whenever the governor in council so requests, inquire into and report on any matter relating to the financial affairs of Canada or to public property or inquire into and report on any person or organization that has received financial aid from the government of Canada or in respect of which financial aid from the government of Canada is sought.


Auditor General Act
This is a very desirable objective, but it leaves open what we have often discovered in this House in the course of the question period or parliamentary proceedings, when matters have been brought to the attention of hon. members, that demonstrate there is a state of affairs which justifies some immediate inquiry. The problem with most auditors general reports is that they are of a post-mortem nature: it is usually after the patient is dead and a fairly substantial odour is coming from the corpse that the auditor general is called upon to conduct a post-mortem examination and make a report. That is proper; that is essential; that is a condition precedent for any proper parliamentary examination. There are many occasions, however, when if something were brought to our attention by the Auditor General at the time it might prevent the loss of a very large sum of money-or even a very small sum of money-with important principles involved.
This government has rapidly increased its expenditures from $14 billion to $46 billion in a very few years. It has had a burgeoning bureaucracy to help with the spending and misspending of this money. In the result, sometimes situations come to the attention of members or their constituents, or even to members of the government, which require immediate attention. There is no doubt that is the reason for clause 11. The government may well discover something which in its opinion justifies immediate examination, so clause 11 was included in the bill.
I simply ask the reason for prohibiting the House of Commons from doing the same thing. We are the forum which has responsibility to the people for the expenditure of this $46 billion. Personally, I have been frustrated on many occasions when issues have come up or circumstances have arisen and it has become apparent there is an immediate need for the auditor general to make a study. In the public accounts committee we are still engaged in the study of some issues involving Crown agencies. Questions have been asked in this House, and proposals made in committee, to the effect that the Auditor General would be justified in engaging in an immediate examination rather than waiting until the accounts of this fiscal year come under the examination of his officers, which might be a year or a year and a half from now-much too late. The very fact that this clause was included is a tacit recognition by the government that there may well be a situation when it is necessary that an immediate examination be made, rather than waiting until the usual audit is completed. It is with this situation in mind that I make this suggestion.
I go a step further, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that because of the problems faced by this House, and particularly the opposition, in so many instances in securing the adoption of suggestions, there should be a current, rather than a postexamination of a certain situation. But the government simply says no. All that can be done, then, is for a member to put a private member's motion on the order paper. It usually sinks to the bottom of the pile; but even if it were at the top, under the rules of this House there is probably one chance in a thousand that it would ever come to a vote. It seems to me if the right is to be given to the House of Commons to initiate an immediate

study, that right should be based on a simple and expeditious motion by which the House could get a motion passed and have the auditor general seized with jurisdiction to make the examination. I have taken the figure of 50 members. In doing so, I regret it would not permit my hon. friends to my left in the New Democratic Party to be involved; but I am sure if we in this party saw that members of the NDP or the Social Credit party had become aware of a situation which cried out for examination, we would be glad to lend enough support to ensure that the desired number would be achieved.
I see my hon. friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), looking at me sympathetically. He knows I mean that. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I offered this amendment saying, in effect, that if the governor in council can initiate a current investigation, why cannot we? And if we should have the right, why cannot we have the right to perfect it in a way that we expect it would be done, rather than go through the useless mechanism of requesting that a royal commission be established or that the auditor general be required to make a study?
I suggest my amendment in no way interferes with the government's right to make such a request. I hope when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) responds, he will tell us why the government does not trust the House of Commons to initiate the kind of request for examination which the government has allocated to itself.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) will not be surprised when I tell him I cannot bring myself to accept his proposal although we have studied it for some time now and listened to arguments put forward by the hon. member in committee. We are not recommending adoption. I can certainly understand that from time to time the House of Commons would want matters to be referred expeditiously to the auditor general.
In view of the pressures that can be brought to bear in this chamber, however, and of the publicity, the concern-I will not use the definition that the hon. member did about the corpse and all that-there has been ample illustration over the years of the ability of this House to make that kind of suggestion and get it through. Matters can be raised under Standing Order 43 and many other avenues by hon. members can be followed and pressure can be brought to bear that way.
I am afraid, however, that if it were as automatic as the amendment would seek, then the auditor general would be drawn into political matters very quickly, on many occasions. That would be regrettable. I think the Auditor General indicated in committee that he would be apprehensive about such a proposition. He would not look with favour on it, and I am almost quoting what he said before the committee.
Regrettably, we could not look with favour on this proposal.
I might mention that we discussed 38 amendments in committee, which were consolidated into 21 amendments since some of them were variations and repetitions of other amendments.


Of those 21, I think we accepted 12 or 13. Regrettably, we were not convinced at the time that it would be wise to accept the hon. member's proposal. That explains our present position.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask the minister a question? He was gracious enough to leave lots of time for a question. He suggested that the Auditor General and the government were afraid that this simple and expeditious procedure might lead to issues of a political nature being raised in the House of Commons. Will the minister guarantee that when the government raises issues for the Auditor General to consider, they will not be of a political nature?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is a matter of degree. I certainly feel that we should be referring matters of a serious nature; they could have political implications.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the stand the minister has taken is characteristic of the attitude of the Canadian ministry and stands in sharp contrast to the attitude in Westminster, if I may use th it as an example. In considering legislation over there, ministers are much more conciliatory and more attuned to accepting amendments proposed either by the opposition or by government backbenchers. They are not afflicted with the "not invented here" syndrome with which Canadian bureaucrats advising ministers are afflicted.
As most of us know-and I know, for I have served on many committees, particularly this year-when our ministers deal with legislation and a member proposes an amendment, they will say, "No, we cannot accept it. We sympathize, oh, yes." There is no suggestion in the committee meeting of outright rejection. It is almost like our private members' hour. Beneath all the flowers, partial agreement, sympathy, and what have you, there is that absolute "No." That is, shall we say, one of the less admirable features of our Canadian cabinet system. The Canadian cabinet, without doubt, has established a dominance over the House. But it fails to recognize that the administration behind it has established a dominance over the cabinet. Some officials advise cabinet ministers not to accept amendments of this sort-"Oh, they might cause problems. We never thought of them; therefore they cannot be that good." That is the unfortunate psychosis, shall we say, or mental condition which afflicts those on the government side in the consideration of amendments emanating from the opposition or even from the government's own backbenchers.
The minister has already closed his mind. 1 was going to argue in support of my friend, but I already have the answer- "No." Therefore, I shall leave the House, speculating only on how the minister would have argued. Surely, hon. members know that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) wants to strike a blow on behalf of members of the House of Commons. I am astonished at the sheep-like, absolutely "blah" attitude of government backbenchers who do not realize their own throats are being cut. I was going to use another phrase. They do not realize they are being totally neutered by cabinet action. They will not be able to call in question anything the
Auditor General Act
cabinet does in this regard. No doubt the governor in council could ask for a report, but the amendment says that when 50 members file a request, the auditor general shall look into it and report on the matter.
Those 50 members could include members on both sides of you, Mr. Speaker, and the inquiry could be on questions about which this House is greatly concerned. Frankly, 1 am disturbed by the minister's refusal to accept this amendment, which is an entirely reasonable one. It is the sort of thing with respect to which I have heard government backbenchers saying privately, "I wish the ministers would bend their stiff necks." They want members of the House to have some say in the administration of this question, or the discharge of their duties as individual members, instead of being mere rubber-stamps or nay-sayers at the cabinet's behest.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the vote on the motion stands deferred. The House will now consider motion No. 6.


Gerald William Baldwin: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-20, an act respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be amended in clause 14
(a)	by striking out line 11 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor: "corporation, which, along with the financial statements of the corporation or its subsidiary, shall be provided to the Auditor General forthwith upon their receipt by the corporation or its subsidiary.";
(b)	by striking out line 12 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) the Auditor General shall request a";
(c)	by striking out lines 25 and 26 at page 6 and substituting the following
therefor:
"explanations, he shall so advise the governor in council, who shall thereupon direct the."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the perspicacity of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) pleases me, because he knows exactly what rights I have attempted to secure for the people of Canada through the agency of this House. This bill, so far as the auditor general is concerned, represents an improvement over the Financial Administration Act under which the auditor general is operating. The auditor general is to be governed by the auditor general legislation and he is to be given some help for discharging his duties. However, this

Auditor General Act
bill does nothing for the House of Commons. I somehow have the old-fashioned idea that the House of Commons exists as a place in which hon. members representing some 23 million people and a large number of taxpayers can examine with care and in different ways exactly how the money provided by the taxpayers of Canada is used.
As I said a while ago, we have just been through, and are still engaged in, an exercise where the public accounts committee is struggling desperately under the antiquated rules inflicted upon it to try and find some information about the CAN DU sales and Polysar. There has been a massive lack of success. It is not that members of all parties in this committee have not been struggling diligently and honestly in trying to secure that information. However, it is being denied them. That is one of the reasons the first amendment I proposed, which is now under consideration by Mr. Speaker, sought to provide for a more fundamental way of securing information. As the hon. member for Edmonton West said, information is the thing which this House is continually denied.
Earlier this afternoon, when dealing with a question of privilege, there was a very sharp observation. I regard it as a judicial statement, namely, that there is no responsibility on the part of the government to provide information. There is no truer statement. I have been out of this House for the past few days. Other interesting phenomena have been carried on here. Members of this party and the New Democratic Party have been trying to find out information. When I saw one of my constituents not long ago, he said to me, "Jed, are you going back there to find out from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) why they are not going to give us some of the facts?"
I told my constituent that under the rules which prevail in this House, when a minister has made a statement the members of the House are compelled to accept that statement. My friend said, "That is a very silly rule. Fortunately, I am not bound by it. I have a very healthy skepticism with regard to what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Supply and Services said. I am glad I do not have to abide by the rules and accept what has been said in the House by the right hon. gentleman and the hon. gentleman." I think he had a point. Being a member of the House, while in the House I am bound to accept it, although my constituent had a very sensible and healthy approach to which we in this House could possibly give some thought.
In any event, what I am seeking to do by this amendment is change clause 14 so that the public accounts committee will no longer be frustrated by the problems which they have faced and are still facing in their diligent and difficult attempt to come to grips with the scandal of CANDU and Polymer sales. It is obvious to many members of the committee that while some information may come out, there will be sufficient cover-ups. Outside a stroke of luck, it will be impossible for that committee to make the kind of report it should make so that we in this House, and through us the people of Canada,

will know exactly what games are being played by some of these agencies.
One reason which inspired me to move motion No. 6 is that when reading through the transcript of the proceedings of the committee I discovered there was utter contempt shown by the witnesses appearing before the committee for the views, anxieties and members of the committee to dig information out of them. Any witness appearing in any court in which I have practiced adopting the same attitude as those witnesses would have gone to jail for contempt, as they should have. However, these people are free to go throughout the country. They have no obligation, no responsibility and no sanctions against them. The committee has not been able to get the information. Because the committee has not been able to get it, the House has not been able to get it and, therefore, the country has not been able to get it. On how many occasions will that be repeated?
The purpose behind my motion is to provide a compulsory responsibility on a Crown corporation or a subsidiary of a Crown corporation to ensure that the auditor general secures copies of reports and accounts; that the auditor general "shall"-not "may"-request a Crown corporation to furnish him with such further information as he requests. That is not the case at the present time. Finally, if he does not get it, he shall so advise the governor in council, who may direct the officers to furnish it.
If that sort of provision had been in the existing Financial Administration Act, the previous auditor general, Mr. Maxwell Henderson, and the present Auditor General would now have had, by compulsion, information which they were entitled to have, or someone would have gone to jail. That is the kind of power which should rest with the auditor general, and ultimately in us as his employer. He is our agent, our servant, although you would not know it from this bill. Consequently, at the appropriate time the knowledge of the auditor general would be the knowledge of this House. Affairs like CANDU and Polymer would no longer be permitted.
It is not just the presence of the act or provisions of this kind, but knowledge on the part of those who may well be wrongdoers, that there is a provision whereby information can be obtained. When there is that sort of provision contained in legislation, people who would contemplate doing wrong would be aware of it. Obviously, it would constitute a major deterrent. Without it, I see no reason why we could not have a repeat of the CANDU and Polymer affair running well into the future. It is in the hope that we can give to the people of Canada some belief that we mean business and will try and avoid a repetition of these incidents that I move this motion.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, once again we discussed this very thoroughly when we were dealing with the details in committee. I believe the effect of the proposed changes are twofold. First, the expansion of the information that is to be submitted to the auditor general is really a question of word meaning. There is no argument about the fact that he should have access to complete information from Crown corporations and the like. I


indicated then, as 1 indicate now before the House, that to add the word "corporation" along with the words "financial statements of the corporation", and so on, as contained in subclause (a) of the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), is unnecessary. 1 am told by the profession and other people that it is really included. An auditor's report would include financial statements of the corporation, and so on. Therefore, the argument is that it is not necessary.
The other matter is more of a policy matter than simply wording. It seeks to make this a mandatory requirement on the part of the auditor general; that he shall do this, or shall do that. Indeed, one of the attempts that we made in the Auditor General Act as it is now before us was to retain and strengthen his independence. We have worded clause 14 so that he exercises his discretion. To change the word "may" to the word "shall" would remove his discretion and make it binding on him to do this. Indeed, I have to tell hon. members that having had this examined by the Wilson committee, and having discussed it with the Auditor General, he feels that if the word "shall" were imposed in the clause or section, it would tend to restrict his responsibility to exercise his professional judgment.
1 doubt very much that there would be any suggestion, nor do l imply there would be a suggestion, that the auditor general would ever collude in not exercising his judgment to require this information if he felt there was, by his own professional examination, that necessity. Therefore, it is our preference to leave the wording as is in the bill before us, as it was before the committee. Indeed, we would regret the insertion of the detail in subclause (a) making it mandatory in the case of the auditor general.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Speaking to the amendment, may I say I share the views of my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) about subparagraphs (a) and (c). I tend to agree with the minister that the auditor general is best protected as to his independence by giving him a choice to exercise his judgment as set out in paragraph (2). In paragraph (1) there is no mention of discretion on the part of the auditor general, but there is very definitely a greater power granted to him.
As I understand it, there have been recent cases where it has been held that the books and records of a subsidiary of a Crown corporation need not be produced. Perhaps my hon. friend from Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) can confirm that statement. It was the experience of the public accounts committee that an objection on this ground was raised and sustained; a subsidiary need not supply to a Crown corporation or to the auditor general information which is sought. All that subparagraph (a) does is attempt to force the production of that information. It does not in any way inhibit the judgment of the auditor general.
I was extremely surprised to find the minister rejecting the amendment contained in subparagraph (a) of motion No. 6. It may be he does not understand it in the terms I do, but my
Auditor General Act
hon. friend from Peace River was trying to close a loophole which had frustrated the public accounts committee under the chairmanship of my hon. friend from Northumberland-Durham.
The minister would be the first, 1 think, if he were ever to sit on the public accounts committee, to want what is contained in subparagraph (a). I would agree with him about subparagraph (b). As far as subparagraph (c) is concerned, 1 believe my hon. friend from Peace River is right on target, because notwithstanding the preservation of the independence of judgment of the auditor general under subparagraph (c), if he so advises the cabinet or the governor in council that he has failed to obtain, by reason of refusal or inaccessibility, records, documents, and so on, which he thinks he should have, there is still a loophole open: the governor in council may say, "Be a good boy and don't rock the boat. You should not have this information." I say this because final discretion is left with the governor in council. It completely saps the power and independent judgment of the auditor general.
There are in this case two discretionary powers, one following the other, and I would have thought that here, again, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), in order to remedy the deficiencies which have appeared in the powers of the auditor general, would have greeted wholeheartedly subparagraphs (a) and (c). 1 would ask the minister to reconsider his views in light of the representations, especially if my hon. friend from Peace River is prepared, as I think he would be, to withdraw subparagraph (b). I make an earnest plea to the minister. What the amendments do is to plug, not a loophole but a hole in the wall through which one could drive a coach and four or, in more modern terms, a tandem truck. I ask the minister, and members on both sides, to support me in my contention with regard to motion No. 6.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am greatly touched by what my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has said, and I am prepared to make a compromise. After all, we are approaching Canada Day and everyone is in an amiable mood. I would be prepared to withdraw subparagraph (b) if the minister will accept subparagraphs (a) and (c).


Robert Knight Andras: I am most impressed by the eloquence of the hon. members who have spoken and by the reference to Canada Day and the like. But with regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in connection with the records of subsidiary companies, I may say I know what he is getting at. I will make the point that 1 attempted to make in another forum-that it is really a matter of definition of subsidiary association with a Crown corporation and definition of a Crown corporation itself. This, in my opinion, is much better left to the definitions section of a revised Financial Administration Act, perhaps in combination with a forthcoming omnibus bill using the Crown Corporation Act as the basic legislation. Even if the amendments in subparagraphs (a) and (c) were accepted, their implementation


Auditor General Act
would still require the definition of a Crown corporation and of a subsidiary.


Gerald William Baldwin: 1 have one.


Robert Knight Andras: Well, that would mean more legislation. I really think that the good arguments which have been employed should be left until we bring forward amendments to the Financial Administration Act. There is a good deal of work still to be done there to clear up misunderstandings and bring the definitions up to date, including the whole question of the relationship between Crown corporations and subsidiaries, the degree of ownership and control, and so on. So although I understand what the hon. member is getting at, I feel strongly that amendments should be left until we bring the other bill before the House. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rose on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think I can allow the minister to speak a second time on the motion. The hon. member for Peace River asked a question, to which 1 assumed he was expecting a brief reply, "Yes" or "No." The minister cannot speak a second time without consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House consent to allow the minister to speak a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have completed my comments on subparagraph (a). 1 shall not comment on subparagraph (b) because there seems to be a hung jury, anyway. But since I am not prepared to accommodate the hon. member with regard to (a) and (c), I suppose (b) will have to stand or fall in accordance with the decision of the House.
I would point out, though, that we have made refusal of information progressively tougher. The auditor general may request it, and if he is not given it he may direct his inquiry to the governor in council. Let us not forget that if the governor in council does not proceed by way of its discretionary powers under this clause, the auditor general, by virtue of other clauses, will have authority to make the decision public in the House. I think we shall stay with an arrangement which has been thoroughly discussed with the Auditor General and with the Wilson committee which looked directly into this area.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not have the same confidence in government counsel as you have.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 6 in the name of the'hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Baldwin) negatived.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West) moved:: Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-20, An Act respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 11 at page 6 the following new subclause:
"(2) The Auditor General or his representative is entitled to receive notice
of every meeting of the Audit Committee of a Crown corporation and to
attend and be heard thereat." and by renumbering the subsequent subclause accordingly.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 to Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
If hon. members will allow the Chair to inquire whether there is a decision ready on motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, we could have the decision quickly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), would have been here by now, but his plane must have been delayed or something. Is it possible to proceed



to something else and leave motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 until later?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. We could go on to the adjournment motion, on which there will be only one question, if you would like to call it six o'clock; but you would have to give us five minutes to call in the one member who is prepared to speak in the adjournment debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In any case 1 have called on Mr. Speaker, and we will have to wait to see what his decision is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have given some consideration to motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I am endeavouring to do all I can to support the notion that the motion does not introduce a number of new principles into this bill, and I am having great difficulty with that. At this moment 1 cannot be very encouraging with respect to the likelihood that the House will go on to debate that motion.
This leaves us with the motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), which remain in some procedural doubt. It was a pleasant development that the House finalized so speedily its consideration of the report stage of Bill C-27 during the two hours this morning. Therefore it is not extraordinary that the hon. member for Winnipeg North might be caught by surprise. However, it leaves us in some difficulty about business. I wonder if it might be appropriate for the House to move to consideration of other matters or another government order.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the next items of business, as 1 indicated earlier, would be two finance bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-18, which deal with currency and exchange and Bretton Woods. Both bills stand at report stage. I notice the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) is not here at the moment. I understand he will be here momentarily. If other hon. members are ready to proceed with those two items, I am sure the government would be ready to proceed as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for the delay of my colleague, which is putting us in a spot where we have to take it easy for a few minutes, but I do not think that will hurt us.
While Your Honour was out of the chair and Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the chair, a suggestion was made that we might proceed to the adjournment debate by calling it six o'clock. Perhaps we could have your ruling on motion No. 3 and then proceed to the adjournment debate. If my colleague is not here when we convene at eight o'clock tonight, I will not ask for any further delay.


Mr. Speaker:: In a general way I can certainly give the House the benefit of my decision in respect to motion No. 3. We examined several paragraphs of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Further to the point of order and the arguments made earlier, we had to address ourselves to two considerations. The first
Auditor General Act
was in relation to the principle of the bill itself, because a motion at this stage has to be consistent with the principle of the bill, and it must not exceed the scope of the clause which it seeks to amend. The bill itself establishes, as a new practice, the ability of the Auditor General to table a different kind of report from that which he has been able to table in the past, that is to say, generally it would be a special report under circumstances where the Auditor General feels it is necessary.
The purpose of clause 8 is to permit the Auditor General to make that kind of report. The purpose of the motion, in basic terms, is to endeavour to indicate what the House will do with a report as and when it is received in the circumstances as described in the statute. While that motion may not in itself be such as to offend the precedents and practices of the House with respect to amendments, the motion itself goes much further than that.
Rather than attempting simply to establish some disposition by the House of reports of the Auditor General of this sort when they are received, the motion goes on in rather extensive provisions to do such things as establish, at the beginning of every session of parliament, a standing committee of the House, which is a different practice than that which we now follow pursuant to our Standing Orders, to establish the membership of the committee, and to establish compulsorily that the chairmanship of the committee shall be filled by hon. members who sit in opposition to the government. Those provisions alone contain amendments to the practices of the House which are rather substantial in nature, and it seems to me that to reach so far as to attempt to alter substantially the practices of the House in respect to the establishment of committees which are to operate independent of orders of reference of the House and which are constructed by statute or constituted by statute is to depart from the present practice of the House with respect to orders of reference.
This motion would impose conditions, which would be a departure from those which now exist, in respect to an automatic order of reference to a standing committee independent of an order of the House; reach through this statute to attempt to alter the structure of standing committees; alter conditions under which committees operate, and in effect direct members of the committees when they are consituted together on how they shall proceed to do their business; and specifically it would direct the members of a committee to choose their chairman from among the members. While that is a practice of the House at the present time,-and it is a very laudable practice-indeed it is never a practice which has been attempted to be enshrined in legislation. Surely if that attempt is to be made it would have to be made through an amendment to the Standing Orders of the House.
The motion goes on to alter provisions of the Financial Administration Act. It goes on to extend powers of the committee to sit independent of the House, and things of that nature. All of it varies extensively the practice of the House


Adjournment Debate
which, as I say at first blush, must be done by amendments to the Standing Orders.
The purpose of what I have said is simply to describe the structure of the amendment. Again I say that the intent of the amendment, which was defended by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), is to attempt to extend the statute by describing how the House will deal-or to set up some manner of dealing-with these reports. This may-and I say may- have been achieved, but that is entirely different from what is proposed here. That is the intention and the motivation of this amendment, but to go on to describe in detail the membership of the committee, its structure and its powers, which are different from those of any other committee now sitting, seems to me to go far beyond what was ever anticipated as a part of the principle of this bill-and certainly far beyond the scope of any one clause-which provides simply that the Auditor General may report to parliament through Mr. Speaker, and that that report will be tabled in the usual way.
After very careful consideration I must find that in some very fundamental ways this motion does more than go beyond the scope of any clause which it seeks to amend, and in fact goes beyond the principle of the bill and introduces entirely new concepts into the practices of the House which I think would have to be done in a different way.
There may be some disposition in the House to call it six o'clock and to proceed to deal with the items which have been called for at that time. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, since last February when 1 raised the question on CIDA that is at the core of the present debate, two significant things have happened. First, Michel Dupuy has taken over as president of CIDA, launched a drive to tighten up and improve the management of that agency, and appeared before three House committees. At his last appearance Thursday before the public accounts committee he reported that he had implemented more than half of the Auditor General's 92 recommendations for improving the management operation.

Second, the North-South Conference has come to its conclusion. The final communique listed 21 points of disagreement and only 20 points of agreement. It was not a happy conclusion. Thus, we have not made much substantial progress in putting into place the structural changes in trade and monetary systems needed to build up self-reliance in the least developed countries.
Where does this leave us? The work of CIDA continues to be of the utmost importance since aid programs, despite their limitations, are still very necessary. Therefore Canada ought to be progressing toward the .7 per cent of the gross national product figure that is the United Nations goal. As it is, we are going in a reverse direction since Canadian aid has slipped from .58 to .51 per cent of GNP in the last two years. But who can argue for a higher volume of Canadian aid until parliament and the public are assured that aid is being directed and administered in the best possible way? The Auditor General last year found a "very unsatisfactory state of financial control" in CIDA and set up a major audit which led to 92 recommendations. As a result of last week's meeting with the Public Accounts Committee we learned from the deputy Auditor General that there is in place "a well-balanced plan" to implement the recommendations which have been made.
Progress is being made. But of course we are not yet satisfied that CIDA is being run in the most efficient manner. Another auditor's report will be needed. Not even that, however, will be sufficient, for the Auditor General concentrates on control systems. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of Canadian aid programs we must go beyond control systems and have access to CIDA's country reports which describe the intentions of aid programs in the economic, social, and political context of the recipient country.
CIDA has for a long time needlessly employed the confidential stamp on much of its most relevant material. Even as late as last week CIDA was denying me access to the Auditor General's list of 92 recommendations. It took the pressure of the Public Accounts Committee meeting to make that list available to me. On reading it, I cannot see any possible reason for the previous confidentiality, except to avoid embarrassment to CIDA's former president, who left his successor with a leaky ship. If CIDA is to complete the process of regaining the confidence of parliament, the country reports must be made available. It is neither fair nor reasonable to ask members of parliament to vote CIDA's $1.1 billion budget without at the same time making available to us relevant information, as distinct from CIDA's public relations material.
We want to know some basic facts. What is CIDA doing to ensure that more aid goes for community development in rural areas of developing countries? What pressure is being put on the administrations of developing countries to enforce internal reforms so that the fruits of development get to the massive rural populations and not just the elite? What is CIDA doing about ensuring a strong Canadian input into development strategies for the third development decade? What is the amount of the Canadian contribution to the special action program set up by the North-South Conference?


There is a great deal at stake as we put together an improved CIDA operation and an enlarged Canadian role in the continuing north-south dialogue. The first priority has got to be on building Canadian public opinion to support CIDA, and to accomplish that CIDA has to do a better job of explaining itself.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) raised some questions concerning a statement in the Auditor General's report related to CIDA where it says that certain countries do not honour their commitments. He asked whether Canada will maintain a high level of aid to Indonesia without publicly protesting the violation of human rights in that country where so many political prisoners are being held.
In the light of our experience in the field of development cooperation in the last twenty-five years, it appears clearly, Mr. Speaker, that if there is one thing the under-developed countries are not joking about, it is their own development. With a few exceptions, they are not taking their commitments lightly. They do not come back either on commitments made with their partners or on arrangements made to achieve some projects to straighten out and restore their own economy.
However, it must be recognized that we are speaking here of underdeveloped countries, of poor countries, where shortages of all sorts are the rule rather than the exception, and where planning capacities and management experience are often scarce. By that very fact, we are dealing with countries where our help must be concentrated in a manner and spirit of true cooperation.
I think we all realize that errors in planning and implementation are inevitable and that the beneficiary-country can find itself unable to supply the promised resources for lack of them on the local market or lack of funds. As a result, the work of CIDA is occasionally delayed or made more complex, which is unfortunate but inevitable. As for the report of the Auditor General, I would merely add that we hear much more, and rightly so, of its negative aspects; on the other hand, to get an overall view of the situation, we should remember that the Auditor General mentioned a marked improvement during the fiscal year 1975-76, in the application of measures intended to tighten the financial control and improve the administration.
The problem of the violation of human rights has recently been given more attention in the press. I am convinced that all hon. members are happy to see the renewed interest in that most complex and persistent problem. The attitude of Canada, with regard to the violation of human rights in other countries, has traditionally been based on the conviction that it is easier to influence the internal policy of other countries, and really improve the living conditions of the persons involved, if we proceed slowly, making representations through diplomatic and other official channels, while maintaining good relations with those countries. In the specific case of Indonesia, the
Auditor General Act
Canadian government is aware that there are political prisoners in that country; indeed, it brought up the matter at top level meetings, thus voicing the concerns of many Canadians about the problem.
An alternative to our traditional policy would be to denounce publicly, on behalf of the Canadian people, the violations that are brought to our attention. This would cause serious problems. First, such an initiative would bring about resentment and official protests against our interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. We would then be faced with the law of decreasing efficiency, since Amnesty International and other groups have gathered evidence of serious violations of human rights in over one hundred countries, including most Third World countries. Even worse, it is not very likely that this would improve the situation of those victims of the oppression that are not known internationally, not considering that in certain cases, in some countries, their situation could become even worse. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out in his statement of last March 3, our policy in that regard will be very flexible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 5.56 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-20, respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has three motions at report stage which would seek to amend Bill C-20, an Act respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
As 1 indicated earlier in the day, 1 had some concern that the hon. member's amendments were introducing into this statute a new concept of the responsibilities of the Auditor


Auditor General Act
General-something that went beyond the scope of the bill and certainly beyond the scope of the clauses the hon. member seeks to amend-by introducing responsibilities that were entirely foreign to those envisaged by the legislation. From a procedural point of view it gave the Chair some concern and I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North ought to be given the opportunity to defend his motions. I now recognize the hon. member.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, C-20, deals with the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
It seemed pretty obvious to me, both as a member of parliament and as one who attended the majority of the meetings of the standing committee that deals with the Auditor General's reports and that dealt as well with this bill, that it has come before us because the experience of the last few years has demonstrated that the powers parliament had given to the Auditor General did not give him the authority he needed to do his work in the way in which parliament would like to see it done. He did not have the power to get and to give information to parliament and the people of Canada which they required, something which was behind the whole principle which parliament adopted when it established the position of Auditor General.
I do not want to abuse my rights by going into lengthy detail about the kind of committee meetings where the Auditor General and other people testify; suffice it to say that in my years in parliament I have never sat on a committee in which there was less division, and fewer party differences than that committee. This was because we were confronted, time after time, with tales of horror such that no member of the committee, regardless of party, could be anything less than worried. 1 will not go into detail.
* (2010)
Committee members hear with amazement how Polysar and its multiple subsidiaries carry on business, in a manner so bad that no member of Polysar or its subsidiaries will take responsibility for what was done. We heard of money being paid into numbered accounts in other countries, of unknown people being paid off for unexplained reasons. Similarly, in the case of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, we heard certain disturbing facts concerning the sale of reactors to Argentina and South Korea. 1 shall not discuss these at present. If the Auditor General had been given more authority, or more clearly defined authority and responsibility with respect to members of parliament, the government and the corporations whose books he ought to have audited, we would have avoided much of the difficulty about which we heard, and the people of Canada would have saved tens of millions of dollars. And, in essence, to overcome those shortcomings Bill C-20 was introduced. It is to broaden and clarify the authority and responsibility of the Auditor General.
I support the bill, as did other members of the committee, regardless of party. I am not trying to change the bill's fundamental character; 1 am trying to define more clearly the

Auditor General's authority, to allow him to give parliament the information 1 believe parliament needs. I do not suggest, for example in my First amendment, that the Auditor General should have the right to say the registered retirement savings plan is a bad plan, which 1 think it is; or that the registered home ownership savings plan has saved people, mainly in upper income groups, substantial amounts of tax, which 1 believe it has, and therefore people in lower income brackets are forced to pay more personal income tax to meet the expenditures of the Government of Canada. I do not say the Auditor General should say if the accelerated write-off of corporate assets for taxation purposes is good or bad.
On the other hand I say that parliament and the people of Canada have the right to know how much money would have accrued to the Government of Canada in the absence of provisions for accelerated write-off of corporate assets for tax purposes. 1 believe parliament is better able to assess the effect of such provisions than is some partisan expert who has his own opinion as to how taxes should be applied. 1 say these questions are for parliament to decide. 1 therefore say that parliament could do a better job in this regard if the Auditor General, appointed by the Parliament of Canada, reports to the people by reporting to parliament and not to the government. For example, we should know how much money the government collects through corporate taxes and through personal income taxes. Armed with such information, we could understand better the workings of the Income Tax Act.
Similarly, I say it is not the Auditor General's task to comment on the effects of indexation of personal income tax. He should not say if it is moral or immoral. I happen to believe that the indexation of personal income taxes has been of benefit mainly to people in middle and upper income brackets. If you pay little income tax, what difference would indexation make? Why should the person who pays $100 or $200 income tax be overly concerned about the indexation of income tax? On the other hand indexation for those paying, say, $20,000 a year in income tax means a substantial amount of relief. For those reasons I propose my amendments. As I say, my proposals would not change the basic purposes and duties of the Auditor General, as outlined in Bill C-20.
Some senior civil servants who looked at our amendments in committee said that we do not know precisely how the amendments would work in practice. That is true. It is not our job to analyse in detail how our proposals would work. That is the job of permanent officials. Our job, as members of parliament, is to get as much information as possible on this subject, and one of our main sources of information is the Auditor General, who is an expert in accounting, non-partisan because he is a public servant, completely objective, I suggest, because he reports to parliament directly, and not to the government as do 90 per cent of public servants, and reports the facts as he sees them.
We know, from annual reports of the previous Auditor General who was appointed by the Conservative government and of the present Auditor General who was appointed by the Liberal government, that Auditors General do precisely what 1


suggested. Because they have effectively turned the spotlight on poor management practices and mistakes made by the government and senior public servants, governments do not love them, do not love even those Auditors General they themselves appoint.
In the objections raised to one of my proposed amendments it was suggested that the presentation of a tax expenditure budget by the Auditor General, as suggested in my amendment, would involve so many vexed questions concerning taxes and so much argument concerning what is and what is not a tax expense, that the solution to the question would require the application of much manpower and time and perhaps involve the Auditor General in political questions. I have already dealt with that. I do not want the Auditor General to make moral judgments. I simply want him to give parliament the information which I believe parliament should have if members of parliament are to do the job they are required to do. I do not believe that the questions involved are so difficult that arbitrariness is inevitable.
One of the objections is that the consequence of a tax expenditure budget which I put forward would mean the inclusion as a matter of course of questions on a number of items, and that would be misleading to say the least. Either the questions are difficult or they are not. If there are severe problems deciding what will go in, one cannot argue that the concept of tax expenditures is so strict that one cannot avoid putting in some things that somebody would prefer to leave out. Conversely, if the problems are so straightforward that they have already been decided, there is not much choice as to what will or will not go in.
It is difficult to see how the Auditor General will get himself involved in political questions or find himself faced with difficult problems which he will not know how to solve.
What we are asking is not something new. It is not something so radical that it has not been tried before. What I am asking for in my amendments is already to a large extent the law in the United States. What I am asking for is precisely the kind of information which the United States Congress gets in a routine way on the basis of existing U.S. legislation.
It may be that the kind of amendments which I have moved are not to the liking of the government. That would not surprise me. It may be that the government does not want members of parliament to have the kind of information which 1 suggest the Auditor General should be providing to members. It believes it is easier to run the business of government and get the income tax legislation, corporation tax legislation, accelerated depreciation and faster writeoffs of corporation assets for taxation purposes passed if members of parliament and the public as a whole are kept ignorant. That is not a good way in which to run the country. It is not the best way in which the democratic system can operate.
The best way in which a democracy can operate is for the people to have the most information that is available. If people are given all of the facts, they will make the right decisions.
Auditor General Act
They will call on governments to do the things that are fair. In order for them to have the facts, they need the kind of information enunciated in the amendments which I have moved.
My amendments may not meet the desires or wishes of the government. The government may wish to vote against them. That, of course, is how a democratic system works. If the government wants to vote against my amendments, it has every right to do so. I submit there is nothing in my amendments that can not properly be included in the bill and therefore voted upon. I submit that my amendments are in order.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated earlier in the day, I had some concern from a procedural point of view about the regularity of the motions put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I have, in the interval, had the opportunity of studying them very carefully in connection with the terms of the bill itself.
It seems that the hon. member for Winnipeg North is proposing by way of his motion that the function of the Auditor General be extended in a very fundamental way.
The function of the Auditor General is as contemplated in the legislation and has been tried in previous legislation which this bill will alter. That function is to perform in respect of the books of the Government of Canada in the same way that an auditor generally performs in the private sphere in the books of any company; to determine whether accounts have been faithfully kept, to determine whether records are adequate, to determine whether money has been expended for purposes other than that for which authority has been given, to determine whether satisfactory procedures have been established and followed from an accounting point of view in respect of the use of public funds. Further, he is to indicate in his annual report some other observations as to whether or not the Auditor General has been provided in the course of his very important duties with proper and adequate information to ensure that the task has been properly performed. All of that is well understood by hon. members.
As usual, the motion put forward is one which has a motivation that cannot be questioned. The further provision of information as described by the hon. member for Winnipeg North in defending his motions is not what is in question. Neither is the motion as put forward earlier in the day by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) contained in his amendment.
As usual, these motions all put forward an idea which has a great deal of merit. That is never the test. The question is, does the amendment form, from a procedural point of view, a proper and appropriate amendment to this particular statute.
In the way in which it is put forward, it seems that the notion of the Auditor General which is contained in all of the hon. member's motions, examining the individual income tax returns or tax returns for corporations in order to make judgments as to whether amounts of money that have been claimed as deductions may fall into a part of a budget that


Auditor General Act
ought to be expressed to parliament in terms of an assessment as to the global amount of money that may have been recovered by the federal treasury had these programs not been in place, is an extension of the function of the Auditor General.
Whether that information ought to be sought by members of the House of Commons is entirely another question. Whether or not it ought to be provided, perhaps by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) or the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin), in terms of answers to questions on the order paper or an examination on the estimates of these ministers in terms of their past operations vis-a-vis expenditure forecasts for the coming year by way of the budget estimates, are all very valid questions for consideration.
What I have to decide is whether or not it forms a part of this particular statute to have this information collected and these judgments made by the Auditor General in order that a report can be made by him on these questions. The very notion of the Auditor General making these judgments and examining individual taxpayers' tax returns, which goes far beyond his function in examining the books of the Government of Canada, is in itself in a very fundamental way an extension of the entire concept of the basic function of the Auditor General of Canada.
I therefore find that the motions, which are all related to the same basic concept of a tax expenditure or a tax expenditure budget, introduce in their very terms an entirely new and unrelated concept to this legislation and, therefore, procedurally fail.
In order to keep things procedurally organized, we have now disposed in one way or another of all seven motions at the report stage of Bill C-20. Four were found to be out of order. Three have been discussed and divisions have been deferred. 1 understand that motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were dealt with. Is there some indication of the time at which, now that discussion on the bill has finished, those deferred divisions will take place?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am given to understand that there have been some discussions and that it has been favourably received that we take the deferred votes this evening, 1 believe right after the other arrangement which follows on 9:45 when we deal with Bill C-27. That is the information I have been given to understand is correct, that it is the disposition of all parties to proceed in that way.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister is correct when he says there have been discussions. But I might point out there are up to 13 votes to take, and this is something which cannot be done within a short period. 1 estimate it would take between an hour and two hours of voting starting around 9.45.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We might start earlier.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That could be considered. Or we might consider putting these votes over until tomorrow morning. If
[Mr. Speaker.)
that is not a good suggestion it might be well to take the matter up further and discuss it during the next item of business. Then we could get back to the parliamentary secretary and the President of the Treasury Board and make some specific proposals. But I am somewhat apprehensive that if we take so many votes after 9.45 p.m. we might be here until well after midnight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that discussions should continue in the next little while to see whether the matter can be resolved. I should like to request that no consideration be given to the idea of taking these votes tomorrow morning. As the hon. member knows, a number of members are going to the funeral of our late friend tomorrow, which means leaving the House around 11.30 a.m. I still hope it may be possible to bring the starting time forward a little tonight. If we take about 1 5 votes at eight minutes a vote, that would account for 120 minutes, or two hours, if my arithmetic is not faulty. That is assuming the officers at the table are able to keep up that pace of eight minutes to a vote. But perhaps we continue discussions while the debate is going on in connection with the next item.


Ralph Goodale: In addition to the difficulty mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the situation 1 see is that in the course of our business today, for circumstances which were beyond anyone's control, we adjourned slightly early both this morning and before six o'clock, losing a certain amount of time which would otherwise have been profitably spent on the business before the House. In these circumstances I hope we can work out an arrangement to dispose of the votes this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to put this matter over until the House leaders have had an opportunity to take it up further, but there is one difficulty to which I must draw attention. The bells cannot ring earlier than 9.45 p.m. tonight because there is an order of the House that deferred divisions on these motions shall begin at 9.45. While there is nothing to prevent the bells from ringing for a division on these motions, if it is the wish of the House, 1 believe we should decide to do one thing or the other.


An hon. Member:: What about taking this division, anyway?


Mr. Speaker:: The point is, we have concluded the report stage of Bill C-20. I am perfectly prepared to see the House take up the Bretton Woods Agreements Act for a few minutes and then give me some advice as to the course proposed.


BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS ACT
Robert Knight Andras: that Bill C-18, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it was hoped that Bill C-5 would be called before Bill C-18. My hon. friend from York-Simcoe, who is the financial critic for the official opposition, has indicated his intention to make a few observations at this stage of the bill. He was hoping the minister would be here, but he has been detained at another meeting. I will do my best, however, as I have done in the past, to pitch in and substitute.
I do not know that there is anyone in the House or even, for that matter, among the experts advising the minister, who can say he has even a tolerable knowledge of this act in its entirety. Never have international financial relations been so complicated as they are today. We see one country after another getting into trouble, whether members of the fund or not. Canada is one of the classic examples. We proudly say we belong to the club. We pay our dues, and then we opt out of the major requirements. Instead of maintaining a relationship with other currencies, particularly with the reserve currency, the U.S. dollar, as required by the act, we have since 1970, I believe it is, adopted a floating rate. This is all very well for the cozy few, but some of us remember the jungle warfare of the period the second world war on international monetary markets as one nation after another devalued its currency in the course of dog eat dog competition. This ultimately caused the boat to rock so much and gave rise to so many counter-actions of a nationalistic and protective nature that the whole affair culminated in the Second World War. This was one of the contributing factors. It was also a symptom of the unacceptable quality of international financial relations prior to the Second World War.
Consider the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, the first phase, and then the second phase which followed in 1964 or 1965. Now we are seeing, in Canada, the third formal phase and I note that the French government, for example, is taking violent objection to the form which is presently being proposed to us, and we see this, that, and the other country devaluing its currency, not necessarily within the framework of the International Monetary Fund. These are, to my mind, disquieting symptoms.
It is to be hoped that the special drawing rights will relieve the pressure on the American dollar as an effective reserve
Bretton Woods Agreement
currency with gold as its backing. The pound sterling has had a relatively stable past. In the early days of the Bretton Woods Agreement, I recall it used to cost me $4.75 Canadian to buy one pound sterling when I was a student at Oxford in 1947-48. Today it costs approximately $1.75 Canadian to buy one pound sterling. Both currencies have been thoroughly debased by inflation, although one could ask to see a currency that is not. Some do not exist in relation to their original valuations.
The special drawing rights, which we saw inaugurated some three years ago and which are being formalized by this agreement in a much more prominent role, are viewed by some countries as another source of drawing down benefits. Many of us view that aspect with some concern. We are not particularly worried about the developed countries doing more for the underdeveloped countries. To disregard man's obligation toward his fellowman would be merely hiding one's head in the sand. But I do not think it should be done through the medium of granting special drawing rights to underdeveloped countries or those engaged in the south part of the north-south dialogue, which is really a reserve tool within the IMF.
Along with my colleague from York-Simcoe, I hope we can get a great deal more information about the operations of the Canadian Exchange Fund in this relationship with our trading partners. There seems to be a hush hush attitude, which is not prevalent in a number of other countries, where dealings in the foreign exchange fund by the Bank of Canada have become sort of a sacred cow that one must not approach. We have been acting in the international market only when the bank or the government deigns periodically to release information in the most guarded terms.
There has been a great deal of pressure on the Canadian dollar lately. I fault the government for not telling the people why in layman's language, so that one does not have to become an international banker or expert on the foreign money market to understand why, some months ago, the Canadian dollar was trading as high as $1.04 and threatening to go higher, and is now down to 94 cents. I suppose that if one presented a Canadian dollar bill at a Detroit bank one would even receive less.
Americans may be glad to come to Canada thinking their dollar is worth $1.06, and hoping they will get $1.06 value Canadian. But when the shoe is on the other foot, our American friends go into a shell and say that they do not take our money. It could be worth $5 but they will not take it. Thus, they simply say they will take it at 90 cents, and you take it or leave it. The further south of the border you go the worse it gets. Sometimes you are in a position where you have got to leave it and they will take it, but at the reduced value.
I want to make a special plea on behalf of all members in this House for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Bank of Canada to be much more outgoing with regard to their actions respecting the IMF. It is not something which is holier than thou. Canadian people have enough sophistication. Those in the financial world should have the expertise to be able to tell them what is happening. Then they can take the


Bretton Woods Agreement
appropriate action to improve our lot or guard themselves against unnecessary loss. All of this helps our total economy.
I hold a good deal of hope for Bretton Woods. I am not like some French parliamentarians who laid the blame for most of France's present inflation at the door of Bretton Woods and the lack of control over Euro dollars. I must confess that I could not follow their arguments. It may be they will have an opportunity of impressing me better in the near future. I certainly intend to look further into their arguments. Many formulae were advanced with regard to breaking the rigidity of the former values of the reserve currencies and the matter of the peg. Each of these formulae had their champions for a while and they had their vogue, and then they passed on to something else. They had some rather colourful names-the crawling peg, the snake, and a few others.
This will include those OPEC financial powers which will have to take a very realistic and responsible attitude toward international monetary relations. It may be all very well for some countries to build up their foreign exchange funds at the expense of another country in a sort of beggar thy neigbour policy. As the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert is always wont to say, there is no alley that does not have its ash cans. Those countries which engage in very questionable practices with regard to their financial relations with their neighbours in the world are going to reap some problems in the future.
S0)
While we in the House may express our opinions with regard to the Bretton Woods Agreement, there is not one dot of an "i" or one bar of a "t" hon. members of this House can change. This is an international agreement entered into by the government under its powers. I suppose if this House felt badly about the Bretton Woods Agreement and rejected this bill, the government's signature on that international accord would be repudiated by its parliament, and that would be a very interesting scenario to speculate upon, but I am sure that generally we hope to see some order in the international financial market.
I do wish, however, that we in Canada were not the ones at whom everyone can point a finger because, for our own particular advantage, we decided to opt out of the reserve positions on our own currency; in other words, that we would refuse to peg to the reserve currency as required by street adherence to the IMF accord. That, to me, is an action we may live to regret. In some ways we have been able to get the best of both worlds so far, but that will only be for a short time. I would have liked to have seen something more for stability in the long run in that field, and on that note I shall close these comments on behalf of myself and my colleagues.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this complicated, little understood bill. Essentially it deals with Canada's participation in the International Monetary Fund and in international exchange. The bill raises certain questions. The original idea was to help

countries and to rebuild Europe after the war. That has largely been accomplished, but new and greater problems have arisen.
For the first time much foreign currency is owned and held by the OPEC countries, and the western industrialized countries which, from a national point of view, were once wealthy, are now in many cases debtors. This is particularly so of Great Britain, Italy, and even Canada. Even the strong countries of Germany and Japan depend very noticeably on the attitude of the OPEC countries toward the rest of the world. Some oil nations have shown considerable insight and understanding of the economic problems of the world, and their forbearance is to be commended, but a great many industrialized countries are faced with financial problems greater than they have ever had before, particularly France, Italy, and Great Britain. However, with the possibility of oil in the North Sea a substantial amount of foreign currency may see Britain through for the next decade. Even so, this latest change in the Bretton Woods Agreement means moving away from the traditional gold which was the standard for many hundreds of years. It is only a small part of the special drawing rights, but gold was important. Essentially the currency is now becoming paper.
Whether the International Monetary Fund will be a success depends on the abilities of the managers of the fund. If we are all going to be in one pool, as industrialized nations we may be able to help each other. However, we may get to a point where the whole system will collapse. This idea is being considered by many reputable economists around the world, and I do not think they can be ignored as paper tigers. Nor should we think that events can be regarded as unexpected or that there will be very little chance of any currency crisis which cannot be handled. I think there are very real dangers of that happening, and that is echoed by many economists who are aware of the great financial strains in the world. Even in our country, where we are supposed to have done a little better than other countries with regard to growth, it is interesting that the latest statistics from Statistics Canada show that from 1970 to the present time our economy has grown from $86 billion to $200 billion. That seems like a lot, but over two thirds of that is pure inflation. In other words, $80 billion of our economy now compared with seven years ago is just an inflationary figure.
Inflation has taken place around the world, but it is hard to understand why we cannot bring it to an end with a wholesale readjustment of currencies and of nations' trading positions. Therefore I believe the questioning and concern about whether the international currency arrangement can actually prevent a sudden and severe crash of currency are justified. In any case I presume that this bill is an attempt to take part in the working of the fund, and it is with considerable skepticism that I speak for this bill. However, as an advanced industrialized nation this is one of the contributions we can make to the world and to the western economic system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Some.hon. Members: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Currency and Exchange Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be amended by deleting Clause 5 and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
He said: Clause 5 of the bill actually proposes that the Auditor General examine the books of account of the Foreign Exchange Currency Fund and report to parliament, as he does in his annual report, and he shall certify to a number of things that are required under the act. Now it is proposed that the Auditor General compile his report but submit it to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) who will then in due course table it in the House. Why this change? The Auditor General is responsible to parliament. I am sure Mr. Macdonell would be the first one to deny that he is the one who should tell parliament what it should do in regard to its relationship with him.
I found it passing strange, in discovering what was behind this proposed amendment, that it was for conformity, that there would be a tidying up, that down at the management level some lower officials in the Auditor General's office discussed with officials of the Department of Finance the possibility of getting some uniformity. After all, it would seem to be administratively tidier to have all the procedures the same. But why?
I find that responsibility is being centred more and more in the cabinet. The report on the performance of the Foreign Exchange Fund is not like the report on the operations of some Crown corporation. I find it singularly strange that if you ask any minister of the Crown who is responsible for a Crown Corporation which reports to parliament, about some aspect of the operation of that Crown corporation, this stock answer is, "I will pass the hon. member's question to the corporation. I have nothing to do with the direction of that Crown corporation". Yet they maintain that the Auditor General should report to the minister. That connotes a degree of responsibility. If I am told to report to a man, it is because that man has some authority over me. If I am told to deliver a report to an
Currency and Exchange Act
individual who will act as the conduit to higher authority, that is an entirely different thing.
When it comes to management and to fielding questions, the minister stands up in the Chamber during that 45 minute quiz show that is so loved by the media-they think that the sun rises and sets on parliament from 2.15 to 3 p.m. every day, Friday excepted-and says he will pass the questions on to the management of the corporation and will report back, or he tables a report from the corporation under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2). So on the one hand they are the first to duck responsibilities, but on the other hand, for administrative convenience the Auditor General is being asked to report to a minister, who, incidentally, will file the returns, but that is not the point.
The Auditor General is responsible to parliament. My goodness, we have passed Bill C-20 this afternoon, and what does that bill say with regard to the Auditor General? It sets up a great case that he is parliament's best friend, that he is the watchdog, to use the popular newspaper term. What did we do here? Did we put another ring in the chain around his collar?
In the committee we were not very satisfied with the evidence that was given, and I am concerned about it. Even if the Auditor General did give his assent to this change, I do not think, with the greatest respect to the Auditor General, that it is his business to tell us to change. The Auditor General may be an adviser in his role of criticizing government operations, which it is his duty to do, but his responsibility is to parliament, not to cabinet: Yet this motion sets it in and closes the final door. I put the amendment forward so we could have this debated in public. It was debated in committee, but frankly no one comes to the committee to hear it.
I regret very much this feature of the bill. The rest of the bill is perfectly fine, but this House and the other place in accepting this feature will have taken a step backward rather than taking a step forward. In my view the Financial Administration Act should be changed so that the Auditor General, in submitting his reports on Crown corporations, should report through the minister and not to a minister because, in my view, the office and the role of the Auditor General in respect of the House of Commons are sacrosanct. We have just knocked them on the head. I am opposed to Clause 5 of the bill.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to take a few minutes to support my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), in the idea that the Auditor General report directly to parliament, not to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). 1 suppose there are good arguments to be made on both sides.
I was interested in reading the debate and the arguments of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) when he suggested that perhaps the Auditor General should report to the Minister of Finance. It seemed to him that the Auditor General would not be able to make specific comments on what was happening to the fund and that only the Minister of Finance could take action to change or correct Canada's


Currency and Exchange Act
stance or present each one to the people who make the decisions about which countries will get the money. In some ways that is not a bad decision but I believe the Auditor General, who is a servant of this House, should make his report to this House. I think it would be a simple thing, if the Minister of Finance had to make it, for him conveniently to forget it or make it at such a time that it would not attract attention.
International monetary problems will be a greater factor in the next few years than they have been in the past. There is no doubt that the oil situation has created dangers. We read already about huge international debts owed not only by developing and Third World countries but by the communist countries that up until now had always paid their bills. They owe so much money to private banks in the United States, Germany, and western Europe that now many banks have refused to extend credit to them.
This is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. We are a trading nation and this year our imports and exports are estimated at $40 billion dollars each, or between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the gross national product. With this in mind, and if we propose to become involved in lending money, directly or indirectly, it is important that the report of the Auditor General be made directly to parliament and not to the minister. It is the only thing that would give us some idea of the way in which the fund is administered.
Substantial changes in the exchange fund are proposed by the bill, and until it can be shown that they work there will be many questions. In committee I posed certain questions to the minister in regard to the United Kingdom and Egypt. In extending further aid to Egypt the International Monetary Fund laid down certain restrictions on what the Egyptian president could do with it. For example, he was advised to cut back on food subsidies. We all know what happened then. Egypt had its worst riots for two decades and at one time it seemed as if the president would be deposed.
The situation in the United Kingsdom only came to light because the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not want to agree to the restrictions proposed by the International Monetary Fund and he made his objections public. The Minister of Finance admitted this is what had alerted him to the situation in the United Kingdom and that he was familiar with the result in Egypt when the IMF had imposed conditions upon the president. Mr. Speaker, I think all this helps to illustrate that the report of the Auditor General should come directly to this House. It would serve no purpose if he talked only to the minister about questionable practices in the exchange fund account.
We are not dealing with small amounts of money here. We have a stand-by credit of about $300 million in the United Kingdom, we have a $250 to $500 million reciprocal drawing arrangement with Italy, and a $2 billion swap arrangement with the United States. The amounts are not small, and when the Auditor General is given his organization I think it is

important that he make his reports directly to the House so that we can deal with them here and persuade the government to make any necessary changes.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly to this motion. First of all I should remind the House that it was considered in committee and I listened carefully then as now, with all the objectivity of a parliamentary secretary, to the suggestion made to change the original proposal of the government. Even with that objectivity I have heard nothing to convince me there was any substance in the amendment proposed by the opposition.
We ought to remember that the Auditor General reports on a number of financial activities of the government under a great many statutes. Under virtually all of them, except for the oldest, the provision is made that his report goes to the minister and the minister tables it in the House. That provision is made for the simple reason that the Auditor General is not a member of this Chamber; he cannot walk through the door and deposit his document on the table of the House. That has to be done on his behalf by a member. The legislation provides that the report goes to the minister concerned with the enterprise being audited, and the minister tables it in the House.
It is a trumped up thing to try to make the point that there is something improper in taking this procedure which is used everywhere else and applying it to the currency and exchange account. This is an enormous account which is of considerable interest to parliament, the country, and the outside world, but to argue that it ought to be handled in any way different than in the legislation provided for all the other accounts and enterprises that are scrutinized by the Auditor General has no validity.
In fact the Auditor General particularly wanted this account to be changed because it has become his practice to provide the account audit to the minister and for the minister to table it. What is being settled through the legislation before us is only what is already the practice, that is, the report goes to the Minister of Finance and the minister tables it.
The present Auditor General has acquired considerable stature and respect in this House and in the country-so much so that the legislation amending his position, Bill C-20, was largely proposed by him and his staff. We have listened gladly to his suggestions. Members, by and large, accepted his suggestions. They are embodied in Bill C-20. The bill now before the House has exactly the same status. Like the Auditor General's Act, this is his own proposal to us. It is the proposal he made to regularize the procedure he actually follows. This is the procedure which will be used not only in this legislation, not only for this account in question, but for all the other accounts and enterprises which the Auditor General audits and concerning which he must report to this House. One could go further than saying the opposition is making a mountain out of a molehill in this case. I argue that they are trying to make something out of nothing at all, and consequently I urge hon. members to reject the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On division.
Motion (Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West)) negatived.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-5, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-49, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have proceeded with our business so expeditiously that I scarcely had time to regain my seat before Your Honour put the motion for concurrence on Bill C-49. Although there are no amendments to discuss at the report stage, I and some of my colleagues wish to speak on the bill. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) who is not here this evening wishes to make her contribution to the debate. Actually I did not know we would make such good progress.
Canada Pension Plan


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall 1 put the third reading motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think what we are doing should be made clear. I do not mind our taking this bill tonight, but it was not understood that it would come forward this evening. We just seem to be slipping into it, as it were. The minister is not here, and the parliamentary secretary is not here.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is not here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) tell us what is going on?


An hon. Member:: There are no amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right. There is no amendment. We have dealt with the report stage and could go on to third reading now. But that was not the plan for tonight. If the plan has been changed we should have been advised. There has been lots of consultation today; it has worked well. But i do not like our proceeding without consultation.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a matter of proceeding without consultation. 1 think the House has made perhaps unprecedented progress, which has led us to this evening's remarkable situation.
It was indicated earlier today in the statement concerning the order of business that, after we completed considering the Auditor General's bill, which we did earlier this evening, we would consider two financial bills, C-18 and C-5, both of which hon. members dealt with expeditiously this evening and both of which proceeded through third reading. As indicated earlier, the next item of business was the consideration of Bill C-49, the bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan. Many of us did not anticipate reaching it this evening; however, we have reached it and could use the 15 minutes remaining before the taking of deferred divisions in a constructive consideration of Bill C-49. The minister's parliamentary secretary is now present and in a position to proceed. Of course what we do in the next 15 minutes will not necessarily determine what we shall do tomorrow morning or evening. Because of our remarkable progress, that question would have to be settled by further
7132


Canada Pension Plan
consultation, before 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. We do not intend to inconvenience hon. members and did not intend to catch any by surprise.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary and 1 say this House must be run according to some reasonable semblance of order. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, we must understand what is being done. Many members did not think we would proceed beyond Bill C-5, and I do not think it was contemplated when the business of the House was announced earlier that we should deal with Bill C-49 this evening. For that reason we should consider if it is appropriate even to proceed with the consideration of that bill. Surely the parliamentary secretary agrees that the House must operate on the basis of consultation and understanding.


Mr. Railton:: And logic.


Walter David Baker: As the hon. doctor from Welland says, we must also use logic. But the understandings at which we arrive are most important for the smooth operation of this institution. Bill C-49 is not unimportant and, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said, some who have a special interest in this bill, because they did not think it would be considered tonight, have become engaged elsewhere this evening in the discharge of their public duties. They would not be in a position to deal with it in an adequate sense because we would be foreshortening the period of time with respect to preparation.
The other aspect that is important is that the bill is of such significance that, frankly, we find it somewhat unusual for it to be introduced on third reading by a member other than the minister in whose name it stands on the order paper, and having it carried in debate by the parliamentary secretary.
I do not want in any way to deprecate the parliamentary secretary. I am sure he understands the basis on which I say that. This bill is either important or it is not. If it is important, it ought to be introduced and dealt with by the minister in a normal way.
It is not unusual from time to time in this House for bills to be dealt with by a parliamentary secretary. However, they are never dealt with in these circumstances unless there has been some advance consultation with the House leaders of the other parties. The courtesy of the House leaders of the other parties is granted in order to permit the government the convenience of doing it through a parliamentary secretary.
When we are approached in advance and it is indicated to us that a bill is important, that it must proceed and that it is impossible for a minister to be present, that permission is normally granted. However, the rules of this House, and indeed the dignity and traditions of this House, demand that the bill be introduced and debate begun by the minister.

I am not suggesting that we would in any way be castigating the government for not having other business ready. There are a number of bills with which we might deal.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Metric conversion.


Walter David Baker: We could deal with metric conversion.


Mr. Marchand:: Let's go.


Walter David Baker: There are a number of other pieces of legislation with which we might deal.


Ralph Goodale: 


Walter David Baker: The parliamentary secretary mentions Bill S-3. I have looked at the "must list" of the government that has been presented and which is slowly shrinking. I find that Bill S-3 is not on the "must list". 1 would not want to depart in any way from the very careful procedures that we have adopted in the best of faith.
There is Bill C-23, the metric conversion bill. I am sure we could proceed with that. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has a particular interest in that bill. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) were here we could deal with Bill C-56, the beginning of the income tax legislation. I know that the people of Canada are very much interested in that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please come to his point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I was just developing it, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that there are a number of pieces of legislation on the government's list that are important. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, there is awaiting second reading, which is of some significance, a bill arising out of the budget, Bill C-56, income tax bill No. 2. That bill contains the infamous, ridiculous, and retrograde step with regard to life insurance policy gains. I am sure there are members of the House who would like to deal with that particular bill. There are some amendments to the Fisheries Act-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has the floor for the purpose of raising a point of order. I suggest that he get to the point of order rather soon.


Walter David Baker: There are the Fisheries Act amendments which are now out of committee. We would be prepared to deal with that, except there is no fisheries minister here. My point of order-


Mr. MacFarlane:: Where is your fisheries critic?


Walter David Baker: Our critic is available.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Where is your finance critic?


Walter David Baker: Our critic is available.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has the floor. I wish he would get to his point of order rather soon.


Walter David Baker: The critics to whom the hon. member refers are available. I commend to the government that it consider going ahead with metric conversion because that is something which has occupied its attention very much. We are ready for that.
In conclusion, let me say this: it is important that we do not proceed with Bill C-49 right now because of the importance of the legislation. Second, the minister is not here. Third, there has not been the normal consultation. Fourth, unfortunately for us, certainly not for the institution of parliament, the legislative program has proceeded much too quickly and, indeed, beyond what was the understanding with respect to that legislative program.
There may be other members who will wish to speak to this point of order which I have tried to put as succinctly as 1 can. 1 have mentioned the alternative pieces of legislation that the government might deal with tonight if it is ready.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 suggest to the hon. member that that was not a point of order but a good speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope I can do as well as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in terms of his point of order.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I can speak to the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the hon. member please address the Chair?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was speaking through you, Sir. If you do not know what the bill is all about, Mr. Speaker, it is amendments to the Canada Pension Plan involving the splitting provisions and dropout provisions for the benefit of spouses. In other words, what the bill is attempting to do, for the benefit of the Liberal backbencher who does not know what it is all about, is to give some recognition to the role of women in the home. However, that is not what I want to get into right now.
What 1 want to get into is the fact that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have both put their fingers on the point that concerns me. I was sitting on the other side of the House speaking with one of my Liberal friends, and 1 do have a few on the other side, determining what we were going to do tonight as a result of a number of motions on Bill C-27. He was trying to tell me there were 13 or 15. I tried to point out to him there were 14 amendments which would call for a vote on each one.
All of a sudden it dawned on me 1 was hearing a number, something like C-49. I immediately thought that was a responsibility which was mine. I thought that could not be, because
Canada Pension Plan
there had been no discussion between the House leaders, which is the usual way that bills come before this House in terms of report stage and/or third reading.


Mr. Goyer:: Are you for or against the bill?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) intervening, but 1 cannot hear him. 1 wonder if he would speak out a little louder.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Are you for or against the bill?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I was saying, much to my surprise I had to run over here in order to determine what was going on. Then 1 listened with great interest to what my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre said. He is always on the ball when it comes to the legislative pussyfooting which we encounter as a result of the government's incompetence.
1 am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) should have said, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter-


Ralph Goodale: I did not say that. 1 announced it this afternoon. It is apparent you are not ready.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -we are all prepared and it was assumed that if we got rid of the Bretton Woods bill and another bill dealing with finance we would automatically move to Bill C-49." That is a lot of nonsense.


An hon. Member:: Call the bill!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Moving to Bill C-49 calls for the attention of the government House leader.


Gerald William Baldwin: And the minister.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And of the minister.
I have nothing to say against the parliamentary secretary. 1 think he knows his job. At any rate he gets paid enough for doing it. But I do not want to deal with the parliamentary secretary, and that is my right. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) would like to introduce this bill himself, primarily because of his concern about the attitude of Ontario, and that is my province. During the committee stage, which the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) was not at, the minister told the committee that it was important to look into the position of the Ontario government, because I know, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: It is 9.45.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Not quite. 1 have not finished. The problem of Ontario is one of extensive concern-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that he is off on the wrong track. He should return to the subject of the point of order.
8001 8-49V2


Employment and Immigration


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I can readily understand, Sir, that as a former engineer you have never forgotten your background, the importance of staying on the track, and 1 will try to stay on the track while I prove my point. In short, it is most unfair for the parliamentary secretary to try to bamboozle us, or blackmail us-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -and I will not stand for that kind of nonsense.


Ralph Goodale: It is because you are not ready.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION REORGANIZATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-27, to establish a Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-27, pursuant to the order made this day. We will proceed with the disposition of these motions in the order listed at the back of today's order paper, followed by motions Nos. 23 and 24 deferred this day.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the division hells having been rung.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The divisions are on the motions that have been deferred at the report stage of Bill C-27. I have some indication from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that he has a point of order concerning the combining of some votes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe that unless some combining is done, we will now have 15 votes to record. We are prepared in three cases to let the vote on one of our motions be considered as also a vote on another. The three cases are as follows: we would be prepared to have the vote on motion No. 8 to be considered as covering motion No. 10, for the vote on motion No. 11 to be considered as covering motion No. 30, and for the vote on motion No. 13 to be considered as covering motion No. 17.


Mr. Speaker:: The vote is now on motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).
The House divided on motion No. 2 (Mr. Alexander), which was negatived on the following division:
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
(Division No. 54)
Alexander
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Beatty
Blackburn
Brewin
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Coates Crosbie Crouse Darling Dick Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-
The Islands)
Ellis
Epp
Fairweather
Firth
Forrestall
Fraser
Friesen
Gilbert
Gillies
Anderson Andras (Port Arthur)
Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Basford
Bechard
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Bussieres
Caccia
Cafik
Caron
Clermont
Collenette
Comtois
Condon
Corbin
Cullen
Cyr
Dawson
Demers
Dionne
(Northumbcrland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Drury
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
++YEAS
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Qu' Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hees
Hnatyshyn Holmes Jarvis Jelinek Kempling Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Lawrence MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacKay
Masniuk
McCain
McCleave
McKinley
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ethier
Fleming
Flynn
Foster
Fox
Francis
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Goodale
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Guilbault Harquail Herbert Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Isabelle
Kaplan
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapointe
Lavoie
Leblanc
(Laurier)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Lumley
McKinnon
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Paproski
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Ritchie
Roche
Rodriguez
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Marquette)
Towers
Whiteway
Whittaker
Wise
Woolliams-(68).
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
Macdonald
(Rosedale)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Marceau
Marchand
McRae
Nicholson (Miss) O'Connell Olivier Ouellet Parent Philbrook Pinard Portelance Prud'homme Railton Reid Robinson Rompkey Rooney Roy (Laval)
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean) Stanbury Stewart (Cochrane) Turner Watson Wood Yanakis Young-(96).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare motion No. 2 lost.
The question is therefore on motion No. 7, which also disposes of motion No. 9 and motion No. 22.


The House divided on motion No. 7 (Mr. Cullen) which was agreed to on the following division:
Alexander
Anderson
Andras
(Port Arthur)
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Basford
Beatty
Bechard
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Bussieres
Caccia
Cafik
Caron
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clermont Coates Collenette Comtois Condon Corbin Crosbie Crouse Cullen Cyr Darling Dawson Demers Dick Dionne
(Division No. 55)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Francis
Fraser
Friesen
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillies
Goodale
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Guilbault
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek) Harquail Hees Herbert Hnatyshyn Holmes Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jelinek
Kaplan
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Landers Lang Laniel Lapointe Lavoie
MacGuigan
MacKay
Marceau
Marchand
Masniuk
McCain
McCleave
McKinley
McKinnon
McRae
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nicholson (Miss)
Nowlan
Oberle
O'Connell
Olivier
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Philbrook
Pigott (Mrs.)
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Railton
Reid
Ritchie
Robinson
Roche
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
(Laval)
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean) Stanbury
Employment and Immigration


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, motions Nos. 9 and 22 are also carried.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.
Motion No. 22 (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 8, which will also dispose of motion No. 10, both motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn).
The House divided on motion No. 8 (Mr. Blackburn) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 56)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Firth Gilbert Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Blackburn
Brewin
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Alexander
Andras
(Port Arthur)
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Basford
Beatty
Bechard
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Bussieres
Nystrom
Orlikow
Peters
Rodriguez-(10).
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ellis	Lavoie
Epp	Lawrence
Ethier	Leblanc
Fairweather	(Laurier)
Fleming	Lee
Flynn	Lefebvre
For restall	Loiselle
Foster	(Chambly)
Fox	Lumley
Francis	MacDonald
Fraser	(Cardigan)
Friesen	Macdonald
Gauthier	(Rosedale)
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillies
Goodale
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis)
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacEachen MacFarlane MacGuigan MacKay Marceau Marchand Masniuk McCain
(Northumberland-	Lawrence	Stanfield	caccia Cafik	Hamilton	McCleaveMiramichi)	Leblanc	Stevens	Caron	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McKinleyDouglas	(Laurier)	Stewart	Clark	Mountain)	McKinnon(Bruce-Grey)	Lee	(Marquette)	(Rocky Mountain)	Hamilton	McRaeDrury	Lefebvre	Stewart	Clermont	(Swift Current-	MitgesDuclos	Loiselle	(Cochrane)	Coates	Maple Creek)	MunroDupras	(Chambly)	Towers	Collenette	Harquail	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Duquet	Lumley	Turner	Comtois	Hees	MurtaEllis	MacDonald	Watson	Condon	Herbert	NeilEpp	(Cardigan)	Whiteway	Corbin	Hnatyshyn	Nicholson (Miss)Ethier	Macdonald	Whittaker	Crosbie	Holmes	NowlanFairweather	(Rosedale)	Wise	Crouse	Holt (Mrs.)	OberleFleming	MacDonald (Miss)	Wood	Cullen	Hopkins	O'ConnellFlynn	(Kingston and the	Woolliams	Cyr	Isabelle	OlivierForrestall	Islands)	Yanakis	Darling	Jarvis	OuelletFoster	MacEachen	Young-(153).	Dawson	Jelinek	PaproskiFox	MacFarlane	Demers	Kaplan	ParentDick	Kempling	PhilbrookDionne	Knowles	Pigott (Mrs.)NAYS	(Northumberland-	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	PinardMiramichi)	Lachance	PortelanceMessrs.	Douglas	Lajoie	Prud'homme(Bruce-Grey)	Lambert	RailtonBlackburn	Firth	Nystrom	Drury	(Edmonton West)	ReidBrewin	Gilbert	Orlikow	Duclos	Landers	RitchieDouglas	Knowles	Peters	Dupont	Lang	Robinson(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	(Winnipeg	Rodriguez-(10).	Dupras	Laniel	RocheThe Islands)	North Centre)	Duquet	Lapointe	Rompkey
Employment and Immigration
Messrs.
Rooney
Roy
(Laval)
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanbury
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Towers
Turner
Watson
Whiteway
Whittaker
Wise
Wood
Woolliams
Yanakis
Young-(153).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 10 also lost. Motion No. 10 (Mr. Blackburn) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is upon motion No. 1 1 (Mr. Rodriguez) which will also dispose of motion No. 30 in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). Mr. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Nystrom, moved:
That Bill C-27, an Act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 33 by striking out line 34 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member referred to-


An hon. Member:: Comox-Alberni.


Mr. Speaker:: -the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), had entered the Chamber wrongfully. I indicated to him on a point of order that he ought to leave the Chamber, and he did. While I was putting the question, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) sought the floor and got up on a question of privilege, during which the hon. member re-entered the Chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot have it both ways. During the putting of a question, there can be no taking of points of order or questions of privilege. During the putting of this question, I saw the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North. Surely if I am able to see him for a question of privilege I am not on the taking of a vote. We must be either taking the question of privilege or taking the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Out! Mr. Speaker: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Out!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For clarification of what is involved in putting the question, the putting of the question begins with the reading of the motion and ends when I receive the tabulation and make a declaration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
"(c) fifty-one weeks of benefit have been paid".
Those in favour of the motion will please rise.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege. There should be some clarification here about votes. A member, after he voted, and before the vote was completely tallied and the count was taken, stood up and left the Chamber. A few minutes ago he came back in and another member has gotten up and left, before the vote was announced. I think that we should know whether or not, when a vote is taken-


Some hon. Members:: Out!


Robert Carman Coates: -a member should sit in his seat-


Some hon. Members:: Out!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members should understand that there is no restriction on a member entering or leaving the Chamber during the hearing of a question of privilege; there is during the taking of a vote. The clarification that is sought is: When does the taking of the vote commence? The taking of the vote commences with the reading of the motion. I was putting the question.
The relevant Standing Order is Standing Order 12(2):
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: For your information, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 have heard the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North on his question of privilege. Order, please. For the sake of clarification in the putting of this question I am prepared to ask the hon. member to abide by the sentiment of the House but not, in my opinion, by the technical rules of the House, and leave the Chamber during the taking of this next vote.


Robert Carman Coates: If you would just hear my question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have heard the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North.


Robert Carman Coates: Hear my question!


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member was concerned with what is involved in the taking of a vote. 1 have indicated that it begins with the putting of the question and ends with my declaration of the motion being either carried or lost.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the last count is wrong. My question of privilege relates to the fact that before the last vote was completed the hon. member got up-


Some hon. Members:: Turn on the microphone!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My distinct recollection is that while I was reading the motion-


Robert Carman Coates: The second time! He has been out twice!


Mr. Speaker:: This is the first time I have been aware that the hon. member or any other hon. member has entered or left the Chamber twice. I am prepared to hear points of order.
The hon. member raised a question of privilege and asked me what was involved in the taking of a vote. And I answered him. 1 have not heard any objection that the vote is wrong up to this point. If there is one, 1 am prepared to hear it.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, during the time of the taking of the last vote the hon. member for Comox-Alberni got up and walked out of the Chamber before the vote was completed. That was why I asked to know whether or not the hon. member's vote was counted having regard to the fact he was not in the Chamber at the time the vote was completed.
Your Honour got up and read me the motion. During that period of time the hon. member walked back in and took his seat. It had nothing to do with the subject of my original question of privilege which was the fact that the hon. member did not wait until the vote was completed before walking out of the Chamber. I asked you, Sir, whether his vote was counted and whether the vote which the Clerk indicated was the vote was in fact the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Of course if the hon. member puts it to me in that way-and I cannot verify it from the Chair-if there is no argument or discussion to the contrary-


Some hon. Members:: Ask him!


Mr. Speaker:: If there is nothing said to the contrary I have to accept the hon. member's statement. I will therefore ask the Clerk whether the vote of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was registered in the division on the last motion.
The count shows that those voting against the motion included the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The undisputed information I have is that before the vote was properly announced the hon. member for Comox-Alberni left the Chamber. The record will have to show that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was not correctly recorded in the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The question now before the House is upon motion No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
The House divided on motion No. 11 (Mr. Rodriguez), which was negatived on the following division:
Employment and Immigration (Division No. 57)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Blackburn
Brewin
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Alexander Anderson Andras (Port Arthur)
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Andres (Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Basford
Beatty
Bechard
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Bussieres
Caccia
Cafik
Caron
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clermont Coates Collenette Comtois Condon Corbin Crouse Cullen Cyr Darling Dawson Demers Dick Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Drury
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ellis
Epp
Ethier
Fairweather
Fleming
Flynn
Forrestall
Foster
Fox
Firth Gilbert Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Francis
Fraser
Friesen
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillies
Goodale
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Guilbault
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek) Harquail Hees Herbert Hnatyshyn Holmes Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jelinek
Kaplan
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Landers Lang Laniel Lapointe Lavoie Lawrence Leblanc (Laurier)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Lumley MacDonald (Cardigan) Macdonald (Rosedalc) MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
Nystrom
Orlikow
Peters
Rodriguez-(10).
MacGuigan
MacKay
Marceau
Marchand
Masniuk
McCain
McCleave
McKinley
McKinnon
McRae
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nicholson (Miss)
Nowlan
Oberie
O'Connell
Olivier
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Philbrook
Pigott (Mrs.)
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Railton
Reid
Ritchie
Robinson
Roche
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
(Laval)
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanbury
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Towers
Turner
Watson
Whiteway
Whittaker
Wise
Wood
Woolliams
Yanakis
Young-(153).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motions Nos. 11 and 30 negatived.
Motion No. 30 (Mr. Symes) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question therefore is upon motion No. 15.


Employment and Immigration


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, motion No. 15 disposes of motions Nos. 29 and 32 introduced by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 13 will dispose of motion No. 17. Therefore I called motion No. 15 which precedes No. 17 in numerical order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With all due respect my understanding was that motion No. 15 disposes of motions Nos. 29 and 32.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 15 disposes of motions Nos. 29 and 32, and is in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen).
The House divided on motion No. 15 (Mr. Cullen), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 58)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Stanbury	Stewart	WhittakerStanfield	(Cochrane)	WiseStevens	Towers	WoodStewart	Turner	Woolliams(Marquette)	Watson	YanakisWhiteway	Young-(154).NAYS	Messrs.	Blackburn	Firth	NystromBrewin	Gilbert	OrlikowDouglas	Knowles	Peters(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	(Winnipeg	Rodriguez-(10).The Islands)	North Centre)


Mr. Speaker:: There has been an indication that motion No. 13 will also dispose of motion No. 17. The question therefore is on motion No. 13 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
The House divided on motion No. 13 (Mr. Orlikow) which was negatived on the following division:
Messrs.
Alexander
Anderson
Andras
(Port Arthur)
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Basford
Beatty
Bechard
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Bussieres
Caccia
Cafik
Caron
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clermont Coates Collenette Comtois Condon Corbin Crosbie Crouse Cullen Cyr Darling Dawson Demers Dick Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Drury
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ellis
Epp
Ethier
Fairweather
Fleming
Flynn
Forrestall
Foster
Fox
Francis
Fraser
Friesen
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillies
Goodale
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Guilbault
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain)
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek) Harquail Hees Herbert Hnatyshyn Holmes Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jelinek
Kaplan
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Landers Lang Laniel Lapointe Lavoie Lawrence Leblanc (Laurier)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Lumley MacDonald (Cardigan) Macdonald (Rosedale) MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
MacKay
Marceau
Marchand
Masniuk
McCain
McCleave
McKinley
McKinnon
McRae
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nicholson (Miss)
Nowlan
Oberle
O'Connell
Olivier
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Philbrook
Pigott (Mrs.)
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Railton
Reid
Ritchie
Robinson
Roche
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
(Laval)
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
(Division No. 59)
Blackburn
Brewin
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Alexander
Anderson
Andras
(Port Arthur)
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Basford
Beatty
Bechard
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Bussieres
Caccia
Cafik
Caron
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clermont Coates Collenette Comtois Condon Corbin Crosbie Crouse Cullen Cyr
++YEAS
Messrs.
Firth Gilbert Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Darling
Dawson
Demers
Dick
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Drury
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ellis
Epp
Ethier
Fairweather
Fleming
Flynn
Forrestall
Foster
Fox
Francis
Fraser
Friesen
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillies
Goodale
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis)
Guilbault
Nystrom
Orlikow
Peters
Rodriguez-(10).
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek) Harquail Hees Herbert Hnatyshyn Holmes Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jelinek
Kaplan
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Landers Lang Laniel Lapointe Lavoie Lawrence Leblanc (Laurier)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Lumley
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
[Mr. Speaker.)


Messrs.
Macdonald	Nicholson (Miss)	Schellenberger(Rosedale)	Nowlan	SchumacherMacDonald (Miss)	Oberle	Scott(Kingston and the	O'Connell	SharpIslands)	Olivier	SmithMacEachen	Ouellet	(Saint-Jean)MacFarlane	Paproski	StanburyMacGuigan	Parent	StanfieldMacKay	Philbrook	StevensMarceau	Pigott (Mrs.)	StewartMarchand	Pinard	(Marquette)Masniuk	Portelance	StewartMcCain	Prud'homme	(Cochrane)McCleave	Railton	TowersMcKinley	Reid	TurnerMcKinnon	Ritchie	WatsonMcRae	Robinson	WhitewayMitges	Roche	WhittakerMunro	Rompkey	Wise(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Rooney	WoodMurta	Roy	WoolliamsNeil	(Laval)	YanakisYoung-(154).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motions Nos. 13 and 17 lost.
Motion No. 17 (Mr. Leggatt) negatived.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the vote on motion No. 13 disposed of motion No. 17, and in light of the fact that a vote on motion No. 17 would have disposed of motion No. 6, the defeat of motions Nos. 13 and 17 wiped out motion No. 6. The question should now be put on my motion No. 16, which will dispose of motion No. 5 which is also in my name.


An hon. Member:: Say all that again.


Mr. Speaker:: The same result, then, is entered for motion No. 6 which was just entered for motions Nos. 13 and 17.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now, it is suggested, is upon motion No. 16 which will also dispose of motion No. 5. Both motions are in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am wondering about motion No. 14.


Mr. Speaker:: If there has been no change in the order of deferral of these motions, the question is now upon motion No. 14.
The House divided on motion No. 14 (Mr. Symes) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 60)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Blackburn	Douglas	Firth
Brewin	(Nanaimo-Cowichan- Gilbert
The Islands)
Employment and Immigration
	Messrs.	
Knowles	Nystrom	Peters(Winnipeg	Orlikow	Rodriguez-(10).North Centre)	NAYS	Messrs.	Alexander	Fox	MacFarlaneAnderson	Francis	MacGuiganAndras	Fraser	MacKay(Port Arthur)	Friesen	MarceauAndre	Gauthier	Marchand(Calgary Centre)	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MasniukAndres	Gendron	McCain(Lincoln)	Gillies	McCleaveAppolloni (Mrs.)	Goodale	McKinleyBaker	Goyer	McKinnon(Gander-T willingate)	Gray	McRaeBaker	Guay	Mitges(Grenville-Carleton)	(St. Boniface)	MunroBaldwin	Guay	(Esquimalt-SaiBalfour	(Levis)	MurtaBasford	Guilbault	NeilBeatty	Hamilton	Nicholson (Miss)Beehard	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	NowlanBlais	Mountain)	OberleBlaker	Hamilton	O'ConnellBlouin	(Swift Current-	OlivierBoulanger	Maple Creek)	OuelletBreau	Harquail	PaproskiBussieres	Hees	ParentCaccia	Herbert	PhilbrookCafik	Hnatyshyn	Pigott (Mrs.)Caron	Holmes	PinardClark	Holt (Mrs.)	Portelance(Rocky Mountain)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeClermont	Isabelle	RailtonCoates	Jarvis	ReidCollenette	Jelinek	RitchieComtois	Kaplan	RobinsonCondon	Kempling	RocheCorbin	Knowles	RompkeyCrosbie	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	RooneyCrouse	Lachance	RoyCullen	Lajoie	(Laval)Cyr	Lambert	SchellenbergerDarling	(Edmonton West)	SchumacherDawson	Landers	ScottDemers	Lang	SharpDick	Laniel	SmithDionne	Lapointe	(Saint-Jean)(Northumberland-	Lavoie	StanburyMiramichi)	Lawrence	StanfieldDouglas	Leblanc	Stevens(Bruce-Grey)	(Laurier)	StewartDrury	Lee	(Marquette)Duclos	Lefebvre	StewartDupont	Loiselle	(Cochrane)Dupras	(Chambly)	TowersDuquet	Lumley	TurnerEllis	MacDonald	WatsonEpp	(Cardigan)	WhitewayEthier	Macdonald	WhittakerFairweather	(Rosedale)	WiseFleming	MacDonald (Miss)	WoodFlynn	(Kingston and the	WoolliamsForrestall	Islands)	YanakisFoster	MacEachen	Young-(154).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 14 lost.
The question is on motion No. 16 which will also dispose of motion No. 5.
The House divided on motion No. 16 (Mr. Alexander) which was negatived on the following division:
7140


Employment and Immigration {Division No. 61)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alexander	Hamilton	McKinnonAndre	(Qu'Appelle- Moose	Mitges(Calgary Centre)	Mountain)	MunroBaker	Hamilton	(Esquimalt-Saanich)(Grenville-Carleton)	(Swift Current-	MurtaBaldwin	Maple Creek)	NeilBalfour	Hees	NowlanBeatty	Hnatyshyn	NystromBlackburn	Holmes	OberleBrewin	Jarvis	OrlikowClark	Jelinek	Paproski(Rocky Mountain)	Kempling	PetersCoates	Knowles	Pigott (Mrs.)Crosbie	(Winnipeg	RitchieCrouse	North Centre)	RocheDarling	Knowles	RodriguezDick	(Norfolk-Haidimand)	SchellenbergerDouglas	Lambert	Schumacher(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	(Edmonton West)	ScottThe Islands)	Lawrence	StanfieldEllis	MacDonald (Miss)	StevensEpp	(Kingston and the	StewartFairweather	Islands)	(Marquette)Firth	MacKay	TowersForrestall	Masniuk	WhitewayFraser	McCain	WhittakerFriesen	McCleave	WiseGilbert Gillies	McKinley
NAYS Messrs.	Woolliams-(68).Anderson	Duquet	LumleyAndras	Ethier	MacDonald(Port Arthur)	Fleming	(Cardigan)Andres	Flynn	Macdonald(Lincoln)	Foster	(Rosedale)Appolloni (Mrs.)	Fox	MacEachenBaker	Francis	MacFarlane(Gander-Twillingate)	Gauthier	MacGuiganBasford	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MarceauBechard	Gendron	MarchandBlais	Goodale	McRaeBlaker	Goyer	Nicholson (Miss)Blouin	Gray	O'ConnellBoulanger	Guay	OlivierBreau	(St. Boniface)	OuelletBussieres	Guay	ParentCaccia	(Levis)	PhilbrookCafik	Guilbault	PinardCaron	Harquail	PortelanceClermont	Herbert	Prud'hommeCollenette	Holt (Mrs.)	RailtonComtois	Hopkins	ReidCondon	Isabelle	RobinsonCorbin	Kaplan	RompkeyCullen	Lachance	RooneyCyr	Lajoie	RoyDawson	Landers	(Laval)Demers	Lang	SharpDionne	Laniel	Smith(Northumberland-	Lapointe	(Saint-Jean)Miramichi)	Lavoie	StanburyDouglas	Leblanc	Stewart(Bruce-Grey)	(Laurier)	(Cochrane)Drury	Lee	TurnerDuclos	Lefebvre	WatsonDupont	Loiselle	WoodDupras	(Chambly)	Yanakis Young-(96).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. This division also disposes of motion No. 5.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 18.

The House divided on motion No. 18 (Mr. Alexander) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 62)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alexander	Hamilton	McKinnonAndre	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Mitges(Calgary Centre)	Mountain)	MunroBaker	Hamilton	(Esquimalt-Saanich)(Grenville-Carleton)	(Swift Current-	MurtaBaldwin	Maple Creek)	NeilBalfour	Hees	NowlanBeatty	Hnatyshyn	NystromBlackburn	Holmes	OberleBrewin	Jarvis	OrlikowClark	Jelinek	Paproski(Rocky Mountain)	Kempling	PetersCoates	Knowles	Pigott (Mrs.)Crosbie	(Winnipeg	RitchieCrouse	North Centre)	RocheDarling	Knowles	RodriguezDick	(Norfolk-Haidimand)	SchellenbergerDouglas	Lambert	Schumacher(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	(Edmonton West)	ScottThe Islands)	Lawrence	StanfieldEllis	MacDonald (Miss)	StevensEpp	(Kingston and the	StewartFairweather	Islands)	(Marquette)Firth	MacKay	TowersForrestall	Masniuk	WhitewayFraser	McCain	WhittakerFriesen	McCleave	WiseGilbert	McKinley	Woolliams-(68).Gillies	NAYS Messrs.	Anderson	Duquet	LumleyAndras	Ethier	MacDonald(Port Arthur)	Fleming	(Cardigan)Andres	Flynn	Macdonald(Lincoln)	Foster	(Rosedale)Appolloni (Mrs.)	Fox	MacEachenBaker	Francis	MacFarlane(Gander-Twillingate)	Gauthier	MacGuiganBasford	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MarceauBechard	Gendron	MarchandBlais	Goodale	McRaeBlaker	Goyer	Nicholson (Miss)Blouin	Gray	O'ConnellBoulanger	Guay	OlivierBreau	(St. Boniface)	OuelletBussieres	Guay	ParentCaccia	(Levis)	PhilbrookCafik	Guilbault	PinardCaron	Harquail	PortelanceClermont	Herbert	Prud'hommeCollenette	Holt (Mrs.)	RailtonComtois	Hopkins	ReidCondon	Isabelle	RobinsonCorbin	Kaplan	RompkeyCullen	Lachance	RooneyCyr	Lajoie	RoyDawson	Landers	(Laval)Demers	Lang	SharpDionne	Laniel	Smith(Northumberland-	Lapointe	(Saint-Jean)Miramichi)	Lavoie	StanburyDouglas	Leblanc	Stewart(Bruce-Grey)	(Laurier)	(Cochrane)Drury	Lee	TurnerDuclos	Lefebvre	WatsonDupont	Loiselle	WoodDupras	(Chambly)	Yanakis Young-(96).
Employment and Immigration


Mr. Speaker:: I declare motion No. 18 lost.
The question is therefore on motion No. 20.
The House divided on motion No. 20 (Mr. Leggatt) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 63)
YEAS Messrs.
Firth Gilbert Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
NAYS Messrs.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 20 lost.
The question is on motion No. 21.
The House divided on motion No. 21 (Mr. Rodriguez) which was negatived on the following division:
Blackburn	(Division No. 64)
 YEAS Messrs. Firth	Nystrom
Douglas	Gilbert	Orlikow(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	Knowles	PetersThe Islands)	(Winnipeg	Rodriguez-(9).North Centre)
NAYS Messrs.	
Blackburn
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Nystrom
Orlikow
Peters
Rodriguez-(9).
Alexander	Fox	MacFarlaneAnderson	Francis	MacGuiganAndras	Fraser	MacKay(Port Arthur)	Friesen	MarceauAndre	Gauthier	Marchand(Calgary Centre)	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MasniukAndres	Gendron	McCain(Lincoln)	Gillies	McCleaveAppolloni (Mrs.)	Goodale	McKinleyBaker	Goyer	McKinnon(Gander-T willingate)	Gray	McRaeBaker	Guay	Mitges(Grenville-Carleton)	(St. Boniface)	MunroBaldwin	Guay	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Balfour	(Levis)	MurtaBasford	Guilbault	NeilBeatty	Hamilton	Nicholson (Miss)Bechard	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	NowlanBlais	Mountain)	OberleBlaker	Hamilton	O'ConnellBlouin	(Swift Current-	OlivierBoulanger	Maple Creek)	OuelletBreau	Harquail	PaproskiBussieres	Hees	ParentCaccia	Herbert	PhilbrookCafik	Hnatyshyn	Pigott (Mrs.)Caron	Holmes	PinardClark	Holt (Mrs.)	Portelance(Rocky Mountain)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeClermont	Isabelle	RailtonCoates	Jarvis	ReidCollenette	Jelinek	RitchieComtois	Kaplan	RobinsonCondon	Kempling	RocheCorbin	Knowles	RompkeyCrosbie	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	RooneyCrouse	Lachance	RoyCullen	Lajoie	(Laval)Cyr	Lambert	SchellenbergerDarling	(Edmonton West)	SchumacherDawson	Landers	ScottDemers	Lang	SharpDick	Laniel	SmithDionne	Lapointe	(Saint-Jean)(Northumberland-	Lavoie	StanburyMiramichi)	Lawrence	StanfieldDouglas	Leblanc	Stevens(Bruce-Grey)	(Laurier)	StewartDrury	Lee	(Marquette)Duclos	Lefebvre	StewartDupont	Loiselle	(Cochrane)Dupras	(Chambly)	TowersDuquet	Lumley	TurnerEllis	MacDonald	WatsonEpp	(Cardigan)	WhitewayEthier	Macdonald	WhittakerFairweather	(Rosedale)	WiseFleming	MacDonald (Miss)	WoodFlynn	(Kingston and the	WoolliamsForrestall	Islands)	YanakisFoster	MacEachen	Young-(154).Alexander	Fox	MacFarlaneAnderson	Francis	MacGuiganAndras	Fraser	MacKay(Port Arthur)	Friesen	MarceauAndre	Gauthier	Marchand(Calgary Centre)	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MasniukAndres	Gendron	McCain(Lincoln)	Gillies	McCleaveAppolloni (Mrs.)	Goodale	McKinleyBaker	Goyer	McKinnon(Gander-Twillingate)	Gray	McRaeBaker	Guay	Mitges(Grenville-Carleton)	(St. Boniface)	MunroBaldwin	Guay	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Balfour	(Levis)	MurtaBasford	Guilbault	NeilBeatty	Hamilton	Nicholson (Miss)Bechard	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	NowlanBlais	Mountain)	OberleBlaker	Hamilton	O'ConnellBlouin	(Swift Current-	OlivierBoulanger	Maple Creek)	OuelletBreau	Harquail	PaproskiBussieres	Hees	ParentCaccia	Herbert	PhilbrookCafik	Hnatyshyn	Pigott (Mrs.)Caron	Holmes	PinardClark	Holt (Mrs.)	Portelance(Rocky Mountain)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeClermont	Isabelle	RailtonCoates	Jarvis	ReidCollenette	Jelinek	RitchieComtois	Kaplan	RobinsonCondon	Kempling	RocheCorbin	Knowles	RompkeyCrosbie	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	RooneyCrouse	Lachance	RoyCullen	Lajoie	(Laval)Cyr	Lambert	SchellenbergerDarling	(Edmonton West)	SchumacherDawson	Landers	ScottDemers	Lang	SharpDick	Laniel	SmithDionne	Lapointe	(Saint-Jean)(Northumberland-	Lavoie	StanburyMiramichi)	Lawrence	StanfieldDouglas	Leblanc	Stevens(Bruce-Grey)	(Laurier)	StewartDrury	Lee	(Marquette)Duclos	Lefebvre	StewartDupont	Loiselle	(Cochrane)Dupras	(Chambly)	TowersDuquet	Lumley	TurnerEllis	MacDonald	WatsonEpp	(Cardigan)	WhitewayEthier	Macdonald	WhittakerFairweather	(Rosedale)	WiseFleming	MacDonald (Miss)	WoodFlynn	(Kingston and the	WoolliamsForrestall	Islands)	YanakisFoster	MacEachen	Young-(154).
80018-50%


Employment and Immigration


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 21 lost.
The question is on motion No. 23, in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
The House divided on motion No. 23 (Mr. Nystrom) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 65)
++YEAS


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 23 lost.
The question is on motion No. 24, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).
The House divided on motion No. 24 (Mr. Alexander) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 66)
++YEAS
Alexander
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Beatty
Blackburn
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Coates Crosbie Crouse Darling Dick Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-
The Islands)
Ellis
Epp
Fairweather
Firth
Forrestall
Fraser
Friesen
Gilbert
Gillies
Anderson
Andras
(Port Arthur)
Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate) Basford Beehard Blais Blaker Blouin Boulanger Breau Bussieres Caccia Cafik Caron Clermont Collenette Comtois Condon Corbin Cullen Cyr Dawson Demers Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Drury
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hees
Hnatyshyn Holmes Jarvis Jelinek Kempling Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Lawrence MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacKay
Masniuk
McCain
McCleave
McKinley
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ethier
Fleming
Flynn
Foster
Fox
Francis
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Goodale
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Guilbault Harquail Herbert Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Isabelle
Kaplan
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapointe
Lavoie
Leblanc
(Laurier)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Lumley
McKinnon
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Paproski
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Ritchie
Roche
Rodriguez
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Marquette)
Towers
Whiteway
Whittaker
Wise
Woolliams-(67).
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
Macdonald
(Rosedale)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Marceau
Marchand
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
O'Connell
Olivier
Ouellet
Parent
Phil brook
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Railton
Reid
Robinson
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
(Laval)
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean) Stanbury Stewart (Cochrane) Turner Watson Wood Yanakis Young-(96).
Alexander
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Beatty
Blackburn
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Coates Crosbie Crouse Darling Dick Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-
The Islands)
Ellis
Epp
Fairweather
Firth
Forrestall
Fraser
Friesen
Gilbert
Gillies
Anderson
Andras
(Port Arthur)
Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Basford
Bechard
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Bussidres
Caccia
Cafik
Caron
Clermont
Collenette
Comtois
Condon
Corbin
Cullen
Cyr
Dawson
Demers
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Drury
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hees
Hnatyshyn Holmes Jarvis Jelinek Kempling Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Lawrence MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacKay
Masniuk
McCain
McCleave
McKinley
++NAYS
Messrs.
Ethier
Fleming
Flynn
Foster
Fox
Francis
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Goodale
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Guilbault Harquail Herbert Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Isabelle
Kaplan
Lachance
Lajoie
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapointe
Lavoie
Leblanc
(Laurier)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Lumley
McKinnon
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Paproski
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Ritchie
Roche
Rodriguez
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Marquette)
Towers
Whiteway
Whittaker
Wise
Woolliams-(67).
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
Macdonald
(Rosedale)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Marceau
Marchand
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
O'Connell
Olivier
Ouellet
Parent
Philbrook
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Railton
Reid
Robinson
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
(Laval)
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean) Stanbury Stewart (Cochrane) Turner Watson Wood Yanakis Young-(96).



Business of the House
s (2330)


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 therefore declare motion No. 24 lost.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that Bill C-27, to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: At the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Because of the unfortunate circumstance which has caused a change in the usual House sittings for tomorrow, is the government House leader prepared to tell us what we will be dealing with tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock, and at eight o'clock tomorrow night?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in the morning we will deal will Bill S-3, Bill C-26, and Bill C-38. If we dispose of those in the morning, in the evening we will deal with Bill C-49, Bill C-20, and Bill C-51.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being after 10:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 11:38 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.


Tuesday, June 28, 1977