1977-04-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the revelation that a Dutch businessman has been a principal recipient of Polysar rebates to the amount of $3 million. In view of the fact that this could involve a corporation owned by the government of Canada in aiding and abetting criminal activity, contrary to the interests of one of this country's NATO allies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to call upon the RCMP to investigate the case and give the fullest possible co-operation to the Dutch authorities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED REVIEW OF DECISION AFFECTING EMPLOYEES OF WINNIPEG HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which some of us believe to be very urgent, and which is urgent particularly to all who wish to end sex discrimination in employment and to all who believe in the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House, noting that the rollback by the Anti-Inflation Board of the wage settlement recently achieved by the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre and its employees as represented by local 1550 of the Canadian Public Employees Union constitutes a denial of equal rights between men and women, and a denial
of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, calls on the government to give evidence of its belief in both of these principles by ordering an immediate review of this discriminatory decision by the Anti-Inflation Board.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GODERICH
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that 1977 is the 150th anniversary of the town of Goderich and that this flag on my desk today was made to commemorate this event, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House extend congratulations to the town of Goderich on this occasion of their 150th anniversary and that all Canadians should be invited to attend the celebrations so that they can join in the pioneering spirit which has been a part of this town since its founding 150 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. Because the lack of government response to the intensifying drought across the western prairies, added to the ruinous prices for cattle and grain, is leading to a full scale disaster, and because no other area of Canada is so completely dependent upon the fluctuations in the export market, and nowhere in Canada is production so dependent upon the vagaries of the climate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Prime Minister and his cabinet members take appropriate action to have the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act put back under the jurisdiction of the

April 26, 1977
Grain
Minister of Agriculture and that the Minister of Agriculture call a a meeting of his provincial counterparts and with the PFRA work out a program of deep water well drilling and water pumping so that adequate supplies will be available for communities and agriculture if the drought continues.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSERVATION POLICY AND DEBATE ON NEED FOR MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-MOTION UNDER S.O.
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the chairman of our national energy company, Petro-Canada, last week criticized the government's lack of action on a national energy policy, and referred to it as a process of ad hoc decisions which may well lead us down a path of no return to an energy future for which coming generations may have little to thank us, and in view of the strong leadership shown on this matter by President Carter, after being in office barely four months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this government move from ad hoc decision-making in the area of conservation, as well as other aspects of energy policy, to laying out a full and comprehensive policy which would include letting parliament debate on behalf of the people of Canada, whether a pipeline should be built from the Mackenzie Valley.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED QUOTAS AND DELIVERY SPACE IN ELEVATORS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I request leave to move a motion to discuss a matter of most urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the tight economic situation in many parts of Saskatchewan brought about by the low final payment, which in many cases amounted to one per cent per bushel; the drought situation in western Canada causing businesses to deny credit, the banks to deny loans on cattle because of depressed prices; and the inability of farmers to deliver grain since boxcars are not being

spotted because of the low protein content of grain in many of the areas, and many elevators not shipping any grain since last November now being told that they will have to wait until the shipping season in Churchill commences some time toward the end of July, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the Wheat Board immediately increase the quota and provide boxcars and delivery space to elevators in order that farmers may meet their cash requirements for spring seeding and not delay deliveries until it is convenient for the administration but not the farmer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In light of a CBC report last evening allegedly identifying a Dutch businessman, Mr. Marsman, as the recipient of some $3 million in rebates from the practice of inflating invoices by Polysar, and in view of the warning given to the Prime Minister in March, 1973 by the former Auditor General that Polymer and its subsidiary may be contingently liable for aiding and abetting such transactions if the customers concerned are apprehended by their respective national authorities, what action has the Prime Minister initiated on a government-to-government basis with the Netherlands to determine if a subsidiary of a Canadian Crown corporation is being investigated by a foreign government for illegal or questionable practices?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the specific question, there has not been a government to government contact in this regard. What has happened is that over some two months ago the government directors on the Canada Development Corporation communicated to the board of the CDC the Prime Minister's guidelines with respect to conduct of Crown corporations. These in turn, were communicated by CDC to Polysar which has issued instructions to all of its employees that any such practices should cease, that there should be an immediate investigation of the facts alleged and that disciplinary action should be taken against any employees found to be in breach of the guidelines. On that basis I have been in communication with the CDC this morning. At the point of speaking, I have not had a report back as to this particular incident, although the investigation is underway within Polysar.
April 26, 1977


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I might ask the Prime Minister if he refuses to answer the question through lack of interest or lack of knowledge.


Mr. Trudeau:: Both.


Some hon. Members:: Both.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I will pose another question to the Minister of Finance. Given that in a report to the directors of Polysar prepared by Mr. Justice Aylesworth and Mr. David Stanley which referred to the questionable practices of "customer M", will the minister confirm that this "customer M" is Mr. Marsman? In view of the fact that Mr. "customer M" was possibly using PISA, and I quote from the report, "as a vehicle to facilitate exchange control violation, tax evasion or to defrauding minority interests", will the minister or the Prime Minister give instructions to the RCMP immediately to initiate an investigation into the possibility that some of the kicked-back funds from this transaction found their way back to Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my response to the previous question, I have not had a specific report back through CDC with regard to the individual name. With respect to transactions which occurred outside of Canada between a subsidiary of the Canadian company and a foreign national, I would have to see to what extent the jurisdiction of the Mounted Police could extend. To the extent there might have been any wrongdoing in Canada, I would be prepared to have a further inquiry made either by the police or through the CDC as the case might be appropriate.


SUGGESTED RELEASE OF IDENTITIES OF CUSTOMERS CITED IN AYLESWORTH-STANLEY REPORT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, seeing that we are not getting very far on this question, I suppose I might ask the minister if the government is prepared to give Mr. Maxwell Henderson the Order of Canada for having brought all of these transactions to light.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Given the fact that after months of extensive questioning by the Public Accounts committee, officers of Polysar Corporation refused to reveal the names of customers involved in these questionable practices and it took a CBC press report to bring this information to public attention, and in view of the fact that the government, as a majority shareholder in Polysar, has the power to end immediately this cover-up, will the minister put an end to the morally untenable stand of assisting these lawbreakers by concealing their identities and act immediately to release the names and identities of all of the customers cited in the Aylesworth-Stanley report?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to a number of customers and
Oral Questions
has already condemned them as being lawbreakers. I would be more cautious in that respect as to whether there has been a breach of Canadian or any other law. With regard to the evidence given by the officers of Polysar, we have asked the CDC to seek from Polysar their full cooperation with the committee. I am prepared to renew that request.


POSSIBILITY OF ACTION AGAINST COMPANY BY NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance on the same topic. I was not quite sure whether the minister had a communication with the directors of the company or management of the company. In any event, in that communication was any information given to the minister that the government of the Netherlands is going to take action against Polysar and its subsidiaries because of the revelation that there has been an evasion of tax as a result of the way in which the Canadian company operated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the communication was through one of the government directors of the Canada Development Corporation which is the parent company of Polysar. There was no indication as the result of these discussions that legal action was pending against anyone at this point, although I would recognize that if a Dutch national or any other person operating in Holland had broken the law of the Netherlands, of course there would be the possibility of action.


ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYEES GRANTING ILLEGAL REBATES
James McPhail Gillies: My supplementary question to the minister is on the same topic. As principal shareholder of CDC, will the government of Canada, through its directors in CDC, ask the management of CDC to take action against the employees of Polysar who were engaged in these nefarious activities?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I
indicated in response to the first question, CDC requested the management of Polysar to do that over two months ago.


James McPhail Gillies: This is directed again to the minister and it is for clarification. I thought that in the answer the minister gave on this topic a moment ago he referred to future actions and the guidelines that were brought down a few months ago. What I am asking today is whether the government, as the principal shareholder of CDC and in protection of all shareholders, will ask Polysar, through the management of CDC, to take action against those people who have engaged in what now has been determined as illegal practices in other countries so that this sort of thing will not happen again? I am referring to the past, not the future.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was in relation to the past that I indicated an inquiry should be undertaken and is to be

April 26, 1977
Oral Questions
undertaken by Polysar with respect to its own employees. Any employees who are found to have engaged in improper conduct are to be disciplined. Just to make it quite clear to the hon. gentleman, such practices are to be brought to an end, and in relation to past facts there is to be an inquiry and disciplining.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It arises from the oil blowout in the North Sea and from the recommendation made by the deputy minister of the Department of the Environment not to renew drilling in the Beaufort Sea during the coming summer. Would the minister confirm that Dome Petroleum lost control of a well in the Beaufort Sea last summer as a direct result of the government reducing its standards for blowout control and, related to that, would the minister confirm that Dome has not yet been able to seal off completely the hole in question?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: The hon. member is obviously referring to the testimony given to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry by the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Edgeworth, expressing the preference that drilling should be delayed until such time as better engineering techniques are developed, which could be quite a few years down the road. As I said yesterday, these problems have to be weighed against other factors, and this is exactly what we are endeavouring to do before deciding on the renewal of the permit.
As to the matter of reducing standards, I am not familiar with that part of the hon. member's question. Certainly we are looking at imposing additional conditions on drilling, if drilling is to take place, and that will be the subject of our discussions. I am not acquainted with the suggestion that the well is still out of control. That has not been reported to me.


John Edward Broadbent: For the minister's information, the government did reduce its standards of control last summer and the blowout that occurred was not adequately sealed. That information is available through other government agencies.
I should like to ask the minister, considering that his department has authorized in the past month several million dollars to be spent over a period of time on research into dealing with oil spills specifically in the Arctic, whether he would not agree that the allocation of this large sum of money is an explicit acknowledgement that the technology for control of a blowout once it occurs in the Arctic is not yet adequate, and if he agrees that this is an acknowledgement of it, why is he hesitating in terms of recommending to the government not to proceed with further drilling until we have adequate control techniques?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the allocation of resources mentioned by the hon. member is in relation to the whole program of exploration and the knowledge and capacity to exercise control if and when drilling does take place. I do not see that program as being only involved in containing oil spills. That is obviously something in which the Minister of Transport, myself and other departments would be involved. I should make clear to the hon. member that our approach to drilling in the north is one of worry and caution and of underlining the dangers involved. There is no way-and I think the hon. member said this yesterday in a television interview-to have an absolutely fool-proof system.


IDENTITY OF GROUP ADVISING CONTINUED DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. For the benefit of hon. members of this House would the minister acknowledge that the group of people who recommended to the government last summer that it reduce its control standards, which led ultimately and directly to the failure to control the blowout which occurred last year in the Beaufort Sea, is precisely the same group which has now recommended to the government that further drilling be permitted over a five year period?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm that.

[ Translation]


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Considering that our prison directors have lost a great part of their authority and control over penitentiaries, that some locals of the union of penitentiary employees wield the real control over those institutions through the use of intimidation and violence, and considering that this Parliament has established a sub-committee of 13 members to find solutions to that problem, could the Solicitor General, before the report of the sub-committee is introduced in the House, give us any good reasons for the signature of the new labour contract with the union, for that contract substantially reduces the authority of the director of the institution and therefore officially endorses the anarchy and loss of control we observe in some prisons?
April 26, 1977


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, if 1 understand the hon. member correctly, he is suggesting that the collective labour contract signed by the Canadian Penitentiary Service and the Public Service Alliance should not have been signed during the parliamentary inquiry. Obviously I cannot support that statement. I am eagerly awaiting the recommendations the parliamentary committee will see fit to submit and I shall be willing to consider them very sympathetically, for that committee has already discussed for long hours and very seriously the problems of the Canadian penitentiary system.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES PRIOR TO REPORT OF COMMITTEE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
Could the Solicitor General tell the House why he keeps on announcing the building of new penitentiaries in Canada, since the committee has not yet completed its report and will make suggestions about new construction?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that if I announce the building of new penitentiaries in Canada, this is because the inmate population has increased considerably in recent years. We do not choose those who become inmates, they are referred to us by the courts after their cases have been considered. Concerning the parliamentary committee's recommendations, it goes again without saying, Mr. Speaker, that when I announce a new penitentiary will be built on a particular site, from a timing viewpoint it does not prevent me at all from mentioning and taking into consideration the practical recommendations made to me by the committee looking into the penitentiary issue, which is expected to report to me on May 13. At that time, I will obviously be able to take into consideration the construction of penitentiaries.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Solicitor General can report briefly to the House on the incident which took place in Montreal in which a security man outside the Cuban consulate threatened a CBC camera crew with a gun while the crew was trying to elicit some information in a background way concerning many things with regard to Cuba as well as the disappearance of the Canadian journalist, Douglas Newby, in Angola.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, on April 22 last I understand that two CBC employees were challenged by a Barnes security guard as they began to photograph the Cuban consulate in Montreal. As 1 understand
Oral Questions
it, the Barnes security guard at the consulate was under contract with the Department of External Affairs. The hon. member raised the question as to why they were carrying guns. I understand that the security guards in question are special constables under provincial legislation in the province of Quebec. Be that as it may the whole situation is presently being investigated by the Montreal urban community policy who are charged with investigating this matter. The matter is also being investigated by "C" Division in Montreal of the RCMP, whose function it is to monitor the activities of the Barnes security guard, as that relates to the protection of foreign property and residences in that area.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister about the matter of the missing Canadian journalist, Douglas Newby, which concerned the CBC at the time. The vice-consul at our embassy in Kinshasa has indicated that the international Red Cross have not been able to help in locating Douglas Newby, who has been missing in Angola. Their letter of June 16, 1976 says that there is a Cuban embassy in Kinshasa, but they would not be in a position to be of any help to us. In view of the longstanding nature of this affair involving the disappearance of Mr. Newby, I wonder if the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs has discovered why Cuba, which was so important and prominently involved in Angola, was not able to help us. Is there any new information which could be of assistance to the family of Douglas Newby?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I do not have that information before me, but I will be glad to make fresh inquiries, and communicate with the hon. member.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Solicitor General, to whom I gave advance notice of this matter. Since Mr. Peter Treu, formerly of Northern Electric in Montreal, is currently being tried in an in-camera trial for allegedly passing documentation concerning classified NORAD information to Chinese officials, thereby breaching the Official Secrets Act, could the minister shed some light on this matter, by perhaps first advising this House whether or not the RCMP have

April 26, 1977
Oral Questions
uncovered specific information on the recipients of the documentation, and if all such documentation has been recovered?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the charge under the Official Secrets Act was authorized by myself. The matter has gone through preliminary hearing in the city of Montreal and is currently at trial. The trial is being held in-camera, by order of the judge. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to add in this House or elsewhere any statements which might compromise the outcome of the trial.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, who could be asked to confirm if there will be equipment changes in NORAD defence communications as a result of this case, may I direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the seriousness of this situation, which is compounded by potentially costly defence communications alterations, and seeing that this is not the first case in recent years which the government has taken pains to cover up, I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell the House if it has become government policy to hide unpleasant incidents involving foreign officials, such as not announcing the latest expulsion of so-called Soviet diplomats. That was another event.


Mr. Paproski:: Yes, and what about the two DC-8's?


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Last Saturday we read in a news release put out by the taxation section of her department that the minister wants to have her own security service branch. Naturally this would mean increasing the staff of the department. Can she tell the House whether that is really her intention and whether she has accepted the recommendation of her officials to organize her own security system, or whether she has consulted her colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services; and tell us why there has been dissatisfaction within her department with regard to the services given for years? In addition, can she say whether the level of salaries paid is a consideration, and whether she is willing to see her staff increased by 50 employees or more merely to ensure the security of files during the night and over weekends?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, as minister I recently signed the next estimates of my department and I do not recall having signed anything to increase, by fifty employees, our security staff. Government policy does not provide for increasing office staff when private services already exist in a particular field such as this. I did not read the news release of my department but an article published in the Ottawa Journal on Saturday in this regard; this morning I asked department employees to prepare a report on this problem. According to the newspaper, such government policy might give rise to conflicts in that some contracts might offer security at a lower cost, while creating problems of fair wages such as the hon. member mentioned. As soon as I have a report, I shall therefore advise him of the conclusions arrived at.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
It is unfortunate that the minister's colleague is not in the House this afternoon because I could also have asked him whether the policy enunciated in last Saturday's news release is the scapegoat of different departments. With this policy the Minister of Supply and Services seems to seek to establish in the public service a security system which, of course, would require hundreds of new employees, extravagant salaries and expenses which have not been made available by the President of the Treasury Board.


Miss B6gin:: Mr. Speaker, I venture to assure personally the hon. member that I am going to discuss this matter not only with my officials, as I already mentioned, but also with my two colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Supply and Services.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. What action has the government taken, and with what result, following the reported detention by authorities in Czechoslovakia of the Canadian journalist, Peter Calamai, and seizure of his notes? This would seem clearly to be an intolerable breach of the Helsinki Agreements and an affront to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the journalist in question was intercepted by Czech authorities and his notes were taken away. The Canadian embassy in Prague was not clear as to the basis upon which this action was taken and is pressing for a further explanation. On the basis of that
April 26, 1977

information, once it is received, we will be able to decide what further action to take.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. What plans has the minister in hand for deep well drilling or water pumping, to ensure adequate water supplies for small communities and agriculture in the drought areas of western Canada, and has he ensured that information on assistance is readily available to the public?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, of course we have kept a close watch on the drought situation prevailing in the prairies during the last months and weeks and the staff of the well-known agency established under the PFRA is well aware of existing conditions. Along with the provincial authorities of the three prairie provinces and the Department of Agriculture, in recent weeks we have worked out the necessary measures and mechanisms which will help deal with this situation, such as transportation of reservoir water to citizens who need this kind of help. As the hon. member surely knows, we have also taken part in sinking 90,000 wells to ensure an adequate agricultural water supply. I think we have done everything humanely possible in the circumstances, but we continue to offer assistance and co-operation as well as available technologies to the communities of the three prairie provinces with the full support of three provincial governments.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that this drought is so widespread from B.C. to Ontario and that the problem is primarily agricultural, would the Minister of Agriculture call a meeting of the provincial ministers of agriculture and bring in the PFRA and lay down a program to give the farmers some peace of mind in their attempts to save and protect nine million head of beef cattle on the prairies this year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have done this very thing. Last week we met with the four provincial deputy ministers who were in Ottawa. My officials
Oral Questions
spent several weeks preparing a program which we think is the type which should be used in western Canada, along with the co-operation of my colleague in charge of DREE who has responsibility for PFRA. This is a very close working interdepartmental group. We also have people from the environment department involved as well as the provincial authorities. They have proposed all of these things. From what some of the provincial authorities have said, it seems they are of the opinion my prayers are going to work and that we may not have to use all these measures. They still feel there is time for this situation to be corrected before we are put in the position where things get worse than they are at the present time. So I do not know how much further they can go on that. However, we are very concerned about the situation. We realize the importance of the beef and grain industries, and I am submitting a paper on the question to my colleagues in cabinet this week.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of this recital of all the things that have been done, would the minister tell the farmers what is on tap so that they know what is available and can stop their worrying?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the minister in charge of regional economic expansion, recited some of the things being done. I gather from the discussions which took place between the provincial authorities, and are taking place at all times, that we have set up a headquarters for the purpose of getting information. They do not want to create real fear which some people seem to want to create among the farmers, because they do not think they have yet reached that stage. They think that we should move slowly and surely. They do not think it has reached the stage of catastrophe, as some others think it has. I have talked to western members of parliament about the situation to get First hand information on conditions. I have also talked to my colleagues in cabinet who are from the prairies. I will be discussing the matter with the new Minister without Portfolio from Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -and I hope to get some further details.


Mr. Fairweather:: I thought the rainmaker was in the Senate.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED REVIEW OF DECISION AFFECTING EMPLOYEES OF WINNIPEG HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the rollback effected by the Anti-Inflation Board with respect to the settlement achieved by way of a collective agreement between the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre and the more than 1,300 of its employees who are represented by
4990

April 26, 1977
Oral Questions
local 1550 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. In view of the fact that the main purpose of this settlement was to upgrade the wages and salaries of female employees and thus achieve a step toward the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, will the minister have this matter looked at in the hope that this settlement will be allowed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for providing me with the details of the board's decision. I will be glad to explore further with the board the reasons for their conclusion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister discusses the matter with the board, will he draw the board's attention in particular to the fact that one of the guidelines on which it is supposed to operate is that there can be exceptions to eliminate sex discrimination in pay practices; and would he also remind the board that the government has before the House right now legislation to establish equal rights between men and women and to establish equal pay for work of equal value?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


DROUGHT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which is supplementary to ones asked previously this afternoon in connection with the drought in Manitoba. Since the drought in Manitoba at the present time is the worst in memory and. if it continues for more than a month, will constitute a major disaster for the province of Manitoba, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the federal government is prepared to give aid under the disaster financial assistance program if requested by the province of Manitoba at some future time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this disaster policy does apply in areas where there is no form of assistance but, as the hon. member knows, in this case there are other remedies such as crop insurance, the grain stabilization act, and so on.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Since the type of disaster that we are talking about will not be covered by the grain stabilization program and some of the other programs mentioned today, but assistance will be needed as a result of the immediate need created by the drought, I wonder whether the province of Manitoba has been in touch with the government or whether the premier has been in touch with the Prime Minister, whether there were discussions when the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg on this particular matter, and what was the outcome of those discussions? In other words, has the Prime Minister given his assurance that there will be help forthcoming?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when I met with Premier Schreyer this question was raised and I gave him substantially the same answer which I gave the hon. member a moment ago.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Now that the presence of the Liberal patronage system has been well established in the B.C. north coast ferry issue, I would ask the Minister of Transport why, at a meeting called last summer to discuss this matter, Roger Marsham, director general of the water transport division, asked Mr. Cecil Cosulich, Rivtow president, to convene a meeting and specifically asked representatives of Northland Navigation not to attend?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of any such meeting but I do object to the allegations of the hon. member, particularly to his involving a public servant who was certainly doing his duty over a period of time by consulting widely with people knowledgeable in the freight and passenger ferry services in that area. I think the hon. member should withdraw any imputation against a public servant.


SUGGESTION RIVTOW GIVEN BASE FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC FROM KITIMAT
Benno Friesen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of Transport owes it to the House to tell us why Roger Marsham asked Northland Navigation not to attend that meeting. May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Will the minister confirm that much of the interest in this whole issue centres on freight as it relates to Kitimat, even though Northland was never subsidized for that service, that Rivtow has never had a base of freight operations there but did mainly log towing, ship berthing and moving bulk commodities such as lime rock and does not even have its own docking facilities, and that part of the whole scenario is designed to provide for Rivtow a base for the future expanding rail and road freight business out of Kitimat?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not accurate, nor are a lot of the other statements of the hon. member. As I said in answer to the earlier question, I do not know the details of the particular meeting to which the hon. member refers so I cannot confirm who was invited or who was not invited. However, I do say quite simply that in the course of developing the facts and making an analysis of the west coast shipping situation, obviously there was a good deal of consultation with a great number of firms, which may have been in different groups and
April 26, 1977

combinations-and there is nothing wrong with that. I say again that it is quite wrong for a member to abuse the House in this fashion by impugning a civil servant in this way.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Is it true that during his recent stay in Quebec, the Canadian ambassador in Poland has been told by government authorities in Quebec that he was not welcome on the territory of the province of Quebec and that this would have happened during the course of the last negotiations which were held for building four Polish vessels by Marine Industries Limited in Sorel?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 
NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I understand that the hearings of the National Energy Board have been extended to 11 'h hours a day thus reducing the opportunity of interested parties to take part in those hearings in any useful and positive way. I wonder if the minister would not take up with the board the fact that UVi hours a day of hearings is not a useful way in which to conduct the public business.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member recognizes, of course, the independence of the board in view of its quasi-judicial status, and the sensitivity of any intervention at this stage of its hearings. However, I will undertake to convey to them the representations which are included in the hon. member's question.
Oral Questions


REQUIREMENT THAT INTERVENERS INDICATE COST AND STAFF NEEDED TO PRESENT CASE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister, when he is raising that particular aspect of its proceedings with the National Energy Board, will also inquire as to whether the board is requiring of all those who appear before it as interveners to indicate the exact cost and the extent to which staff is required in order for presentations to be made. I think the minister will well realize there is some question as to whether the hearings are being faced with a situation in which there are presentations suffering from some degree of inequality, simply because some interest before the board may have to have a good deal of financial and other resources in order to present their case.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will make sure the board's attention is drawn to that particular question at the same time.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, further to the answers he gave me last week on the fate of the Labrador Linerboard Mill which is going to affect over 2,000 jobs in the province with the highest unemployment in Canada. I wonder if the minister, after the meetings he had with the premier and other cabinet ministers, could indicate if a commitment has been made to the provincial government to help rehabilitate that industry, or what decisions have been made with regard to the advisory group reports which have come out and which the officials have read.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately there was no specific decision arrived at as to how we can assist this particular industry to remain in operation. As the hon. gentleman already knows very well, we are waiting for that report which is supposed to be tabled with the provincial government within a few days. In light of that report, my department has already indicated to the provincial government that we are prepared to do our utmost to assist in any way that we might feel was justified, or at least to create other opportunities by bringing in some new industries or other types of industries that might possibly be brought into the picture. At this point, I cannot be more precise.
80012-37'/z
Oral Questions MANPOWER

April 26, 1977


THREATENED CLOSURE OF LABRADOR LINERBOARD MILL-MEASURES TO AID EMPLOYEES
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The minister indicated last week that he will provide all the services of the Department of Manpower for the revitalization of the workers if the industry does indeed fail. I wonder if the minister could indicate if he has already taken action towards this end and has he advised his officials in the province to look into the matter of the closure of the mill which will affect some of the employees. What action has he taken as a result of the answer and promise he made?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, because of the wide publicity given to this particular matter in Newfoundland, my officials did not need to be advised. We are on top of it, in fact. We did indicate to the company and to the provincial government that our manpower consultant services were available to them. They have not taken us up on that particular offer. Also, the emergency response under the Canada Works program may be an area where we may be of some help, as it befits the criteria.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In connection with reports ,of irregularities in tender awards for operation of certain west coast ports, I would like to ask if the National Harbours Board has been permitted to ignore section 13(2) of its Act and open tenders in private? Is it now the policy to refuse all bids and then within weeks to award contracts to individual companies without reopening tenders?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that practice. If the hon. member has more specific details of the case to which he is referring, I would be glad to look into it.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I would like to return to a favourite subject, namely the question of decentralization of government services which I have been pursuing for many months. If immediate action was taken on this subject, it would have a tendency to assist the vast army of unemployed on Cape Breton Island.

Can the minister advise if we are any closer to a decision today than we were on March 7 when the minister advised me that he would like to make an announcement very quickly, to use his terminology?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement very quickly, but I am faced with an added problem now. As you know, the program called for decentralization in all the poorest parts of Canada, including the maritimes and Quebec. In view of the present difficulties with the language bill in Quebec, I have to see what is going to happen on that score. I am committed to the hon. members on the other side. All I can do is have one announcement for them all.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could the minister tell us whether discussions were held between his department and the Quebec state ministry for development concerning the rebuilding of Route 117, the only one which links northwest Quebec to the Montreal area and which has been in a state of disrepair for several years?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I can say that discussions were initiated in this regard. We have held discussions with the provincial government about several stretches of the Quebec road system which could be eligible for assistance from my department, but as regards Route 117, to which the hon. member referred, it is only recently that this project was brought to our attention by Quebec transport officials.


Armand Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell the House whether northwest Quebec residents may expect the federal government to contribute financially to repair this road, either through his department or otherwise?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, as I just told the hon. member, we are just undertaking to examine this proposition, and there is still a problem, that is to what extent we can grant funds for the improvement of the road system in any province. So, I will therefore have to wait for at least several weeks before I would be able to decide on this project and tell the hon. member to what extent we will be able to contribute to those improvements.
April 26, 1977


POSSIBILITY HOCKEY TEAM RETURNING TO CANADA PRIOR TO END OF INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION-SUGGESTED CHANGE IN CHOOSING TEAM
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question. In light of the rumours coming out of Europe that the team under the aegis of Hockey Canada is thinking of returning, could the Prime Minister assure us that this will not happen? It obviously will jeopardize any international games we might have, such as Cup Canada or other international tournaments.
Would he indicate also whether any efforts are being made now to negotiate with the National Hockey League to make arrangements either to have the time changed to allow better hockey players to participate or to instruct Hockey Canada to embark on a different system of choosing our Hockey Canada representatives?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would inform the hon. member that the minister responsible for amateur sport and fitness is in Europe now. I think she has all these problems well in hand.
* *
*


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBILITY SUGAR PRICE INCREASES EXCEED GUIDELINES- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Minister of Finance. Since January 4 the wholesale price of sugar has fluctuated wildly and gone up regularly until now it is up 24 per cent. Surely this exceeds the AIB guidelines. Has the minister any plans to curtail these increases?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to inquire of the Anti-Inflation Board the reasons for the various increases.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to a question I put last night in the adjournment debate with respect to a question that I asked on February 7 of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It concerned the budgetary arrangements with the government of Prince Edward Island for the next three years, in terms of the comprehensive development plan. On February 7 the minister indicated that he would be happy to provide me with the details when the occasion arose, presumably after the signing of that budgetary agreement. The signing subsequently took place on March 14.
Last night, in the adjournment debate, I had an opportunity to again put the question to the minister's parliamentary
Regional Economic Expansion
secretary. At that time the parliamentary secretary indicated that he would be pleased to provide me with the recommendations for the allocation of funds for the next fiscal year.
Unfortunately, the information that was provided to me by the parliamentary secretary-which I appreciate very much- was not provided in the course of debate but following its adjournment last night. The problem, quite frankly, is that an important set of figures like this, indicating the projected budgetary breakdown for the next fiscal year, while available to me as one individual, is certainly not available to members of this House and, perhaps more important, does not become immediately available to the people of Prince Edward Island who are ultimately concerned. Ordinarily, if we were operating under the traditional routine of the House it would have been possible for me to ask to have these two items tabled or printed as an appendix to the answer that the parliamentary secretary gave. Of course, there is no provision under our rules for that to happen during the adjournment debate.
Partially, I am looking for guidance from Your Honour as to whether this can happen, realizing the shortness of time. I am not suggesting that the valuable three minutes available to respondents on the government side should be used to read a long series of statistics into the record. However, I think there should be provision either for tabling of statistical statements, their being printed as an appendix to Hansard, or provision the next afternoon, at the time of government motions, for the minister to table these figures. If the minister would like to relieve this particular problem, I have these documents with me and they can be tabled now. I think they would be most useful to members of this House generally, and certainly to the people of Prince Edward Island.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Egmont, I do not have any objection as a rule, if I am allowed to do so, but I suggest that during the sitting of the committee at 3.30 I could table those figures drawn from the report mentioned by the parliamentary secretary last night. I could take this opportunity to table that paper which would then become part of the official report published on the proceedings of our committee. That paper would automatically become public for hon. members as well as the people at large.


Mr. Speaker:: In light of his comments, when the order for the production of papers is called, the minister might perhaps ask leave of the House to table the paper dealing with the matter raised last night.

April 26, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Marcel Lessard: With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the additional information the hon. member for Egmont required following the reply made to him last night by my parliamentary secretary. As he himself indicated, these columns of figures are quite long, and I think it would have been inappropriate to read them last night. As a matter of fact, the time allocated would have been too short. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move that these documents be tabled in the House and printed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to table the documents referred to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,232, 1,464, 2,242, 2,243 and 2,299.
[ Text]


Mr. Howie: What was the total value of Canada's export trade for the fiscal year 1975-1976 and, how much (a) was with the (i) USA (ii) European Common Market countries (b) involved manufactured goods sold to the (i) USA (ii) European Common Market countries?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: In fiscal year 1975-1976, the total value of Canada's export trade amounted to $34,172 million. Of this, $22,534 million was with the U.S.A. and $4,055 million with the European Common Market. Fully manufactured goods (end products) sold to the U.S.A. in this period were valued at $9,885 million with $596 million to the E.E.C.


Mr. Marshall: By constituency, what is the breakdown of loans by the Federal Business Development Bank to the Province of Newfoundland for the six month period ended September 30, 1976?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: The FBDB does not compile statistical data concerning loans by constituency. For the six-month period ended September 30th, 1976 there were 167 loan approvals for $4,562,555 to businesses in Newfoundland.


Mr. Herbert: Do the Manpower offices in (a) Pointe Clair (b) Dorion (c) Valleyfield, Quebec keep records by constituency of those registered as seeking employment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a) No; (b) no; (c) no. Records of job seekers are kept in alphabetical order by occupational code.


Mr. Herbert: Do the Unemployment Insurance offices in (a) Pointe Claire (b) Valleyfield, Quebec keep records by constituency of those receiving Unemployment Insurance payments?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a) No; (b) no.


Mr. Beatty: Does the treatment given to tax returns mailed to the Taxation Data Centre in Ottawa in envelopes printed in black ink and carrying the postal code K1A 1A7 differ from that accorded to returns mailed in envelopes printed in purple ink bearing the postal code, K1A 0A6 and, if so, in what way?


Monique Bégin: The
tax return envelopes provided for mailing to the Taxation Data Centre in Ottawa are in fact printed in three different colours and postal codes as follows: Green, K1A 1A3; Purple, K1A 1A5; Black, K1A 1A7. Each of the above has a related special sticker K1A 1A4, K.1A 1A6 and K1A 1A8 at the bottom of the cover of the schedules to be used where there is a refund, to ensure priority in processing the return. The initial sortation of the envelopes at the Data Centre ensures that refund or non-refund, personalized or non-personalized and simple or complex returns are placed in the proper flow and that assessment is expedited. This is explained in more detail in Item 19 of Information Circular No. 77-5 dated March 14, 1977 issued by Revenue Canada, Taxation. The use of the "Refund Sticker" is also covered in the fifth paragraph of Step Six in the 1976-T1 Tax Guide.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 10, in the broadcasting committee, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked for the breakdown of some of the costs relative to CBC programming. On a point of order I interjected that I had a lot of questions on the order paper relative to that subject. I asked the Secretary of State, who was the witness at that committee, to expedite the matter with the CBC. He responded that he would try to do so. That was on March 10. I submitted those questions on February 28.
The CBC is to appear before the committee on May 10. At least, that is the tentative arrangement. We still do not have the information we need from the questions I raised. All members of the committee would like to ask the kind of informed questions that we want to ask. I simply ask the
April 26, 1977

Secretary of State, or the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, to provide answers to those questions as quickly as possible so that members of the committee may function as they should.


Mr. Roberts:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. 1 am a little bit puzzled by the hon. member's questions, since all his questions have been responded to by my department, except the latest one which was asked on April 19, 1977. There were two questions which were answered. The answers were sent out by my department earlier this month. I am puzzled that there is some backlog in the system. As far as I know, with the one exception that I noted all the hon. member's questions were answered by my department several days ago, or even longer than that.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I know of no backlog in the system further to what the Secretary of State just mentioned. I will undertake to get the specific numbers from the hon. member for the questions he is concerned about in relation to committee hearings. I will try to expedite the answers for him.
1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-20, respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in that portion of the debate which was alloted to me under this stage of Bill C-20 I indicated that parliament had lost one of the effective means of control over the administration. It was not yesterday, it was not the day before; it goes back over ten years. I refer to the loss of control over supply. I remember very well that a government fell in 1963 on the basis of non-adoption of a motion with regard to interim supply. Various political pundits of more ancient or very junior vintage have lost sight of this fact. Political scientists inveigh against the lack of control by parliament over government.
What hurts me more is that we have members of this House of more respectable vintage and of more junior status who talk about the irrelevance of the known value of this place. They give credence to what I think are purely uninformed, ignorant attributes of what is a parliamentary system. Far too many people feel that this House should be some sort of quasi-
Auditor General Act
administrative body, much like some village councils seem to feel that they are not only going to decide policy but they are going to issue the building permits. This is not the place for that, nor is it the place for assessment of the performance of this chamber based upon the question period.
The efficacy of ministers should not be assessed on how they answer questions, and I say this deliberately as a member of the opposition. I have been on the government side, and I have been Speaker of the House, with some knowledge of the administrative responsibilities of ministers and of their House performance. Some ministers who are supposedly undistinguished as performers in that daily bullring or bearpit that we have are very efficient ministers from an administrative point of view. Certain members of the opposition as well as government members who, in the eyes of commentators, are great people, frankly do not know which end they are coming out of because they make a lot of noise and they are totally irrelevant. But that does not seem to bother anybody as long as they make a lot of noise and they fan the breeze.
Wherein lies the control of the government, if not within parliament? Parliament is a deliberative chamber, not administrative. It sets the policies. But all too often-and I come back to the other point-far too many city aldermen, village councillors and people in general say that elected officials shall be the administrators, that they shall issue the dog licences, they shall issue the building permits, they shall issue goodness knows what. This does not belong to them. It does not belong to the House to determine which permit DREE shall issues. The policy with regard to DREE shall be determined as a result of debate, and if it takes ten days, it shall take ten days. If it takes only one day to set it, fine. But this is not an administrative chamber.
I find, after a great number of years of experience in the House, that there is a total misconception of what parliament shall be. It boils down to this very bill. The Auditor General is the watchdog over the spending practices of government. He is the one who shall report to this deliberative and final body for approval. After all, this chamber is charged with the passsage of the estimates which are the spending programs of the government, the proposals of the government in carrying out its policies.
The report of the Auditor General says in effect, "Yes, your proposals were such, but this was your performance", and it asks that the representatives of the people judge the government on the basis of its performance. It has been years- it almost goes back into antiquity- that the peccadillos laid out in a certain part of the Auditor General's report have drawn the greatest of public comment in the media. Frankly, they are running after little squirrels and mice when they do that. But it is popular. This ministry did this, and that ministry did that. I say this, Mr. Speaker: hindsight is a cheap commodity. It is the cheapest commodity on the market today, and the opinions, based upon hindsight, have equal value with the value on the market. But the review must exist.

April 26, 1977
Auditor General Act
I want to come around to what facilities membrs of parliament, particularly on the government side, have brought to assess government performance. Is there to be a simple slave following? Because ministers say yea on any given subject, even the state of the weather or the state of their own digestion, are the backbenchers to say, in unison yea? Is it to be that notwithstanding what the government says, the opposition reaction shall be merely a knee jerk to the contrary? I do not agree with that. No side of the House has a monopoly on intelligence. Whether or not the government is backed by administration, in my experience from both sides of the House the government has been served, not only by brains but by dunces when it comes to judging political acceptability and I shall say in French-
"la rentabilite de certaines politiques".
There is no way that the government can arrogate unto itself all that wisdom. But listening to government committee members it was as though it was Ascension Sunday every time a minister made a pronouncement with regard to government legislation. It seems as though the tongues of fire of wisdom had descended upon the minister or his parliamentary secretary and senior officials in so far as government supporters are concerned, that is, with some salutary exceptions. The opposition is driven into a knee-jerk syndrome, as I have said, with regard to many proposals that come forward merely because of the attitude of government supporters. There is good legislation that comes forward, perhaps not entirely in all degrees, but basically in principle.
Surely to goodness there is room for disagreement, even within parties, without being charged by unshaven young commentators that there are deep splits in political parties. We are people representing various regions of the country with different emphases and different views. If it were a simple procedure to have but one unqualified and unanimous voice to be heard in this chamber, we would have the Prime Minister on one side and the Leader of the Opposition on the other. They would either agree or disagree. However, in the Cartesian philosophy of the Prime Minister, if there is disagreement, even as to five degrees, it is total disagreement: if we do not agree with the Prime Minister, then we must disagree with him. Nonsense! There can be disagreement as to degree or variation, but often there is agreement in principle and there is no such thing as total confrontation. That is the philosophy of fools. If in this House we were to get the advocacy of one voice on one side and one voice on the other it would be a matter of confrontation and then divide. That is the most foolish philosophy for Canadians in a federation composed as this one is ever to adopt.
How do we get from this philosophy to the present bill? The bill says that the Auditor General shall discharge certain specific tasks. As a result of a report by the independent review board with regard to the Auditor General, the minister

did a volte-face on Mr. Macdonell's recommendation about the appointment of a comptroller general. There has been a change in the philosophy at the head of Treasury Board. Goodness only knows that we have seen such changes before. I recall when the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury) was president of the treasury board. There were certain things various members on the government and opposition sides advanced with regard to pensions of former public servants, armed services personnel, RCMP and members of the House of Commons. The then minister absolutely shut his mind to these views.
The hon. member for Westmount was succeeded by the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and there was a total change. The recommendations of the present Auditor General with regard to a comptroller general were made to the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The attitude of the government, immediately Pavlovian, led it to reject that proposal.
However, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has looked at the situation somewhat differently-and perhaps his officials have also had a second look at it-and the reaction has not been so Pavlovian. I am looking at page 28-6 of the estimates which is headed "Treasury Board, Central Administration of the Public Service Program". The objectives are laid out. There is a program description which includes expenditure management. Frankly, all the minister has proposed is that there shall be a comptroller general with the rank of deputy minister. Yesterday I referred to arbitrary strictures of the government as to where this man shall sit in the pecking order of the super-mandarins, to use a polite term. This man is to look after expenditure management. I will read into the record what this says:
On the basis of the analysis of departmental plans and programs to recommend to the government the acceptance or modification of specific expenditure proposals in order to:
-reflect the priorities which the government assigns to the objectives;
-increase the effectiveness of existing and proposed programs;
-increase the efficiency with which the manpower, facilities, equipment, materials and supplies are used in the operation of programs; and to -develop the estimates for the approval of parliament.
That, effectively, is going to be the job of the comptroller general. There is one point with regard to Treasury Board on which, since parliament has lost control over the determination of the estimates, I will join with my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), in saying that as far as the Canadian public is concerned, the only control over government which is left is public scrutiny. Public scrutiny was really endemic to the examination and control of estimates. If reasons could not be established, or if expenditures could not be justified, then government was to be held in suspense: it was to be held responsible. This is the purpose of parliament. I consider it a shallow political science that the effectiveness of this chamber should be based on the yards of bills or inches of pages of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired.
April 26, 1977

He may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me to continue my remarks. I shall be brief. I now come to the conclusion of my proposals. The effectiveness of this chamber is not measured by yards of legislation or by the thickness of statutes. The government may propose omnibus bills; it may propose yards of bills; it may propose scores of bills. Anyone looking at the order paper might say that the government has placed there "X" dozen bills, but parliament has dealt with only a few. That attitude is wrong, because parliament may have faced nothing but trivia, absolute garbage, or the ultimate in drivel in the consideration of essential bills on which parliament must take a stand.
However, let it not be said that stands are taken on the opposition side only. In case ministers of the Crown are not aware of it, and in case the absent press and media are not aware of this, many government backbenchers sit back in committee and question the wisdom of certain legislation. They are conscientious legislators, doing their work quietly and effectively. Such parliamentarians are found on both sides of the House. But they will not get the garlands of the headlines. Good gracious me, that would be too banal for the press. In order to get attention they would have to stand in this chamber and do a strip-dance. It is said that in a military campaign the generals get the glory, but the soldiers fighting in the trenches do the dirty work. No truer aphorism could be applied to this House.
Certain members opposite on the government side, some beside me in the opposition, and some so-called star members of this House, say that the committee system is a joke, that we should improve it. Almost any hon. member could make suggestions for improvement. If one said that our committee system could not be improved, one would be, frankly, derelict in one's duty, because nothing is perfect. I know that I have many allies on the government side for my views about improving the efficacy of this chamber and the committees. Mr. Speaker, such institutions are not sausage machines for the production of legislation: they are places for the examination and deliberation of policies put forward.
This is a chamber of debate. It is not a pseudo-administrative tribunal. As I say, it is a deliberative chamber, a chamber for the expression of points of view on the part of people from various parts of the country. If they do not accord with Toronto, damn Toronto. If they do not accord with Montreal, damn Montreal. Members here represent their parts of the country. If their views do not suit Vancouver, damn Vancouver. Damn Edmonton, too.


An hon. Member:: Did you say Edmonton, too?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. This is the place where we express the points of view representative of our
Auditor General Act
people. If we are stupid enough a couple of years from now to increase the membership of this House to 284 members, it will mean we will have another 18 members clamouring to express their opinions. Then shall government backbenchers, the press, or the opposition gainsay the opportunity for those new members to express their views? Shall they be foreclosed from expressing their opinions because that would extend debate? Such ideas are nonsense. There is no way one can put a lid on a deliberative chamber.
Newspaper editors love to take positions. Newspaper correspondents set up their stories. I am not attacking any of them personally, Mr. Speaker. Such criticism is one of the hazards of their trade. They have stories to set up, lead paragraphs to write and conclusions to reach. The next day they will not deny their first conclusions, even though the debate may have turned around 180 degrees, even though the direction of the debate on its second day may be completely opposite to the direction on its first day.
Editorial writers pronounce themselves-I do not know on what basis-and thereafter any extension of debate is a nuisance: it is pronounced to be a filibuster; it is tiresome. After all, they have expressed themselves. I sometimes wish that this House could be entirely composed of newspaper editors and academics. We would see the greatest viewing with alarm, the greatest performance from the highest of ivory towers. Oh, yes, they serve a function, without doubt. But colleagues opposite, and on this side-and I have been on both sides of the House-respond to editorials and newspaper columns like quail do to the first blast of a shotgun. They run. They do not look at things calmly, nor assess them from one end of the country to another.
Why should members of parliament have better facilities? Let me read from a Treasury Board declaration on the central administration of the public service program, for my point ties right in with what we are saying about the Auditor General. What are the objectives of the program? They involve:
Evaluation and planning-development and application of methods and procedures for:
-evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and projects, and
-ensuring that the government has the information it requires to make and
carry out decisions to increase program effectiveness and operating efficiency.
That is precisely what members of parliament require. The words "evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and projects" are the alpha and omega of the study of the estimates. Such evaluation applies not only to the opposition; it applies also to government backbenchers. I sat as one for many years. They are as much in the dark about government programs as anybody else. How can they assume, except out of party loyalty, that the government is correct? Remember, the government is very much separated from its backbenchers because it depends entirely on the advice of the administration. The opposition has its own limited research facilities.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We have almost nothing.
4998

April 26, 1977
Auditor General Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and projects, it has nothing. The government even denies the right to the Economic Council of Canada to exercise its powers under the act which set it up in regard to evaluating programs of economic expansion. That initiative must come from a minister. Although the act does not say so, in practice it does.
EIow can members of parliament evaluate government programs if the best information is kept from them? I, therefore, join my colleague for Peace River and members on both sides of the House and in the other place in asking for better information and more freedom of information. Why should there be a restriction on reports evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and projects? Are not reports which give the government the information it requires to make and carry out decisions which increase program effectiveness and operating efficiency part of the operation of this parliament? In examining the estimates we must have information concerning program effectiveness and operating efficiency. But this is denied parliament. It is also denied the media.
I am not saying that members of parliament should be the exclusive repository for this information. I have criticized the media, but I ask that they be given information too, because they do have some intelligence. I am not being patronizing in saying that, because no man has a monopoly on intelligence, on the expression of a point of view from one end of the country to the other. But what we have now is a little club.
The other night we asked the Superintendent of Insurance about an actuarial study which he had had made of indexed pensions for public servants. This study had been made at the request of Treasury Board. If there is one question that exercises the public right now, this is it, Mr. Speaker. I do not blame Mr. Humphrys for the answer he gave. He said he
complied with the request of the President of the T reasury Board anu mis operation was carried out. tne Don. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and I asked related questions on this point last week, and tomorrow we are going to ask him point blank whether he has considered the matter. He told us he was considering the matter, but we want to know what the government's Superintendent of Insurance has to say about the indexing of public pensions.
This is a matter which is slid over from time to time, and has been ever since 1971 or 1972. It has established a very arguable principle and has put in jeopardy all private pension plans. It has led the NDP to say that we should cancel all private pension plans so that all moneys are turned over to the public exchequer to be invested on the basis of goodness knows what principles. Certainly they do not know, and their performance indicates that they do not know.
I come to the last paragraph, and I will close my remarks with this, Mr. Speaker. With regard to evaluation and planning in Treasury Board, the direction is as follows:

The analysis of organizational relationships and structures to determine if changes could be made that would increase operating efficiency and program effectiveness-
In parenthesis I ask, what on earth are the Auditor General and the comptroller general going to be doing except that?
-the development of recommendations to the government on such changes affecting more than one department or agency-
That is one of the duties of the comptroller general as enunciated by the President of the Treasury Board.
-approval of such changes affecting single departments or agencies; and provision of assistance in carrying out approved changes.
Why should these functions be the sole prerogative of government or, in other words, of the treasury bench? Seeing that there are four government backbenchers in the House at the present time, all I can say is that they take for gospel any legislation that is flashed before them. They are the greatest victims of subliminal advertising put before them by cabinet. As my colleague has said, they are subject to mass hypnotism when anything is proposed by government. Yet, Mr. Speaker, here lies the effective means for them to join other members of parliament. I do not care where these members come from, whether they support the government or are members of the opposition; they should assess government programs and government performance vis-a-vis their people in an even-handed manner. Although they themselves do not have all the resources of government available to them, the government machinery has, and reports are made.
I agree with my colleague for Peace River that reports made in connection with the evaluation and planning program description which appears on page 28-6 of the estimates for this year should be available to members of the House and of the Senate. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out yesterday, and I reiterate, that the parliament of Canada is composed of the Commons, the Senate and the Crown. If the Commons is entitled to certain information, then so are the Senate and the Crown.
I am not going to say what recourse the government has in obtaining information; perhaps it has certain privileges. When I was a member of cabinet there were, I think, 22 members. The cabinet has now grown to over 30 members. It is getting to the point where it exceeds its power regarding both its own supporters and the opposition. Both sides of the House should be equal. Mr. Speaker, you in your individual capacity as a member have equal status, in terms of acquiring information, with any member on the government side, whether his chair is occupied or not, or any member sitting to my left, whether his chair is occupied or not.
In so far as the government and the Canadian people are concerned, it is high time we obtained this information. I would hope that in putting this legislation into effect the minister would indicate that a great deal more information will be coming out of Treasury Board than hitherto, and that there will be, in so far as Crown corporations are concerned, a lifting of the veil by government undertaking.
April 26, 1977

I seriously suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a joint committee of this House and of the other place should study Crown corporations and their annual reports. This committee should be established without debate. This would give parliament a greater degree of control over the affairs of this nation. Individual backbenchers must weigh this consideration. After all, each member of parliament is charged, on election day, by the voters that he or she shall participate in the discharge of our national affairs.
If, along the way, either by carelessness or slavishness, we abandon that charge, there is a derogation of duty. I do not intend to be one of those who shall be labelled as either derogating his duties or slavishly following a bad custom. I demand much more information. This is after 20 years in this House. Many new members feel uncomfortable in this House. All I wish them is: may you feel more and more uncomfortable. This is directed particularly to members who sit on the government backbenches. Whether they are Liberals or, in due course, Conservatives, backbenchers must fit into that uncomfortable perch. If they do not, let me say there is a terrible attitude of mind sitting in what are called the treasury benches. I have seen it, and 1 regret it.
Mir. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that at 3.35 o'clock you asked unanimous consent for the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to continue his remarks. He said he would finish his speech in a few minutes. He took an extra 20 minutes. I found it very interesting that he admonished backbenchers on the government side. He should follow the rules a little more carefully, have more respect for this place, and not take liberties with the good graces of hon. members on this side, especially.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, everyone should be concerned with the changes that we have made in the rules and the fact that we have not now, in my opinion, any idea of the expenditures made by the federal government. If you look at the blue book of expenditures, you will be as confused as members have been since those changes have taken place as to what actually are the expenditures. Therefore, I am very pleased to support this piece of legislation. We have changed the rules until we are out of the ball game as far as financial control is concerned. If we can strengthen the Auditor General to make him more effective on our behalf, we had certainly better do so. The establishment of the new officer to assist us in financial control seems to be a step in the right direction.
One of the functions of a democratic parliament is that members of parliament have the right to question the expenditures of the government. There has never been a government less interested in what members of parliament do about expenditures than this government. All they have to do is drag their feet in committees. There were many who thought we could handle the expenditures of the nation more efficiently if we were to discuss them in committee rather than in the House. If the responsible ministers do not want to come to the commit-
Auditor General Act
tee, they do not come. Seldom a minister ever comes more than two or three times to the whole committee hearing. He leaves the other discussions to his officials.
The thing you hear most often in discussing the estimates is that that is a policy matter and is beyond their jurisdiction. Either those public servants work for us as a parliament, or they work directly for the minister and they are responsible to the minister. If they are only responsible to the minister, for goodness sake do not come to the committee, because they really cannot tell us anything unless we want to carry on a university education in some particular subject.
We are interested in policy decisions. We are interested in whether this item is passed and whether it becomes an expenditure in fact, or whether the expenditure was for something else. An indication of where members of parliament are not competent to deal with expenditures is the 64 SI items introduced this year-statutory items. The $1 item does not mean anything. It is only an entry in the book of estimates. It may mean something, or it may mean nothing. Under the statutory $1 item the government can spend millions of dollars and can embark upon totally new programs and institute almost any departmental change that it wishes-all on the strength of a $1 item which the minister does not have to explain and which, obviously, does not say what it is meant to say.
Years ago, in my opinion, we knew at the end of a session, when we came to discussing the estimates, that those estimates had to be passed, hopefully, while they were still estimates rather than public accounts. We were able to find a place where the backbencher or the individual member of parliament was able to stand up and take out the item he wished to speak on and make his point, because the detail was there and the information was provided. He could make that point very forcefully. If he was not satisfied in his questioning of the minister, and if he did not receive full information, he could hold up the estimate until the minister was very upset and concerned and was willing to make full disclosure. This is not possible now with any departmental estimate.
Maybe there has to be a change. We always look to the British system. Not long ago I visited England with a committee. There were two things that surprised me. There is absolutely no democracy in the operation of the British parliament as we know it. It is machined, engineered, set up and probably agreed to by most people. If it is not agreed to, there is nothing anyone can do about it. I was interested to know what is done with third parties in England. The whip of the governing party stated that they just ignore them; they do not take them into consideration. If they want an election, that is what they get. They do not take them into consideration in terms of estimates, either.
Around the end of May all the estimates will come back to the House. One night they will come to an end. When the estimates are called, the only thing a member of parliament can do is object and call for a vote. The government majority, without the members on the government side knowing what it
80012 -38y2

April 26, 1977
Auditor General Act
is all about, will stand up, vote with the government and the estimate will be passed. On that day we will pass all the estimates, many of them having received no study by any committee or member of parliament. We have to accept the minister's credibility as our only guarantee that the moneys being raised are for the purpose for which they were asked.
I am in complete agreement with strengthening the office of the Auditor General. It is very wise to be finally doing this. I was interested in reading some notes that I have here. I find that the same complaints were made by the auditor general in the late 1800s. The auditor general of the day-1893-John Lorn McDougall, stated:
I have failed again to obtain either adequate staff for my office or even a modicum of co-operation.
That is the complaint I have heard of the Auditor General ever since coming here. I will probably continue to hear it.


Mr. Andras:: Not with this bill. He has full authority.


William Arnold Peters: He is being given a workload that will replace members of parliament. He will have to do what members of parliament were elected to do in so far as expenditures are concerned. He will have to be given a very competent staff which will have to work very hard. They will review all expenditures and make recommendations. They will find difficulty in getting information from some departments. They will not only have the opportunity of doing the job they have had to do in terms of the government, but they will have to make some investigation into Crown corporations. They will have to ask for the co-operation of Crown corporations which are not even audited by the Auditor General's department. This is a first. The minister is to be given full credit. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is now on the government side. The government was previously opposed to this, and now they are willing. Possibly he should get some of the credit.
The second addition is the establishment of the office of comptroller general. Members of parliament will take his report and make a judgment on it in terms of whether we agree with what has been done with regard to the operation of the various programs he examines.
Maybe it is necessary for members of parliament to have a bureaucracy. Maybe it is necessary for us to have research people. Maybe we should get involved with exchanging paper with one department and another, as well as exchanges between our research people and other research people, the comptroller general and the Auditor General, and the Auditor General and various departments such as Treasury Board and Supply and Services. Maybe exchanging paper would be a good thing. However, it is no substitute for making available sufficient information with regard to expenditures in the blue book in order to enable an individual member of parliament who is concerned about a specific problem to look and see what, exactly, an expenditure is for.
Possibly parliament has grown too much. We may have gone ahead too fast. If so, we will have to change our system and our thinking about the system. Instead of electing members of parliament to supervise government expenditures, we will be elected to supervise the auditor general, the comptroller general and, I hope, another officer of the House, the "expenditure general."
In the United States they set forth what they are going to accomplish in a particular program, its cost, its efficiency and whether they are getting their money's worth. If we operated that system in Canada, we would find out some very interesting things. We would find out that we are making expenditures on programs that are not efficient. I would like to deal with one example, DREE. When DREE was originally introduced, it was seen as a solution to the problems of the underdeveloped areas. It was going to provide them with the know-how and assistance to develop their resources in a most efficient way. We believed it would bring about decentralization of production in this nation.
I was particularly interested because I come from an area of primary development, namely an area of mining and forest industries. In Kirkland Lake there was a very large infrastructure, including churches, schools, roads, and everything else necessary for a modern town. When the mines were depleted the people were unable to find employment in order to maintain that infrastucture: they had a great deal of difficulty.
1 agree that DREE has been of some assistance. However, if we had an "expenditures general" to look into some of these DREE projects he would come to a very sad conclusion. A newspaper report the other day indicated that in the Renfrew area 50 per cent of DREE projects went bankrupt. Many of those projects have received two DREE grants. An "expenditures general" would see that that is very bad business. Why give to the same company, in the same enterprise, in the same community, the same grant twice? An "expenditures general" would say whether there should be that input in the first place, and whether there should be a grant in the second instance. There would be no necessity for it going bankrupt and causing the bankruptcy of the man supplying the few trucks, and the local businessman supplying the welding unit, the businessman who had advance credit for whatever services had to be provided. He would not have been hit twice.
That is the major tragedy in every community where a business goes bankrupt. It is not only the business that goes bankrupt, but all the services of the community which, of necessity, have to carry 30 days' credit with that industry. I am sure that an "expenditures general" would say that we must have equity for any money we advance to that business. In my area there are now four bankruptcies. Three of the companies have been assisted by DREE. Let us take an example of a sawmill in my area, a fairly large one. Some money was put into it under DREE and it went into operation. Later it went bankrupt. Then we put some more money into the company, and again it went bankrupt. If we had had equity in that plant-say we put up 25 per cent of the capital-we would have had some say on the board of directors and some say in how that plant was run.

April 26, 1977

I am sure changes would have been made, because it is reported that the management may have bought a race horse or a motel, or that one of the directors bought a $150,000 home in Toronto or has made other expenditures that any other legitimate director on a board would not have thought of doing, and the money for that would not have come from company funds. If the company needed more money, we could put more money in it and we would, again, take equity and, if necessary, bring Venturetec or one of the other Crown corporations, into partnership to provide managerial assistance.
We have all these people in DREE who have knowledge of industry, and all the people in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce who are highly skilled in industrial development and management. In many cases local businessmen do not have expertise in raising and handling money, nor do they have sales ability. The government can assist them in these areas. If we had equity in those companies, we would be able to do a lot better than we have under DREE. This should be no favour to anyone. I hear that in Cape Breton Island a $1 million make-work project is to be started. I am also told that there will be a new program in two months' time, and another one in the fall, and that we will continually keep people off the unemployment rolls by providing short-term, make-work projects.
If we put in the $1 million, and the money that $1 million will raise, into the steel plant in that area, we could probably have a viable industry employing 400 or 500 people permanently, not temporarily. This would be a partnership between the federal government and the plant. Many of our expenditures are wasted. It seems to me that an "expenditures general" would be able to point that out, and members of parliament who are not stupid but who are badly misinformed would, of necessity, have to make a decision with regard to the program, either to remove it, to improve it or to do something about it, if that information were made available to them.
The final function of the "expenditures general" would be to relate to parliament the cost of the exemptions we grant in our tax structure. Not long ago we had the income tax bill before us. It was interesting to note that if tax credits were indicated, members of parliament would be better able to assess whether or not rapid depreciation-which means that taxpayers are allowed tax exemptions-produced the kinds of results we wished. I am thinking in particular of the studies done by the government examining tax exemptions which were given to industry, the sole purpose of which was to provide employment. In fact, in most cases it enabled the company to provide better equipment, but it reduced the number of people working for that company. The government knows exactly what those exemptions did in terms of providing employment, and it knows how much those exemptions cost the taxpayers, because if you do not get it one way you must get it another. You have to raise a certain amount of money, and if you do not get it from one class of taxpayer because they have an exemption, you get it from someone else.
If you are giving a certain class of taxpayer an exemption, you are putting the burden on everyone else. The government
Auditor General Act
knows the results of that program set up by a previous minister of finance. It is not about to tell you and I, Mr. Speaker, the results of the studies it has carried out, because the government is going to use the same gimmick, with exactly the same result. The result is that other taxpayers will have to raise money for taxpayers who are enjoying an exemption at the expense of all of us.
It is very difficult to convince the government to do anything. They certainly do not want to change, and the reason for that is very simple. Cabinet ministers are like the rest of us: they have only 24 hours a day, which can easily be filled with doing the paperwork with which their departments supply them. If I read the other half of the contents of the garbage can every day, it would take me an extra two hours. I get a full garbage can of stuff from the departments. If that is what I get, the minister must be getting six or seven garbage cans full of stuff which he has no time to read.


Mr. Yewchuk:: It depends on the size of the garbage cans.


William Arnold Peters: You get big ones and little ones. Mine is quite small. The minister is not able to make all the decisions himself. He is provided with information which is all from one point of view. If he had an "expenditures general", he would be able to assess the programs and know whether they were good.
It was interesting to note that in the election campaign south of the border the former governor of Georgia, now President Carter, claimed to have covered the expenditures of all the ancillary services of government only when they proved how valuable they were and provided that kind of information to him and to the legislature. That is not done in this country. If any money is left over after the expenditure is made, there is a hell of a rush to spend it at the end of the year so the government can go ahead and ask for the same amount the next year.
There really has been no possibility of establishing whether we as taxpayers have received value. However, I suggest that this minister has been surprisingly amenable; he has done what the Auditor General has asked. I am sure he will be willing to provide the wherewithal to make it possible for the Auditor General to make the necessary investigations, because parliament is no longer able to make those investigations. Never once has a major expenditure blooper been raised in this House. These have always followed reports of the Auditor General, with the limited capacity he said he had in previous years. That has not been done since the days of having the horses on the payroll. It has not been done by members of parliament. I am not sure how it was done, but that was before my time.
The minister is also to be congratulated for appointing a comptroller general. I hope this will mean there will be a balance between the operations of one department and another. If it had been possible to have a comptroller general previously, we might not have had to get rid of Information

April 26, 1977
Auditor General Act
Canada; we might have been able to put information from every department into Information Canada. That probably would have been a more efficient way of handling it. But what did we do? We set up a new department, and everybody else was running it. There were 28 "information Canada's" in 28 departments, with Information Canada operating as a storefront operation downtown, turning out the same information as the other 28 departments.
I suggest that the minister has gone a long way, and I congratulate him for that, but I hope he will give consideration to appointing an "expenditures general" so we can have an assessment of what expenditures we are making through tax exemptions and we will know the value of the expenditures we are making in Crown corporations. I presume we would not have to be involved with trying to find out, after the fact, who is getting bribes from what Crown corporation or from what department. That kind of foolishness would be stopped. If we were to appoint an "expenditures general", the government would benefit because it would be assured that any program embarked upon would be financially sound and would accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish in terms of return. With an "expenditures general" we would know how much exemptions, whether they be personal or corporate exemptions, would cost taxpayers, and we as members of parliament would be able to judge the effects of that type of expenditure.
I believe we are no longer able to handle expenditures in the way we are presently trying to handle them. I think everyone feels immense frustration. I have felt anger, and stronger feelings than that, when we have had to pass estimates in the House because of deadlines and when no discussion has taken place.
I congratulate the minister for the steps he has taken. I hope he will continue along that line and that I will be in parliament four or five years from now when we will have an "expenditures general" who will be looking at the hundreds of programs we will have and telling us what we are receiving in dollars and cents as a result of the tax expenditures on those programs.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


William Arnold Peters: Agreed.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the hon. member said, particularly about information services, but I wonder if he would like to correct an impression which he inadvertently may have left. Understanding, as 1 do, that Information Canada rarely produced any information itself but, rather, provided centres for the collection and distribution of information produced by others as a convenience to the public, does the hon. member know of situations where Information Canada produced the same kind of information as did the proliferating departmental information sections, or would he not want to correct that impression?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not leave that impression. The point I was trying to make was that I was under the impression-and so were many other members of parliament, I am sure-that when we established Information

Canada the idea was that it would be our information-producing agency and that that would eliminate the need for printing units in every other department. However, that is not what happened. It did not get to the stage of producing the documents which were being produced by the departments. The departments continued to do that. They sent it to Information Canada, and Information Canada made it available to the public.
The point I was making was that it would have been more efficient if Information Canada had been doing the printing and the gathering of all the information from the various departments. The departments really continue to propagandize Information Canada instead of propagandizing the general public. I believe Information Canada never really got to the point of being efficient, but we were told to get rid of Information Canada, in my opinion for the wrong reasons.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, as vice-chairman of the public accounts committee I am very pleased to join briefly in this debate at second reading of a very important piece of legislation. I am sure those of us in the public accounts committee will be wanting to give a great deal more detailed attention to the bill when it comes before us for clause by clause examination.
I would like to join hon. members on this side and hon. members opposite in commending the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and the government for bringing forward legislation of this kind at this time, together with the concurrent indication of the appointment of a comptroller general within the public service. I say this because I think we are living at a time when increasing cynicism is being demonstrated by some citizens in this country, by people connected with the media and by others as to the general place of our parliamentary process in their lives and in the lives of ordinary people. I think this bill and the concurrent appointment of the position of comptroller general is an indication of the responsiveness of parliament to an area of concern which obviously touches on the pocketbooks, as it were, of the taxpayers of Canada.
After all, the taxpayers are the people who are responsible for footing the bill for whatever is done under the direction of government at all levels across Canada. I think this Auditor General bill addresses itself to a very real area of concern when, after all, we bear in mind that 10 or 15 years ago the rate of government expenditures at the federal and provincial levels was much less than it is today.
For the first time we are looking at legislation which will govern the responsibilities of our Auditor General. I understand that this kind of position has been in existence for close to 100 years, but until now the authority for the position of Auditor General has really come through the Financial Administration Act, which is an act designed to cover the ground rules for financial administration generally within government as well as the audit of public accounts and financial control of Crown corporations. However, bearing in mind the tremendous size of our budget at the present time and the real need for a completely independent examination of what is
April 26, 1977

happening to expenditures year by year, I think it is very important that the office of the Auditor General be governed by its own act of parliament, and that is what we are doing in this process at the present time.
In the past, the responsibilities of the Auditor General have been defined in terms of the examinations he should make and how he should report. There really has been very little change in the over-all concept of his office in the last 40 years. One appreciates that 40 years ago the Auditor General's job in auditing the books of the government of Canada and its Crown agencies was minuscule compared with the task of the present Auditor General. The whole concept of his investigation has been brought much more sharply into focus in the last ten years as a result of large increases in the budget. These days his job entails examination of the annual spending, by a large organization, of some $44 billion.
The Auditor General himself indicated in committee this morning that in his view this bill is a leader in its field. By introducing this legislation, Canada is setting an example. We are not following the example of some other country, as we have done from time to time. Cynical observers suggest that we tend to follow precedents set elsewhere. In this case we are a leader. Last week, the official from the United Kingdom who holds the position equivalent to our Auditor General expressed intense interest in the bill now before the House for second reading.
Let me make a point to show that parliament responds to suggestions. This bill is the direct result of the recommendations made by the independent review committee which was appointed by the government four years ago and reported two years ago. The independent committee examined this question and made recommendations, and the government has come forward with a bill incorporating many of those recommendations. It must be noted that the Auditor General and members of that independent review committee who examined the bill have indicated their complete satisfaction with the bill and the government's aims. I mention this to show how responsive parliament is to recommendations and studies which the government itself commissioned in the public interest.
This bill is an example of forward-thinking on the part of the government, and I am sure members of parliament will find little difficulty in accepting its general provisions. However, I am concerned about several of its provisions, and I wish to touch on one of those. Basically, the bill addresses itself to the administrative difficulties which the office of the Auditor General has encountered in the past. Many issues have been raised in questioning and controversy has surrounded this area of administration. The bill addresses itself to this particular aspect of the matter. The bill deals with the scope of the audit and the freedom of the Auditor General to report on areas which may legitimately be investigated; that is to say, he may look into those matters with respect to which he feels a report to parliament would be worth while. Basically, therefore, we
Auditor General Act
are considering the independence of the office and the scope of the audit.
The President of the Treasury Board reviewed in his speech some matters concerning the independence of the office of the Auditor General. He indicated, for example, that there are to be selection standards. The office staff are to be appointed by the Auditor General and are not to be subject to Public Service Commission scrutiny. The present Auditor General and his predecessor in that office have strenuously supported such a development. Although that question at first gave rise to considerable argument, the suggestion has now been incorporated in this bill. Also, the legislation establishes the Auditor General as an employer in his own right, so to speak. He will be able to establish classification levels for his own staff. As the Auditor General has indicated, he considered those particular matters as being of the utmost importance to him. Such provisions represent a major departure from the past, inasmuch as the Public Service Commission has had complete jurisdiction over the staff of the Auditor General and has treated it in the same way as it has treated the staff of other government departments.
The Auditor General, in conformity with his increasing independence, will be empowered to make special reports to this House. If he feels that there has been inadequate allotment of funds, he will be entitled to ask for more money: he can come to parliament and present a petition for additional funding. Also, he is to be exempt from the provisions of the Financial Administration Act which require appropriation requests to be divided into various categories, as is the case with respect to government departments. Basically, we are witnessing the creation of a piece of machinery, as it were, within the parliamentary structure which under the new act will be independent in its operation. Over the years this bill will make increasingly important the position of the Auditor General and will lead to attention being more sharply focused on the kinds of people who will fill that position from time to time.
What will be the scope of his work? Once this bill is passed, the Auditor General will be entitled to report on anything of significance which he feels should be brought to the attention of the House. He will, of course, retain his traditional duties. In addition, he will be entitled to say if the government has received value for money spent, if money has been spent without due regard for economy or efficiency, and point out instances where there are not, in his view, adequate procedures to measure and report on the effectiveness of programs. I am somewhat concerned about this provision and I am certain hon. members of the House will want to reflect on it, as well, when the bill is considered in committee.
The Auditor General has said that he looks on this bill as a landmark for the accounting profession of this country. I think many in the private sector will also be interested to see what kinds of powers the government, as a corporation, as it were, is granting its shareholders to audit, to use a term normally used in the private sector. Possibly we may receive representations from members of the public on this point. In certain respects

April 26, 1977
Auditor General Act
this bill represents a major departure from accepted practice within the accounting and auditing profession. Our Auditor General is to comment on matters which in the past have been considered as coming under the complete responsibility of internal management. For my part, I am somewhat concerned as to what is intended under this clause. I think that hon. members in committee had better consider it carefully before either subscribing to it fully or amending or changing it in any way.
The other point I wish to raise is the appointment of the comptroller general. I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for having taken this step, which I know has been discussed at length in committee. I appreciate how significant such an appointment is for those who exercise political responsibility at the federal level, and also for those in senior civil service positions who must wonder how the new appointment will affect their own responsibilities. One can only say that major corporations in the private sector have encountered the same difficulties in the last 30 years and we are now seeing the government catch up to what has been accepted, normal practice in the industrial sphere for some time.
We simply cannot run a budget of some $44 billion annually without having an official in a senior financial position within the over-all structure responsible for dealing with questions of financial administration in each of the many departments and agencies and Crown corporations which make up that structure.
I also welcome the news that there is ultimately to be a new Crown corporation act placed before parliament. This is an area about which those of us who sit on the public accounts committee have had reason to be somewhat concerned in the last six months or so. I hope the comptroller general will have the authority to deal with senior officials of the corporations at the highest financial level. 1 understand that at the present time the financial branch of Treasury Board, which is endeavouring to fill the place which the comptroller will occupy, does not have that kind of link. This is an important consideration, bearing in mind the need to satisfy the Canadian public that money which has been voted for expenditure on various programs has indeed been handled in an appropriate and satisfactory manner.
The appointment of a comptroller general emanates from the recommendation made by the Auditor General in his 1976 report. He hinted at such a proposal a year earlier, in 1975, which indicates he must have given considerable thought to his final recommendation when he made it. I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board on the manner in which he has taken up this recommendation and discussed it with many interested groups including members of the public accounts committee and members of parliament generally, satisfying himself that this appointment is justified before setting about persuading those who might have needed persuasion to accept it as government policy.

Again in this context I would make reference to the public accounts committee. I believe this committee is an important one as, indeed, are all our committees. I feel, very often, that the work which members do in committee is overlooked in terms of attention from the media. People tend to think that if a member is not in his seat in this chamber, he cannot be very busy on parliament hill. I see a few members of the public accounts committee here this afternoon. I should like to think that some of the questioning of witnesses which went on in that committee over the last three years, and the conclusions drawn from those sittings, had some effect in encouraging both the President of the Treasury Board and his predecessor to move toward making the appointment provided for in the bill.
Members of the public accounts committee will, I know, feel a great deal more relaxed, when financial details provided by various departments and Crown agencies come before us, in the knowledge that before long a senior official in Treasury Board will be directing his attention to these areas in a thorough manner. I look forward to the speedy passage of the bill and a more detailed examination of its provisions in committee in the near future.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech of the vice-chairman of the public accounts committee.
I believe it is important that we should put the debate on this bill into perspective. You will recall, sir, that the former auditor general, Mr. Maxwell Henderson, seemed to take considerable delight in embarrassing the government, and I think the government was openly relieved when the time for his retirement came. His distinguished successor made it clear that he saw the auditor general as taking a quieter and less sensationalistic stance. At that point, 1 believe, the government was under the impression that the days of its public reoasting were over. That was before the new Auditor General saw the books. When he did open the books, he had certain things to say. It is in light of the statements he then made that we must deal with the bill before us. I should like to quote some of them. In his report on the public accounts for 1975, Mr. Macdonell said:
The present state of the financial management and control system of departments and agencies of the government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
I want to pause there and ask members of the House of Commons: how about that as a judgment upon an organization which had planned budgetary expenditures of $34 billion for the year ending March 31, 1976, and has increased its spending by at least 15 per cent in that year while asking everyone else to keep the lid on? That was not all the Auditor General had to say. Dealing with Crown corporations, he said this:
In the majority of the Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control is weak and ineffective. Moreover, co-ordination and guidance by control management agencies of financial management and control practices in the Crown corporations are virtually non-existent.
That is not merely a comment, Mr. Speaker; that is an indictment. Then comes the paragraph of the year against which we must set this bill. Mr. Macdonell, leading with the
April 26, 1977

statement that he was "driven inescapably" to this conclusion, said:
Based on the study of the systems of departments, agencies and Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control in the government of Canada is grossly inadequate. Furthermore, it is likely to remain so until the government takes strong, appropriate and effective measures to rectify this critically serious situation.
These points are more than an indictment; they are a condemnation by a man whose reputation in his profession both outside and within the public sector is beyond reproach,
In the report from which I quoted the Auditor General asked the government to consider the appointment of a comptroller general to attempt, perhaps for the first time, to lock the door before the horses had run away. What was the response of the government in 1976, during the course of the question period? They did not lock the door of the barn. They decided to repaint it. They wanted to appoint a royal commission to determine whether or not the results of the study which had been made by the Auditor General were justified and ought to be carried through. They argued that somehow or other they had to protect the sacred tradition of ministerial responsibility; that somehow or other the proposal made by the Auditor General was an attack on the concept of ministerial responsibility.
The President of the Treasury Board, who was being congratulated today for his sudden change of heart, at that time was arguing and defending the indefensible. Like a host of other members of parliament who care about our institutions but think some things are a little creaky and ancient and perhaps could be changed, I took a good look at the defence of ministerial responsibility which was raised and tried to find where the Auditor General had attacked that concept. I shall have something to say about that later in my speech. However, I wondered whether the defence raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Treasury Board was really a valid one at all.
People outside the House of Commons who scrutinized the question, students of this institution and of other institutions, informed members of the parliamentary press gallery and observers of the parliamentary scene-not one of them defended the argument that was put up, namely that of ministerial responsibility. Not one of them took any issue at all with the comments of the Auditor General at that time and said it was an attack on the concept of ministerial responsibility.
The government persisted in its argument and appointed a royal commission. One of the members resigned in anger. The royal commission never got off the ground. The reason was that if royal commissions are to function, they have to examine some problem, question or some reasonable doubt which has arisen in the mind of the government. There was none such to look at. Finally, and gradually, the truth began to dawn on this government that perhaps the concept of ministerial responsibility was not being attacked at all and that the Auditor General was right.
Auditor General Act
The financial affairs of the people of this country are in a mess and something has to be done to put them on the road back. Yesterday, in the speech of the President of the Treasury Board, the government trumpeted the appointment of a comptroller general of Canada. There has been no one on the road to Damascus like the President of the Treasury Board. Some members have congratulated him, and I always like to congratulate those who have managed to seek redemption on the deathbed of the government. I always view confession as a good thing-somewhat cleansing, perhaps. The headlines in today's Ottawa Citizen say it all: "Government flip-flops to name spending overseer". This is exactly what has happened.
Speaking truthfully and strongly, I think the President of the Treasury Board knows very well that 1 share in the delight of many people that, at the end of this road along which the government are moving, they have at last seen the light and recognize that perhaps a comptroller general is a good thing. Quite frankly, I have some concern whether people who make these sudden conversions do it with their whole heart. All of us in the opposition-we might as well serve notice-the people of Canada and all the commentators who have been watching the situation will take a long, hard look at how the office of the comptroller general of Canada develops. Whether it is in fact a genuine conversion which will lead to genuine action, only the future can tell. I think even the President of the Treasury Board understands that we will be watching how the process develops.
1 understand that the new comptroller general of Canada will be responsible to the President of the Treasury Board. He will be appointed at the deputy minister level and will be responsible for the quality and integrity of the financial system, but not for policy. His office will absorb the present financial controls section of Treasury Board. There will be fundamental links with department heads, but decentralized control will be maintained. We shall have to see how that works out. At a guess, Mr. Speaker, this means there will not be departmental comptrollers as recommended by the Auditor General. The minister may differ and may want to clear that up in closing second reading debate, but in any event his statement was rather hazy on that point. Lastly, the comptroller general will be considered to be the government's chief financial administrator. In view of the words of the Auditqr General which I quoted earlier in my speech, I think this system is long overdue.
Might I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and at eight o'clock I will continue with some other matters that I want to raise in connection with ministerial responsibility which the President of the Treasury Board defended so mightily last year.

April 26, 1977
Solar Energy



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt)- Health-Possibility of banning products in addition to saccharin that may be dangerous to health; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Regional Economic Expansion-Labrador linerboard mill-Request for report on aid; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Labour Conditions-Position of retired Canadian Pacific employees-Date of implementation of Hall report.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-309, respecting the domestic and industrial use of solar energy, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will have taken notice of two motions that appear at the back of today's order paper in the name of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) which the House is about to consider. It is my opinion that these two motions are similar or related to each other and could be discussed together, and that a vote on one motion would dispose of the other. Unless hon. members have other expressions of opinion, this is the way the House will proceed. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-309, an act respecting the domestic and industrial use of solar energy, be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 20 to 27 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"2. The Institute for Solar Energy Application (hereinafter the "Institute") is
hereby established as a corporation without share capital."
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-309, an act respecting the domestic and industrial use of solar energy, be amended by inserting immediately after line 27 at page 1, the following new clause:

"3. (1) The affairs of the Institute shall be managed by a board of directors
composed of not fewer than ten and not more than 25 members of the
Institute who are Canadian citizens and who shall serve without remuneration.
(2) Directors shall be elected by the members of the Institute", and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amended bill and the motions before us reflect for the most part advice received from hon. members on both sides of the House at the time this bill was discussed clause by clause in committee.
In particular, motion No. 2 proposes to increase from ten to 25 the number of members who can sit on the board of directors of the Institute of Solar Energy Application. Second, the motion proposes that these directors will be drawn from the membership of the Institute. We have, therefore, deleted the idea of appointing directors to the board of the institute, and replaced it with the idea of having all directors elected to the board.
In committee, and also on other occasions, the urgency of encouraging and promoting the creation of a Canadian industry producing solar energy technology and parts was stressed. This priority finds concise expression in clause 3(a) of the bill as reported to the House from committee.
Last Wednesday President Carter delivered his energy plan to the U.S. Congress. It is worth noting that President Carter calls for accelerating the use of solar energy where the use of renewable energy sources can replace the use of conventional fuels. This is good news. May I say if we wait too long in Canada to develop a viable solar technology suitable for production, Canada's manufacturers may not be able to compete even on the home market against technology produced abroad.	'
Let us look for a moment at what President Carter said last Wednesday. He said:
Our fourth strategy is to develop permanent and reliable new energy sources.
The most promising is solar energy, for which much of the technology is already available. Solar water heaters and space heaters are ready for commercialization. All they need is some incentive to initiate the growth of a large market.
Therefore, I am proposing a gradually decreasing tax credit, to run from now through 1984, for those who purchase approved solar heating equipment. Initially, it would be 40 per cent of the first $1,000 and 25 per cent of the next $6,400 invested.
Increased production of geothermal energy can be ensured by providing the same tax incentives as for gas and oil drilling operations.
In addition to the tax credit and the tax incentive just mentioned, President Carter proposed a business investment tax credit whereby the solar industry would be aided further by the inclusion of investments in solar equipment for industrial and commercial purposes among the approved conservation measures eligible for the proposed 10 per cent tax credit for energy saving investments. He went on to say:
The federal government will demonstrate its confidence in solar technology by undertaking a three-year solar program for federal buildings with up to $100 billion.
States are urged to amend their property tax laws to exempt solar installations from assessments, to enact legislation to protect access to the sun, and to
April 26, 1977

promote consumer education in the solar field. State public utility commissions would be required to develop guidelines to prevent utilities from discriminating against users of solar energy or other alternative energy sources.
A new office of small-scale technology is proposed within the department of energy in order to tap more fully the great potential of the nation's individual inventors and small business firms.
These are pretty vigorous measures on the part of our neighbour. I am putting them on record because our government will want, 1 am sure, to take a good look at these measures and propose soon a comprehensive Canadian package on renewable sources of energy rooted in the Canadian experience and the Canadian situation. Against this background of United States proposals, Bill C-309 almost disappears in significance. It does represent a small step in the right direction. It also offers a focus for parliamentary contributions here in the House of Commons, and hopefully soon in the Senate.
I wish to thank hon. members for their advice and support in committee, and I wish to say how impressed I was at the number of members who have spoken to me in support of the idea in the bill. In addition, I have received many letters of support, particularly from western Canada. I should like to ask for the support of the House at this report stage and on third reading today.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on this excellent bill which he is presenting. We in the Conservative party certainly support research in solar energy. We are very concerned about finding alternate energy supplies. Bill C-309, which is an act respecting the domestic and industrial use of solar energy, is to be amended by striking out a number of clauses.
Earlier this year a news release from the minister's office in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources read:
The role of renewable energy in Canada's future received a boost from the federal government today.
Energy, Mirfes and Resources Minister Alastair Gillespie announced that:
-renewable energy has been awarded the largest share of a $10 million increase in federal energy R and D spending, for the fiscal year 1977-78;
-a renewable energy resource branch has been established within the energy policy sector of EMR; and
-a national advisory committee on conservation and renewable energy is being created.
My concern here is that it looks like we have some duplication. The government is proposing to establish a similar committee to that which the hon. member for Davenport is proposing. This duplication was discussed in committee in some detail.
The news release further read:
In the near future Canada and the rest of the world will have to begin to make greater use of renewable energy sources.
Conventional sources of energy will dominate our energy picture for some time, but renewable energy forms will play an increasing role in our energy supplies of the future.
In the committee proceedings on March 30 of this year the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dupras) also commented on the fact that the
Solar Energy
minister had announced that there would be a national advisory committee on conservation and renewable energy. The parliamentary secretary went on to say:
That brings me to my first comment on this bill, Mr. Chairman. In so far as to the proposed Institute of Solar Energy Application will be a source of advice to the government and a visible demonstration of our commitment to exploiting renewable energy resources, those functions could well be duplicated .. .
y
We have a situation here where the government and the hon. member for Davenport are presenting duplicate proposals with regard to renewable energy and solar energy. The hon. member for Davenport pointed out that his bill goes further, that he wants to do a number of other things not contained in the government's proposal. I do not see why the government committee cannot incorporate the additional proposals presented in Bill C-309.
I pointed out another concern at the committee meetings. There is so much involvement in solar energy at this time that one wonders whether another body becoming involved in solar energy is really necessary. I will give an example of the number of organizations involved in solar energy research today. We have the Solar Energy Society of Canada. Manitoba has shown great leadership in this field. In Manitoba we have the University of Manitoba involved in research. The Biomass Energy Institute of Manitoba was formed many years ago and it has really shown leadership in research, in biomass, in solar energy. There is also the Morden Experimental Farm, plus commercial institutions such as the Canada Grains Council, the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Canadian Grain Commission. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the government is going to establish its own advisory commission. Therefore there are certainly many bodies involved in research into solar energy.
We in the Conservative party have studied this in some detail. We will find out later this afternoon whether the government is going to talk out this bill. In any event we would like to make some alternate proposals which could be incorporated in Bill C-309 or in the government's advisory group.
The present government non-policy regarding solar energy will prove detrimental to Canada's future. An alternative policy, which encourages the use of solar and wind energy, will have at least three results: first, the life of Canada's limited fossil fuel reserves will be extended and the demand for costly new electrical capacity will be reduced. Second, development of solar heating systems and WECS will allow more money to be freed for more important, non-energy related, investment. Third, solar heating systems will create new investment opportunities for small businesses.
It seems desirable to adopt certain policies favourable to solar energy usage. It seems that little government money should be used for original research. Much of the research currently under way in the United States is directed at squeezing out the last morsel of efficiency from solar heating systems. The systems presently being developed are good enough. Also, it is doubtful as to whether Canadian research could ever

April 26, 1977
Solar Energy
catch up to the American level. Any Canadian research would probably overlap more intensive research being conducted in countries such as Japan or the United States.
There should be grants to encourage Canadian industry to develop solar energy equipment. The minimal research required to develop a basic solar heating and cooling system can easily be conducted in the private sector. However, they need encouragement. A certain proportion of the available money should be allocated for this use by small businesses.
There should be a guarantee by Central Mortgage and Housing of mortgages taken out for solar systems.
There should also be economic incentives for a limited time, for example, 1978 to 1984, to encourage homeowners to use available solar technology. This could be accomplished through a lump sum tax credit such as 25 per cent of the value of the solar system. A tax credit of 5 per cent of the value of a system for five years might act as a greater inducement, by bringing the amortized payments on a solar system down near the level of annual conventional fuel costs. Low interest mortgage rates may be another means of encouraging solar energy use. By the mid-1980's these economic incentives would not be necessary as the "cross-over" point for both oil and electricity will have been reached.
The United States has shown leadership. Recently a bill was presented to Congress. It states that solar energy as an important energy source may be many years away, but it is important that we get a start in this energy source now if solar energy is to become an important energy source in the future.
Under the U.S. bill, a credit against individual income tax liability is allowed for 40 per cent of the first $1,000 and 20 per cent of the second $1,000, for a maximum credit of $600, of the amount spent on installing qualified solar energy equipment on a principal residence owned by the individual paying for the installation.
The United States has also shown leadership in the implementation of solar energy. There is an excellent magazine entitled "Solar Engineering". It points out that in southern California the Edison Company is going to operate its first ten megawatt solar plant. In addition, energy research and development funds are being provided for heating and cooling large shopping centres in the United States.
We should adopt many of the proposals and much of the research conducted in the United States. If we did that, it would not be long until Canada was on a par with the United States with regard to the promotion of and research into solar energy.
Regardless of whether the government lets this bill pass or talks it out and proposes its own committee, we certainly fully support information on, research into, and development of solar energy.
[ Translation]


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words to indicate our support for this bill. I believe it is time for Canada to leave aside all efforts made in the past

regarding non renewable energy sources. As we can see it from year to year, this kind of energy will not last forever. Therefore, we must absolutely turn towards renewable energy sources and if we have a few million dollars to invest, I believe it is time for Canada to follow the example of the United States, which have succeeded in outpacing us in this regard. As a matter of fact, the Liberal spokesman indicated earlier how the United States have encouraged efforts made by both the government and companies willing to invest in solar energy development and in research in this field.
I think that so far we have directed our efforts toward nuclear energy and have not given enough thought to solar energy, because we know perfectly well that the latter does not carry the same disadvantages as nuclear energy. It has not yet been demonstrated that such disadvantages could be overcome, and that is why I must congratulate the mover of the bill before us. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not confine ourselves to the report stage today and shall let this bill go through the House, because we are already late and it is time to turn once and for all towards solar energy. In my opinion and in that of the majority of Canadians, this energy is the least hazardous and safest of all energy sources. It is merely a matter for the government to give adequate incentives to those who will produce the necessary equipment, to those who will carry out research in this field so that we can develop as much as possible this new process called solar energy. I believe Canada should once more follow the lead of the United States-and for once, it is a good example to follow-and I am convinced that all hon. members of this House cannot but agree to such a bill. We hope it will be passed today.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to retard the passage of this commendable initiative by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). There is a certain touch of irony, quite frankly, in that, given the nature of our concern with all forms of energy, when you compare the relevant performance of this government with that of the United States administration, both past and present. In the alternate energy field, there is no comparison whatsoever.
I was, quite frankly, flabbergasted by the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last week to the effect that President Carter had obviously taken some of his energy policy from Canada. Nothing could be farther from the truth when one looks at the performance of this government, and nowhere is it more so than in the energy field. I have already put on the record in previous speeches the comparison-the minister knows what it is-in percentage and per capita terms, between this government and that of the U.S.
There is more than a touch of irony that it would be the initiative of a back bench member which would focus on the need for some kind of effective research into and promotion of solar energy. In fact I heard as recently as today that we have in Canada exactly the same number of nuclear plants as solar
April 26, 1977

heated homes. That gives you some idea of the extent of commitment which currently exists at the federal level with respect to the use of development of solar energy. One can only hope that this initiative of the hon. member for Davenport will be an additional prod to the government to take seriously the development of alternate energy.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has suggested, a tremendous amount of research has been done in the U.S. in this area and we hope we will be able to make good use of it. One would have to recognize the fact that there will have to be some additional research, because obviously in a sophisticated area of solar energy, and given the particular situation of Canada with its more northern climate, we will have to develop an approach which would be more appropriate to our own situation. The initiative of the hon. member may help us at least to become conscious of that. While I realize there is a prohibition of any financial commitment in a private member's bill, one hopes that the sheer initiative in the House agreeing to this proposal might wake up the government to take seriously its responsibilities in this area. It has only recently become aware that it even has a responsibility in this area. If the focus of this bill can be an additional spur for the government to take action in the field of solar energy, so much the better.
I feel this to be particularly important because I come from a province which relies heavily on offshore petroleum, which is very expensive and which makes it very difficult for us to put the province of P.E.I. and indeed the whole of the Atlantic region, into the mainstream of the national economy. Therefore I will not say anything further at this time. I hope that in this measure we can have greater and more serious attention from the government to solar energy and other forms of renewable energy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have been reluctant to rise to my feet because I did not want to run the risk of contributing to the talking out process which we experience so often during this hour. However, since it appears that that process is set aside for today and that this bill will get through, I should like to indicate that we give it our full support.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), with a modesty that we do not often witness on that side of the House, said that this was a very small bill and that in time it might fade into insignificance when grander things are done. I can only say to him that the first step is the all important one, and he is to be congratulated on the initiative he has taken. I am not concerned, and I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) is either, about the number of bodies and agencies interested in solar energy. It is a new area and it takes a number of bodies really interested to set something moving, and certainly it takes quite a bit to get the present government moving. I hope that is what is happening by our passing this bill this afternoon, as I trust we shall do. Again I extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Davenport.
Solar Energy


Ralph Goodale: My Speaker, I am rising at this time simply to indicate to you and to the House generally that I have had an opportunity in the course of the deliberations with respect to this bill today, and on other occasions, to examine it with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). He has had an opportunity to study the import of the bill, as well as the amendments adopted in committee and those about to be adopted here today, and has indicated that the measure proposed by the hon. member for Davenport in its amended form is certainly acceptable to him and to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: As all other members who have spoken this afternoon have already done, I would like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Davenport for the initiative he has taken and the success which he has achieved.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 1 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, this also disposes of motion No. 2 which is also agreed to.
Motion No. 2 agreed to.


Mr. Caccia moved: that the bill as amended be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles L. Caccia: that the bill be read the third time and
do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have heard a suggestion that we call it six o'clock. Is that agreeable to all hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.32 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
April 26, 1977
5010_________________________________________
Auditor General Act


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-20, respecting the office of the Auditor General of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, before discussing those matters which I said prior to the supper hour I would discuss, let me say to the minister, with regard to Bill C-20 respecting the Auditor General, that we share some concern about the wording used in clause 5 of the bill. We believe, frankly, that the standard accountancy words, "in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles" should be used instead of the words, "stated accounting policies of the federal government." I say this because the Auditor General himself cast doubt on the accounting policies of the federal government.


Robert Knight Andras: But he himself endorsed this bill.


Walter David Baker: We want to make sure that the bill gives the Auditor General a great deal of latitude to criticize. I am thinking especially of the wording of clause 7(2)(f>). I gather that the avoidance of the words which would normally be used in these circumstances is likely to restrict the Auditor General. That may not be the intention, but there is that possibility.
Further, clauses 5 and 7 do not use, as did Part VII of the Financial Administration Act, the words "consolidated revenue fund". This means that the Auditor General is not exclusively responsible for funds coming under the consolidated revenue fund. To carry out his responsibilities he could hire consultants, other auditing firms, to perform functions which formerly came under his exclusive responsibility. There is a danger that such firms will be less assiduous in the uncovering of information, and this bill creates some potential for patronage or favouritism. I hope this legislation will not be administered in the same way as the census matter was administered. We dealt with that matter recently.
We feel that Crown corporations should be exclusively under the Auditor General and that their audits should not be contracted out. I suggest that recent disputes which arose in the Public Accounts Committee demonstrate the validity of what I am saying. In the experience of that committee, private firms are reluctant or not likely to give the committee full information.
It is incongruous to me that there is not in this bill, as there was not in the old act, any need for the Auditor General to be a qualified accountant. Moreover, clause 5 does not refer to the Auditor General's "certifying the accounts." It refers to his expressing his opinion on their suitability. I suggest that a

requirement to prove an unwise expenditure places too heavy an onus on the Auditor General. Perhaps we should consider changing the requisite words in the bill to "value for money". Let him show if the government has obtained value for money. Perhaps we could accept some such concept.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) suggested, all annual reports of all Crown corporations should automatically be referred to the relevant committees, which would deal with them.
As I said earlier, I am concerned about the entire question of government accountability. If we are at all concerned about these matters we ought to direct our minds to examining critically some of the theoretical, basic underpinnings of our form of government. In that regard it seems to me that the principle which has been twisted and stretched beyond reason, indeed beyond serviceability, is that of ministerial responsibility-
The doctrine of ministerial responsibility has two important facets. First, it presents a working assumption which is palpably untrue-that the minister is the source of policy decisions which he may have only rubber-stamped or of which perhaps he never heard. From this comes the second proposition-that if the House of Commons wishes to discuss factual or policy matters it must address itself to the public servants through the minister, and in maintaining the fiction that the minister is indeed responsible, the House is obliged to accept an intolerable amount of interference, real and implied, from him. To preserve this outdated nonsense is to view the workings and conflicts of government through a very dark glass.
The minister is at once the mouthpiece for the bureaucracy when it speaks to the Commons, and for the Commons when it speaks to the bureaucracy. Since the minister identifies more readily with the executive than with parliament, the latter is the loser in this conflict of interest. Parliament can call the public servants before its committees, but always with the knowledge that these witnesses must impose censorship on themselves or have it done for them. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) made it clear in a previous portfolio that he controlled the appearances of his departmental officials before committees. It is obvious that committees cannot scrutinize the executive if their ability to do so is dependent on executive generosity.
The pre-eminence of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility blows away all the froth about parliamentary sovereignty, grievance before supply, and security of the executive, and leaves us with the totalitarian reality which is the Canadian House of Commons. All the constitutional formulations which were cited in the past to advance parliament's claims have been either abandoned or perverted to buttress executive authority. The cabinet is no longer, in the words of Walter Bagehot "a hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens, the legislative part of the Senate to the executive part of the State." It is a fog that obscures, a wall that blocks. If we do not devise fundamental rule changes in the House of Com-
April 26, 1977

mons which explicitly challenge some of the more outlandish perversions of the idea of ministerial responsibility, then parliament will never again truly represent Canadians.
The starting point is in the House of Commons committees. We must take the risk of bringing a more public dimension to the advice of public servants. In fact this is already done in most of the public media, and this realism in recognizing that public servants hold, and consistently advance, certain ideas should be accepted in committees. Our committees should have the power to call any public servant to testify, under oath if required, backed up by subpoena powers. To concentrate discussion, committees should have access to more than the procedural advice they now are primarily restricted to, and have adequate staff resources under the control of the House of Commons. We should extend the practice of committees being chaired by opposition members, perhaps in proportion to party strength in the House. Committees should be encouraged to prepare thorough reports which will merit serious attention from the House, the press, and the civil service.
Keeping in mind that ultimately the House and the committees are still controlled by the government's majority, I do not see why senior appointments should be the exclusive preserve of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). At present the Commissioner of Official Languages is appointed pursuant to a resolution of the House. Why not deputy ministers, the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, the Clerk of the Privy Council-all after appropriate hearings by the relevant standing committee? A parliamentary committee backed up by proper staff could, through a confirmation hearing, do more to bring senior public servants down to ground level than any number of 90-minute evasive committee meetings on estimates.
There are complementary rule changes which must be pursued. We should end the automatic supply guillotine provision for five of six departments per year; these estimates would receive approval when the House was satisfied with explanations received from ministers. The estimates themselves should be presented in greater detail, with more specific vote headings, in place of the omnibus categories which presently lump together millions of dollars in diverse expenditures. Our private members' hour is widely recognized as farcical and changes shuuld be made to bring more measures to a vote. The Ontario legislature has recently done this with positive results. We in the Progressive Conservative Party will continue to insist that the "just society" and "open government" once trumpeted so loudly by the Prime Minister are empty platitudes without a forthright freedom of information bill. Let us have an end to the degrading spectacle of Canadians flying to Washington to obtain information about their own government.
I do not believe Canadians can afford to let the House of Commons remain where it is now. Either we must return to the era when the House of Commons had real power through a widespread ability to delay all types of government business, or we must move to terminate the omnipotence of the dogma of
Auditor General Act
ministerial responsibility. One way or the other, genuine scrutiny must be the purpose of the House of Commons.
We are unlikely to see this. We shall probably see an extension of the process begun in 1969, routinely to cut off legislative debate at the instance of the government. This will complete the degradation of parliament, ending its coercive powers. Members of parliament will be left with trivial tasks at the expense of fulfilling their constitutional role. And better government will not be the result.
The greatest loss to parliament over the last century has been the impossibility of a "sense of the House"-the crossparty acceptance of what is clearly right and rejection of what is clearly wrong. Instead, the House has subdivided itself into rigid parties and factions which carry rhetoric far past the point needed to give the public a clear and meaningful choice. We have acted as if "ministerial responsibility" were the only constitutional principle worth guarding, and as a result have eviscerated parliament's mandate to scrutinize the executive. Perhaps T.V. will compel a change in behaviour. We can hope, but I think it is time for parliament and the public to ask fundamental questions.
The present session is considered by many observers to be the least productive in many years. A strange political encephalitis seems to have infected the House of Commons, and the political focus of attention has shifted to the press conferences, to the radio and T.V. interview rooms and the federal-provincial conferences. The government House leader seems to believe that the desultory debate on the government's desultory legislative program is evidence of a disinclination on the part of the opposition to pass anything. As opposition House leader, I believe both he and the Prime Minister must be pleased with the approaching successful conclusion of the campaign begun in 1968 to denude the House of Commons totally of constitutional significance.
Public interest in the proceedings of the House of Commons seems to be confined to the daily question period. For all its drama, excitement, and occasional comedy, the question period is not well suited to enforcing the responsibility of the executive to the House of Commons, and does so only at the most superficial level. Any attempt to advance policies or put interpretation on matters in the question period is expressly forbidden by our rules. As it has evolved, our question period provides a forum for commentary on urgent matters arising on a day to day basis outside the House. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, few of the members of the press gallery who crowd in for the question period stay for the debates. This point was made abundantly clear by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday. It is not really surprising because the legislative debates in the House are prolonged and are frequently beside the point at issue. I think my hon. friend will admit that. Since both the government House leader and I accept this fact, it may be legitimately wondered why nothing is done to change things.

April 26, 1977
Auditor General Act
If the legislative process could be viewed in isolation, there would be no great difficulty in making changes. However, when it is realized that legislative debate represents for the individual member of a party the sole remaining opportunity to make a stand and compel the attention of the executive, the dilemma becomes clearer. Two or more days may be adequate to debate and decide on the merits of a particular bill, but it is not long enough if such a debate represents the only significant opportunity to debate Wheat Board policy, environmental policy, or northern development. We do not have this opportunity in the Chamber today.
Nor is it long enough for the opposition to bring forcefully to a minister's attention the objections of affected constituents. It may take five, ten or 15 days to bring a minister seriously to consider objections he would at first prefer to ignore. When concessions are obtained the debate ends. In the meantime, debate is tedious and repetitious. The process dignifies no one and pleases no one. Prolonged debate is a blunt weapon, but unfortunately in the modern Canadian House of Commons the only one.
I enjoy this place, Mr. Speaker, and the camaraderie here, but I think it must be evident to anyone who sits in this House from time to time that we are really out of touch with some realities. We do not have the opportunity to debate the great issues of the day. Our procedures should be examined, not just in terms of shortness of time but in terms of upgrading them so that members of parliament have the opportunity to represent their constituents in a way that their constituents believe they should be represented.
I have suggested that we must, in addition to examining a bill like this, also examine the basic principles which are the underpinning of our parliamentary democracy, that we must indeed examine the machinery of parliamentary democracy itself. I think it is important to this place that that be done, and I hope that this bill will provide the opportunity to begin the real debate on that issue.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members know that this is not the first time that a bill having to do with the Auditor General is before the House. I suspect the last time was November, 1970. However, that bill was withdrawn after much protest, primarily because it was discovered that it would muzzle the Auditor General.
Presently the Auditor General operates under the provisions of the Financial Administration Act which devotes some 10 sections to the appointment of and instructions to the Auditor General. The proposal before the House has been praised and supported by the Auditor General himself. It appears that members of committees who have studied the office of the Auditor General have had most of their suggestions accepted in this bill. Even though we on this side of the House have agreed with many of the provisions of the bill, I do not think we would be doing our job if we did not point out that there are still some shortcomings.
Notably, Mr. Speaker, the bill fails to address itself to the Crown corporation situation. Specifically, the government still

has not put legislation before us in any way to define a Crown corporation or even to determine the number of Crown corporations or agencies. To take this a step further, we are still not clear from the proposal of the government who should be doing the audits of these Crown corporations and agencies.
The powers of the Auditor General and of the Public Accounts Committee is another area which has not been adequately put before the House. The report of the Independent Review Committee on the Office of the Auditor General had this to say about his powers, in paragraph 17 of chapter 6:
The Auditor General should have the right of access to financial records and documents of all Crown corporations of which he is not the auditor, as he deems necessary to the fulfilment of his responsibilities as auditor of the accounts of Canada.
It became obvious recently in the Public Accounts Committee that neither the committee itself nor the Auditor General had power to obtain information or even to call witnesses who might be deemed necessary. For example, I refer to the Polysar issue in regard to which the Public Accounts Committee was denied information which was desired in order to consider its decision and to make its ultimate report to this House as directed by the House.
Furthermore, although the Auditor General sat in on all of the committee hearings and deliberations in connection with Polysar, he was not able to participate in any way; he was there simply as an observer at the invitation of our committee. This was because the Auditor General, who had been the co-auditor of that Crown corporation, was "fired", which is the word that is being used. What actually happened, of course, was that the shareholders-the shareholders being the Government of Canada-at their annual meeting failed to re-appoint the Auditor General, so that in effect he lost his appointment. Anyway he was no longer co-auditor of Polysar, and Polysar no longer came under his jurisdiction.
It was only because the House of Commons, under special reference, gave the reference to the Public Accounts Committee that Polysar was under examination by that committee. However, if servants of this House are not to have the power to obtain the information they need, the House will suffer, and therefore the people of Canada will suffer.
During those hearing things were so indefinite in the existing regulations that the committee was unable to determine whether Polysar was a Crown corporation. If it was not, if was unable to determine what date it ceased to be a Crown corporation. The brief history is that Polysar, which had been entirely owned by the Government of Canada, and was therefore a Crown corporation, was sold. The shares were sold by the Government of Canada to the Canada Development Corporation which at that time was wholly owned by the Government of Canada. However, because it was a corporation of its own, it was argued that Polysar was owned by CDC and was no longer a Crown corporation. At some time later in 1975 a portion of the shares of CDC was sold to the public. Therefore the government ceased to be the sole owner through CDC of Polysar.
April 26, 1977

The Financial Administration Act contains a Schedule D which, as of this day, still lists the Polymer Corporation, the predecessor of Polysar, as being a Crown corporation. The government tells us there will be something done in the near future to remove that name as a Crown corporation. We have conflicting evidence as to whether the Crown corporation is or is not a Crown corporation. We would like to see clarification on issues such as that.
During those hearings the Public Accounts Committee was given certain letters and was given certain evidence which contained blanks. It was very difficult to tell whether the information that was being kept from the committee was necessary because it was not there. One can hardly make a judgment without the adequate information.
We have had revelations today, inside the House and outside the House, referring to possible grave consequences to the Government of Canada because of references to Dutch customers who have been discovered by an agency outside the control of the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I am still seeking a citation that I could read to him, but which I have not yet found. I want to bring to his attention that it is not the practice of this House to refer in debate to proceedings in another debate or to proceedings that are in front of a committee. To my knowledge, the committee he is referring to has not reported on that matter as yet. That might restrict him. I would hope he would not bring up the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee in the House until and unless the committee has reported. I am still looking for some citations on which to base my ruling or point of view. This is my First impression, and I would hope that the hon. member would not go too far into the detailed discussion of the proceedings in the committee.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I was not proposing to debate proceedings in committee. I was merely using that to lay the groundwork for the argument I was planning to use tonight.
I would like to move now to the remarks of the minister himself. The minister has indicated that it is the government's intention to present draft Crown corporation legislation for consideration by the House in the very near future. He indicated that the legislation had resulted from extensive and detailed study of the complexities involved in the government's desire to clarify and strengthen the direction and control of Crown corporations. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will see that this ties in with my reference earlier, and that was the purpose of that reference. I am hopeful that it will contain a definition of what is and what is not a Crown corporation. I hope it will then be possible for the government, or somebody within the government, to have the responsibility and the ability to pin down the number of Crown corporations and agencies that exist.
There is a further very important aspect of this, that is, the audit of these Crown corporations and agencies. 1 may refer a little later to the audit of these corporations, but I would like to refer now to the report of the Independent Review Commit-
Auditor General Act
tee on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. In chapter 6, recommendation No. 15, they concluded the following:
The Auditor General should audit the financial accounts of all Crown corporations whose expenditures directly affect the budgetary accounts of Canada.
In recommendation No. 16 they said the following:
The audit of commercially oriented and financially self-sufficient Crown corporations should be conducted either by the Auditor General or by accounting firms, as deemed appropriate in each case.
That argument may rage for a while yet until it is determined who should be the auditor of Crown corporations and just where the Auditor General's responsibilities should end. The instructions under the Financial Administration Act are not clear. I submit that the instructions under the bill before us are not clear as far as Crown corporations are concerned.
I am also hoping that the government is not asking us to pass a framework kind of a bill once again. That is where we would have a bill that is bare bones and that has a lot of regulations coming later on which parliament does not get a chance to express an opinion. There are people who have expressed opinions on where the Auditor General's responsibilities should begin and should end. It has been suggested by the former Auditor General that the accounts of all corporations, Crown and otherwise which are financed by public funds, should without exception be examined by and reported on to parliament by the Auditor General and no one else. He is not alone in this. I can see the desirability of such an action as that. On the other hand the present Auditor General himself has expressed some reservations on that because if he were called upon to perform all of the work that is performed on all corporations and agencies, Crown or where the Crown has any investment at all, he would soon have the biggest office in the country.
There are many corporations such as the Canada Development Corporation in which the government has a very large investment and the Auditor General is not the auditor. The government is the sole equity holder in Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. In those cases the Auditor General does not perform the audit.
I am not certain that it could be exclusively argued that Crown corporations which are in the commercial field should not be audited by private Firms of auditors. There has been the suggestion that patronage is handed out. I suppose everyone is entitled to have his business done by his friends. Whether that is patronage or calling upon a professionally qualified person, I am not certain.
Looking at the bill for a moment, I see that the provisions of it in some way duplicate the provisions of the Financial Administration Act as they are at the moment. Under clause 4 of the bill the Auditor General is considered to be a very important person indeed. There it is specified, as it was previously, that the Auditor General shall be paid a salary equal to the salary of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada.

that stronger action should be taken by auditors in cases when they find practices in the operations of their clients that are not, in their opinion, proper. However, it became apparent in the questioning that it is not easy to determine just where the responsibility of the auditor begins and ends.
A situation could develop where the auditor is expected to adopt the role of an ombudsman or even of a minister of consumer affairs, and the auditor might be put in the position of having to report on shortages of soup tins, on faulty procedures in the production of rusty Fords, or something like that, and 1 believe the thinking members of the profession would argue that the auditor's responsibility must end short of that. Perhaps in the Polysar example the auditor's responsibility was fulfilled when he reported to the audit committee of the board of directors on the practices that were of great concern to the auditing company.
The auditor has very few choices when it comes to the signing or not signing of his report. If he wishes to feel that he is the conscience of the company, he can report to the audit committee or to the board, but it is a much more serious thing when he wishes to qualify his statement, that is, to issue an unclear certificate on the statements on which he is reporting. In the case of Polysar those actions were taken and the practice continued until 1976. The Auditor General at that time satisfied himself apparently that he could sign a clear certificate. As we now know, he took further action which he felt was important, that is, to write to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I think I should comment, before I conclude, on the announcement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) of the creation of the position known as chief financial officer or comptroller general of Canada. We know that the Auditor General has been asking for such a position to be established for some three years. The minister has explained today there was a problem with terminology, and I can quite understand that one who has not spent a long time with accountancy books might misunderstand that. I certainly share the Auditor General's delight at having this position filled and knowing there will be someone who has the responsibility of reporting directly to the minister on expenditures of the government.
The minister himself referred to the size of the government and the need for improvements over and above the systems that were in effect some 20 years ago. I hope that he will provide guidance to managers in the departments, and that the departments will therefore be able to produce the useful information which will eventually prove useful to members of the House.
Late last year 1 had the honour to address a group of financial managers of the government, members of a strange group which is called the Financial Management Institute of the Institute of Financial Management. It is a kind of inside-out group, by the sound of it. One of the complaints of one of the financial managers was that the group cannot produce Cadillac reports with Model T equipment. I think that was an indication of the frustration felt by the financial managers in
Auditor General Act
the government who are trying to be effective civil servants and produce information that is wanted by the administration and by the House of Commons.
I am sorry that the minister seemed to waffle a little bit in his remarks when he made reference to the Glassco Commission. He referred to refining and improving what the Glassco Commission considered as essential safeguards for administrative integrity as if it might have been recent. It seems to me that the Glassco Commission report was a 1962 document and much has happened since then. It was obvious that a new system was necessary but, in the words of the Glassco report, such a system was beyond its terms of reference. It found lots of faults and suggested what should be done, but it was not within the commission's reference to design a system.
I certainly hope that the three new measures, this bill, the one that has been proposed, and the post of chief financial officer or comptroller general, will work together to achieve what the accountants of Canada and the Auditor General have been urging the government to do for three years.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker,
1 welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-20. This bill appoints a Comptroller General for Canada. That was announced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) yesterday. He announced that the intention of the government is to create a position of comptroller general, its occupant to be the chief Financial administrator of the federal public service.
The minister also told hon. members that the proposed legislation respecting the office of the Auditor General is one of the more significant initiatives taken by the government to ensure that public funds are handled efficiently and effectively. Well, it is almost too little and too late. The government is appointing this Comptroller General literally dragged and screaming. It is not something it really wanted to do. It was forced into it because it has been completely exposed by the opposition and the present Auditor General. There has been complete and total mismanagement of the nation's business, with no proper accounting system whatsoever in any government department or Crown corporation.
It is interesting to note that the President of the Treasury Board stated:
I must say that I am heartened by the generally favourable nature of the Auditor General's comments on the adequacy of the measures taken to date.
It was most interesting to note that the Auditor General was in the public gallery this afternoon, which indicates that he has taken a genuine interest in this appointment.
I would like to give credit to the former leader of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who through the last three federal elections called for the expansion of the Auditor General's office and for the government to be fully accountable. The proposal put forward now is merely something the Conservative party called for many years ago.

April 26, 1977
Auditor General Act
Two great revolts in the English speaking world were the parliamentary rebellion against Charles I, and the American Revolution. Each had its origin in the improper taking and spending of tax money of the people. Now, hundreds of years later, we find that we have gained nothing. In fact we have lost much ground because of the monstrous increase in spending, the complexity of government, and the inability of government and the people to be kept advised and aware of how much and the manner of government spending.
Starting in 1966, and each year through to 1972, the year of the last report of Mr. Maxwell Henderson, the former auditor general, he made clear comments about the weakening of parliamentary control of expenditure. This was not just through a philosophical statement; it was borne out and corroborated each year by a number of very carefully detailed illustrations. However, nothing was done, although something should have been done many years ago. I cannot give the government any credit for taking action at this late date. This action should have been taken many years ago.
To show that the foregoing was not just one man's opinion, the present Auditor General, Mr. Macdonell, said in his last report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, at page 9:
I am deeply concerned that parliament and, indeed, the government has lost, or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse.
He expressed that concern a year earlier in his annual report, stating that the state of financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada were significantly below the acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness. This is not just something which has cropped up in the last couple of months. It is something which has been in effect for many years under Liberal regimes.
Here is the best evidence possible that not only have the people through their parliament been unable to deal with official spending, but the government itself is largely clueless. And, with this, federal public spending estimates jumped from 1971-72 to 1977-78 from $14 billion to $41 billion, and during this time the government has been engaged in an attempt to kid us all by telling us solemnly that it is engaged in policies of restraint. What a joke. The Auditor General's response to the present government's accounting system was; and I quote:
We feel very strongly about the fact that unless the systems are corrected the day may well come when I cannot give a clear certificate on the accounts of Canada.
I contend that this gives a clear indication of the financial fiasco into which the Liberal government is leading Canada.
The financial implications of this are such that one must seriously wonder aloud why the government is employing accounting procedures which it would not accept were they used by a business or private citizen. Revenue officials have little patience for an individual whose books are not clear and accurate, yet the government is using methods about which the Auditor General has serious reservations.
The Liberal government has become a spending machine without a control centre. One need only look at some examples of financial mismanagement found in the Auditor General's

report. The Department of National Defence, at a time of a national housing crisis, lost $214,000 on unoccupied housing in Halifax where there was a severe housing shortage. The Department of Supply and Services wasted $3.8 million on a computerized government payroll system that was unworkable and had to be abandoned. The federal government paid $4.5 million for offices it did not use. The federal government has a bizarre practice of making loans to itself and counting the loans as assets.
The Auditor General's report, of course, is full of stories of federal government waste and mismanagement. Federal government spending has been growing at such a rapid rate that spending has gone from $7 billion to over $42 billion since 1962, and the civil service has nearly quadrupled, from 132,000 to about 458,000.
The stories go on and on. The waste and mismanagement of Canadian tax dollars are just incredible. In 1975 and again in 1976 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation failed to record accrued interest amounting to $14 million on loans from Canada. The government agreed to pay an annual rent of $241,000 for a property that the previous tenant had been leasing at $48,000 a year. The Post Office Department failed to recover costs of trans-border services between Canada and the United States amounting to $55,000 to March 31, 1976.
In 1975 the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce intended to sell its interest in Radio Engineering Products Limited as soon as the company had become sufficiently stable to attract a buyer. This did not happen, and the company filed a declaration of bankruptcy. It was indebted to the government to the extent of $6 million. No significant recovery of the loss is expected. That is the history of this government for years and years. It is just unbelievable.
This country has seen massive balance of payments deficits. The latest current deficit was $1,363 billion in the last quarter of 1976, the worst in Canada's history. The new comptroller general is going to have his work cut out for him. He will probably go out of his mind after the first year trying to figure it all out. Canada is now running the largest foreign debt in the western world. What on earth is being done with all this money? What is happening on the benches opposite?
In the last ten years the budget has skyrocketed over 400 per cent, from $8.8 billion to a forecast $46 billion in this fiscal year. Total government spending per person was $2,900 per person in 1975. Government took in only $2,700 per person. Thus, government has proceeded to spend an additional inflationary $200 on each of us. Where is it all going?
Transfer payments of $21.4 billion represent a little more than half the current budget. Of these, more than $9 billion went directly to Canadian citizens in social welfare expenditures, such as old age security, family allowances and unemployment payments.
The national debt of the federal government will be around $28 billion at the end of the fiscal year, the result of budget deficits in 20 of the last 23 years. The interest on the national debt, which was already $1.2 billion in 1967, will be around
April 26, 1977

$4.6 billion at the end of this fiscal year, making it the third largest federal expenditure after health and welfare and economic development and support.
The government has also contracted to guarantee the borrowings of Crown corporations such as Air Canada and the CBC. Last year the government guaranteed $15.5 billion in loans and advances to Crown corporations. Federal spending has grown faster in the past ten years than the private economy which supports it. During the last fiscal year expenditures for the Liberal government's bilingual program reached $121 million. Federal employees, excluding the armed forces, were paid approximately $5 billion in 1975, about triple the $1.7 billion they were earning in 1965. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there is no end to this mad spending. I do not think that the comptroller general will cure overnight this Liberal madness.
The problems the government is causing across the country are unbelievable. Today I received a letter from a shoe manufacturer operating in Ontario. He said:
I am talcing the liberty of enclosing a copy of an editorial ad of ours that appeared in the March 1977 issue of the Shoe and Leather Journal of Canada.
It is the first in a series of ads of similar theme which I intend to publish over the next 12 months.
In my opinion, the voice of the businessman is being heard less and less frequently in this country, particularly within earshot of Ottawa.
Accordingly, I have been forced to seek my own arena to express these ideas and opinions that are troubling our company, and for that matter, all businessmen in this country.
I hope you will find our editorial stimulating reading.
It is signed by Anthony J. Carrier, of the J. D. Carrier Shoe Co. Limited.
I have before me a copy of an advertisement put out by the Shoe and Leather Journal of March, 1977. The headline is, "Frankly we are troubled!" After listing a number of ways in which the government is affecting this business, and I might say that the points raised apply to other businesses right across this country, for everywhere one hears the same story of government interference, of rules and regulations strangling the growth of business, the advertisement goes on to say:
We are troubled by a government that mismanages public funds to the point that the Auditor General calls for an inquiry to check 'out of control' government spending.
The advertisement goes on to list a number of ways in which government involvement is affecting business in Canada.
Next I wish to refer to a news release put out by Treasury Board on February 16, 1977. The heading of the news release reads, "Public Service Growth Cut by Half-Authorized Man-Years to Increase by Six-Tenths of One Per Cent." The fourth paragraph of the news release reads in part:
The drastic cut-back in the growth of the Public Service reflects a comprehensive examination of departmental man-power requirements conducted by the Treasury Board secretariat, in consultation with departmental managers. It proved possible to cut, in absolute terms, the manpower resources allocated to some departments and agencies, so as to authorize higher-than-average increases in others to meet pressing demands.
Auditor General Act
In this news release the department tries to make out that the government is cutting back on the growth of the civil service. But I suggest this is not happening. The government is now expanding every federal department by hiring employees from private employment agencies.
I placed a series of questions on the Order Paper to discover how many people the government is hiring through private employment agencies. So far I have received figures relating to 16 departments. I have placed questions on the Order Paper relating to approximately another 20 departments. Following the recent revelation that we have in the order of 1,000 Crown corporations and federal government agencies in Canada, I can see that I shall need to place a tremendous number of questions on the Order Paper in order to determine how many people the government and Crown agencies are hiring through private employment agencies.
I have learned that 16 government departments hired 4,464 new people at a cost of between $7 million and $8 million. Yet, despite such hirings, the President of the Treasury Board has the gall to say that the government is cutting back on the growth of the civil service. It just shows you how dishonest the government is, and the sneaky methods it uses to expand the federal civil service.
I now wish to quote an article entitled "The Big Sleep", by Jacques Grenier. Underneath the title of the article appear the words, "There are now more than 300,000 federal civil servants, some of whom are awake." The author says this, among other things, in the article:
Because of the sheer size of the bureaucracy, a civil servant who wants to can go almost completely underground, performing little or no work.
On the one hand some civil servants are doing little or no work, and on the other the government is hiring employees through private employment agencies to staff government departments. Surely the comptroller general, after he is appointed, ought to investigate the undercover work mentioned in this article. I continue to quote:
A federal employee at the National Museums of Canada admitted to me he works about an hour a week. He makes over 515,000 a year. A bright young bureaucrat with the Foreign Investment Review Agency admits working about two hours a week. His salary is $28,000.
I certainly hope the comptroller general will look into the matters I have raised this evening. The article goes on to say:
An acquaintance of mine who has been in the civil service for four years, with a salary in excess of $20,000, confided. 'I took this job because I wanted to make some kind of difference. Now I'm working a total of about three hours a week. It's at something I don't like, and there is no real way out of it.' He is completely disillusioned.
Isn't that too bad! The article goes on to say:
From my own brief stint as a civil service information officer in Industry, Trade and Commerce, I can sympathize ...
Obviously, these employees do not have enough work. The article goes on to say:
... and when there are tasks, they seem meaningless. I discovered that working too fast simply left that much more time with nothing to do. Like the cubicles in the high-rise buildings, the bureaucratic workload is compartmentalized. Once you've finished the assigned work, there is usually little else to do. If you strike out on your own, you run the risk of trampling on someone else's jurisdiction.

April 26, 1977
Auditor General Act
There is built-in discouragement for someone trying to make work by finding other jobs to do to fill in his time.
The government is hiring thousands of employees through private employment agencies, and then has the gall to say it is cutting back on growth in the civil service. How deceitful can you be?
A number of hon. members this evening have commented on the accountability of Crown corporations. Mr. Speaker, Crown corporations and government agencies in Canada are accountable to no one. At present they can do what they want, and the amount of covering up done is unbelievable. Let me use what happens in Air Canada as an example.
I suggest that the new comptroller genera! should place an examination of Air Canada accounting procedures high on his list of priorities. Let me cite some examples of what I mean. In the ticket inventory and sales section, which is supposed to ensure that Air Canada receives its proper revenue on tickets sold by airline sales offices, travel agents and commercial subscribers, more than 250,000 ticket sales have gone unreported. A spokesman for the union which works at the finance branch in Winnipeg has made these statements, which have gone unchallenged. Since neither the government nor Air Canada have rebutted them, I must accept them at face value as being correct. The union also said the sales were written off by Air Canada at the lowest fare charged by the airline, $25.00. This meant a loss of more than $6 million to Air Canada.
After Air Canada had experienced these huge losses as a result of a poor accounting system, what did it do? It marched down to the Canadian Transport Commission and the commission rubber-stamped a fare increase for it. Where is the protection for the public?
What are some of the other activities of the finance branch of Air Canada? Through its airline clearing house section it has paid out $40 million to other airlines without an audit, and as of September, 1975, was backlogged to October, 1973. By its failure to audit, the airline is writing off errors in billings which normally amount to $160,000 a month, or nearly $2 million in the course of a year, the union claims. Also, the union estimated that $10 million worth of coupons were still not cashed in as of September, 1975, and the backlog was as high as $20 million last year. Even if they are eventually processed, the airline will have lost millions of dollars in revenue because of the delay. Further, in press reports published in March of last year, an internal Air Canada memorandum between officials in Winnipeg and Montreal was quoted as mentioning significant delays in billing other airlines because of the processing delay.
Finally, Air Canada made a statement. A public relations officer for the corporation declared that the airline was "subject to continuous external audit procedures conducted by independent auditors appointed by the federal government", adding they were under constant scrutiny. Nothing could be

further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. They are under absolutely no scruting whatsoever.
A comptroller general will certainly have his work cut out for him. He will have to be the most competent auditor this country has ever produced. There is a mess in this country due to improper accounting which is completely out of control, and it will take many years to correct the situation. Thank heavens the government has finally taken a step forward by appointing a comptroller general.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my area of concern today will cover two topics. The first is government policy towards existing Crown corporations. Second, assuming the need for Crown corporations, I should like to discuss certain safeguards which may be necessary to ensure that government corporations pursue the goals for which they were created and that they do so under very clear rules.
Dealing with the question of whether Canada needs Crown corporations I note that at present there do not appear to be any studies done by the federal government to indicate the conditions which must exist before a Crown corporation ought to be created. There never has been, to my knowledge, any debate concerning the proliferation of Crown corporations. Perhaps it is now time to look at the underlying reasons for which a government would choose to develop Crown corporations as opposed to a system of nationalization or complete free enterprise.
It is the traditional belief that the state should intervene, or interfere with the market place, only when the market place itself cannot satisfy a given need on the part of the consumer.
In connection with Crown corporations, however, two questions are raised. First, the existence of a Crown corporation must to a certain extent mean a limitation on voluntary exchange through a reduction in the alternatives available to individuals. In the second place, the existence of a Crown corporation raises the issue of the social responsibility of that corporation since it is also an instrument of public policy. As an example of the first principle I note Premier Lougheed's statement last week that the promotion of Petrosar by the federal government had taken jobs away from Albertans. The premier maintains that Petrosar took both job opportunity and markets away from Alberta. The existence of a Crown corporation might well limit the opportunity foreseeable by private enterprise in developing certain projects.
In dealing with social responsibility of the Crown corporation, statements have been made by ministers of the Crown that Crown corporations are commercial enterprises which must operate by the same rules as most normal businesses would operate under. This may well be true, but we have never had any discussions as to whether a Crown corporation is simply a corporation operating in the private sphere of whether it is an instrument of public policy. For example I note that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) on December 16, 1976, issued guidelines for Crown corporations. In these guidelines he warned that commitment to rigorous ethical standards and dedication to propriety in business are not
April 26, 1977

without their cost. This demonstrates the dilemma which Crown corporations are facing. On the one hand they must operate according to the tough rules of business, and on the other they must exercise strict principles of ethical standards. Surely it is time that we set out plainly the objectives and goals of Crown corporations.
The rules must be made clear not only for public corporations to operate but also so that individuals in our society have a clear understanding as to the utility of public corporations. 1 am well aware of the difficulty in establishing a satisfactory objective measure as to the usefulness of Crown corporations. It is extremely difficult to decide on a set of indicators which will separate the need for private enterprise as opposed to the need for public enterprise. In fact, it would probably be true to say that no rigid set of guidelines would be suitable. The great disadvantage of either governmental regulation or governmental operation is that it is exceedingly difficult to reverse. What I am asking the government to do therefore is to initiate some form of debate as to the need for public corporations and how far a state should go in interfering with private activities.
I am not suggesting that competition alone would be an autonomous regulator of economic activity and 1 am not suggesting that all Crown corporations should cease functioning tomorrow. What I am suggesting is that the government develop some policy or national plan concerning the need for public corporations. It is unfortunate that public corporations should have sprung up piecemeal without any clear views being expressed by the government as to their exact purpose. I am asking therefore that the government articulate the rules as to the justification of public corporations. Surely governmental policy should call for a review of all Crown corporations and they should be made to justify their existence in a manner very similar to zero based budgeting.
It has been suggested by various individuals that public enterprise in Canada resulted from the small domestic markets available in this country. Surely it is time that we ask whether public enterprise is destructive and wasteful. If we are going to keep public enterprise, then we should ask what are the best ways of giving public enterprise maximum freedom from political interference without giving up ultimate parliamentary control.
Naturally, all these questions centre around the crucial question as to what is the ideal relationship between the economy and public enterprise. Perhaps we also need to look at the historical perspective beginning with the federal enterprises of the 1930's like the Bank of Canada, Polymar, Eldorado Nuclear, the National Harbours Board, Industrial Development Bank, and the second generation such as Atomic Energy of Canada, Northern Transportation, Northern Canada Power, Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporations, Canadian Patents and Developments, Petro-Canada-the list goes on. It has been estimated that Crown corporations account for over 30 per cent of all Canadian-controlled corporate assets.
Auditor General Act
There are, in addition to these, Crown corporations in cultural fields, those which act as treaty agencies, those involved in housing and urban development, and those with very specialized functions too numerous to mention. Then there is always direct government participation in private companies like Panarctic Oils and Telesat Canada. I am not suggesting that most of these enterprises have not added to cultural form in Canada. I am suggesting though that Canadian public enterprise has proliferated to a large extent without the government or the public knowing the underlying reasons behind this proliferation, and perhaps it is now time to examine some of these reasons.
The next area which logically follows from this is that, assuming we do have certain forms of public enterprise, then should we establish clear rules to enable these public enterprises to operate not only effectively and efficiently, but also under a standard which the Canadian public appreciate?
On December 16, 1976, the President of the Treasury Board disclosed in the House of Commons guidelines governing Crown corporations in relation to their commercial practices. These guidelines were generally welcomed by my party. I would point out, however, that officers and directors of Crown corporations are not at present under any higher or more rigorous standard of care and duty than that incumbent upon directors and officers of federal and provincial companies. There is not at present any statute, regulation or guidelines setting out the standard of care incumbent upon officers and directors of Crown corporations falling within the Financial Administration Act.
Truly it is now appropriate to have such guidelines or rules, especially in light of the Polysar investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. Surely it is time for the government to bring forward a proposed bill governing Crown corporations. Other areas, such as whether or not a Crown corporation should have an audit committee, would also have to be covered by such a bill. The accountability of Crown corporations, including penalties for non-observance, should be stipulated in the bill. The power to remove members of the board of directors by parliament and not by the cabinet should also be included.
These are just some of the areas which would be covered by a bill dealing with Crown corporations. The whole thrust of my argument, however, is that we do not need any more guidelines respecting Crown corporations; rather there is need for legislation and parliamentary control of Crown corporations, including their accountability. Let me close by saying that parliament must re-establish its authority over these Crown corporations in order to ensure that scandals such as Polysar and Eldorado Nuclear do not occur in the future.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief so as to fit into the available time slot. 1 welcome the opportunity of making a few short comments on Bill C-20 and I congratulate the government on the concepts included in the bill. I think the minister came into his portfolio

April 26, 1977
Auditor General Act
during a time when many matters were being discussed and this whole question was evolving. To be fair to the minister, he has certainly listened to and read many of the comments that have been made in relation to the post-expenditure auditing procedures of the government. Obviously the situation that the government faces and which most governments face today cries out for reform, and this bill is a small step along the road to reform. In congratulating the minister I certainly would not want him to be big-headed, feeling that he has found the answer for everything, because I am sure he appreciates that he has not.
The bill itself causes me some concern. I think there are some gaps in it. I am in the rather funny position that, while 1 can see the need for some amendment when the bill reaches the Public Accounts Committee, I am not so sure that 1 will be in any position to present any amendments. Therefore 1 want to take the opportunity this evening to leave the Elouse a few ideas for its consideraton, if I may.
I realize we are debating the principle of the bill and are not to engage in a clause by clause discussion, but at the very beginning of this bill 1 find a defect in that nowhere is there any requirement that the Auditor General of Canada should himself be a professionally qualified accountant. I think this is a matter that should be rectified. It may be a small thing, but I gather that there have been times in the history of the office of the Auditor General when we have had good Auditors General and bad Auditors General.
I suppose the final responsibility for choosing an Auditor General lies with the House of Commons itself, of course along with the government, but I think one of the statutory requirements of any person holding this office should be that he is licensed in Canada to be a public accountant, that is, that he should at least be professionally qualified as an auditor. I hope this small amendment can be made in the qualifications provision of the bill.
Secondly, I think the clauses pertaining to the presentation of the Auditor General's report to the House should be changed. I think it is redundant, to say the least, when the Auditor General prepares his report by December 31, or whatever is the requirement in the bill, that he should present it to the Minister of Finance who in turn tables the report in the House, and from there there has to be a reference to the Public Accounts Committee. I think these are redundant, meaningless, and unnecessary steps which should be eliminated.
There are many precedents for the tabling of reports in the House of Commons by Mr. Speaker. I think it would be, if nothing else, a symbol of the independence of the office of the Auditor General if the Auditor General's report were presented to the Speaker of the House, and the Speaker of the House were required to table it immediately. In other words, let us cut out the presentation to the Minister of Finance, who in any event has enough to do. In actual fact the Minister of Finance has very little to do with the report of the Auditor General, so my suggestion is that the report be presented to the Speaker of

the House, that it be immediately tabled, and then automatically referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
If Your Honour asks why, I would answer simply that in the past there have been abuses. The 1970 Auditor General's report was tabled on June 4, 1971. It was not referred to the Public Accounts Committee until three and a half months later, namely, on September 22, 1971. There may have been reasons for this in those days, I appreciate, but nevertheless if one wanted to, one could believe there could be a delay of 15 days before the Minister of Finance tabled the report in the House, and there could be a further delay until a Public Accounts Committee was set up. There could also be a further delay until there was a reference by the House of the report to the Public Accounts Committee.
I see no need for the intermediary of a minister, especially the Minister of Finance. I feel, on the tabling of the report by the Speaker that that should trigger off, by a statutory requirement, an automatic reference to the Public Accounts Committee, just as the tabling of the public accounts themselves should also constitute an automatic reference to the committee. This was a recommendation of the Wilson report, which is not included in the bill. 1 do not know why it was not. Perhaps the minister has a reason as to why it was not. It should be a requirement in the bill, in any event. Cut out the Minister of Finance and have the Speaker receive the report and immediately table it. That tabling should constitute an automatic reference to the Public Accounts Committee under the statutory provisions of the bill presently before us.
There are other precedents for reports to be transmitted to the Speaker and for the Speaker to table those reports. For instance the report of the Chief Electoral Officer, under the Canada Elections Act, must be transmitted to the Speaker and the Speaker must table it. The report of the representations commission, under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, is transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker tables that report. The report of the commissioner under the Official Languages Act is transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Commons tables that report. As a further measure for indicating the independence of the Auditor General, indicating and confirming that the Auditor General is a servant of the House of Commons, reports to the House of Commons, is not a servant of the government and does not report to the government, this bill should contain such a provision.
I note with interest, for instance, Bill 24 that is presently before the Ontario legislature requires the provincial auditor's report there to be transmitted to the Speaker of the legislature and for that report to be tabled in the House at Queen's Park by the Speaker of the legislature. That is a good move that we should follow here.
The bill should also be further amended to require that by the time the Auditor General's report is tabled the organization of the Public Accounts Committee should have been
April 26, 1977

completed. While it is not a matter that is now incorporated in the principle of this bill, it is a matter that should be so incorporated. The sooner we get the report tabled and the sooner it is referred to the Public Accounts Committee, the better the Public Accounts Committee will be able to do its job. Hopefully that is one of the reasons for this bill.
While the Public Accounts Committee is a peripheral matter to the Auditor General and the Auditor General's function, nevertheless it is an integral part of the over-all picture. Certainly the Public Accounts Committee should be organized and ready to work at the beginning of the session so that it can receive and get to work on the Auditor General's report. Therefore I think a worth-while amendment to this bill would provide, at the time the report is referred to the committee, that the committee be ready, willing and able to work. That should mean that the Public Accounts Committee is organized.
We could even sneak into this bill and put in statutory form a provision that has now been traditional in this House since the Diefenbaker days, that is, that the Public Accounts Committee should be chaired by a member of the opposition, as it is at the moment. The sooner the Public Accounts Committee is organized and the sooner the Public Accounts Committee is working, the fuller and better job it can do. Again there have been abuses of this in the past. The twenty-eighth parliament opened on May 8, 1967, but the Public Accounts Committee was not organized until one full year later, namely, May 5, 1968. That is an abuse of the whole system. This bill should guarantee that this type of circumstance will not occur again.
I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I refer to specific clauses, but on a bill such as this one we are looking at the over-all procedure on the matter. Clause 10 of this bill is a very worth-while provision. For the first time the Auditor General, on the request of the governor in council, is empowered to make an inquiry into any special financial matters that may be referred to the Auditor General from the governor in council. That is a very admirable clause. That is a very good innovation that, as far as I know, was not available earlier to permit the government to refer special matters to the Auditor General. There is, however, simply one defect in that, that is, I do not believe that the governor in council should be the only body that should have the power to require the Auditor General to make special inquiries. I feel that the Public Accounts Committee should also have that power. The place to make that amendment is in this bill. I would hope by the time it gets reported back to this House that there may be an amendment along that line, of course with the guarantee that any such reference would not impede the Auditor General in fulfilling his normal function.


Walter David Baker: He can tell us that.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He can tell us that, as my colleague points out. There are those provisions in the bill, in any event, in regard to the special requests that the governor in council can make of the Auditor General.
Auditor General Act
If we are going to make the committee system in this House work, and especially if we are going to make the most important committee of this House work, namely, the Public Accounts Committee, it should be a very special committee and have very special powers, special jurisdiction, and perhaps even special facilities. It should have the power to ask the Auditor General to make a special inquiry into matters that may concern it in relation to the post expenditure financial affairs of the government. There should be a clause similar to clause 10 permitting the Public Accounts Committee to do this.
One other matter to which I wanted to direct the attention of the House in regard to this bill is the whole question of Crown corporations, Crown agencies, joint venture corporations and institutions, and many of these quasi-government commercial operations which were unknown to the government of a few years ago. The original concept of the Financial Administration Act, as I understood it, was to make sure that government-owned, government-run, or government-controlled commercial organizations were to be audited by the Auditor General of the day. That was implicit in the original concept. Of course, things have gone far beyond that concept today.
There are all sorts of organizations in which the government has a controlling interest or in which it supervises the operation of some of these matters. I think that in any commercial operation in which the government has a substantial financial or equity position, or in which the government has the power to appoint the board of directors, there should be some close tie-in with the Auditor General of Canada.
1 am not saying that the Auditor General of Canada should audit every Crown corporation and every agency. For want of a better word, I call them Crown agencies. There are some such as Canadian National Railways and Air Canada which, I would venture to suggest, if we required the Auditor General to audit the books, it would almost immediately require a three-fold or four-fold increase in the staff of the Auditor General. Mind you, what you lose in the swings you may gain in the round-about because we pay in other ways for that auditing by an outside auditor.
In this bill there is a very serious lack regarding the whole concept of these Crown agencies. By using the term Crown agencies, I mean a much wider scope than merely Crown corporations. If outside auditors are used in any of these Crown agencies, they should report to the Auditor General of Canada. In other words, he should have supervision and direction over these outside auditors. He may not have the capacity, the facilities, or even the need to want to do the actual audit with his own staff, but he should have the direction, supervision, and control.
I believe there should be an amendment to this bill requiring that if any outside auditors are used in respect of any Crown corporation or any Crown agency, they should report to the Auditor General, who in turn should report to parliament in respect of the auditing of these matters.
5022

April 26, 1977
Auditor General Act
By Crown agencies I mean these institutions and organizations which at the moment are not technically Crown corporations, but which include organizations such as Petro-Can, the Canada Development Corporation, and other such organizations and their subsidiaries such as Polysar, the PISA group and the Polysar Europa organization. I am sure some of these subsidiaries were almost unknown to the government and the Treasury Board until some of the latest controversies occurred.
I want to say something about a matter that is not referred to in the bill but to which the minister referred very fully when he made his contribution on second reading yesterday, that is, the whole question of the comptroller general and the financial officers in the departments. I am concerned about this whole concept. I welcome the emergence and the conversion of the minister to the whole concept of the comptroller general idea. I think it is worth while. Personally I am not 100 per cent sold on the concept. I am willing to agree, however, with past Auditor General reports and past considered opinions of predecessors to the present Public Accounts Committee in which they endorsed this concept.
Certainly something has to be done in relation to governmental supervision and control and financial accountability in respect of government departments. Now that the government and the minister have endorsed this provision and indicated that it is going to be brought about, I welcome it very sincerely. However, what we are dealing with here in respect of the comptroller general and the whole idea of the financial officers is some provision whereby the people of Canada and this parliament can be ensured that the moneys voted by this parliament are used for the purposes approved by this parliament.
I can well understand the criticism the minister has received in cabinet from his cabinet colleagues, all of whom feel that they are and should be in charge of the policy decisions respecting the operations of their particular departments. Therefore the minister has gone to great pains to point out that these financial officers and the comptroller genera! will be reporting to him and not to parliament.
I can see the minister's fears. I understand them. However, as well as the accountability from the management sense and the administrative sense to him and to cabinet which are essential, nevertheless we are also talking about accountability to parliament.
As I understand my reading of the Wilson committee report, and I am referring to the report of the Independent Review Committee on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, they noted that a number of British practices in the post expenditure review process might be usefully adopted in Canada. One of these was the appointment of specific senior departmental officials as accounting officers to relieve the ministers of some of their responsibilities. I endorse the Wilson committee's recommendation that these officers answer not only to the departmental heads, the cabinet, their own ministers and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), but that they answer as part of their duties to the Public Accounts Committee for the efficient financial administration
of their own departments, not on policy matters but financial administration matters.
I gathered from the rather vague and nebulous comments of the minister in respect of this whole matter that perhaps the matter is not completely solidified in his department. I hope the minister will take a good look at that aspect of it. Parliament has every right to know what is going on once the funds are voted. One way to ensure that disclosure is made to the public is to tie in or to tee in with these matters the Public Accounts Committee. In general, I congratulate the minister for bringing the bill forward.


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 motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to ask the acting government House leader to confirm that tomorrow we will be dealing with the Export Development bill.


Ralph Goodale: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. We intend to call item No. 47, the legislation relating to the Export Development Corporation first tomorrow. If we are successful in dealing with that item rather quickly, it is our intention to move on to Bill C-39 relating to the Bank Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on March 30 I directed the following question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro):

April 26, 1977

It has to do with the implementations of the recommendations of the Hall report. Former CPR employees who retired about 19 years ago have had a pension increase of $1.50 a month since that date. I know the minister must be concerned about the terrible inflationary pressure that this puts on the economy.
I wonder if he is prepared to give them another $ 1.50 in the next 20 years. May I ask when he is going to implement the recommendations of the Hall report?
The minister sloughed off that question with a flippant answer to the effect that it is a great idea but the unions will have to be consulted on this and so will the CPR.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the unions will not object very much to some of the recommendations Mr. Justice Hall made. Let me enumerate them as follows: first, that retired employees of the CPR should be granted the same level of increase in pensions since retirement as those granted by the CNR to its retired employees. These increases have been approximately 2 per cent annually each year since 1970 and should apply to all those retired prior to January 1, 1973. These increases should also apply to those in receipt of survivor pensions.
I do not think the unions would object to the second recommendation that the provisions in the CPR pension plan terminating survivor benefits upon the remarriage of the eligible widow or widower be removed, or to the third recommendation that the provisions in the CPR pension plan requiring marriage five years prior to the death of the employee or pensioner in order to qualify for a survivor's pension be reduced to one year.
The fourth recommendation states that the provision in the CPR pension plan limiting eligibility to employees hired before age 40 be changed to read: "Hired before age 60".
The fifth recommendation is that the trusteeship of both the CPR and CNR pension plans be removed from the hands of the boards of directors of the respective companies and placed in the hands of an independent trust company. I cannot imagine any union objecting to that and I do not know why the minister sloughed off the question in that way. It was cheap on his part.
The company also does have some responsibilities, and I will be the first to admit it. The CPR has done very well in the last hundred years of its operations, and I for one would not decry the growth of that company. It has been a good thing. The company has diversified its investments. It now has investments not only in the railway but in other things such as mining, lumber, smelting, real estate, and in operations all around the world. That wealth from around the world has come not simply because of shrewd investments on the part of the company-and I give it credit for that-but also through the hard work and the sweat of loyal employees of the company. It is time to reward those employees.
I have noticed that the CPR and the CP employees are fiercely proud of their company, and I like that. I am very pleased when employees are proud of the company for which they are working. I have noticed also that the retired trainmen, the engineers, the switchmen and so forth of CPR are proud of their company and they still speak with a glow in their hearts of their relationship with that company. But these retired
Adjournment Debate
people cannot eat pride, regardless of how proud they are of their company. Somehow, they have to keep body and soul together, and a $1.50 increase in the past 19 years does not feed them very well. I would say that the company is doing itself a disservice by dragging its feet on a recommendation by Mr. Justice Hall that the pension plan be upgraded at least to the level of CNR pensions.
I just came across an article in a periodical called The Canadian Interchange, which is put out by railway men, and it notes the following:
Canadian Pacific may be better known for its railway operations, but according to a Montreal Gazette report, the company stands to earn more money from the increased use of cars over trains through its network of investments and subsidiaries.
CP owns Algoma Steel Corp. which sells material to the auto makers to build
cars.
It is a major shareholder in Dominion Bridge Co. which builds highway bridges for the cars to drive over.
It's bought into Panarctic Oils Ltd. which is looking for more oil to fuel those cars, and what Panarctic doesn't find, CP (Bermuda) Ltd.'s 25 tanker ships can bring in from oil-rich areas around the globe.
That simply underscores the fact that CP, through its global operations and all its subsidiary companies, surely has a little bit left in its accounts somewhere so that retired employees from Canadian Pacific who retired many years ago can get a little bit more out of the retirement plan than they have received to this point.
The Minister of Labour should exercise some leadership. He should bring this matter to the attention of company officials and demand that they meet the recommendations of the Hall report in this matter.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the honourable member opposite is aware that we are greatly concerned by the problems of those pensioners. And he will also realize that in three minutes we cannot give him a very exhaustive answer on the whole matter of railway pensions.
The Hall report is a 219-page document which suggested many solutions to the problem mentioned by the hon. member. As concerns trust provisions, it noted that the railway pension plans were different from other plans. Considering his findings on that respect and also the concern expressed by labour about the present trust provisions, Mr. Hall recommended that "the management of pension plans, both for CNR and CPR, now be the responsibility of an independent trust company rather than that of the boards of directors of the companies". Obviously, that recommendation should be carefully studied by the parties. Among the many questions concerning railway pensions studied by Mr. Hall, the one that seemed most urgent to him was that of the problems faced by present pension plans due to the effects of inflation.
Throughout his report, Mr. Hall states clearly that he prefers not to make recommendations when the parties to collective bargainings can deal with issues or problems within the established collective bargaining procedure. According to
80012 -3914

April 26, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Hall, the question of the improvement of railway pension plans should be the responsibility of the parties and that could be accomplished through consultation and collective bargaining. Mr. Hall underlines that labour and management proved that they were apt to deal with most pension matters. In the circumstances, the intervention of the government does not seem advisable in areas where it could interfere with the sound relationship of collective bargaining.
The railway companies and their unions echoed that theme, and one should mention here the considerable improvements made in the companies' pension plans since 1973 when pensions became, for the first time, negotiable under collective agreements.
To help the parties deal with the very complex question of knowing how to protect pensions against the erosion of inflation, Mr. Hall made several estimates based on various methods of ensuring cost of living indexation of the railway company pension plans. However, the choice of one of these is left entirely to the parties involved, that is the employer and the unions, who would take into account their general priorities with regard to pensions and other aspects of the agreements. The negotiation of a new agreement on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-LABRADOR LINERBOARD MILL-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON AID
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question today was one of a series of questions I have directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) and to other members of the cabinet on the matter of the fate of the Labrador Linerboard Mill in Ste-phenville, Newfoundland, which has been in serious trouble as an industry since its establishment. The mill is probably the most modern in North America today, but it has been in serious difficulty for two reasons. The first is that the mill is too distant from the raw resource which is in Labrador, and the second is that it has been extremely difficult to break into offshore markets.
However, the problem is not as simple as I have stated and, without going into detailed reasons, it is also due to bad economic planning, of which the minister is aware. The situation has reached the stage where, as a result of drastic operating losses which had to be borne by the province of Newfoundland, the mill is threatened with closure unless, through the efforts of all concerned, the operation can be rehabilitated.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I place no responsibility for any failure on the government opposite. Indeed my reason for being here tonight is to plead with the minister to make a determined effort to do everything within
{Mr. Olivier.]
his power to try to bring the strength of his department to bear in order to find solutions to the problems which exist. From my knowledge of the functions of his department I can say that he can provide the answers if only he shows some flexibility in the application of the objectives of his department toward the problem which exists in Newfoundland.
Unfortunately, from what I can gather, the whole, distressing story of the mill has been one of mismanagement, of decisions having been made on political rather than economic grounds. But again the time allotted to me does not allow me to elaborate on the facts which support this statement. It only allows me to say that in the pulp and paper world this mill is probably the only one threatened with closure. This is happening in an industry which is on the upturn. This, to my mind, is significant enough in itself to emphasize the dilemma which exists in my province, in that there is a lack of capability to industrialize, even given our richness in resources which we supposedly have in abundance.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I saw the seriousness of this situation last year and made the following observations to the federal government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), the minister from Newfoundland, who has co-operated with me in making determined efforts to solve this problem.
I wrote the following to the minister:
To me, the basic problems are as follows:
1.	The high cost of producing a ton of linerboard, which restricts competitive capability...
2.	The difficulty in breaking into markets for linerboard. Apart from the fact that they were one of the newest mills to come on stream, they were able to operate and sell their product in 1974 and were reaching a favourable position until the 1975 year when supply overtook demand and according to I.T. & C., that was the worst year ever for linerboard sales.
3.	With ever recurring rumours of complete closure, an added problem has arisen which could force the closure and the reason is that, as a result of the uncertainty of its future, key personnel are leaving and this will mean that replacements will be difficult to find because of the same uncertainty ...
4.	As a result of the thrust of closure, there is a depressed atmosphere in the whole community ... and this is affecting the economic and social being.
5.	As a result of the lack of markets, inventory at the mill and raw resource is over a normal peak and which has resulted in continuing shut-downs, which exacerbates the state of depression.
The solutions which I shall propose this evening to the parliamentary secretary were set out in the letter, and are as follows:
1. That the federal government initiate a co-ordinated effort with the provincial government under and including the Department of Industry, Trade & Commerce, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Manpower, along with probably CIDA and the Export Development Corporation directed towards the following objectives:
(a)	to review studies carried out on the operation of the mill.
(b)	to examine ways and means of rationalizing the cost of the resource in line with availability.
(c)	to examine the possibility and the need for support funding to streamline the operation ir. order to compete with offshore capacity.
(d)	to determine the need for assistance in shipping cost to and from the mill as a result of distance from the resource as well as the distance from offshore markets.
April 26, 1977

(e)	to consider in the determination of assistance to underdeveloped countries to whom Canada provides interest free loans to establish mills, the feasibility of promoting the purchase of linerboard on the same basis .,.
(0 in the continuing efforts to establish trade with other countries that the sale of linerboard be given high priority.
(g)	to examine the possibility of finding firms that use linerboard extensively to invest in Labrador Linerboard in order to ensure capacity where those firms would provide a steady market, or alternatively to consider through Export Development Corporation, the possibility of investing in firms that use an abundance of linerboard to ensure sales, or to invest in the mill itself.
(h)	to consult with all firms producing linerboard that may have plans for expansion in line with expanding markets to invest or purchase the Labrador Linerboard mill.
(i)	that Manpower extend efforts to examine the results of high unemployment that is occurring and to examine and implement re-training and other programs, to prepare for the impending need for mobility transfers and alternative job opportunities.
(j)	that the facilities at the Harmon Base be examined to recognize the possibility of considering that base in the government's decentralization objectives, e.g., Taxation Data Centre, Canadian Coast Guard (Search and Rescue) fisheries, etc.
(k)	to investigate the physical inventory of valuable property left as a result of the phase out of the American SEAC Base and to determine its use as a result of decentralization planning.
There is still time left, Mr. Speaker. I hope the parliamentary secretary will convey my excellent suggestions to the
Adjournment Debate
minister and will secure the co-operation of all members of the government. Please remember that we are concerned about the loss of 2,100 jobs. We must try to save them, for their loss would affect the entire community in the west part of Newfoundland.


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments and I wish to assure him, on behalf of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) and the government, that his concern is deeply felt and shared. We are all aware that the government of Newfoundland has been grappling with this problem for sometime. At this point, no commitment has been made with regard to the rehabilitation of Labrador Linerboard and the minister of DREE is not aware that a final report has been submitted by the advisory group. It would not, therefore, be appropriate at this time to prejudge the options which might present themselves in terms of the Labrador Linerboard plant.
The hon. member may be sure however, that the government will follow the progress of this matter with great care, understanding full well the crucial importance of the plant to the people and well being of Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Wednesday, April 27, 1977