1977-03-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, a little delayed but nevertheless under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the signs of spring, which unfortunately are not all that evident in the capital today but which do manifest themselves in the fresh daffodils from my riding of Esquimalt-Saanich, and which are available in the lobbies to all hon. members.
In view of the growing unemployment across the country and particularly in my riding, in view also of the unfair competition under which Canadian agriculturalists and hor-ticulturalists in the west suffer from cheap products from abroad in the form of vegetables, cut flowers, shrubs and fruits, some of which are almost certainly dumped on to the Canada market from overseas, I seek the unanimous consent of this House for the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in consultation with his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) undertake a review of the regulations relating to the seasonal imposition of duties on vegetables, cut flowers, shrubs and fruits from outside our borders, in particular recognition of the early maturing stages of these natural products in British Columbia, so that agriculturalists in the garden riding of Esquimalt-Saanich shall be able to continue their commercial operations, provide employment, and provide their customers in the east and in the west with garden fresh fruit, vegetables and flowers for many years to come.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the latest forecast of the Conference Board of Canada indicating that the economy is showing "a generally poor performance" and that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate will rise to 8.3 per cent by the fourth quarter of this year, and in view of the statements made by the governor of the Bank of Canada in his report tabled yesterday in the House suggesting that 1976 was a good year despite the fact that one million Canadians were unemployed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to reject the totally regressive and thoroughly erroneous policy suggestions by the governor of the Bank of Canada on what is required for the Canadian economy at this time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that hostage-taking in Canada is occurring with such frequency as to be commonplace, and as such criminal activities are connected with violent crime, and further, as such crimes are a total curtailment of the rights and freedom of law-abiding citizens, I therefore move:
That the government bring forth an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada making hostage-taking a crime calling for a minimum sentence of imprisonment for five years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 22, 1977
4196	___
Unemployment Insurance ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


COMMENDATION OF TORONTO POLICE ON SUCCESSFULLY DEALING WITH HOSTAGE-TAKING INCIDENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion about an important public matter. As members of the House will be aware, last night in Toronto at about 11.30 p.m. a hostage-taking incident involving 13 hostages came to an end peacefully. The successful conclusion of this incident, which ended without any injury, gave yet another example of the courageous and dedicated service given all Canadians by the police forces of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House commends the members of the metropolitan Toronto police force for their courage and efficiency in bringing the hostage-taking incident of March 21, 1977 to a peaceful conclusion and it recognizes with appreciation the daily contribution of the police forces from across Canada whose bravery and dedication help to preserve the lives and safety of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some reservations about the urgent and pressing necessity of using the Standing Order in this way to extend these kinds of congratulations. It puts a very invidious choice upon the House as to whether such a motion should be debated or passed without debate. Nevertheless, under the circumstances I will put the motion. The unanimous consent of the House is required for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in accordance with Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the harmful effects of Bill C-27 and the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and in view of the new opposition to the requirements that jobless people work 12 weeks a year instead of the present eight, to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, which will have a drastic effect in all parts of Canada, and in particular the Atlantic provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

That this House do urge the government to amend or withdraw Bill C-27 in order to maintain the present criteria in qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that beef producers in the province of Manitoba, by the way of a referendum on March 18, 1977, overwhelmingly denounced the concept of a beef marketing board, a position that underscores the petition containing 5,000 signatures that I tabled in the House of Commons on December 14, 1976, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That this House requests the Minister of Agriculture to refrain from dictating the marketing board concept in the face of such obvious producer resistance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It concerns the report the Prime Minister tabled yesterday of the government's advisory group on executive compensation. Given the restraint program to which the government says it is committed, will the Prime Minister give the House of Commons an undertaking now that the government will not allow senior civil servants' salaries to rise to the levels recommended by the advisory group on executive compensation?
March 22, 1977


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would appropriate to give that undertaking. I want to bring the report on executive compensation to cabinet, discuss it with my colleagues and consider the very serious arguments that are always put forth by this committee of private entrepreneurs and managers who have always given very sound advice to the government.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must realize that once again the reputation of his government on the question of the seriousness of its commitment to restraint is at issue here. What I am asking for, and what the House would like to have, is a commitment by the Prime Minister now on the principle that in a period of restraint there will not be an acceptance by the government of the very substantial increases recommended by the advisory group on executive compensation. Can we have that commitment of principle now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition seems to forget very readily that the senior executive service has been frozen for one year. They, with members of parliament, are 1 believe the only people in the economy who have-


Mr. Blackburn:: They are starving.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You do not look as though you are starving.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not prepared to take the easy route of trying to find one group in the economy whom we can control directly and make scapegoats out of them as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it would be encouraging to the elderly, the unemployed and other Canadians if the Prime Minister would show the same degree of concern for them as he shows for senior public servants who have enjoyed what must be regarded as a very comfortable freeze. I would like to ask the Prime Minister now in relation to the fact that we have seen in this country, particularly during the years of his leadership, a growth in the power of the public bureaucracy compared to the power of the cabinet and parliament, for an undertaking that the treatment given by his government to this report will rebut the assumption that the direction and management of government lies with civil servants and will instead underline the principle of parliamentary democracy in this country, that the people who are to make the decisions in this country are those who sit in this House and not the highly paid elitist group who are the beneficiaries of this most recent recommendation.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. I was wondering whether the Prime Minister has ever considered that the frequent recommendations made to him in recent months by the Auditor General, the Conference Board, the Economic Council of Canada and now the Lambert report are in essence an indictment of the government's capacity to accept full responsibility for the financial problems confronting this country and its preparedness to hand over that responsibility to the public service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not quite sure what the hon. member means, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure the answer must be no.


Donald W. Munro: My question is again to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that his government is consistently talking about the need to hold the public service accountable and the difficulty under our parliamentary system of making them accountable to this House, does the government not even envisage the need to ensure total fiscal responsibility from its public servants so that in turn parliament can require accountability from those who, in the final analysis, must accept responsibility for these acts, namely, the ministers on the front bench?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I remain confused about what the hon. member means by "fiscal responsibility". It seems to me that every citizen in this country has to be totally fiscally responsible. So what?


FINANCE
Donald W. Munro: This time I will address my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. If I cannot get answers from the Prime Minister, I can at least try to get them from the Minister of Finance. On page 8 of the Lambert report the advisory group refers to the deception in the public mind of the government's undertakings to restrain and reduce public expenditure. In the light of this comment, can the Minister of Finance explain how he will reconcile that particular comment with the recommendations made later in the report on page 20 concerning substantial increases in executive compensation in the public service?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what the commissioners were

March 22, 1977
Oral Questions
referring to was the fact that the public has been under some misapprehension with regard to reduction in public expenditures. I might point out to the hon. gentleman that the rate of increase of expenditures for the financial year which will end next week will be below that of the gross national product and indeed below our anticipation for the year, and for the forthcoming year the rate of increase of expenditures will be half of what was earlier anticipated.


ECONOMIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OF GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question concerning another well paid public servant. Can the Minister of Finance tell the House whether he has met recently with the governor of the Bank of Canada and, if so, did he make it clear to him that the government totally rejects both his foolish suggestion that 1976 was a good year economically for Canadians and his equally foolish view that we do not need a stimulus in the economy at this time to provide jobs for the more than one million unemployed Canadians?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have, of course, been in conversation this week with the governor of the Bank of Canada. The hon. gentleman finds himself in difficulty with the viewpoint he has been trying to sell to the Canadian public not according with that of the governor of the central bank. Between the two of them, I would have to take the governor's viewpoint.


POSSIBILITY OF TAX CUTS IN FORTHCOMING BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: Given the past performance of the governor, and indeed his predecessor, I would be very concerned if we had similar views. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, who did such a superb job in managing the economy in 1976, if he would confirm for the House a newspaper report that when he was visiting the U.S. he informed the U.S. secretary of the treasury that he would not be bringing forward any tax cuts in his forthcoming budget to stimulate the economy.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate to the secretary of the treasury the direction of our budget at all.


FORECAST OF UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR COMING YEAR
John Edward Broadbent: Can the minister inform the House whether his department received the latest forecast of the Conference Board of Canada which projects an 8.3 per cent unemployment rate for Canada for the coming year, and if so, would he confirm whether his own departmental estimates coincide with that very rosy picture?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada, which is representative of many major foreign multinationals operating in Canada, does present a rather gloomy viewpoint of the economy. As the hon. gentleman may have noticed, that particular viewpoint which apparently he espouses is not espoused by some of the other private concerns.


John Edward Broadbent: Name one.


FISHERIES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries.
Since fishing operations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence will not begin before the end of April and that last year fishermen of the Gaspe Peninsula, the Magdalen Islands and northern New Brunswick faced serious problems caused by large trawlers from ports outside the gulf, could the minister tell the House what steps he has taken to ensure that the same conditions are not repeated so that fishermen will improve their catch and meet their needs?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, several members, especially the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, the hon. member for the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and others, have made representations to that effect. We have banned large trawlers from the gulf, except in the northern reaches where cod stocks are satisfactory.
Finally, for trawlers which cannot go elsewhere we have reserved the stocks of the gulf which unfortunately are not so abundant as we would like, especially Atlantic redfish.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: -my question with regard to the need for a national food policy is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Responding to a question in this House on Friday the Minister of Finance said that this government sees a need for a new national food policy. Many weeks earlier the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said we do not have a national food policy, that we need one and that the government is studying it. On many occasions the Minister of Agriculture has said we need no new national food policy because we already have one. I would like to ask the Minister
March 22, 1977

of Agriculture who is speaking for this government, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has said something 1 did not say. He said that I said we need no new food policy. I have never said that.
I said we have a food policy, and I welcome any improvements to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I endeavoured to find this out from the President of the Treasury Board on Friday. Has the Minister of Transport made any recommendations to the Treasury Board with regard to the expenditures necessary at the Prince Albert airport, to which reference was made during the recent by-election but which has apparently been forgotten by the minister ever since?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the right hon. gentleman at last asks the question when I am in the House after twice attempting to ask it when I was not here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: That compliments exactly the deceit of the right hon. gentleman in appearing to imply here in the House that it was not completely clear in Prince Albert that the agreement signed was an operational agreement with regard to the airport. When I announced the plans for Prince Albert, I made it clear, in Prince Albert, that Treasury Board approval was being sought for those items. That approval is being sought. It was clear to the right hon. gentleman; he was in Prince Albert, and it was in the Prince Albert Herald. I think, therefore, that he owes an apology to me and the people of Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I raised this question in the absence of the minister. If I were to wait for when he returns from one of his many jet trips in Canada made for political purposes, I would never get the chance to ask him questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am delighted to hear he made the recommendation finally. Clearly, it was made as a result of pressure from the opposition.
Oral Questions


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the one raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi, and I direct it-[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I meant to raise a question on the word "deceit" used by one who understands what it means.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday the minister sponsored a seminar in Ottawa on food policy, a seminar in which food industry people as well as the government participated. In view of what the Minister of Finance said on Friday about ongoing discussions for a national food policy, notwithstanding what the Minister of Agriculture said today, discussions which would take into account the interests of consumers and the viability of the agricultural industry in Canada-and I congratulate the minister on his initiative-is he prepared to re-open this seminar to the public so that the public which has a vested interest, obviously, in the food policy can provide some input? At the same time, if such a seminar were open to the public, perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could participate as well.


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the research study which has been recently initiated by the Bureau of Competition Policy has to do with the effect of government regulation on competition in selected agricultural industries. The seminar was sponsored by the bureau to obtain working level input to this study from qualifed industry and academic representatives. The seminar is being carried on by the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act. However, the study is not part of my department's work on food policy.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his answer. May I ask if we can conclude that the minister has now assumed, rightfully, responsibility for co-ordinating discussions within cabinet on food policy?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his confidence. The fact is food policy discussions are continuing. As I just said, a separate study is being carried on by a certain branch of the department. I hope it will produce some useful information.

March 22, 1977
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


LAMBERT REPORT-POSSIBILITY OF ROYAL COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO SOME RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC SERVANTS
Mr. Walker Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister arises out of the Lambert report with respect to executive compensation in the public service, particularly from that part of the report which speaks of the advisory board wishing to emphasize the need for establishing principles of accountability which can be practically applicable for the measurement of executive performance on the one hand. On the other hand, that same report recommends the provision of better incentives for the efficient management of public funds, and that a system of rewards for such efforts should be established. These ideas have been around for some time, elaborated on and commented on in early reports produced by Mr. Lambert and his colleagues. In view of this repetition with respect to obviously necessary changes in terms of the performance of senior levels of the Public Service of Canada, will the Prime Minister do more than merely refer the report to his cabinet colleagues? Does he intend to appoint a royal commission to examine, in effect, a royal commission, or are we to see some progress on this matter, particularly with respect to incentives for maximizing the use of public funds by senior levels of the Public Service of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that the government has taken action on the aspects recommended, in so far as we have assessments of performance in order to slot those in the executive branch of the civil service within certain ranges. Therefore, we have been doing exactly what the advisory board recommends. They are concerned with the area of the public service not falling under order in council appointments and, indeed, those observations are well taken. We are enjoining deputy ministers, within their jurisdiction as managers of departments, to show the same kind of exactness as cabinet has shown in classifying those order in council appointees within the ranges of their duties.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister spoke of performance ratings. Speaking of performance ratings, let me add that Mr. Lambert and his colleagues indicated that it was difficult to accept the results they found. In other words, there was a condemnation of what the Prime Minister says he introduced in the Public Service of Canada. Indeed, that condemnation of performance records in the public service has been felt by other levels in the public service-I have in mind the foreign service secretaries branch, a much lower level, and it indicates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question, will he please put it?


Walter David Baker: Would the Prime Minister re-examine his answer with respect to the first question that a system of performance ratings has been introduced, particularly with respect to its adequacy because this is important not just to senior public servants but to the morale of the whole of the public service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would prefer that the hon. gentleman reexamine my answer rather than I should do so. I can assure him that the public service compensation board is not criticizing the cabinet for the way in which it rates performance. We have done this in a way which meets their approval. Their criticism is directed to the level of those appointments which do not come under cabinet, those which are public service appointments. In this area, I agree with the hon. member that the deputy ministers will have to exercise a bit more vigilance to make sure that performance ratings are more close to a norm rather than having too many people bunched in the superior performance category. In this respect, I agree with the hon. member and I agree with the advisory board. More vigilance will have to be shown by the deputy ministers. But I cannot help repeating that as far as cabinet is concerned our order in council appointments have the type of performance ratings of which they approve.


SACCHARIN-SUGGESTED USE OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM AND WARNING LABEL
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the proposed ban on certain consumer products containing saccharin due to the discovery of a research link with cancer. Is the minister considering a general public educational program covering all sweeteners, including sugar, as well as a requirement that a prominent warning label be placed on both saccharin tablets and permitted saccharin-containing products?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: There are various techniques by which this subject may be approached. I made public recently a report on cardiovascular diseases in which there was some advice with regard to diet. I think the point raised by the hon. member is an important one since it deals not only with sweeteners but with all aspects of nutrition. This is part of a general strategy we have developed in terms of informing the public about nutrition. Various techniques are used for this purpose, such as inserts with family allowance and old age pension cheques. We hope to develop other techniques to improve this type of public education program as funds become available.
March 22, 1977


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Will there be a federal-provincial conference held to discuss the proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act, a discussion paper concerning which was tabled by the minister yesterday? If so, when will that conference be held and will the two northern territories be represented by elected members of their assemblies?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: The documents tabled in the House yesterday will be the subject of discussion in Regina this week in the course of the continuing meeting of deputy ministers of the provinces responsible for correction services. Subsequently, it will be my intention to request a meeting with my provincial counterparts to consider this subject. I shall, of course, bear in mind the suggestion of the hon. member that the territories be represented at these meetings.


Erik Nielsen: Might I ask the minister whether or not the territories are being represented by elected members of their respective legislatures or by bureaucrats from one or more of the government's departments in Ottawa?


Francis Fox: As far as the meeting in Regina this week is concerned, I believe the representatives referred to have been designated by the commissioners of the territories. It is my intention to get in touch with the commissioners before extending invitations to the provincial ministers to attend the further conference which should follow shortly.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns Canadair and the building of the Challenger Executive Jet aircraft, formerly called the Lear-Star 600. Can the minister inform the House why approximately 45 Italian engineers from the Air Italia Manufacturing Company of Italy are now in Canada? Are they here to cope with structural problems which Canadair is experiencing with the Challenger?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide the hon. member with a definite answer just now. I am aware that the corporation is hiring more staff and it may have sought the services of experts from foreign countries. I shall try therefore to provide the hon. member with a more definite answer.
Oral Questions


LEARSTAR PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY PARTS MANUFACTURED IN ITALY
A. Daniel McKenzie: Will the minister find out whether parts of the plane are to be manufactured in Italy and whether these are parts which could be manufactured by Canadian firms? Further, has Italy placed any orders for the Challenger?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether some components are to be manufactured in Italy. I know, however, that this program provides for the creation of over 1,500 new jobs in the Montreal area and some 1,500 more elsewhere within the industry in Canada. Certain components may have to be imported. In the case of engines, for instance, we have negotiated a number of purchases to even off our balance of payments.


LEARSTAR PROGRAM-AVAILABILITY OF EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FINANCING
A. Daniel McKenzie: Is Canadian Export Development Corporation financing in jeopardy, and are export orders in doubt because of lack of Canadian content in the manufacture of the Challenger? In other words, are most of the component parts being manufactured outside Canada, thereby restricting availability of CEDC financing for foreign buyers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is not absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. Most of the plane components will be built in Canada. Some components will certainly have to be imported, but I believe 70 per cent of them will be built in Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the opposition from all quarters of the House to the minister's proposal in Bill C-27 to change the period allowed for qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits from eight weeks to 12 weeks, can the hon. gentleman inform the House whether he will consider amending that requirement in the legislation?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I think this is a subject we shall be dealing with at the committee stage.
4202

March 22, 1977
Oral Questions


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that changing the benefit requirements would have a catastrophic effect and increase substantially Canada's unemployment problem, and bearing in mind the statement of the former minister of manpower, Mr. Mackasey, that the proposed change "removes the whole spirit of human dignity-a man's right to be protected by the government when he wants to work but cannot", will the hon. gentleman consider amending the proposed requirement to which I have referred?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member surely realizes he is raising a matter of debate on an item which is before the House, anyway.


BILINGUALISM
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. The federal government has announced a bilingual program for student exchanges under which some 8,000 or 9,000 students from Ontario and Quebec will be exchanged. As there are eight other provinces and two territories whose young people would like to enjoy the benefits of such a bilingual exchange program, what are the eligibility proposals for young people from provinces other than the special status provinces of Ontario and Quebec who want to enjoy this program?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be making a detailed statement on this area of activity to the House within a few days' time.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The minister announced last December that the government was going to appoint a royal commission to examine all modes of transportation in Newfoundland and to report thereon, as had been suggested by the president of the CNR, before the end of 1977. Have the terms of reference now been put in final form; have they been agreed to by the government in Newfoundland; is it a three-man commission chaired by Dr. Arthur Sullivan, or by whom; and when will this announcement be made and the commission start to function?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing these questions with the government of Newfoundland and others. We are now nearly at the stage

of having the matter in final form and I would expect an announcement within perhaps one week.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of press reports this morning that Argentina is seeking a new construction partner, as is AECL, in regard to Argentina's desire to obtain a second CANDU reactor, I would ask the minister whether there is any agent-promotional agent, commercial agent, or any agent-involved in any way in the second CANDU reactor sale anticipated by Argentina?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker, because at the present time there is no negotiation for a second reactor sale. The hon. member is correct when he says that the Argentinian agency has expressed an interest in having a German firm join with AECL in providing a CANDU reactor. It is also true that the German firm has shown interest in such an arrangement, which is yet further testimony to the international reputation of the CANDU reactor.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the German firm to which the minister refers Kraftwerk Union A.G. of West Germany, and is any agent involved in any way in any past, present or future association between that firm and AECL?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I know of no past, present or future association between AECL and that corporation. I do know that that is one corporation that has been mentioned as a possible partner with AECL in providing a second reactor to Argentina, but I would emphasize that we have not offered to sell a second reactor to the Argentine.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House whether any agent is involved in any way in any future dealings with Italimpianti, whether in Argentina or anywhere else in the world?


Alastair William Gillespie: I know of no ongoing relationship with Italimpianti anywhere else in the world.


BAN ON USE OF SACCHARIN BECAUSE OF LINK TO CANCER-REASON FOR FAILURE TO BAN USE OF TOBACCO
Hon.   Herb. Gray@Windsor West: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Recently the government announced that it is proceeding to
March 22, 1977

Oral Questions ENERGY
ban the use of saccharin because of the results of a study indicating its danger to human health. Will the government be instituting a ban on the use of tobacco similar to that recently announced for saccharin and, if not, will the government explain why it is not taking such a step, even though there has existed for some time studies which indicate not only danger but in fact harm to human health caused by the use of tobacco?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the question the answer is no. To the second part of the question, I have already answered this question in the House and I will be quite happy further to elaborate on the matter when my main estimates are considered before a parliamentary committee this week.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: 
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION IN MEAL ALLOWANCE FOR TRUCK DRIVERS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: A supplementary question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain why truck drivers for oil companies who work 10 hour shifts are only entitled to one meal per day, and why is there a discrepancy across Canada regarding the amount per meal which the department is presently granting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have serious reservations whether this precise kind of information ought not to be sought from the minister before the committee.


ALLEGED BREAKDOWN OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR SAFEGUARDS FOR NUCLEAR REACTORS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the report mentioned by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about the statement in that report that talks between Argentina and Canada as well as between Argentina and West Germany regarding acceptable nuclear safeguard arrangements for other related nuclear projects recently broke down. What safeguards are referred to in this report, and how do they relate to the nuclear installation which is already being built by AECL in Argentina?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that that part of the report is quite erroneous.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. According to press reports in the Vancouver papers last week the provincial economic development minister, Mr. Phillips, was to meet with the minister yesterday in connection with trying to obtain for Rail West, a British Columbia corporation, some orders for rail cars, especially in view of the fact that the 2,000 hopper cars which were contracted for and which this company bid on were not included in any contract with this company. Can the minister inform the House what happened at these discussions yesterday and whether there is any chance whatever of Rail West getting any orders or work through the federal government so that over 200 men will not be laid off?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have looked very sympathetically at the position of Rail West and had indeed invited them to participate in the construction of a limited number of the hopper cars in the previous order of 2,000. We were willing to make some quite significant sacrifice in terms of price per car, but they were unable to meet even that price for only a 100 car order. I did indeed meet Mr. Phillips and we did discuss the situation further. We will be looking at the question of car supply and such other matters as the cars which CN and CP may require, so as to determine whether we can find ways of offering additional employment to this plant.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House whether the difficulty that Rail West is having in meeting the unit cost of central Canadian and eastern manufacturers relates to the fact that Rail West must buy its steel from central Canadian or eastern Canadian
4204

March 22, 1977
Oral Questions
producers and is unable to bring in steel at a cheaper rate from offshore?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, even allowing for the steel cost differential between-


John Allen Fraser: Yes or no?


Otto Emil Lang: No, in the sense that, even allowing for the differential in steel costs in that region compared to other regions, the price quoted by Rail West was considerably higher than the prices of other plants. We offered something above the differential, but that was the price Rail West was unable to meet.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of grave concern to a lot of people and I should like to ask this final supplementary question. Can the minister then confirm that there are discussions going on between the government of British Columbia and his own department to see whether this particular operation can put in bids and possibly get some work in the coming months? The matter is very crucial for well over 200 people.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is very much appreciated by both ourselves in this government and the provincial government that it is crucial. As a result, as I have said, those discussions are going on. I did meet with Mr. Phillips yesterday. Rail West did bid in relation to this order so it should be clear to the hon. member what has already happened. The provincial government indicated its interest in terms of looking at the total price picture at the time of a subsequent tender. We will obviously be looking at that question.


POSSIBILITY OF BANNING PRODUCTS IN ADDITION TO SACCHARIN THAT MAY BE DANGEROUS TO HEALTH
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that excessive amounts of saccharin have been found dangerous to rats and it is to be banned for human consumption, and it should be noted that humans have built-in protection in that they would drown before contacting cancer using comparable amounts, will the minister advise the House whether we can expect his medical researchers to push ahead to ban chocolate, ice cream, cheese, liver, milk, eggs, coconut, sugar, salt and all other products that induce high cholesterol and heart disease to humans, even though we are not sure if it is safe for rats?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Further, will he also consider banning cars, also dangerous to humans although we have no statistics on rat mortality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I want first to thank the hon. member for her useful contribution to this highly scientific debate. I invite her to look at the statements made by the officials of my department before the committee of the House considering the supplementary estimates of my department during the course of the last week. She will find a very worthwhile explanation of the whole study and will realize that, in particular, the World Health Organization put the safety level of one part per 5,000 as a minimum safety level while in this particular case we found cancer-producing agents at one part per 800. In that respect, the danger found in this case on the basis of those studies was indeed very real. I hope that consideration of this matter will be given in a scientific and responsible way and that people who are interested in further knowledge on the scientific aspects of this matter will come when my main estimates are considered next week, at which time my officials will be quite happy to provide further information on this subject to those who are interested.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's concern that Canadians not live beyond their means and in view of the government's desire to dampen the rising expectations of Canadians, will he reconsider the position he has taken during the question period today with reference to recommendations for salary increases for deputy ministers and others in high positions. In particular, will he take into account that the recommendation is that there be two increases, one retroactive to last April and another effective this April, the two of which amount to a considerable sum for persons who, like myself, are not starving?


Mr. Alexander:: I don't know about that, Stanley.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: You sure look like it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is misreading the report. It is not recommending a retroactive increase, certainly not the way I read it. It is indicating a range and moving the range in two periods of one each year. It is not recommending that the salaries go up this year after having gone up last year. On the contrary, the report recognizes there has been a one-year freeze of senior executives. It takes that into account. As I told the Leader of the Opposition, not many people in this country, certainly not the labour movement which are supported by the hon. member's party, have accepted a one-year freeze as did we in this House and public servants at the senior level.
March 22, 1977


Stanley Howard Knowles: I recognize that the tables in the report are not recommendations as to salaries but recommendations as to ranges. But in view of the fact that two new ranges are being proposed, one for last year and one for this coming year, will the Prime Minister seriously consider the suggestion from this side of the House that increases actually granted within those ranges should be held down? 1 ask this in view of the concern of the Prime Minister that Canadians not live beyond their means and that something be done to prevent our people from getting expectations that are too high?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I told the Leader of the Opposition earlier that the report was just tabled yesterday and that it had not been considered by Cabinet. Cabinet will consider the report. I will look at the suggestion of the hon. member. I will not espouse his prejudices that we should show our courage by penalizing one particular group when the whole country would be permitted to go on without restraint.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my questiop is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since the management of the Sydney Steel Corporation is considering several options with reference to modernization of the present steel plant at Sydney, can the minister advise what part officials from his department are playing in these considerations?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there has been some consultation between Sysco and my department. However, I am not in a position at the moment to inform the hon. member as to the details of those consultations. We will undoubtedly have to wait a few more weeks before we can really address ourselves to what plan or strategy would be the best for Sysco and the department.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his reply. In view of the fact that one of the options being considered is that, with an investment of $200 million to $250 million in the present plant, it could be modernized, diversification of products could take place and employment provided for over 3,000 workers, can the minister advise or give some encouragement as to whether his department or the government will assist the province of Nova Scotia in funding such a project?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, if the project is as described by the hon. member, we will certainly look into it and evaluate the whole proposal. If in our view it is a good project, we will give sympathetic consideration to it.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


PLANS FOR REPLACEMENT OF ICNAF-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and at the same time welcome him back from his discussions with Brigitte Bardot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Discussions are being held in Ottawa until March 25 to consider the development of a framework for future multilateral co-operation which will replace ICNAF. Up to the present, ICNAF set the quotas inside and outside the 200-mile limit. What steps does the minister plan to take in 1978 and beyond for the international management of our fisheries, both within the 200-mile limit and the fisheries area immediately adjacent to it, and what steps will be taken to undertake scientific co-operation in the area as a whole?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the hon. member's question, Madame Bardot did not come to Ottawa to get the full information which could have been made available to her if she had wanted to have that information.
On the other point the hon. member mentioned, the meetings on the future of ICNAF are going on at this time and I think it would be premature for me to offer the type of long-term answer that the member is requesting. When the meeting is over, I will make a point of briefing him either through the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry or in the House.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Andr£ Fortin (Lotbiniere): Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
The minister certainly knows that truck drivers working for companies whose main activity is transportation can deduct for tax purposes a certain amount for meals and accommodation and that all other truck drivers working for companies whose main activity is not transportation do not enjoy the same privilege. In view of this flagrant injustice, does the minister intend to review her department's policy, thus allowing all truck drivers working more than 10 hours a day and driving more than 200 miles a day to benefit from this tax relief?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret but this question has already been put earlier today.
Telecommunications Act AIR TRANSPORT

March 22, 1977


POSSIBILITY OF SEPARATE BARGAINING UNIT FOR QUEBEC AIR CONTROLLERS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can the minister tell the House whether he still intends to keep the promise he made a while ago to the gens de I'air, namely that he would present an amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Act authorizing first, the disaffiliation and second, the accreditation of independent associations of air controllers from Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: The actual wording of the understanding between us is different from the words used by the hon. member, and this would come forward not under my jurisdiction but under that of another minister. But I can assure the hon. member that all the promises that have been made by this government in relation to the matter concerning les gens de I'air will be kept.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the references to the administrator, under the Anti-Inflation Act, concerning the corporation of the town of Dryden, school district 60, Peace River north, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, and R. Angus, Alberta, Limited.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-43, respecting telecommunications in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege regarding the statement made by the Minister of Transport. I ask Your Honour to read the allegations in the statement of the Minister of Transport to the effect that it is not unparliamentary. If it is so, then I have been misled for 37 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert made a brief reference earlier to the answer of the Minister of Transport. I caught the word "deceit" in that answer. I was not able at that time to determine the manner in which the word was used and to know in that quick instant whether there was anything offensive or unparliamentary in the way in which it was used. Upon the invitation of the right hon. member I will examine the language used and endeavour to determine tomorrow whether I should invite further argument on whether a question of privilege exists.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw now.
[ Translation]


Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am afraid my question was misunderstood. The question I put to the Minister of National Revenue during the oral question period was not the same as that of one of the former speakers. I was speaking of the people who, contrary to what the minister said, have already asked for income tax deductions and whose request was denied by the Department of National Revenue. I should like to have the privilege of bringing up the matter again since it was not in any way a repetition of a question asked previously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I listened very closely to the details of the question put this afternoon by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, with the intention of accepting it if at all possible, but felt it was exactly the same as the question put previously. If I am wrong, after having examined the specific terms of the question, I shall certainly give the floor to the hon. member for Lotbiniere tomorrow so that he can put the question again.


FISHERIES
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the annual report on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation would be tabled today. Would the minister make a comment on that?


Fabien Roy: 
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 ques-
March 22, 1977

tions will be answered today: Nos. 1,054, 1,494, 1,740, 1,787, 1,815, 1,925, 2,011, and 2,063.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Has the Oshawa Harbour Commission (OHC) filed with the Department of Transport or Ports and Harbours an application for expansion of the Oshawa Harbour and, if so, on what date will the environmental studies be undertaken through EA, EPS, EARP, RSCC and what will be the cost?
2.	Has the Department of Transport fully exercised a site-selection process to determine the best location for a harbour in Oshawa in view of the economic constraints and environmental considerations?
3.	Has DOT given the OHC full authority to preside over marshlands and does this conform with the Harbour Commissions Act?
4.	Is it accepted policy for harbour commissions under DOT to engage in land-banking, real estate, industrial planning for municipalities, lakefront planning for municipalities, etc. and, if DOT has given the OHC such authority (a) on what date was it given and by whom (b) what are the limits of the authority?
5.	Did OHC have permission to construct an earthen dyke across the natural outlet of the marsh in the fall of 1974 and, if so (a) on what date was such permission given and by whom (b) for what purpose was permission granted (c) who was consulted before permission was granted (d) does such construction violate any sections of the Fisheries Act (e) was the opinion of the Department of Justice or the Department of the Environment sought and, if so, what were their recommendations (0 were any environmental studies done (i) prior to the construction of the dyke to determine the environmental change and/or damage that would occur (ii) after the construction to assess the damage and, if so, what were the results of these studies and will they be made public?
6.	Does OHC forbid entry to the marshland to naturalists, the public and the provincial government and, if so, for what reason?
7.	Will access to the marshlands be granted to (a) concerned conservationists so that nature studies and educational programmes may continue (b) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Canadian Wildlife people to continue with the waterfowl banding under the Migratory Birds Act and, if so, on what date?
8.	(a) Will the dyke be removed and the outlet restored to its natural condition and, if so, on what date (b) what was the agreement between federal and provincial personnel with OHC?
9.	(a) Will the public have input into the decision-making process prior to any announcement about harbour expansion (b) can the public be assured that full environmental impact studies will be undertaken before any such decision is reached (c) will DOT make public its intentions for future harbour expansion, and will it justify the intentions with appropriate documentation (d) are studies and testings being conducted at other sites along the Oshawa lakefront, or has the decision been made to proceed with expansion into the second marsh (e) are there any studies that demonstrate a need for expansion of the present harbour into the second marsh?
10.	Will DOT and OHC open their files on the issue so that the public will have full knowledge of all facts pertaining to OHC, the harbour expansion proposals and the future of the marshland?
11.	Did DOT and DPW complete studies and testings in 1975 and, if so (a) what was their purpose (b) will the results be made public and, if so, on what date and in what form (c) will the results remain confidential and, if so, was this requested by OHC?
12.	(a) Are DOT and OHC willing to accept full responsibility for any damages that have occurred as a result of the dyke construction (b) what action does DOT intend to take to correct such damage (c) what action will DOT take to insure that such things would not occur in the future?
13.	(a) Does OHC have permission to divert the Oshawa Creek as it flows into the present harbour (b) is the Creek subject to provincial act and regulation (c) did the OHC allow dumping of waste materials into the harbour in 1975 after the federal government paid for dredging operations in Oshawa Harbour and, if so, for what reason and is this contrary to government policy and to NWPA?
14.	Does the DOE intend to take action against DOT if any infractions of federal laws are indicated and, if so, on what date?
Order Paper Questions
15.	Will DOT and/or DOE make the Johnston Report on the environmental importance of the Second Marsh public?


Ralph Goodale: 1 am informed by the Departments of Transport, Public Works and the Environment as follows: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	The Oshawa Harbour Commission is established under the Harbour Commission Act 1964 which authorizes the commission to acquire or sell land as required for harbour development purposes. A harbour commission does not however engage in industrial planning or lakefront planning etc. for municipalities.
5.	No. (a) N/A; (b) N/A; (c) N/A; (d) N/A; (e) N/A; (0 (i) No. (ii) No.
6.	Limited entry is now allowed to approved bird watchers on a permit basis.
7.	Controlled access to the marsh has been extended.
8.	(a) Department of the Environment has advised that the dyke is not causing the high water levels in the marsh. The marsh is being drained adequately by the present outlet, hence removal of the dyke would be an imprudent expenditure, (b) No agreement.
9.	(a) and (b) The public can be assured that full environmental impact studies will be undertaken in conjunction with economic and engineering studies for development of the harbour and full opportunity will be given for public response, (c) Yes. (d) No. (e) Economic studies are being undertaken.
10.	Any proposals for expansion of the harbour and the future of the marsh land will be fully documented in studies which will be made public before any action is taken.
11.	Preliminary engineering studies remain incomplete. Soil tests were completed in 1975. (a) Oshawa Harbour Commission requested Department of Public Works to provide necessary engineering service to enable the commission to complete an overall long range plan for harbour expansion, including conceptual layouts with related costs, (b) As Department of Public Works was providing a consultant service to the Oshawa Harbour Commission, it will be the responsibility of the commission to make the results of the studies and tests public, (c) Further to (b), the Oshawa Harbour Commission formally asked Department of Public Works to refer any information requests from public or other government agencies to the commission, who would treat such requests on their individual merit.
12.	(a) There is no indication that any damage has occurred, (b) No action is indicated, (c) No action required.
13.	(a) There is no intention to divert the Oshawa Creek from the present harbour basin, (b) No. (c) In 1975 the Oshawa Harbour Commission used stone and concrete from local construction projects as shore protection against erosion in the northeast corner of the harbour. This did not affect any dredging operations and is simply good practice for shore

March 22, 1977
Order Paper Questions
protection. It was not contrary to policy nor to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
14.	It is not the practice of the Crown to initiate action against itself.
15.	This report is available to interested parties from the Department of the Environment.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Did the Reader's Club of Canada, 35 Britain St., Toronto, Ontario receive a financial grant from the (a) Department of the Secretary of State (b) Canada Council in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976 and, if so, in what amount?
2.	What were the conditions under which such grants were made?
3.	Is it government policy to give financial aid to private organizations and what was the rationale in giving such aid to the Reader's Club of Canada?
4.	What was the purpose and aim of giving financial aid to the Reader's Club of Canada?


John (Moody) Roberts: Department of the Secretary of State: 1. (a) Nil.
2, 3 and 4. Not applicable.
Canada Council: 1. (b) (i) $75,000. (ii) $50,000.
2.	The instalments were to be paid upon receipt of satisfactory financial and progress reports.
3.	The majority of Canada Council programs exclude profitmaking organizations. The Council however supports the translation and publication of Canadian books through grants to publishing houses. The Readers' Club of Canada was given aid under a new program, established in 1975 by the Secretary of State and administered by the Council, designed to encourage the promotion and distribution of Canadian books and periodicals. It is the only Canadian-owned general interest book club in the English-language community and its purpose is to make Canadian books available to readers who might not otherwise hear about them or be able to acquire them.
4.	The grants were awarded to enable the Readers' Club to carry out a promotion campaign in Canadian periodicals.


Mr. Laprise: Is the Canada Council subsidizing the Livre d'ici team and, if so (a) in what amount (b) for what period of time?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Yes, under a new program, established in 1975 by the Secretary of State and administered by the Council, designed to encourage the promotion and distribution of Canadian books and periodicals, (a) and (b) $88,000 to prepare and offer without charge, in 1975-76, to over one thousand newspapers a weekly information page on French language Canadian books; $96,000 to continue this press campaign in 1976-77 and $30,000 to prepare and distribute during this period a weekly radio information tape on French language Canadian books.
[Mr. Goodale.J


Mr. Herbert: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,083, what is the estimated amount of monies contributed by (a) employees under the Public Service Staff Relations Act (b) public service employees not under the Public Service Staff Relations Act (c) members of the defence forces (d) members of the RCMP?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: In 1974-75 employees contributed the approximate amounts listed below to the various employee benefit plans, (a) Pension Plans (i) Employees under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, $170,000,000; (ii) Public service employees not under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, $11,900,000; (iii) Members of the defence forces, $56,700,000; (iv) Members of the RCMP, $11,900,000; Total, $250,500,000. (b) Death Benefit Plans: (i) Public Service Death Benefit Account, $15,200,000; (ii) Regular Forces Death Benefit Account, $2,800,000; Total $18,000,000. (c) Canada and Quebec Pension Plans (i) employees under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, $33,500,000; (ii) public service employees not under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, $2,500,000; (iii) members of the defence forces, $8,800,000; (iv) members of the RCMP, $1,500,000; Total $46,300,000. Public Service Insurance The totals of employee contributions to the various insurance plans are not identified on a separate basis, since by the very nature of such plans, the accumulation of those contributions on an individual employee or plan basis is neither required nor necessary. The premium rate structures vary within each plan, and although the total employer contributions are identifiable by virtue of the fact that such expenditures must be charged to Treasury Board Vote 20, the employee contributions are remitted direct to the insurers, or provincial authorities. Subject to the above qualification, however, public service employee contributions to those plans have been estimated in the undermentioned approximate amounts for the year 197475. (d) Surgical-Medical and other Insurance Plans: (i) Employees under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, $26,285,000; (ii) Public service employees not under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, $4,825,000; (iii) Members of the defence forces, $4,020,000; (iv) Members of the RCMP, $776,000; Total $35,906,000. (e) Unemployment Insurance (i) Employees under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, $22,766,000; (ii) Public service employees not under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, $4,303,000; (iii) Members of the defence forces, $4,862,000; (iv) Members of the RCMP, $972,000; Total $32,903,000. (0 Hospital Insurance (Outside Canada) Plan (i) Employees under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, $717,000: (ii) Public service employees not under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, $134,000: (iii) Members of the defence forces, $151,000: (iv) Members of the RCMP, $2,500: Total $1,004,500. (g) Health Insurance Plans for Employees Engaged Locally (Outside Canada), $16,000.


Mr. Marshall: Have any applications been received from the Province of Newfoundland under the expanded aid programme to full and part-time student athletes, as announced in May 1975, for (a) student grant-in-aid (b) supplement to the grant-in-aid (c) training allowances?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: (a) Grants in aid
Academic
year
1975-	76
1976-	77
Number of applications received 48
Number eligible for grants 20 19
Amounts
awarded


[Stage Direction]
(b) and (c) Supplements and training allowances are available only to game plan (Olympic sports) athletes, of which there are none from Newfoundland.
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total potential English viewing population of CBC television station CBJET of Chicoutimi, Quebec?
2.	What is the viewing audience of CBJET in prime time and what is the lowest viewing audience?
3.	What was the total cost for the establishment of CBJET?
4.	What is the total annual salary of all employees at CBJET?
5.	How many people are employed at CBJET?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. According to the 1971 Census official language figures, there are
2,000	people who speak English only and 23,800 who are bilingual (English/French) for a total potential viewing audience of 25,800 within the A and B contours of the CBJET transmitter. In the Census, 4,800 people claimed English mother tongue.
2.	First audience surveys have not yet been completed.
3.	Capital costs 5192,400.
4.	Nil.
5.	None. The transmitter is unattended.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,486, what amount was Dr. Noel Hall paid for his services and what were his terms of reference?
2.	Was Dr. Hall presented with any papers of government origin?


Ralph Goodale: For the Public Service Staff Relations Board: 1. Dr. Noel Hall was paid $9,900 as fees for his services as mediator. The terms of reference given to him by the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board
Order Paper Questions
were to confer with the parties and endeavour to assist them in reaching a settlement of their dispute.
2. Dr. Hall was not presented papers of government origin. However, a variety of information and papers were furnished to him on a confidential basis by officials of the bargaining agent and officials of the employer.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mrs. Mary Alice Mullally employed at 24 Sussex Drive and, if so (a) in what position (b) at what annual salary (c) on what date was she hired?
2.	Was Mrs. Mullally married at 24 Sussex Drive and, if so (a) what were all the costs to the taxpayer, if any (b) on what date did the wedding take place?
3.	Was Mrs. Mullally employed in any capacity at 24 Sussex Drive at any time prior to her wedding and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) what were the duties of her employment?
4.	Was Mr. Mullally appointed or employed by the government at any time and, if so (a) on what dates (b) in what positions (c) what were the duties of the positions (d) what was his annual salary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Yes. (a) Household Co-ordinator; (b) $6.31 per hour, 40-hour week; (c) present duties commenced November 25, 1976 (see part 3).
2.	No. (a) Reception was held at 24 Sussex Drive at no cost to the taxpayer, (b) Private (see Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (dd).
3.	Yes. (a) and (b) September 20, 1972 to July 12, 1974, Maid October 1, 1976 to November 24, 1976, Senior Maid (see part 1(c).
4.	Government of Yukon Territory, September, 1974- September, 1976. Federal Government: (a) appointed on December 6, 1976 by Minister without Portfolio under section 37(1) of the Public Service Employment Act. Ceased employment March 15, 1977. (b) and (c) Special Assistant; (d) $19,542-522,168.


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


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, if there were some difficulty with question No. 506 which was placed on the order paper on October 14 last, I would understand the problem the government might have in responding to my question. However, in view of the fact that it is a straightforward and simple question I would think someone within the Post Office Department should be able to answer it, and I would like to register my concern.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with orders of the day, may I say that hon. members are aware that yesterday a very important point of order was raised concerning the use of items in the estimates, particularly the supplementary estimates and particularly $1 items in supplementary estimates to achieve legislative purposes. I had hoped I would be in a position to make that ruling at three o'clock this afternoon, and I almost made it. I have some finishing touches to put on
4210

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
the ruling which, I expect, will take about one hour. I hope to return at about four o'clock this afternoon to make that ruling.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the government's use of dollar items further diminishes the proper control of the House of Commons over expenditure, and additionally, circumvents the right of the House to fully discuss the creation of new policies, programs and agencies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to highlight what appears to be a deliberate, calculated subversion of the parlimentary process through the abusive use of $1 items in supplementary estimates, in this case supplementary estimates (D). I want to illustrate the inadequacy of the present form and content of the estimates and also to outline some of the questionable tactics which this government has seen fit to employ in the administration of public funds.
When we look at supplementary estimates (D) we find that these estimates expose a wide variety of practices which, when taken in totality, can only be seen as a systematic effort to obscur, to misrepresent and to hide the spending practices of this government. The information which is contained in the estimates-and this has been confirmed by known authorites, one being none other than the Auditor General-is quite inadequate, misleading and often contradictory of the data contained in the main estimates. Moreover, when we consider the constraints of the parliamentary process and the current parliamentary rules which govern the proceedings of this chamber and the proceedings of committees-the time limitation or the guillotine rule, so to speak-neither committees nor this House are given sufficient opportunity to question, to analyse thoroughly, to examine or, indeed, to challenge some of the spending practices of this government.
We are debating this issue at a time when it is, indeed, unfortunate that there prevails throughout the country some reservations about the institution of parliament and its ability to exercise control over the public purse. There is no question that there is in the country a serious decline of confidence in parliament, yet we have a government which contributes deliberately and in a dedicated way to usurping the role of parliament and chipping away its authority. Hon. members on this side of the House take very grave exception to that practice.
I believe that supplementary estimates D clearly demonstrate how and why it has become increasingly difficult for parliament to assert control over public expenditures. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has stated his

concern about the lack of parliamentary control. Last week in the House he stated that he was not happy with the current use of $1 items and suggested that this was a matter which fell within the aegis of parliamentary procedure; that it was really a procedural matter rather than one about which the government should concern itself.
I find that very strange, because when we read the Auditor General's report we find that many improvements could be made in the form and content of the estimates. The government has only to act and accept some of the recommendations which have been advanced. I find it strange, also, that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), a very distinguished parliamentarian for whom we all have high regard, spoke the other day in eloquent terms about the deep concern he has about the importance of preserving and, indeed, enhancing parliament and making it relevant to today's needs. I wonder, then, why he is party to the tactics this government uses systematically to undermine the authority of this chamber and the fundamental purpose for which this institution was established, namely, to debate legislative proposals and amendments thereto.
Why does this government refuse to act? Why does it refuse to accept some of the major recommendations of the Auditor General? One can only suggest that there are probably two reasons. Perhaps it is because attempts to improve the form and content of the estimates and the manner in which they are presented would reveal a degree of incompetence in the government to effectively plan and to allocate funds. On the other hand, it could be that this practice is an effective device for hiding unpopular or questionable expenditures. Whatever the reason, the methods being used with regard to supplementary estimates, particularly the abuse of $1 items, to me highlights the fact that this government is interested in expediency and convenience and does not have much concern about the traditions and privileges of this institution.
We know that the Auditor General is very concerned and unhappy about the present set-up. He has made it very clear that he considers public funds to be, in effect, trust funds held on behalf of the people of Canada and that they should be treated as such. Until effective systems of budgetary control are introduced and followed, no one will know accurately whether funds are being spent for the purposes for which they were provided. Proper control over federal spending lies with the ability of parliament effectively to exercise that control, and parliament has not been able effectively to discharge that responsibility under the practices we currently employ- indeed, the practices we have employed since 1968. This cannot be achieved over-all without an informative plan for the accounting of funds entrusted to the government. The Auditor General stated in testimony before the Public Accounts Committee that accountability for expenditure of government funds starts with accountability to parliament. There is no question about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 22, 1977


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Auditor General stated, further, that the instruments used to provide that accountability and to provide parliament with meaningful information with which they can control expenditures are the estimates. That is the essence of the debate under our motion today. The unfortunate fact is that there is ambiguity and lack of certainty. Financial disclosures, both in the estimates and in the public accounts, are now inadequate for parliament to establish the accountability of the government. We know, of course, that if there is a devious technique in the books to circumvent, evade, or subvert, this government will seize upon that technique without hesitation.


Mr. Baldwin:: They wrote the book on deviousness.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In our view, there is no question that the government is engaged in practices which are beyond the scope of being legal and proper as far as the parliamentary traditions of this institution are concerned. As I said earlier, it may be expeditious for the government to proceed this way, but it is not proper. It may be shrewd from a parliamentary point of view, but there is a fundamental principle involved here and we say this practice should not continue. As a matter of fact, we strongly urge the government to discontinue the practice in the name of preserving the supremacy of this institution.
Yesterday, during the debate on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), many items were singled out which we in the opposition consider to be clearly questionable. In our view, these items constitute an abuse of the use of $1 votes. I shall not recite once again the many items to which we take objection. I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and, indeed, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), clearly outlined many of the areas about which we have serious reservations.
We hope the ruling of the Chair will uphold the previous ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. He considered the abuse of amending legislation through $1 votes totally contrary to the privileges and traditions of this House. There are 52 $1 items in supplementary estimates D, but in reality we are being asked to approve a practice which $1 votes would authorize in 65 cases. Some are acceptable, some are not. Some, in our view, clearly constitute a subversion of parliamentary authority.
We feel very strongly that amendments to legislation should be dealt with in a proper manner, namely, by the introduction of a bill whereby they can properly be debated and considered by parliament, and not by such slick, devious methods as the employment of the $1 item. The expenditure of moneys, notwithstanding certain provisions of an enabling piece of legislation, is contrary to everything for which parliament stands. It should be considered in a manner other than that in which we approve estimates under existing rules. We will soon have another set of items in the supplementary estimates which will be classified as "notwithstanding" items.
Dollar Items
In the area of amendments to non-money legislation or regulations there are as many as 12 instances where supplementary estimates D use $1 votes in this manner. These $1 items are used to fill three main purposes: first, to change the legal status of a government entity; second, to exempt a government entity from the application of a law; and, third, to amend legislation without recourse to a bill. Each of these seeks to circumvent parliament. All these changes should be accomplished through amendments to appropriate legislation or regulations. Through the use of a S1 vote in place of a bill, this government is able to avoid Commons debate on a particular change. Because of current procedures which govern us in dealing with estimates, there may be no opportunity-or, at best, one opportunity in committee-to vote down a particular $1 vote. Thus, the government is able to remove at least two opportunities for members to vote on a change and it removes the opportunity to state reservations, objections and suggest amendments on the floor of the House. This is tantamount to administration by edict.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Turning to Crown corporations, we take very grave objection to the establishment of a Crown corporation under the use of the $1 item, as in the case of Via Rail Canada. Our concern is not with the substance, but with the method. While we may have some reservations about the principle of the establishment of Via Rail Canada, that is not what is in issue at this time. It is the method which the government has employed to bring about the establishment of Via Rail Canada. It authorizes the expenditures of up to $240 million under the provisions of vote 52d, which can be found at page 120 of supplementary estimates D. This, in our view, is a major transportation policy decision and should be considered in this House in the form of a bill, rather than by back-door coercion. This action constitutes a clear contempt of parliament which has to be of the most blatant degree. One might even question the politics of the establishment of Via Rail Canada at this time, since the CTC is still in the process of studying the rail passenger service in this country and has not yet brought down its recommendation.


An hon. Member:: It is a clear fraud.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: When we consider the powers which are going to be delegated to the minister under the provisions of the new transportation bill, that constitutes ministerial overkill in the most unorthodox proportions. We see the minister taking advantage of the powers which have yet to be passed on to him through the very questionable use of the $1 vote in establishing a Crown corporation of this magnitude. Simply by the stroke of a pen, under vote 52d Via Rail Canada will be deemed to be a railway company incorporated pursuant to section 11 of the Railway Act.
This is not the first time this has occurred. The House will recall last year when the former president of Treasury Board, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) established Loto Canada through supplementary
80010-60V2

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
estimates. On that occasion, sir, you found that the practice was procedurally acceptable. As far as we are concerned, to be procedurally acceptable, and to be proper and morally correct, are two different things. It is very interesting to note that in your decision, as reported at page 14795 of Hansard of June 22, you stated:
-it would have been preferable for such a matter as this, which involves not only money but a question of principle, to have been brought before the House in the form of a bill in order to allow hon. members to address themselves at one and the same time to the question of whether or not money should be voted to set up a lottery, and, further, to whether or not in principle the federal government should be involved in a scheme of this sort at the present time.
This is the salient point:
Nevertheless, what I have to decide is not whether it is a desirable course, but whether it is a legal course in terms of our procedures.
You, sir, have recognized the impropriety, perhaps not the illegality, of proceeding in that direction. The creation of Crown corporations by a $1 vote is exceptionally dangerous. We already have a proliferation of Crown corporations in this country. When we couple that with the ability to convert Crown corporation debts into equity, the present administration has obtained the power to create a corporation, grant it a loan and then write off the loan by converting it into equity, all without any legislation and without the matter ever coming before this House. Power of this extent is not only a licence for abuse: it is, indeed, an enticement to abuse.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is it any wonder that we are now in the process of reviewing very thoroughly the operations of Crown corporations? Some of them are, indeed, undergoing a penetrating examination. The Auditor General has stated that the control and managerial practices of some Crown corporations are weak and in many cases inadequate. The whole question of accountability comes to light. Is it any wonder, when we consider the attitude of this government in terms of its accountability to parliament? Is it any wonder that we have Crown corporations behaving in a less than acceptable fashion? What they are doing is following the standard that has been established by this government. How can we expect AECL, or Polysar, to behave any differently from the government of Canada?
I could go on and cite other areas of concern-the question of loans, loan authority, guarantees, and the treatment that is provided to Eldorado Nuclear, something tantamount to a blank cheque. There are many questions which come to light in connection with that particular vote, and my colleagues will be dealing with that. There is the question of write-offs and debt deletions, the question and the principle of employing $1 item to write off the massive debt of the St. Lawrence Seaway. We witness the creative use of the $1 vote. The government has, in effect, written off a $625 million debt by deeming, with the wave of an accountant's wand, the debt to be equity. The danger is that by allowing this kind of conversion it is conceivable that any government entity owing money to the consolidated revenue fund could arrange to have its debts cancelled in this same way.

At the outset I said that the estimates were misleading and in some cases constituted misrepresentation. When we look at the estimates, it is stated that the amount requested is $929,675,111. This does not reflect the potential cost to Canada of all items included in supplementary estimates D. When one considers all contingent liabilities which could be established under these estimates, clearly the total commitment will exceed $2 billion. For example, I think of contingent liabilities established in votes to do with the Eldorado Nuclear, to do with Industry, Trade and Commerce vote Id, of subparagraphs (b) and (c) of the export development guarantee, and of the item governing Via Rail Canada.
We are concerned about this government's practices and the continuing erosion of parliamentary authority in voting funds for government expenditures. The increasing practice of avoiding parliamentary approval through misuse and abuse of the estimates has raised deep concern about parliament's ability to carry out its traditional function and remain an effective guardian of the public interest and controller of the public purse. As I said earlier, at this time in our history when public cynicism and mistrust for our institutions is growing, this government's actions in running roughshod over the principles of representative democracy shock most Canadians.
Unless there is an honest and open demonstration that parliament has the capacity to control and properly account for government spending, the cynicism will not decrease-it will grow. If the cynicism grows, it will foster unrest and discontent in this country, with devastating effects on our nation.


John Carr Munro: It is already doing this.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As my colleague says, it is already happening. Mr. Speaker, the institution of parliament and of government will no longer be able to command respect and attention in leading the fight for national unity and social and economic stability. Parliament should be the focal point of national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Parliament should be the major device for controlling the public purse. It should be the key to the preservation of individual freedom and our democratic process. The systematic undermining of the roles, responsibilities and duties of parliament will ensure that the institution cannot perform those tasks so vital to our future. That is why we condemn the government and its actions with all our vigour. We condemn it for its deliberate misuse of the practices, prerogatives and traditions of this institution.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) rose on a point of order to protest the inclusion of $1 items in the estimates. As a former leader of the government, I understood this very well. I have had serious misgivings about the use of those items and was not at all surprised that again, on this
March 22, 1977

occasion, the leader of the House for the Official Opposition raised the question. The point, Your Honour will recall, was debated in the House for some 2Vi hours. A great many members took part in the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it was debated 1 'A hours.


Mitchell William Sharp: It was debated 1 'A hours, I am sorry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: From 3.15 p.m. to 4.45 p.m.


Mitchell William Sharp: There was a long, detailed discussion on the point; some new points were raised, and some repeated which had been raised previously. I would have thought that for the opposition, having raised this question as a point of order yesterday, would be enough. As it is, we are in a peculiar position today. At the conclusion of yesterday's discussion on the point of order, Mr. Speaker reserved his judgment until today. Hon. members will recall that a few minutes ago Mr. Speaker said that he had not quite concluded writing his opinion and that it would be transmitted to the House perhaps this afternoon. Now, as a result of the action of the Official Opposition, we are discussing again the matter raised yesterday. I question the wisdom of doing this. Mr. Speaker made it clear that he considers the matter to be of some importance and intends to give his opinion, to which we look forward, if not with bated breath at least with interest, for this question has concerned us all for many years.
Today we are debating a motion on the same subject and I suggest that the opposition is not being fair to the House or to the Chair in raising the question again today. Certainly, it puts the Speaker in a peculiar position.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker doesn't think so.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am expressing an opinion. I am not saying Mr. Speaker considers that he is in that position; I am saying that we have put him in a peculiar position. He is to give an opinion on the propriety of $1 items in the estimates on the very day when the House is to be asked to vote on a motion the outcome of which might be inconsistent, if not contrary, to the view put forward by Mr. Speaker. This, I think, should have been avoided, and I seriously fault the opposition for having raised the question in this form while Mr. Speaker was in the midst of deciding on the propriety of including $1 items in the estimates.
The second question one must ask is perhaps even more serious: Why would the opposition choose, on one of its six days when it can ask the House to express an opinion, to debate $1 items in the estimates? When I think of the debates of this session and the questions the opposition claims it has not had any opportunity to debate, I ask myself "Why have they decided to select a question of form, not substance, essentially a question of what should be in the estimates, as the subject for the motion before the House at this time?"


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Because it is fundamental.
Dollar Items


An hon. Member:: Because of the state of the economy.


Mitchell William Sharp: Exactly: as the hon. gentleman opposite just said, because of the state of the economy. I would think that might have been a better subject for debate in the House, and I think all members, whether on the opposition or the government side, would have welcomed the opportunity to talk about the state of the economy.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We did that on Thursday.


Mitchell William Sharp: There is a great deal of information available. There is no denial of information; hon. members have full access to it. Press reports are available, and Statistics Canada material is available. There is a great deal of material for debating some of the leading issues of the day. But what does the opposition decide to debate? It decides to debate $1 items in the estimates. I say to my friends opposite that the people in my constituency will not understand. They will want to know why the opposition did not raise matters that are on their minds, questions such as unemployment and national unity.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They should know how the government absconds with their funds.


Mitchell William Sharp: The opposition has been clamouring for the opportunity to discuss these important issues and when they get the opportunity, what motion do they put down? They put down a motion which is superfluous and unnecessary, because they raised the question yesterday on a point of order. I know that the people in my constituency consider such a question as being rather esoteric, a question of form. I suggest that the opposition, in selecting this subject for debate today, have wasted the time of this House, time which might be used to discuss questions of national importance and concern for the whole country. There could be debate about the propriety of $1 items: I have initiated such debates. But they do not go to the heart of the matters which concern the people of this country.


An hon. Member:: We want to know where the money is going.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The House listened courteously to the previous speaker, and I suggest we should extend the same courtesy to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp).


Mitchell William Sharp: The other day my former colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) referred in his speech to the malaise which pervades the House. As a backbencher now, I observe our proceedings with more objectivity, perhaps, than when I was sitting on the treasury benches, and I must say I find myself in agreement with the view of a great many people that our proceedings are too much concerned with trivialities. We have failed this session to come to grips with the great issues. We have spent far too much time on matters of secondary importance. Unless we get back to

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
subjects which are of serious importance to the people, this institution and all its members will suffer in consequence.
I shall not try to attribute all the blame to the opposition. But when I see a day like this, a day which might have been devoted to subjects which are on the minds of the people, being devoted to the consideration of the propriety of $ 1 items in the estimates, I find myself questioning the judgment of the opposition.
Some of us heard John Drewery on the news the other evening when he was talking about what was going on in parliament. Perhaps I might read some of the things he said at that time. John Drewery is a senior member of the press gallery and he has reported the proceedings of the House over many years. He is a man who does not engage in extremism, a man of moderation and sound judgment. He said this:
Politically related events outside Parliament Hill have been stealing the thunder of the Commons during recent months ... Ren6 L6vesque has not dropped the other shoe on the future of confederation ... Ministers of the Crown have been breaking tradition by announcing policies to newsmen rather than to parliament. Opposition leader Joe Clark fought and lost a partisan battle to grab a new riding from a colleague in Calgary. The popularity polls have been bouncing up and down. Meanwhile, activities of the MPs have been slipping into irrelevance. The parliamentary dedication to trivia, in the daily question periods, in the sparsely attended debates in the Commons, in committee, has never been more intense. Exercises in political gamesmanship seem to have become more important than producing public insights on the expenditure of tax dollars. Whatever the reason, MPs may find themselves answering questions about what they have done for the country lately when the spotlight returns to the activities of the House of Commons.
In this session, after over 90 sittings, only seven bills have been passed. More than 15 days were consumed by a bill implementing policies announced more than a year earlier. The bills emanating from last year's budget were passed barely in time for this year's. The government and opposition make arrangements for the conduct of business that never seem to work. Only last week, after an agreement was reached to finish the advance payments for crops bill on Friday, suddenly, when the time came, the Official Opposition refused consent to proceed with third reading because some of their members who wanted to speak were not here. Why not? The business was announced Thursday at three o'clock. Why did they leave on Thursday when business in which they claim to be interested was scheduled for Friday? Or if they were not here on Thursday-and one may well ask why they were not-why did their House leader or whip not recall them? This is typical of the total lack of responsibility on the part of the opposition- especially the Official Opposition-toward doing the business which their constituents sent them here to do. They will not plan, they will not organize, they will not discipline themselves, and when they get one of the rare opportunities to put forward a votable motion, rather than daring to deal with a matter of substance, a matter of relevance to the people, they want to talk about $1 items in the estimates. This is a subject which has been debated again and again in the House and with regard to which succeeding Speakers have given many rulings.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We would like to know where you spent the money. That is what we want to find out. These $1 items hide billions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I might go on to deal with the substance of the question, though I hesitate to do so since Mr. Speaker has already been asked to rule on it. We have been over this ground on so many occasions in the past.
One thing should be kept in mind: all estimates, whether for $1 or millions of dollars, are legislative in nature. When enacted in an Appropriation Act, an item in the estimates not only provides the amount of money, but also establishes precise purposes, terms, conditions and methods of spending the money. Under our constitution-we can find this in both the British North America Act, 1867, and in the Standing Orders of the House-such purposes, terms, etc., must be recommended by the Governor General to the House of Commons.
It is not unusual for a modern government to discover in the course of a year that, while it has had enough money voted to it, the terms of the appropriation are too narrow, or more money has been voted for one purpose and not enough for another. There are also financial actions that do not involve much more than paperwork, such as the writing off of debts or losses, the guarantee of loans or the capitalization arrangements of Crown agencies or companies. In order to meet these situations, an Appropriation Act must be amended. This is done through another Appropriation Act. All Appropriation Acts are based on estimates. Estimates must provide some sum of money. If no further expenditure is required, then rather than ask for more money than it needs, the government, for the sake of legal form, attaches the amount of $1.
In the process of legislating the amounts, purposes, terms, etc., of expenditures, it is not unusual for parliament to find that the provisions of an act other than an Appropriation Act conflict with the proposed expenditure. For example, there are many members of both Houses of Parliament who are farmers and who, as such, benefit in a direct financial manner from programs of Canada Agriculture established by items in the estimates. The Senate and House of Commons Act, however, prohibits members of either House from receiving payments from the Crown in right of Canada except their indemnities and allowances. In order to treat farmers who are members as fairly as those who are not, such items always contain verbiage suspending the relevant provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act. This is, in effect, an amendment to that act. One can find many other similar examples where the verbiage of an item in the estimates avoids a conflict between the objects or terms of the expenditure and the provisions of statute law. This is a logical, legitimate and effective manner of keeping laws in harmony with each other while avoiding the trivialization of parliament. The government must, of course, proceed cautiously with regard to such items and the House must examine them with care. As a former government House leader, I have had the responsibility for seeing that any items with respect to which I had doubts of this character were not brought before the House.
Ample provision is made in the standing orders for the examination of estimates, whether of the $ 1 variety or not. All items are referred to standing committees where ministers and officials are interviewed about them. Any item or items may,

March 22, 1977

under the rules, be brought before committee of the whole. Any item may be formally opposed and voted on separately from others. Nevertheless, the business of supply differs from other business in that supply bills are rarely debated and, even on those occasions when they are, under the rules they must be disposed of at a specified time. Therefore, a great deal of forbearance is required with regard to the wording of estimates or the use of $1 items.
This is not to say, however, that the use of $ 1 items in any way diminishes the control of the House over expenditure or deprives the House of its opportunity to debate the creation of new programs or agencies. One dollar items, like any other items, may be considered in standing committee or in committee of the whole. When standing committees report them, the reported items may be considered by the House. Motions by the opposition may be framed in such a manner as to deal with the subject matter of any item and, ultimately, any item may be voted on separately. The opposition has not taken advantage of any of these devices. They cannot complain of lost opportunities when they do not take the opportunities available to them already. If they want to deal with substance, they can. Indeed, it would not be unfair to suggest that they would serve this country better if they would deal with matters of substance rather than attempt to cloak their absence of ideas and unwillingness to work in righteous indignation about matters of form.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I could quite understand the opposition raising a point of order with respect to $1 items. I can understand them pressing their point very hard. That is what they should have done. But to spend a day like today, when they could have raised other issues, having already raised that particular one in an appropriate manner, amounts to no more than wasting the time of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I go along with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) in one respect, but in one respect only. Like him, I was a bit surprised when my hon. friends of the Official Opposition, after raising the point of order about $1 items yesterday, put down the same subject in a motion for debate and vote today. But at that point my going along with the hon. member for Eglinton ends.
I do not agree that this is an unimportant issue, that it is a waste of parliamentary time. Nor do I agree that it puts the Speaker in any kind of awkward position, whether he thinks so
Dollar Items
or not. In my view, the issue involved in this motion is an issue of decades, perhaps of centuries, namely, the whole question of the relationship between parliament and the executive. Even if some day we get this issue solved and put on a proper basis, I hope we will not forget to talk about it, because it is very important to the functioning of parliament that that relationship be on a proper basis. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when the vote is called at 9.45 tonight we shall be voting for the motion.
I suppose that what I want to say now will lead to the charge that I am dealing in trivialities; but as one who is concerned about the fine points of parliamentary procedure and also about the fine points of the English language, I wish those in the Conservative party who draft these motions would not forever split their infinitives. But they have done it again today when they use the words "to fully discuss". Surely they could say "to discuss fully". This gives me the opportunity to say that I am delighted that my French speaking friends in the House do not split their infinitives, even if I have to say that it is because they cannot do so. That is why we have it in French in an unsplit infinitive, "discuter a fond". Despite this what some may regard as a triviality, but which I nevertheless think is important, my colleagues and I are going to support this motion.
The hon. member for Eglinton suggested that the Speaker is put in a difficult position of some kind. I deny that completely. What was raised yesterday was a specific point of order which was narrowed down precisely to eight or ten $1 items in the estimates. What the Speaker has to rule on today is whether any of those items are out of order and should not be allowed as items in the supplementary estimates to be voted on tonight. Whatever ruling he makes, there will still be $1 items which may not be illegal or improper but the use of which is an abuse of the relationship between parliament and the executive, and that is what we are talking about today.
I think we have both the right and the duty to keep this issue alive. What we are seeking to do is to maintain the control of parliament over the executive. I say to my hon. friend that even if his constituents in Eglinton and my constituents in Winnipeg North Centre are not waiting for news of this esoteric debate, it is important to them that this parliament be a place where the executive is responsible to parliament. When an executive can short-circuit and short-cut the parliamentary process by the use of $1 items, it is, in effect, downgrading parliament.
This is particularly true, and has been even more serious, since 1968 than prior thereto. I pick that date because it is the date when we made the rule changes which included the process we now follow in the passing of estimates. Prior to that date, a $1 item could be discussed in full on the floor of the House. Now, estimates are shipped off to standing committees

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
and they come back to the House for a pro forma vote and we have no chance of discussing these items on the floor of the House. That means that when tucked in the estimates is a $1 item which amends a statute or brings in a new policy or agency which we ought to have the right to discuss in ordinary legislation, we not only do not have that right at all, but a form of closure is imposed upon us.
I suggest that all of the things that are said about the abuse which is involved in the use of $ 1 items will still stand even if the Speaker in his ruling today says that some of the $1 items in the current supplementary estimates have to be cut out of those estimates. However, I am not one to make the same speech day after day, and I certainly do not intend to stand here this afternoon and make the same speech that I made yesterday afternoon. I suppose I could just say to hon. members, or to readers of Hansard, that they should look at pages 4159 to 4163 of yesterday's Hansard and there they will find my speech. Having said that, I suppose I could now sit down.


Mr. Cafik:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I welcome the applause that greeted my suggestion, but I am sorry to disappoint my hon. friend because I do not intend to sit down just yet. Every time this kind of discussion takes place it inevitably raises questions about parliament itself. 1 was thinking about this earlier today and thinking about some things I have heard in this place in years gone by, and I said to myself that I would use some of those recollections this afternoon but that I could use them only if the same thing is said again today. Well, I thank my hon. friend for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and I thank my hon. friend for Eglinton: both said the sort of thing that I have been hearing in all the years that I have been in this parliament.
This leads me to what I now want to say. In the course of his remarks, the hon. member for Vegreville used words something like this, that if we continue to follow the line of the present government, the institution of parliament will no longer be able to command the respect of the country. Then the hon. member for Eglinton, who did not seem to realize that he had 30 minutes to speak or did not have enough to say to fill up his 30 minutes, fell back on what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said last Friday, namely, that there was a malaise, that members are bored, that this institution has lost its relevance. The hon. member for Eglinton then went on to quote what he heard John Drewery say on television the other night about parliament, that it deals in trivial things, that it is losing its importance and its relevance, and that its job is going to be taken away.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You are quoting pretty weak authority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What comes to my mind is that this sort of thing has been said for decades. In
fact, it has been said for centuries. I tried to find a few quotations this morning, but I did not have time to find the ones I really wanted. However, I do know there have been statements in former centuries about the British parliament, that it was a place of all talk, of people who did not know what they were talking about, and that its usefulness to the country was just about nil. There are some choice quotations in Pepys diary about having gone into the House of Commons and wondering how in the world it could possibly survive. Gladstone, in his first speech as prime minister, cast some doubt on whether parliament could continue to exist. I did find this. In the year 1942, the year I first came here, a respected person, then the minister of finance, Hon. James L. Ilsley said this:
In my judgment parliament is more and more on trial at the bar of public opinion. There is something wrong with this House of Commons. I am not reflecting on the House, and I do not know what is the cause. But there is something wrong with it.
On February 9, 1943, Mr. Brooke Claxton, who was still a private member representing the then constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George, made a speech. I remember it very well. He said he was going to do something unusual, that he was going to talk about ourselves. He quoted the complaints that are made all over the lot about how parliament is not relevant, how parliament is not doing its job. He joined in some of the complaints. He said, as reported at page 292 of Hansard for February 9, 1943, that too much was being done by order in council. That is not a new idea at all. Mr. Brooke Claxton, who was concerned about parliament, and who cited the things people were saying about it, came out with this paragraph that I read back to the hon. member for Eglinton and to the President of the Privy Council in response to what he said last Friday, and to John Drewery. As reported at page 291 of Hansard for February 9, 1943, Brooke Claxton, who sat in the back row over there and made the speech while I sat in the back row over here and heard it, said this:
I would suggest-and here I think all hon. members will agree with me-that there is no more certain way of weakening parliament than to sneer at it and its workings. We can all try to improve it, but there is no point whatever in just saying, What is the good of it?
I say to the President of the Privy Council, to the hon. member for Eglinton, to the John Drewerys and all the rest of the media who try to downgrade this place, that from Pepys of centuries gone by, to others of note, the downgrading of parliament has not worked. The British parliament is still there doing its job for the people of that land, and the Canadian parliament is still here doing a job for the people of this country.
With the exception of one member of this House, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I have seen more of it than anyone else who is here. I have lived through its frustrations, and we on the opposition side face a good many frustrations. I have seen its ups and downs, its good

March 22, 1977

moments and bad moments. I have experienced all of its moods. However, to me it is still the kind of institution that serves a country like Canada well.
1 do not like it when members of the House stand up and try to say it is not relevant, that there is a malaise.and that things are going to the dogs. That is not true. We have one of the best institutions we could have for the governing of a country. I admit that things are not bright, happy and glorious every day. There are days when nothing seems to get done, days when there seems to be a lot of talk and no action. If you get quite a few of such days, persons like the hon. member for Eglinton and John Drewery have a basis for saying that kind of thing, that it is irrelevant.
I want to say quite freely, as a member of the opposition, as one who does his share of talking here, that we have to consider continuously the place of debate on the floor of the House of Commons, the length of speeches, the times we spend on different subjects, and so on. I still contend that much more has to be dealt with in parliament today than was the case 109 years ago or even 34 or 35 years ago when I came here, and we have to modify our rules. But 1 do not think you solve anything by shortening speeches or arbitrarily, through government fiat, bringing in closure. You solve the problem by somehow coming together and making conscious decisions to debate on the floor of the House serious and important issues and not spending unlimited time on unimportant matters. The responsibility for that is just as much on our side as it is on the other side. Having said that, I want to say as strongly as I can that what is wrong with this parliament, why I think questions are being asked and all these comments are being made, is that the very thing the hon. member for Eglinton said we should be doing is not being made possible; it is not being put before us. The hon. member said we should be discussing important matters, not trivia. He called this motion today a matter that is trivial. I do not agree with him, because it involves the whole relationship between government and parliament.
However, I suggest to him that one of the outstanding questions facing the people of Canada today is unemployment. There are a million Canadians unemployed. Why does the government not bring something before us? There is nothing wrong with this parliament that would not be cured by the presenting to it of good legislation. That is where the trouble lies: we are not getting it.
What is being done about the gross inequalities that subsist among our people? Some of us have expressed the effort to minimize inequality by working very hard in the field of pensions, family allowances, and so on. I am proud of the part that my generation in this place has played in the last three or four decades in winning improvements in pensions, veterans pensions, family allowances and unemployment insurance so that we have a much better distribution of the wealth we produce than used to be the case. With all of that, however, the gap is still there. The poor may have more dollars, more goods and services than the poor had a generation or two ago, but the gap between them and those at the top is still very wide.
Dollar Items
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and I asked questions today of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the proposed salaries for top civil servants of up to $70,800 a year. We got back a laugh. And the hon. member for Eglinton wonders why there are questions about parliament! The issue of economic inequality, salaries, wages, pensions and all the rest is just as important a question today as it was when we were adopting the Old Age Security Act, the Family Allowances Act and unemployment insurance, and improving veterans pensions. A great gap in incomes is just a joke to the millionaires in the cabinet. It is really a tragedy that the Prime Minister is so insensitive to the basic needs of the people of this country.
I add to unemployment as a serious problem, and the economic inequalities that we face, the terrible question of regional inequalities in this country. It is a scandal that in a country which we want to be united there are such vast differences between our regions-three wealthy provinces, a few middle ones, and those that are terribly poor. Life in some parts of the country is five or six times better economically than in other parts of the country. Give us a government that will bring these things in here, and this parliament, without changing a single rule, will come to life.
Do not tell me parliament is irrelevant. Do not tell me it is dead. Do not tell me there is a malaise, that we are bored. Just bring the legislation before us that this country needs at present, and you will see that the parliamentary institutions which we inherited from Westminster and have built up here since 1867 are good.
I am not against some rule changes; I am not against some improvements. But I have been through too many committees trying to make those changes to think that that is the whole story. What is needed is a government that is relevant. Parliament will be relevant if the government is relevant to the issues that are before us. There is the question of national unity and all that is involved. What has been brought before us? Probably I have not named them all, but I have named the main concerns of Canadians today-unemployment, economic inequality, the suffering of our pensioners who do not have enough, regional inequalities, and the serious problems related to national unity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am grateful to the House for letting me carry on, but I will not abuse that courtesy. I appreciate the attention that has been given, and I should like to wind up by saying that I think Brooke Claxton was right, back in 1943, when he called on hon. members not to weaken parliament by sneering at it and its workings. I call

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
on hon. members not to indulge in that sort of thing, and I also call on the media to cease its attempt to make this place a failure.
I repeat what I said a moment ago because I think it is the main thing I want to say. Parliament is not a failure; parliament is not irrelevant to the needs of Canada. What is wrong here is that the government is not sensitive to what we need; the government is not bringing in legislation to deal with the problems that face this country. If the government comes to its senses and brings in that kind of legislation, we will find that parliament is as great an institution as it has always been and as, I believe, it always will be.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say, first of all, that I was surprised, quite frankly, by the opening remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) because, first, I believe that he has a feel for this place and that his true feelings for this place were not those which he expressed in his opening remarks; and, second, that a person who has had his years of experience in the government, his seniority in the public service, a person who unfortunately has never seen the other side of the coin from the point of view of the operations of the House of Commons-and it is his good fortune that he has always managed to sit on the government side-and a person who has dealt with estimates, should take the view that the matter of $1 items, whether as a point of order, as it was dealt with yesterday, to decide whether or not the matter can be allowed to stand within a bill because of the standing orders of the House or as a matter of principle is not substantive and does not go to the root of our parliamentary system.
I have not been here for a long time and I do not claim to have the parliamentary experience of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or the hon. member for Eglinton, but all this motion says is that regardless of Mr. Speaker's ruling today, or whenever it should come, this practice of $1 items in principle is a tainted practice which should not be pursued by any government, even this government which is in itself a tainted government, except in an emergency when there is no other way in which this matter could be brought forward, and then only if it falls within the standing orders.
The fact is that for the former president of the privy council, former minister of finance and former deputy minister of industry, trade and commerce-


Mitchell William Sharp: And former minister of industry, trade and commerce.


Walter David Baker: -and, as the hon. member says, former minister of industry, trade and commerce, to say that this is not a matter of substance for us to discuss is-I think that upon reflection he will agree-one of the most unwise remarks that he has ever made in an otherwise distinguished career. I regret that he said it. For the hon. member to say that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), as sponsor of the motion, and I, as opposition House leader

and seconder of the motion, are embarrassing Mr. Speaker with this matter is quite beyond my comprehension.
I do not want this debate to become too partisan-I really do not-but if any group has embarrassed Mr. Speaker and has embarassed parliament as well as the traditions of this place, it is this government in doing what it did in terms of $1 items, because they did it in face of the precedents of 1971 and 1973 at which time it was clearly stated that this practice is at least questionable and that in those circumstances it should not have been adopted.
This debate is far from superfluous. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre paid an eloquent tribute to parliament which should have come from the mouth of the former government House leader-but it did not. He chose in this debate to join the ranks of those who for short-term partisan purposes would denigrate parliament. There is not one of us who believes his job is irrelevant, whether he backs the government or whether he sits in the opposition. The great question is: Where is parliament going? As I said, I have not been here as long as the hon. member for Eglington, but a long time ago I used to sit daily in the gallery as a student and watch the late Brooke Claxton, Jimmy Gardiner, C. D. Howe, Douglas Abbott and other members of the government come into the House and make themselves available to answer questions with respect to their estimates-which, after all, are the charts of government expenditures and programs-from ordinary members of parliament, not just members of the opposition.
Do we have an opportunity to do that now in this parliament? Does anyone honestly believe that in terms of the estimates, despite the blandishments set forth by the hon. member for Eglington, the former government House leader, the average backbencher or frontbencher who is not a member of the executive has an opportunity to examine estimates? Is that honestly believed? Of course not.
Does our committee system work, in terms of estimates? There have been chronicles written about it and many have spoken about it-and the answer is "no". That is a fact. Nobody denies the usefulness of our committees in terms of legislative items. The system has worked well, but anyone who has looked at this parliament objectively and who has written about it, and even those who have not looked at it objectively and have written and spoken about it, has said that in terms of the examination of estimates-the only thing by which we know what a government intends to do, how it intends to do it, why it intends to do it, how much it is going to cost, and what the effect of it will be-the use of the present standing committee system, coupled with the automatic end to the consideration of estimates, has effectively removed from backbenchers and frontbenchers who are not members of the government the right to know. That is a parliamentary fact which is unassailable and, equally, regrettable.
That process which has continued through successive rule changes in this House is not set aside, changed, watered-down or made less relevant because a government decides, in addi-
March 22, 1977

tion to the position which it holds under our standing orders, to go the second mile in deceiving parliament, withholding information from parliament and withholding the opportunity to debate by using $1 items. That has not helped, and if that is not substantive, then in terms of this institution I wonder what is.
If there is a danger of parliament not surviving, it is because of what has happened over the course of the last short while. If parliament has become a difficult place for hon. members- and it has certainly changed; it is certainly not what it was before for the private member who represents at least 125,000 constituents or so-then I cannot help but say that the reason for that is we have lost the right to question, we have lost the right to examine, and we have lost what was fundamental, to a large extent, in our parliament prior to the rule changes in 1968. In other words, because of the propensity of governments wanting to legislate, parliament has become a legislative grist-mill.
I would be the last to say that governments ought not to be strong in a parliamentary system, but I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) will join me in being among the first to say that to counterbalance the weight of the executive on the parliamentary system as we are now established, there should be returned to parliament the right to make the examinations of which I have spoken. If I believed that $1 items could help, then I really ought not to be here because, in fact, $1 items further erode the process.
We have been given three secretaries each, we have research assistants, we have research offices and a host of things. Most of us are well attuned to the parliamentary system. All of us have attributes, but the question we must ask ourselves since 1968 or 1969 is, have we been better able, under our rules, to discharge our responsibilities and to counterbalance the executive? We do not want to overthrow the executive or undermine it; we do not want to stonewall the executive: but we want to deal with it in a responsible, parliamentary way. For all the facilities we have, we are not able to do so. For all the relative richness of our offices, the rights which are important to all of us who do not sit on the treasury benches but happen to sit on both sides of the House are diminished.
I think I understand the duty of a government in a parliamentary system. No rule change can be made to work if it is not recognized that the government should have sufficient authority to proceed with its program. I have never suggested otherwise. I believe the initial mistake in our parliament was made when all parties assumed that the legislative program was so important that all other business, especially the consideration of supply, should be relegated to committees.
When that happened, this parliament changed. The balance went in favour of the executive rather than in favour of parliament. The principal concern of my party-and this motion is part of it-is the fact that the House has lost control over supply. We have to give more significance to that problem in any rule changes we may deal with, and I think we also have to give more significance to the participation of private members in the House and in committee proceedings. I think it has
Dollar Items
become evident to all of us as we go along just how important is a freedom of information bill which would allow, by its terms, the knowledge which permits effective debate in this House. We should not pit, in parliamentary terms, a large bureaucracy against a small one.
We should have complete examination of the problems which affect us from day to day in terms of the knowledge which members of parliament should have available to them. We should not deal with these matters through instinctive reactions. Our reactions should be as a result of some knowledge. As the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) knows, I proposed to the committee that aside from the examination of supply perhaps it would be a good thing for us to consider bringing back certain departments-I have suggested six on some occasions, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has expressed a view like this-into the House to test the necessity of examining and our ability to examine, in an unlimited way, certain government departments.
We ought to establish-and this was my proposal to the standing committee of which the hon. member for Eglinton is the chairman-an over-all expenditure committee which can deal with the programs, the policies and the expenditures of the government in an on-going way so that in the course of a four-year parliament each of the major departments of the government could be examined in depth. Under our present system that cannot happen unless the government wills it so. I think parliament should be able to will it so.
I think the attitudes expressed by the hon. member for Eglinton were surprising. I was surprised, especially, when he said we have never taken an opportunity to debate important things. As the hon. member knows, we have asked to have set aside an occasion to debate matters involving external affairs. We have asked for time to debate economic matters. There have been discussions about white papers, and on a pre-budget basis we have wanted to discuss economic questions. The answer we always receive is that we should use an opposition day. My respectful submission to the hon. member for Eglinton is that it is not just the responsibility of the opposition to deal with these matters: the choices of days available to the opposition are limited indeed.
There is an important principle at stake. That is the principle that parliament is the place to discuss and to debate important issues. The use of opposition days by opposition parties indicates that to the extent we can we have used them to discuss what we regard as important matters. The fact that the government has not set aside time is an indication that they look upon this place as a legislative mill rather than a forum for discussion. Parliament is certainly not the richer for that approach.
One of the things that the government complains of is long speeches on second reading. What they call unnecessary debate is, to us, a matter deserving discussion. The former government House leader must understand that time limits do

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
not shorten debate too much-they help; but attitudes shorten debate. Opportunities to debate and discuss questions shorten debate.
What has happened in this parliament is that we have changed the rules one by one, undoing the balance in the parliamentary system and overweighing the system in favour of the legislative mill and in favour of the government. There is the burden of the executive on parliament. If we have allowed this, we have slowly whittled away legitimate weapons which parliament can use to examine the government on its performance, its expenditures and its policies. In the course of that whittling away, frustrations have developed and the only opportunity left now for a backbencher effectively to examine a policy as it may relate to him is in the course of second reading debate. I would like to see that change.
I suggest that this government ought to examine very closely the experience that has occurred in the legislature of the province of Manitoba, and should decide whether or not, in terms of recognizing the necessity of the government, on the one hand, to govern, and the importance of the balancing of that right of government by parliament on the other hand, is met. Not just the opposition but parliament as a whole should be adapted to meet this situation. There are no time limits in the question period in that place and there are no time limits on the speeches. There are no time limits on the examination of the estimates there. Yet that place manages to function, and it functions reasonably.
I have said what our concerns are and why we have brought this motion forward. It does not add to the dignity of a former government House leader to open his speech by attacking the good faith of the opposition in bringing to the attention of parliament its concerns for this place. All members of the government side who are not members of the cabinet must wonder from time to time when they are going to have an opportunity to debate an issue. The system which was operated before in this House, which I saw as a university student sitting in the gallery, did give that opportunity. When the rules were abused, the abusers were condemned. We do not have those opportunities today. It is in that direction that I believe this parliament ought to move. It was for that purpose we condemned, as a matter of principle, the usage of $1 items as part of the degradation of this place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated earlier, I had hoped to return to the Chair this afternoon in order to attempt to rule on the very interesting point of order raised yesterday by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) regarding the acceptability of certain items in the supplementary estimates, particularly those $1 items which are the subject matter of today's discussion.
In the discussion that followed, contributions were made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), on the side of the opposition, and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy

Council (Mr. Goodale), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais).
Ten specific items were placed under attack in those discussions. I will have occasion to refer to them later. Concern with the use of the $1 item in supplementary estimates is not a new problem. The very excellent ruling of my predecessor given on March 10, 1971, which was referred to so frequently yesterday, with obvious reason, because of rather clear pronouncements in this regard, begins by making reference to the history of the matter and going back to some arguments that were made many years previously. Since that time there have been three occasions when this matter has been the subject of a point of order-on December 10, 1973; on March 26, 1974; and, finally, on June 22, 1976 with respect to Loto Canada.
Much of the discussion yesterday centred around the SI item as opposed to the regular, more substantial item. In my opinion, the distinction is unimportant. One of the most interesting precedents relates to Loto Canada, of very recent memory, in which the item was not for $1 but for $5 million, which does not, in my opinion, in any way alter the problem which is central to this argument; that is, whether or not supply items contain legislative content. The central question to this discussion is whether or not the government can obtain, through passage by parliament of a supply item in an appropriation bill, authority which it does not have under existing legislation.
In the arguments that were put forward, as I understood them yesterday, there were two central points: first, changes in legislation ought to be dealt with by legislation and not by supply items. The opportunity to debate, to consider and to discuss the two are totally different. Therefore, where changes to legislation are sought, they ought to be done in the proper way of all stages of a bill. The second point is that appropriation acts have temporary duration, being for the balance of the fiscal year. Therefore, they ought not to be used as a vehicle to finance or authorize on-going programs.
Those who supported the government indicated that what was involved was nothing more than regular and efficient administrative government practice and parliamentary practice. These items have taken on a rather special significance since 1968 because of the changes in procedure in that time. Even on a very cursory reading of the excellent ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, it elucidates that very clearly. I refer to some of his language, which reads:
-opportunity is undoubtedly limited and depends very much on the number of allotted supply days which might still be available by virtue of Standing Order
58.
This opportunity is granted for consideration of these items. He continued:
In other words, under the old rules there was unlimited time to consider supplementary estimates, including items intended to amend statutes. Under the new rules there may be only a limited time to consider supplementary estimates.
The ruling went on to ask if the difference between the two situations was so substantial as to warrant the disallowing of the past practice of including statutory $1 items in the supplementary estimates. He continued:

Should the very limited time allotted by Standing Order 58 be restricted to the consideration of what is strictly supply?
Standing Order 58, despite some changes, is substantially the same Standing Order. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux answered his own question later when he ruled that the items complained of were not properly before the House. He said:
-I must come to the inevitable conclusion that, in view of the situation created by the new rules, these items are not before the House in proper form.
On December 10, 1973, this ruling was upheld when he said:
-I think 1 have to reaffirm the principle at this time.
On March 26, 1974, he used similar language. Having been guided by those rulings, in June of 1976 I said, in commenting on the Loto Canada item:
-the desirability of this course is open to severe question, and it would certainly be hoped that where a question of principle is involved in an urgent situation, such as that which has given rise to this course and this particular situation, it would be considered an extremely singular situation, and will not be repeated in the future.
The last paragraph of that ruling reads as follows:
However, I do have to find and rule that in fact the legislative authority exists separate and independent from the estimates, and, therefore, what is sought in the estimates, the item before the House, is the money to support that legislative action which exists independent from it. In these circumstances I have to conclude that there is no legal bar to proceeding in that fashion.
On the other hand, Erskine May's eighteenth edition, at page 731, states that there is "no legal restraint on the discretion of the Crown in presenting an estimate" as "an adequate substitute for authorization by a specific bill." May points out simply that the Appropriation Act is not always adapted to defining the conditions, etc., of an expenditure-or is not always "appropriate for expenditure which is meant to continue for a period or indefinitely."
There is evident conflict between those two lines of reasoning, and the attempt to resolve this conflict leads to some consideration of the function of the Chair, which is not to dictate what parliament can or cannot do but, rather, to ensure that what parliament attempts to do is procedurally correct. It raises the additional matter of whether the Chair should act upon its own initiative in procedural questions or whether it should confine itself to the resolution of arguments presented.
This is a very pertinent question, in my opinion, in the present circumstances, because if the former course of action were recommended and were considered prudent it would have the Chair sorting through over 50 supply items of $1 and, indeed, if we are to be consistent with my earlier remarks, through all supply items every time they are presented in an effort to ensure their legislative foundation. I do not think any hon. member sees the Chair as under such a duty, particular since it might very well conflict with certain basic rights of parliament on occasion to alter its regular practice in order to achieve a given objective. I refer specifically to occasions in the past and, I suppose, to occasions in the future, when parliament because of some urgency has wanted to use or may well want to use some similar device or even a $1 item in supply, to do what essentially ought to be done by legislation.
Dollar Items
The point of order raised seeks the adjudication of the Chair in respect of a number of specific items, and I am prepared to see to that. However, I hope hon. members share my distress that our present procedures do not provide the kind of confrontation between the two sides which enables the Chair to make an intelligent decision after weighing prepared arguments on both sides. The nature of yesterday's discussion was very much related to the general concern about the growing use of the $ 1 item, and while specific references were made it seemed to me that they were made in support of the general argument rather than as attacks seeking to set aside the specific item referred to.
I will deal in a moment with those items, but first I want to stress the desirability-indeed, the necessity, if I am to be asked to set aside such items in future-that the House, first should be aware of my opinion on the general question; second, that we adopt an appropriate procedure for challenging specific items.
On the general question, it is my view that the government receives from parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item, in my opinion, ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation. As an illustration of my reasoning on that subject I again refer hon. members to my language in respect of Loto Canada which I quoted some moments ago.
On the matter of a more appropriate procedure for challenging specific items, such procedure must, in my opinion, permit an adequate opposition attack and a properly prepared defence if the Chair is to hope to make an intelligent decision. Obviously, therefore, it cannot be expected that points of order would be raised at the time of tabling or referral of the supplementary estimates. Nor can it be left to the last moment of consideration of the supply bill itself, if the administration of the House is to be expected to produce for consideration by hon. members the actual supply bill before the votes are taken.
It would, therefore, appear to me that some time must be arranged, with some advance notice to ministers, when points of order can be argued. The Chair, of course, is always open to suggestions which may come forward for discussion among hon. members. But I wish to serve notice on the House that if no such suggestions are forthcoming for such arrangement or similar arrangement, it will be my intention to set such arrangements in motion with the co-operation of the House on the next occasion upon which supplementary estimates are tabled. They will be arrangements probably calling for such arguments upon the next to last allotted day in the trimester, upon some notice given to the ministers involved some time on the previous day.
Frankly, in the absence of such procedure I feel compelled to take a somewhat lenient view in respect of the specific items in issue at this time. Of those I propose to set aside only two which in their own language, in my view, admit of the necessity to amend an existing statute. These are paragraph (a), vote Id, under Industry, Trade and Commerce, and vote 77d, also

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
under Industry, Trade and Commerce. Paragraph (a) of vote Id proposes to amend section 5 of the National Design Council Act by providing for the payment of remuneration to the members of the council. Vote 77d is equally unequivocal, in my opinion. It proposes to amend sections 26 and 28 of the Export Development Act by increasing the amounts permitted under those sections.
I confess that there are at least four other items which raise grave doubts in my mind. Those are Post Office vote Id, Supply and Services vote 27d, Veterans Affairs vote 45d, and Public Works vote lOd. Those four raise grave doubts in my mind, and if the procedures I have suggested were in place at this time I certainly would look forward with some interest to the arguments that no new legislative authority was being sought by the presentation of those items.
The remaining items are less clear, but in any case, in the absence of a procedure which allows adequate confrontation and which would allow at least the hope for the making of an intelligent decision by the Chair, I caution hon. members not to take any of these decisions as a precedent, because I lean heavily on the absence of adequate procedures which can lead to a decision by the Chair which ought not in any way to be taken as a precedent binding in future situations.
I simply hope that by endeavouring to set out a procedure which would put us in the position of being able to listen to arguments directed against and in favour of specific items in estimates in the future, I have set before the House improved procedures for dealing with those arguments and also, at the same time, set before the House a basic principle which I will endeavour to apply in resolving these arguments when they occur.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I think the decision you have handed down will help hon. members greatly in attempting to determine what is a $1 item and how this dilemma can be resolved. I recall reading the decisions of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux of 1971, reading them again and not being able to find sufficient precision to be able to resolve our difficulties in trying to cope with the form of the estimates. We were concerned about what could be and what could not be included in the estimates. Your Honour's decision will be most helpful. I think the procedure you have outlined will also be helfpul. I know that hon. members, myself included, will be happy to provide Your Honour with ideas as to how appropriate confrontation tactics can be evolved and how these questions can be properly decided.
The House now finds itself in a remarkably auourd position. A decision has now been handed down by Your Honour on the question which was raised yesterday, and this really ought to dispose of the matter. Yet at the same time Her Majety's Loyal Opposition has chosen to take this opportunity to hold a vote on the question of $1 items. I am not going to read the motion, but it does put the House in a rather odd situation of voting for the motion, perhaps voting against Your Honour's decision or voting against the motion and, again, voting against your decision. I think hon. members recognize that in terms of parliamentary procedure this is an important item.

Surely, every members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition understood yesterday that Your Honour would be bringing down a decision today, and why they wanted to frame a motion in such a way as to put the House in possibility of being against any decision brought down is totally beyond my capacity to understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I take no objection to the right of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to bring forward the motion, but I do question their intelligence in bringing it forth at this particular time. The opposition parties get two voting days in a term, and it seems absurd to me, when we listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), complaining that we are not debating the issues facing the country today, that the opposition should come up with such as absurd proposition.
Members opposite cannot have it both ways. We understand the concern they feel about the rules, because we share it on this side. We are extraordinarily frustrated. Take a look at what this House of Commons has done since it reassembled. We have passed the grand number of seven pieces of legislation since we came back here in the fall. Look at the progress which has been made with other legislation: we have got hardly any legislation into committee. If one really wants to know what the House of Commons has been doing, all one has to do is examine those motions we have passed under Standing Order 43 in which we have congratulated the winners of the Stanley Cup, congratulated the winners of the skating championships and congratulated Her Majesty on the twenty-fifth anniversary of her reign. But we have not been dealing with the problems which face Canada. It is absurdities like the motion before us now, after a day on which we have taken part in a procedural debate on $1 items, which bring the House of Commons and parliament in general into the rather low repute in which it is now held by the public at large.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says he disagrees with the priorities set by the government in its program. That is his right. That is why he is on the other side. No government program will ever satisfy members on the other side of the House. Indeed, there is never going to be a government program which will satisfy all the members on this side of the House, either, no matter who forms the government. The fact is that we have limited resources. The fact is that the government must make decisions. The fact is that the government must bring down the program to present to parliament for action. But this parliament is unable to act.
I do not presume to know the reason for this. At one time I could say it was because the Conservatives were riding high in the Gallup poll and it was to their benefit to ensure that no decisions were taken in parliament. And one can argue, looking at what actually happened when the Conservatives were riding high in the poll, that very little did happen in the House of Commons. Now that they are not riding so high one might expect they would improve their performance to show that
March 22, 1977

they do have some ability. But no: we find they are doing no better when they are down in the poll, either. So one can only assume that no matter whether they are high in the poll or low in the poll, they suffer from basic incompetence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: I have gone back over the ground to look at how Her Majesty's opposition have used supply days to present their alternative policies, their program to the House of Commons and to the country, to see how they choose to use their time. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) castigated me last Monday for being a supporter of the "parliamentary sausage machine" approach. I have never made such a statement and I do not believe it. I have always argued that we should organize our time so as to be able to debate things of importance. One of the frustrations I have always felt has arisen because of the lack of courage of the opposition when it come to debating the issues of the day, since they control the only free time in the House of Commons through supply days; and they have plenty of supply days, far more free days than the government has, with its legislative program, to get through.
Let us look at some of their motions. There was one by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) in which he moved:
That the House urge the government to discontinue its propensity to act in secret and without respecting the generality of the foregoing condemns its failure to provide for an open, public discussion of future Canadian trade policy and to report to the Canadian people on its policy and progress respecting GATT negotiations.
Then there was another. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) moved:
That this House vigorously protest the manner in which it has been deprived of a genuine role in the discussion of estimates, fiscal and monetary policy, objects to the secrecy of economic studies and projections-


An hon. Member:: You could not appreciate how important that is.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, when one looks at what Her Majesty's Official Opposition has been doing, one must ask: Have they been dealing with matters of substance? Not on your life! They have preferred to deal with matters of procedure. They would prefer not to deal with matters of substance. They would prefer not to deal with the problems facing this country. Let us be fair while we are saying these things. I exempt the NDP from that remark because they at least have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to debate their policies and put forward alternatives. But that does not apply to the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Utter bilge.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the House leader for the Conservative party talked a great deal about how parliament ought to operate. I dare say that if the day should ever come-and I hope it will not-when he is the government House leader, he
Dollar Items
will make precisely the same kind of speeches that House leaders make from this side, mainly because the government does have the duty to put forward a legislative program.
I want to urge the House leader for the Conservative party to consider the operations of the legislature in Ontario. It is inconvenient for him because they do not sit as much as we do; they sit much less than we do but they pass twice as many pieces of legislation. I do not hear the Liberal or the NDP opposition there complaining about being gagged or about not being able to make their points, or complaining that the government will not allow them to speak. They have learned to live and to adapt. That is something which this House of Commons has not learned.
The House leader for the opposition was eloquent on the matter of the status of the Manitoba legislature. He does not seem to realize how things work in the west. I suppose that is not unusual, considering he is a good eastern Ontario lad. Salaries are limited. Members out there must make a living. They sit in the legislature on a part-time basis. For the same reason, sessions are very limited. The amount of legislation which is presented is limited. All these factors make discipline imperative.
But what do we see in the House of Commons? We have members who are paid full-time so they are here all the time, they do not have the discipline imposed on them of having to earn outside incomes. The sessions here are not limited; we sit for 180 days. We sit too long and we have an average legislative load of about 80 bills per year. We are not going to make it this session because we have not been able to perform. Maybe the hon. member is correct; perhaps we ought to go to the Manitoba system. Maybe we ought to slash the salaries of members of parliament and go back to the old system. If members had to earn their living outside, they would certainly pay a great deal of attention to the business which had to be done and would not waste time in the way time is wasted today both in the House and in committees.
I just want to raise one further point, Mr. Speaker. It has been said by almost every speaker that the House of Commons is under attack. I believe that institutions have to adapt to what is going on in the real world or they will be cast aside, left behind, and deservedly so. I feel that at the present time the House of Commons, with the kind of attitudes we have and the kind of approach that parties are taking, is an institution which is not capable of serving the Canadian people in the 1970s.
Since November 15 we have had a new situation in Canada; we have not had a debate in the House of Commons. The opposition parties have not been prepared to use one of their supply days; they have preferred to avoid the issue. I do not know why they have preferred to avoid it, but when some happening of that considerable magnitude does take place, one would expect there to be a debate in the House of Commons. We have not had that debate. The government says it cannot

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
give the time because its legislative program is so far in arrears that it would never catch up.
Anyone who looks at the legislative programs of the past in terms of bills will find that the normal mixture has been placed before the House this session. The opposition parties have between them some 25 supply days. They have not had the courage to grasp this particular nettle. We could talk about the question of Uganda. We could talk about regional disparity. We could talk about almost any question that members wish to talk about. But during those 25 days we have not had any example forthcoming from the opposition. 1 would be the last to say that opposition members should debate questions of substance. Obviously, they are more at home with questions of procedure. Obviously, they are at home when they do not have to deal with issues as perceived by the Canadian people.
What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that the House of Commons is not focusing on the debates in this country. What it means is that we, as members of parliament, are writing ourselves out of national debates, that this chamber and this parliament is not participating as it ought. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is the greatest offence with which one can charge the House of Commons. We are the politicians. We are elected to participate in public debates. Yet because of the way we have lacked the courage to face up to our outmoded procedures we cannot find the time in this chamber to participate in public debates.
I have great sympathy for the proposition that has been put forward by Her Majesty's opposition in terms of $1 items. I feel that the time was not ripe for this particular debate, anticipating as it does the Speaker's ruling when it was well known to all hon. members that the ruling would come down today. It has put the House in a terribly embarrassing position, whether or not one is in support of the issue or opposed to it. It was, in short, a stupid motion.
I want to urge Her Majesty's opposition to do a great deal to bring about a better House of Commons. I do not want to personally blame the Leader of the Opposition or his House leader, but I have come to the conclusion that one of the reasons that this House of Commons is so weak is that, by and large, the parties in it are so weak. They do not have that much internal cohesion; they have little or no cohesion on issues.
I think if one is to be honest and face up to the reality that is facing the House leaders on the other side, they probably have more knife scars in their backs than any other members with the exception of the leaders of the their respective parties. I have considerable sympathy for them as they try to manoeuvre to cope in some way with the divided groups that they happen to lead. At the same time, because they are unable to impose any discipline upon themselves, I feel it is becoming necessary for the government to introduce measures which are going to provide for this necessity for discipline. I have come reluctantly to this position. It does not jell with what I have said in the past, but I invite the government to bring forth measures which will impose some form of discipline on this institution

lest we wash it away with our own inability to control ourselves.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, we have been treated to a most unusual performance on the part of government spokesmen this afternoon. One of the most interesting facets of this particular performance is that it seems to be a recycling of an old song-and-dance team. It passes my understanding why the government should feel it is in their interest to recycle the former House leader and the former parliamentary secretary to the House leader. One can only conclude that all the government ministers, including the present parliamentary secretaries, are so embarrassed by their own government's performance that they are unwilling to stand up and defend what has to be one of the shoddiest performances that we have witnessed in many a year, and that is saying something in view of the government that sits before us today.
When the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) said at the outset of his remarks a few moments ago that the House is in a remarkably absurd position, the only thing that is really absurd is the performance of this government. If there was any necessity to make this point, I think the point was well and truly made by the Speaker a few moments ago when he made his ruling on the practice that we are currently debating this afternoon.
I thought, if I may say so, it was almost childish-I am sorry the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) is not here- that he should open his remarks by saying such things as that he had serious misgivings about raising this matter again this afternoon. He thought that surely an hour or two yesterday afternoon would be enough to dispense with the matter and that we could await the Speaker's ruling. I suppose the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River really had no better song to sing than that of his former mentor and was forced to pursue the same line of reasoning, which has to be one of the weakest in the books.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River heard the Speaker a few moments ago clearly distinguish between what parliament should be doing and the procedure under which it should do it. I heard no recognition at all in the comments of the former government House leader, the hon. member for Eglinton, or those of his former parliamentary secretary, with respect to distinguishing proper procedures and responsibilities. That is what this debate is all about.
I noticed that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River neglected to read the motion, though I presume that at some time during this debate or later he will do so. The motion clearly states that it is the substantive approach by government with respect to these $1 items that is very much the preoccupation of this debate. I should like to read the motion again. The hon. member is still in the chamber, so perhaps he would listen to it if he has not already read it:
That in the opinion of this House the government's use of dollar items further diminishes the proper control of the House of Commons over expenditure, and additionally, circumvents the right of the House to fully discuss the creation of new policies, programs and agencies.
March 22, 1977

It was quite obvious from the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that he in no way defended the practice of this government of bringing in $1 items, some of major proportion respecting new policies, new programs, shifts in priority. These are items that we have raised in a general way in this debate. It was really a question of government accountability, government performance, government responsibility with respect to the programs it is pursuing under a whole host of $1 items which it has been impossible to discuss in this House prior to today's debate, on which the guillotine will fall at 9.45 p.m. tonight.
It was a sign of weakness, I guess, on the part of the government that it had to put up this recycled team of Eglinton and Kenora-Rainy River. I am not going to comment on their efficiency or effectiveness when they served in this House in their previous posts, but if this is the best defence the government has to this monstrous use of $1 items, this absolutely irresponsible approach to the expenditure of public money in this place, the government has no defence whatever.
I do not want to construct here the kind of defence or presentation that the government should have made. However, I would have expected by this time of the day that we might have heard from some of the ministers who are here, such as the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) who has a $1 item on this list, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), or some others. They could have told us that there was such urgency or such an immediate requirement for these funds that they had to come to parliament, and sort of offer a bit of an apology because they knew this was not the best or most acceptable way. After all, we are not dealing here with the main estimates or the first supplementaries, second or third supplementaries, but the very last set that will be included in this fiscal year. I had expected them to say something like, "Look, fellows, we know you will understand. We have a responsibility in our department to provide a particular service or program, or change something we have discovered is no longer adequate. We know you are going to give this kind of approval to pursue this estimate because it is in the public interest." However, we have not had that defence.
In all of these 50 or so SI items, not a single government spokesman, minister, parliamentary secretary or backbencher has stood up and said anything like that. What has been their argument? It has been the ridiculous one that because of a point of order yesterday, we raised the propriety under our rules of some specific ten items, not all, being pursued in this manner to see whether they were procedurally correct and should be pursued. Today we came in with a substantive approach to the indiscriminate use of $1 items. Therefore, we have this business between the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, plus the hour or two yesterday, saying that we should not deal with this kind of frivolous issue and that we should get on to the main issues of the day. I hope that before this debate is over some minister will have enough sense and courage to give us positive justification for this extraordinary use.
Dollar Items
Yesterday the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader used a number of precedents. He said there were something like 11 $1 items since 1971 which would establish some kind of a precedent of usage which would justify the $1 items being questioned particularly yesterday. We have before us, not 11, 22 or 33, but some 50 plus $1 items of varying shades of proportions with respect to the shift of government expenditure, the establishment of a new Crown corporation, a change in the nature of legislation with respect to tax exemptions, the lifting of guarantees in the billions of dollars to other Crown corporations, the changing of debt to equity of major proportions for the St. Lawrence Seaway, which has implications on much of the shipping in the eastern part of this country. There is no explanation from this government as to the justification for this kind of procedure.
What we have is one of two things: either the government is too embarrassed to feel that it can produce any possible explanation to justify this wholesale usage of $1 items, or- and this was not said by the hon. member for Eglinton or the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River-it does not really feel it important.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) talked about the danger of continually downgrading, throwing up one's hands and saying that parliament had lost its central role or its importance to the effective functioning of our democratic system. He defended the fact that parliament is still alive and well. I hope this debate will contribute to that general state of health.
The hon. member might have said one of the problems, surely, has been that it has been an increasing mark and characteristic of this government to downgrade, bypass, circumvent and substantially ignore the whole of the parliamentary process, all in the name of efficiency or in the government's own sense of "it knows best". If it has reached such a state of mental poverty that it is not able this afternon to give a proper defence or reasoned explanation to the people of this country for this kind of circumventing of the parliamentary process, then things are in an even more sorry state than we realize.
There was one point of debate today on which there has been agreement. The hon. member for Eglinton said he felt there must be more time to discuss the real issues of the day. He mentioned three in particular. He said there were obvious questions of major economic proportions. There is no question about that, certainly to a representative of a province like Prince Edward Island where official unemployment figures are somewhere between 12 per cent and 15 per cent and unofficial unemployment figures go anywhere up to 30 per cent.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs and I know that the 5,000 people that Statistics Canada reports are unemployed, plus the many who would be listed as receiving unemployment insurance benefits, are not enjoying the benefits of a healthy economy today. I refer to those people who live in Prince Edward Island. Similar situations prevail in too many areas of the five eastern provinces of this country. I have mentioned far too often in this chamber that members on all sides know how

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
great a concern this is. We certainly know of the hardship it creates both in terms of individuals and their governments. There is a very major problem in the economy. The hon. member for Eglinton has already mentioned the situation of national unity. It was echoed by his alter ego from Kenora-Rainy River. There is a need to try and come to grips in a responsible fashion with that whole question.
Third, there is the subject of energy which, again, is a major concern and major problem for the people of my area, Prince Edward Island. This was picked up and echoed eloquently in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he talked about the tremendous need there is for a government really to come to grips with these issues. The hon. member stated that the question is not really one of adjusting procedures or changing the rules of the House, but for the government to take initiatives on these major issues. I could not agree more. I was not at all surprised to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre preaching this kind of call as eloquently as he did and has done throughout his years of service in this House. However, for the former cabinet minister, the hon. member for Eglinton, and a former parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, to take this tack seems to be committing some kind of public suicide.
When the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was ending his remarks I thought the House of Commons was being turned into a public confessional. He seemed to be echoing more of his own problems with respect to his party than anything else. If both of these individuals, as spokesmen for the government this afternoon, suggest that this parliament is failing to come to grips with the essential issues that concern this country, I would point out to them that the primary responsibility for that failure has to rest with themselves. Where do they think legislation comes from?
I have not been here as long as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I have been here for close to a dozen years. I have learned that when it comes to taking action that requires the expenditure of one dollar in this House of Commons, it must be initiated by a member of the cabinet. If the hon. member for Eglinton or the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River feel that there has not been effective grappling with the issues that concern this country, either concerning the economy, national unity, energy or other essential problems, that surely lies with them and their colleagues for failing to initiate these matters in the House of Commons.
It is true that from time to time the length of debate on issues is controlled by the opposition. I agree there is need for change in our procedure with regard to the length of speeches. However, it is still true that the government has to initiate basic programs, basic policies and deal with these tremendous problems.
What we are faced with this afternoon, I believe, is two things. First of all, as Your Honour made it clear in your ruling a few moments ago, there must be adequate debate,

particularly on major policy initiatives. When we sweep away all the verbiage with respect to whether or not $1 items can properly be used to deal with certain legislative measures, the real issue, as Your Honour recognized, is that if there is not an opportunity in the House of Commons fully to explore and probe and have the government defend its position with respect to major initiatives, then surely none of us is doing our job adequately, and that is what this debate is all about. There has not been an opportunity to debate this issue adequately, and the government has all too willingly used the device of supplementary estimates D to slough through a whole bunch of initiatives for which there will be no parliamentary accountability, and for that they should be held to account for a betrayal of responsibility as the government of the country.
The second thing that is clearly indicated in this wholesale use of $1 items is that the government is increasingly losing control even of its own responsibility and administration of expenditures. For a government to come in at this late date with the final list of supplementary estimates and ask, in the space of a couple of weeks, for a few committees to look at these items at random and in one day to jam the whole thing through parliament is, to my mind, a totally arrogant and offensive approach to the way in which our democratic system is meant to operate. Quite frankly, I am shocked that no government spokesman has given even a hint of a defence for this unwarranted and unacceptable procedure. That is what this debate is all about today. That is what we want to hear some representative of the government defend before the debate is concluded at 9.45 tonight.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to put a few remarks on the record this afternoon with respect to the point raised in the motion put before the House by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I think it might be useful to look back at the precedents of the House to see how this matter of $ 1 items has been handled in the past, and I intend to do that because I think it might be a useful exposition for members in any future analysis of this question.
I think Mr. Speaker was most helpful today in the judgment he delivered to the House a short while ago in analysing the present situation dealing with the estimates before us. I am sure the words of His Honour in specifying particularly how he would like to see these items handled will be very hepful for the government and, indeed, for all members of parliament in dealing with this question in future. I think his suggestion of a reasoned confrontation on the specific points that members might want to call into issue is very useful. I, for one, look forward to seeing that procedure adopted as one that would be useful to the House in determining specific instances-not in the generalities of a broadside attack which we have heard from hon. members oppositive today, but in specific cases- when members of the House take exception to a particular item appearing as a $1 item and the basis upon which that exception is taken. It is all very well to wax eloquent in general terms when you are not called upon to account or to be specific
March 22, 1977

as to where your objections lie. Mr. Speaker has invited members of the House to be specific in future, and I hope members will accept his invitation and make use of the procedure which he has proposed.
I think the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) in their remarks ealier today on this subject delivered excellent statements on the real and practical dilemma which is facing the House and, indeed, the country. The motion of the opposition and, more particularly, their activities over the course of the past several months, have clearly demonstrated one indisputable fact. The oppposition is not interested in conducting the business of the country, despite their protestations about procedure which we heard today and yesterday. I do not mean to minimize the procedural point in saying that. Indeed, the decision which was rendered by the Chair earlier today is an important one and is very significant for the future operations of the House of Commons. But to go beyond the specific procedural point, I think it is important to observe that the objective we have seen, and the real motive-not the protested motive of hon. gentlemen opposite, today, yesterday and in the weeks and months ahead of the present session is to obstruct, to delay, to stall and to prevent this House of Commons from doing its job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: That is adequately demonstrated to the House and reflected in the inability of the opposition to prepare and plan their debates. We are told, as bills, motions and items of business come before the House, that the debate will take place in one, two or three days and that there will be two, three or four speakers. The list is given to us in good faith, I presume, and then the list of speakers is interminable and the time taken by members of the opposition is endless. In other words, they do not have a co-ordinated game plan in the House to deal with business in an expeditious way in order to let the House come to a decision and make a decision on a vote. Their objective is simply to take as much time as possible on every issue in order to prevent the House from doing any real work.
We have seen this attitude reflected in their inability to respect undertakings, such as happened last Friday with respect to the debate on Bill C-2. In that instance a gentlemens' understanding had been reached, but when the matter came to the floor of the House hon. members across the way apparently changed their minds.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nonsense. That is false.


Ralph Goodale: The effective functioning of the House of Commons was once again stymied. It is a matter of common sense and common judgment that if this place is to function in a reasonable fashion, if there is some expectation that we will do our work effectively and efficiently-not as we have heard it described, as a "legislative grist-mill" but an effective and efficient and reasonable exercise of our responsibilities as members of parliament-then we must have understanding and negotiation across the floor of the House, and if that
Dollar Items
cannot be relied upon then the operations of the House become very difficult, if not impossible.
We have seen, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for Eglinton said today, the determination of the opposition to obstruct the effective workings of the House in their refusal to address themselves to items of national concern. We see that reflected again today.
I emphasize once again the point that I am not minimizing the procedural issue which has been considered here, and I am not minimizing the decision rendered by Mr. Speaker earlier today. Indeed, I have already said that it is a matter of substantial importance in terms of the future procedures of the House. But there are issues of grave importance to the country in terms of a whole variety of national concerns that could, and should, be the topic of current and immediate debate in the House.
The best method of bringing an item before the House for immediate consideration lies in the hands of members of the opposition, that is, the allotted days. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River demonstrated clearly that those allotted days have not been used effectively to discuss current, topical issues. They have been squandered by the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: The precedents of this House, which go back a number of years, reveal that the procedure in relation to $1 items has been used in a wide variety of cases in the past. Those cases have sometimes been the subject of debate and consideration here. On other occasions they have not been so debated. I do not know if there is any particular point at this stage in running through those precedents.
It might be very instructive just to point out to the House the general categories into which those matters in the past have fallen. I think of such matters as vote transfers where $1 items have been used. I think of items dealing with granting programs of the federal government; dealing with the deletion of debts and so on. I think of items such as amendments to previous appropriation acts where the procedure with respect to $1 items has been used in the past. I think also of the extension of other legislation to deal with special and urgent circumstances, and this has already been referred to today. In some cases there were changes in legislation other than the appropriation acts themselves.
It is interesting to note that in the discussions today, and in all the discussions of of which I am directly aware in the standing committees where these specifics items were dealt with in detail, hon. members of the opposition confined themselves to a complaint primarily about procedure. They have not directed themselves to any substantial extent to specific or reasoned arguments about the merits of otherwise of the substance contained in $1 votes. We have had procedural arguments.

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
We have not had substantive arguments, and it seems to me this was the point Mr. Speaker was getting at earlier today. In order for him to come to a reasoned and substantive conclusion with respect to any item which is in dispute with regard to $1 items, he would want to hear viewpoints from one side and from the other side of this House. He would want to hear from the opposition as to where they take specific exception to an item being dealt with as a dollar- item, and he would want to hear the government's defence as to why that particular item should be dealt with as a $1 item. On the basis of those arguments, Mr. Speaker would be able to come to a conclusion as to whether this is a proper procedure. In his ruling today Mr. Speaker emphasized that he did not have the benefit of those kinds of arguments, and therefore he was limited or restricted in coming to the decision which he handed down. He suggested to us a procedure to follow in the future in order to avoid that dilemma. As I said, I think that instruction from the Chair will be very useful in guiding the House in the future.
I think the essence of what Mr. Speaker said in his ruling applies with equal force to what has gone on in this House today, but more particularly in the standing committees as the particular items which have been complained about today and yesterday have been before those committees for consideration. However, what have we heard in those committees, and what have we heard in the House? Have we heard specific complaints about what may be wrong with the Export Development Corporation, what may be wrong with the National Design Council, or what may be wrong in any of the other eight or nine points which have been complained about? No, we have not heard specific objections about the difficulty the opposition envisages with regard to any of these points.
We have merely heard a complaint about procedure, and as these items come before us on allotted days in the House, and as they come before us in the standing committees, there are times when the estimates are being considered when the substance of these issues could be debated and when arguments either for or against could be put on the record, but despite the indignation we have heard from hon. members across the way today and yesterday they have not, in any substantial way, availed themselves of the opportunities they have had to consider these items in the standing committees to the extent to which they say they need to do that. I think that is rather revealing in terms of getting at what is the real motivation or objective behind the motion we are dealing with today. I think the answer must be obvious.
The real motivation is not a concern about what may appear in these $1 items, because no member has directed himself to the substance of the $ 1 items. That seems to demonstrate quite clearly that the objective is to stall, to delay, and to prevent the House of Commons from doing the work of the country. Having said that, I hope in the future there will be a more expeditious and co-operative attitude on all sides of the House in our efforts to do the work of the country, for which we were elected.
I know that all of us want to be guided by the very learned remarks of Mr. Speaker as to how he would like to deal with

the continuing discussion which we will, no doubt, always have about what is and what is not a proper item to be included in the so-called $1 items in the estimates. I hope that all hon. members will take the recommendations of Mr. Speaker to heart. I also hope that all hon. members from this day forward will conduct themselves in this place with a determination to do what we were elected to do, and that is to provide effective leadership for the country and to deal with the issues of Canada in a current and topical way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I find it regrettable that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale), who has just terminated his speech, has shown such a lamentable lack of understanding of the rules of the House. The general thrust of his remarks also showed a total absence of knowledge of what our procedures have been since 1969 when the so-called new rules were imposed upon this House as a result of the use of closure by the administration opposite, which totally changed the concept of the examination of estimates, abolished the committee of supply, abolished supply motions, and substituted therefor allotted days. That is the hairshirt which was fashioned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) when he was President of the Privy Council, in putting together the system which is now operating.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) pathetically bemoaned the nature of the motion before the House today. I would have thought that everyone would recognize that what the government has been doing is illegal.
I want to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), of the hon. member for Eglinton, and of any other hon. member on the government side that in 1971 Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled that such actions and legislative items without the authority of this House were illegal. It was made very clear that there was no authority for them. But have we seen the government pay heed? Gracious me, almost every year we have seen the attempts to get by, to slide around the corner and to see if they could not hide it under the rug. I would have thought that any responsible member would find it reprehensible that the administration would defy the rulings of the Chair by trying to put across this same thing time and time again.
Yesterday in the arguments put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council he said that there have been many attempts in the past that have been sanctioned by the House. Technically the practice is wrong. There may have been some precedents.
This administration requires to be hit between the eyes with an iron bar, much the same way as you have to hit an ox between the horns with a two by four to get its attention. This is not the first time that this administration has been hauled up short. Twice, if not three times, an attempt was made to
March 22, 1977

introduce into appropriation bills handling supplementary estimates borrowing powers that were beyond the resolutions. I had to protest. Finally this administration learned its lesson when Mr. Speaker ruled those items out of the appropriation act.
If we want some historical precedent, these rules came into force in 1969. Final supplementary estimates came into being and were presented, as now, toward the end of the fiscal year. This is quite understandable because there are many items that are not identifiable until near the end of the fiscal year. We had a two week period of study in 1969, as we have now. For the benefit of those bodies over on the government side who are being critical of the opposition, most of these hon. members do not turn up in committee. They do not know what goes on in committee. Certainly the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council does not know what goes on in committee.


Ralph Goodale: You would be surprised.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will show him that supplementary estimates of close to $1 billion were made available to committees on March 8, and up to March 22 there were 14 calendar days, ten parliamentary sitting days. It is said that the opposition should have raised these $1 items somewhere sometime in the House before this date. I want to advise the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, who has shown his abysmal ignorance of the rules, that while committees have assigned to them the estimates, it is impossible for the point to be raised in this House because the Chair will say that all arguments and objections must be put in committee. You cannot have it both ways in both places.
Technically by the rules, yesterday afternoon was the first time that those estimates were deemed to be before the House. They had to be reported within three calendar days before the last supply motion, or Friday noon last. That is why, at my request, the supply motion was advanced to the Tuesday rather than the Thursday of this week. Since the period of expiry for consideration in committee was Friday noon, therefore yesterday afternoon, on the opening of this House, the estimates were deemed to have been reported back within the competence of this House. The suggestion made by Mr. Speaker that questions of this nature shall be considered on the penultimate of the allotted days just cannot stand up to the rules, unless we change them.


An hon. Member:: Change them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Did someone say "change them"?


An hon. Member:: Yes, change them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We made efforts to get fundamental changes in the rules last summer, but the government caucus bogged down and the government leader in the House refuses to bring forward, as I pointed out the other day, even a modified and limited reference to the committee on
Dollar Items
procedure in order to bring in some things about which we have some understanding.


An hon. Member:: Almost nothing.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is not possible to raise the question of $1 items in the House while a committee has them under consideration. The parliamentary secretary had better look at his rules. It does not arise at all in the question of the main estimates since there are no $1 items in the main estimates. It arises in supplementary estimates, and particularly in final supplementary estimates.
If the parliamentary secretary will also do some reading and if he will look at the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, on February 27, 1969, the report of the committee carried this resolution, which was my motion, which reads:
Resolved-that the committee express its concern at the extensive use of $ 1.00 items for the purpose of statutory amendments particularly in final supplementary estimates which are under time limit as to examination in the standing committee and for debate in the House. Appropriate legislative amendments should be made in all but the most exceptional and urgent cases.
Based on that there was a debate. The then president of the treasury board said that there were a few points that had been made to which he wished to reply. He referred to the remarks of the committee which expressed its concern. He repeated most of what I have given to the House as the conclusion. He went on to say that the hon. member for Edmonton West drew attention to the fact that even Liberal members of the committee supported this expression of concern. That is a fact, and one of the members who supported me in that observation is the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). I agree with those members and I share their concern. I think parliament should be concerned about the unwarranted extension of so-called legislation by $1 items. Their own minister, the minister responsible for the introduction of supplementary estimates, states that he was concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council said, "Why does not the opposition argue the substance of those particular items?" What? Items that are illegally before the House? They are not properly before the House. Mr. Speaker has ruled out of order. Why should we argue them?


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are not before us. It is just like trying to argue a charge before a court with the court saying that there is no charge. The thing is not here. It is non-existent, illegal.


Ralph Goodale: You are missing the point.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Some items in the estimates have been before the House, or before the committee, less than two weeks. Let the parliamentary secretary note how much sitting time was available to each committee for the examination of these estimates. Were ministers available?

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
Somehow they feel they must travel the country, or be absent for other business. They are not present for the discussion of their supplementary estimates. It is the last thing in their minds. It is almost impossible to get a minister to attend committee sessions when supplementary estimates are discussed. I know. I participate on far more committees than any of those people on the government side do.


An hon. Member:: And much more effectively.


An hon. Member:: Yes, we know. But ministers must attend to all their responsibilities.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I assure you that when I meet ministers, my relationship with them is most cordial and co-operative.
Now, at the end of this semester when the supplementary estimates are before the House, government backbenchers say that it is wrong for us to raise illegal items, that we should not say this use is wrong. I have before me an official list of $1 votes, as provided to members by the estimates division of Treasury Board.
I see the former deputy speaker opposite me; he has just arrived. He had had difficulties with the weather. He should know that our present difficulties have arisen because of the change of rules in 1969. Prior to that there were supply motions. He knows, when he came to this House in 1962 or 1963, that there supply days. We had two-day debates for the referral of estimates.


An hon. Member:: And you were in the Chair at that time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All of these matters, in reviewing supplementary estimates, were open to full examination. There was no guillotine-oh, no! In 1962 the then Official Opposition took 27 days debating estimates in this House and did not pass one item. They did not pass one item of final supplementaries. And the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council talks of obstruction! Be that as it may, it was a wrong practice. But the suggested correction in the new rules does not stand up to scrutiny.
It is the duty of hon. members to draw to the attention of the House certain illegal procedures. It was done in 1971, and Mr. Speaker Lamoureux ruled the items out of order. He did it again in March, 1974, and it was done again as late as June 10, 1976. It is known that the practice is wrong. The practice should stop-or will it continue, in an attempt to wear somebody down?
Having said that, I direct the attention of the House to the $1 items. Altogether there are 52, of which 22 are unexceptionable as I said the other day. Authority is sought in 22 of those items to transfer moneys from one item to another. That was the accepted practice. Five votes authorize payments of grants. We do not quarrel with that. Then, nine votes authorize the deletion of debts, or the reimbursement of accounts for the value of obsolete stores, and the reimbursement of a revolving fund for an accumulated deficit. Those are perfectly correct. That is what one expects to see in final supplementar-

ies. Those are quite all right. I must raise one point, however. Some departments, having pretended to the House that the most careful scrutiny has been given to the provision for credits in the main estimates, now come along and say, "We under-expended this account by some S3 million or $4 million; therefore we will use it as a milch cow for any number of other items." In cases when there are such surplus funds it can be said that the department has not shown the appropriate degree of care. I would much rather see the other departments come forward and say, "We need that additional money," and not have the government transfer money with $ 1 votes.
Then theri are nine votes which authorize guarantees or affect existing legislation. That is the purpose of such supplementary estimates. If we must repeat our objections, we will again come to this House with the type of motion now being considered.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I know hon. members hate to think they have been deluded. They love to think that the government has acted properly, when in fact is has been totally wrong. May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before calling it six o'clock, may I draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that his allotted time expired at six o'clock?
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the opposition motion today, on what should be a most important day in connection with the voting of supply, relates to a matter of procedure rather than to the substance of what is contained in the estimates before us. The Official Opposition members have chosen to ignore all the other subjects which are open to them, and to address themselves to a question of procedural principal. They persist in following this course even though they had raised this question of principle-


Walter David Baker: And won it, too!


Otto Emil Lang: -indeed, after it had been decided, in one sense, in their favour. So there was clearly no particular reason why they should continue to deal with the matter. But, of course, the opposition likes to stay away from substance. For the first time in 20 years the Tory party is showing a certain amount of loyalty. They are following their leader.
Today, as yesterday, the opposition argued the question of principle in relation to $1 items and in doing so they seem to be saying what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
March 22, 1977

(Mr. Knowles) put more frankly into words in his usual way- that it was not a matter of opposing the individual items under discussion but, rather, it was a question of principle-whether they should be there as $1 items or not.


An hon. Member:: Does the minister have no principles, then?


Otto Emil Lang: They avoid the question of substance. At a time when the country expects parliament to be discussing issues of importance to the nation, as my hon. friend from Eglinton pointed out earlier in the debate, they prefer instead to deal with a question of principle-and one with respect to which a ruling has already been made. It would seem, therefore, as though they cannot find a matter of substances upon which to attack the government.
I should like you to understand, Mr. Speaker, that I do not suggest the opposition or their leader are completely beyond addressing themselves to matters of substance or making statements of policy. Only a week or ten days ago I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) make two fairly clear statements of policy. The House will recall he was cross-examining the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). While he did not say so plainly, it seemed to me rather clear that he came down in favour of rain.
However, having observed the Minister of Agriculture, who is a man who takes religion and matters of life and death seriously, having observed what man should do about the situation, and having observed that it was also right to pray, the Leader of the Opposition in his second policy pronouncement of the day, and so far as I know the second of his career as Leader of the Opposition, came clearly down against prayer. Rather, I should not say clearly because he would not like to be clear on any such matter.
The opposition did not single out items and say that they should not have been in the estimates because they had no merit. They were talking about the principle. For instance, the Seaway item was one which they opposed. I would ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, how that item might have been treated by the the opposition if it were in fact legislation. When it was an item, as it was in this particular situation, they could not say flatly that they were against what the government was doing with this item in the estimates. But what would they have done if it had appeared as legislation? I ask Your Honour to consider that.
Some members opposite, such as the hon. member from Calgary, talked in this House about principle. It is worth noting that the way that the opposition has dealt with the rules and the conduct of business in this House is a tragedy and a serious question for the country. In the case of the Seaway, we have been indicating broad policy in relation to several steps that we believe we ought to take.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: But what you are doing is wrong.
Dollar Items


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) says that what we are doing with the Seaway is wrong. He has colleagues around him who will agree that it is wrong. Some of them said they agreed it is wrong because we are doubling the tolls in our broad plan. He has another set of colleagues wo believe we are quadrupling those tolls. So he has good Tory company.
The important thing to note, Mr. Speaker, is that if this item contained in the estimates, simple but really making straightforward what has been done for years, had appeared in legislation, we would have had speech after speech after speech on the subject from the opposition members, all opposing what we were doing for both sets of reasons, and continuing week after week after week. We all know that.
Even today, Mr. Speaker, there are Tories who go to the Atlantic provinces and not only oppose what we are doing about the Seaway but actually raise issues having to do with our democratic processes and national unity by suggesting we are not being fair to the Atlantic region. They say that we are writing off the debt of the Seaway. It is an interesting debt, Mr. Speaker. It has been standing at $620 million odd all these years since 1959. There is now $217 million interest owing on that debt. Some debt!
What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is plain, straightforward and honest. We are saying that the interest which has accumulated on goods which have passed through the Seaway cannot be charged against future goods. This interest was not paid because when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister he made arrangements regarding the Seaway such that it would never be in an economic position either to pay the interest or return any capital from its operations. So in one sense what we are doing is recognizing that in the future we will not charge the uncollected interest of the past against goods which pass through the Seaway in the future.
In addition, we thought it well to transfer that debt, so-called, with an apparent interest rate to what it should more accurately be seen to be in fact, namely, investment equity, on which some amount-and we are saying one per cent-should be charged, and that the tolls should be set accordingly.
What you must observe, Mr. Speaker, as rather strange conduct on the part of that party opposite is that in the Atlantic provinces its members are damning what we are doing by saying we are writing off the Seaway debt, that we are preferring the Seaway to alternative ways of transporting goods in this country. In the Atlantic area they are damning us for writing off this debt when the pattern for that action was set by the leader of their party when they were in power.
The Tories in the west and also in Ontario will be in agreement with the Tories in the Atlantic provinces. In the west the Tories are saying that we may be doing serious damage to the economy by this move we are making. I suggest that paying one per cent on equity investment and saying that operating and maintenance charges should be paid is a bit of sensible management, which clearly the opposition in the west would not recognize. They are arguing against an increase in

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
tolls which, to use the logic of the Atlantic Tories, they would quadruple.
The tragedy of the procedures of this House is not only that members of the opposition, by conducting themselves in this way, can thereby demonstrate why they are all in agreement on voting against a particular measure. They have two reasons for voting against it; they have one set of members who say it is too good, another who say it is too had. They are always on both sides of every issue. It would be tragedy enough, Mr. Speaker, if they were just occupying the time of the House, but it is a double tragedy when they go into their own regions time after time and suggest that this is an example of democracy not working and of this government being unfair to their particular region. Not only do they take up hour after hour in this House, but they then agree to vote against a bill on second reading having in their own particular territory demonstated their reason for doing so.
I said in my argument yesterday in this House on the question of principle that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put forward what he thought would be better rules he may have touched some rather good points. 1 hope those rules will see the day when we have so organized the House that the business which needs to be put before it can be so put, so the House can come in a deliberate way to a vote on all the business before it during the parliamentary year, instead of being prevented, by delay and dilatory tactics on the part of the opposition, from doing so.
The day when the rules of this House allow for expeditious disposition of business, a great deal of different approaches may be possible. However, that day will not come with any blessing from the opposition. They love delay. They will not ever sensibly agree to arrangements that move business through this House.
If the leader of the Tory party in the House, who is pointing his finger at me and objecting, could ever honestly say what time a bill would take, with any knowledge of what the members behind him were going to do about it, then we would make progress.


Walter David Baker: We ran out of business on Friday because you were not ready.


Otto Emil Lang: They ran out of business on Friday. Look at the history of this House. Look at the history of the opposition. I ask any honest member of the public to read through opposition speeches where they can see irrelevancy after irrelevancy for the purpose of delaying legislation and stopping this House from coming to decisions upon matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I have no doubt there are many times when it will be desirable for there to be a time interval between different phases and stages of House business so that there can be consideration, and indeed deliberation in the country in connection with it. However, there ought to be an orderly system
(Mr. Lang.]
so that the House time here is not taken up with members talking about anything and everything, but about nothing whatever to do with the substance of a bill before us, simply to get on the record whatever it might be that is on their minds anywhere in relation to the subject. That, of course, can be very broadly interpreted.
This motion by the opposition in simple terms has demonstrated the bankruptcy of their ideas, the absolute lack of substantial argument upon which they are willing to stand together as a party and come forward positively with proposals. This demonstrates it more'than anything else.
If the leader of the Tory party in the House has indeed indicated that they are prepared to consider rule changes which will make effective the role of this parliament in passing legislation, instead of constantly allowing his backbenchers to continue wasting time and stopping matters coming to a decision, we will at least have come to something of substance and have accomplished something this day which this motion obviously could not, or never was intended to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the minister is used to speaking only within the forum of news conferences and making announcements outside this House, I want to express my utter relief that he can still be a coherent if not necessary logical speaker in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member gave the Chair the impression he was seeking the floor for the purpose of debate. He has prevented one of his members from speaking. I will therefore recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on reading the motion presented today by the Official Opposition, I particularly like the last three lines which read:
-and additionally, circumvents the right of the House to fully discuss the creation of new policies, programs and agencies.
I have heard no justification or argument against that today from any of the government spokesmen. I listened with particular care to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). He made no mention whatever of the justification for the $1 items standing in the name of the Department of Transport in the supplementary estimates.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), and the Minister of Transport have criticized and ridiculed the Official Opposition for their failure to present motions on their opposition days that deal with vital matters and issues that concern this country. Whether or not the government spokesmen are right, surely that is purely the business of the Official Opposition. Whatever motions they decide to move is entirely up to them.
I Find it difficult to understand why the government would blame the opposition for not bringing forward these major issues on their opposition days when they have all the other days to bring forward legislation, budgets, or anything else on
March 22, 1977

those same major issues. It is surely some kind of verbal chicanery when they blame the opposition, particularly the Official Opposition, for not bringing forward matters of major importance on their opposition days, when the government has the opportunity to present legislation every day to deal with unemployment, housing, pensions, and a host of other matters.
The Minister of Transport should have had the courage to bring forward legislation to deal with major items of policy change and direction. They are all major. However, he did not have that kind of courage. At least he did not have that kind of muscle in his own Cabinet and caucus. I call the activities and conduct of the Minister of Transport at best rude or insensitive to parliament and, at worst, sheer cowardice.
The minister at least could have made a statement on motions in this House as to what he wanted to do about the St. Lawrence Seaway, but no. He could have made a statement on motions about Via Rail, the rail passenger corporation, but no. In fact he had the discourtesy, to put it mildly, to make that announcement in Vancouver.
On the day of the announcement with regard to the St. Lawrence Seaway, the minister made that announcement across the street from this chamber at a press conference. Instead of making that announcement in this chamber, he went across the street to a press conference to make what in effect was a major announcement.
Those two announcements appear as $1 items in the supplementary estimates which Your Honour has ruled are not out of order legally. That is correct. There is legislation in the statutes which allows the minister to make significant changes in policy and direction vis-a-vis a rail passenger corporation or the St. Lawrence Seaway.
A week ago or so the minister made a statement to the effect that he made so many announcements he could not always be getting up to make statements on motions. He would have to do it every day on ongoing and continuing items. 1 should like to know, since when is a railway passenger corporation, a Crown corporation, a branch of another Crown corporation, an ongoing item? I know it has been ongoing in terms of Liberal promises for several years, but since when is that an ongoing item? Since when is it an insignificant, minor matter? The minister was not making an anouncement about outhouses behind the railway station in some little town. This has to do with a railway passenger corporation.
Since when is the transfer of $842 million of capital debt and interest debt on the St. Lawrence Seaway a minor ongoing item? I happen to agree, and so does my party, that that kind of debt should be a public debt and a public charge because it is a public work. We agree that that kind of debt should be transferred from the St. Lawrence Seaway books to the books of the Government and of the people of Canada. But you can hardly call that a minor ongoing item. Surely the minister will not make those kinds of transfers once a week, 52 weeks a year.


An hon. Member:: Don't be surprised if he does.
Dollar Items


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is only important enough in his terms to get a press conference across the street and to put it as a $1 item in supplementary estimates. He lacked the courage either to present legislation or at least make a statement on motions so that members of the other parties in the House could respond to that statement. I call that cowardice.
When the minister says that he will revitalize the rail passenger system in Canada, his version of revitalizing it is not only to set up a Crown corporation or a subsidiary of a Crown corporation or a rail passenger corporation which, by the way, 1 agree with as being second best-the entire railway system should be a Crown corporation, but this is second best, and I happen to agree that it should be a Crown owned passenger corporation-but the minister treats it as an insignificant item not worthy of presentation to parliament. It is only good for shooting off his mouth in Vancouver and for appearing as a $1 item in the supplementary estimates. Surely that is some kind of perversion of parliament.
Surely when the Minister of Transport complains, and the previous three Liberal speakers complain about the opposition delaying bills, they should not wonder about the intransigence of the opposition on a number of items before the House. They brought it on themselves. The government has the entire say as to what occurs in this House on each given day. If the Minister of Transport cannot persuade his colleagues to accept legislation-and I suspect he cannot get the agreement of his own caucus on some of the things he is trying to do-these back door methods he is using are as much due to difficulties within his caucus and the Liberal party in different parts of Canada as to any excuses he might have about trying to evade presenting his policies and his ideas to the House.
I think the minister and most government members do not realize how important parliament is. They complain that the Tories are dealing with minor legal items. The government and particularly the Minister of Transport, have ignored the important issues which they blame the Official Opposition for not bringing forward. It is they who have ignored them. They cannot get off the hook that easily. When the Minister of Transport wants to bring in a $1 item on supplementary estimates to establish a Crown corporation which will involve hundreds of millions of dollars, that does not tell parliament, let alone the people of Canada, how it will be constituted, who will direct it, how much money will have to be borrowed, whether or not CPR will be able to hold us up for a king's ransom for the use of equipment, and whether or not the railways will update the rail bed so that passenger trains can operate at high speeds. None of that can be debated in parliament. That is a $1 item on supplementary estimates, it is a minor detail, a sort of regular ongoing item, according to the Minister of Transport.
This was a major item in the 1974 election campaign. It was major enough to warrant an announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the hustings. Now it is only worth $1.1 suspect-I hope I am wrong and that subsequent events will prove me wrong-that that rail passenger corporation
4234

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
which is only worthy of a $1 item in the supplementary estimates, will only be worth $1 to the people of Canada.
The minister's version of revitalizing rail passenger services was reflected in an announcement from the Canadian Transport Commission abolishing a number of passenger train routes and reducing a number of others. The Minister of Transport calls that a revitalizing of the rail passenger transportation service. I agree in terms of what the minister had to say about the Official Opposition running on both sides of the street with regard to the St. Lawrence Seaway. There is nothing new about that. They have been doing that for years.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are not even on the street.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But I want to remind the Minister of Transport that he and his party are running on both sides of the street. While he is yelling about the user pay concept, and trying to destroy the statutory grain rates, he does not have the courage to face the public and say, "We want to make you pay all of that". He is going to salvage his political neck by saying something that he has said many times, "Maybe the farmer should get that in some other way". It might be a $1 item in the next supplementary estimates.
How the Minister of Transport, who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, can send out a cheque to every farmer to cover what is the cost which the nation pays for handling grain, I do not know. That would be great, especially before an election. It may be administratively stupid and totally inefficient, it may be the worst kind of political chicanery, but that will not matter to the minister nor to the Liberal party. They will try to have it both ways, just as they are accusing the Official Opposition of having it both ways, and yet they have been doing that and, I predict, they will continue to do it.
Let us look at the arrogance of the minister in putting forward $1 items in the supplementary estimates. His treatment of parliament is exemplified in a memorandum which came out from his department. You will recall that the minister tried to sneak into the government restraint bill the abolition of "at and east" freight rates which are meaningful to the Georgian Bay area, the ports of Halifax and Saint John. He was clobbered about that by the millers, the grain producers, and the port authorities, and he was clobbered by the three opposition parties as well as by his own colleagues. The government House leader announced the withdrawal of that clause. The Minister of Transport not only has a short attention span, he is a slow learner. A brick wall has to fall on him before he learns. I will be darned if he does not have the gall to bring in another bill to achieve the same purpose. That bill is not likely to be called, and if it is called, he will have a problem.
The minister has sent out a memorandum to all members of parliament and Senators about the Seaway tolls, and on page 7 of that memorandum, dated March 2, we find the following statement. I wish the minister would let people in his own department know what is happening in parliament. It reads:
However, with the recent elimination of this subsidy-

Meaning the "at and east" freight rates subsidy.
-this combination has become uneconomical and as a result, direct rail movement to Saint-John Halifax is being considered as an alternative.
According to the minister's department, on March 2 the "at and east" rates had already been abolished. But the government had to withdraw that little item out of the restraint bill. The government has not even called the second bill the minister brought in, but his department sent a memorandum to all of us stating that that subsidy has already been eliminated. If that is not some kind of arrogance as well as insensitivity, rudeness, and a derogation from parliament, I do not know what is.
Let us look a little further into the matter of the Seaway. Apparently the Ministry of Transport does not believe members of parliament have any say in what is and what is not the law. The minister and his officials make the law outside parliament. The supply bill will provide funds for the operation of many public services in Canada for the year ending March 31, 1977. Vote L116d authorizes the minister from time to time to fix the amount which shall be paid by the Seaway authority annually out of its toll revenue as a return on capital. Surely that kind of authorization is out of place in the estimates.
Doubling the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls surely is not a small, common, or ongoing item, but to the minister it is only worth one dollar in the supplementary estimates. Obviously there should have been and must be some debate on those kinds of matters. They are matters of significance. Surely there should at least be a statement on motions, but preferably there should be legislation or amendments to existing legislation.
The users of the St. Lawrence Seaway should not have to carry the burden of capital costs. We agree that the transfer of the debt and the interest owing on it, to the public debt is a proper thing to do, but we oppose the provision which gives the Minister of Transport the right from time to time to fix the amount which will be paid as a return on capital. That in itself is worthy of some debate in this chamber. We insist that something like the St. Lawrence Seaway is a public work for the public good of the whole nation. It is not there to make a return on its investment. It is not there to provide a profit for anyone.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Not even the Canadian people?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is there for the benefit of the people as a whole. The nation does not expect a profit from a public work which is for the public good, for the good of the nation as a whole.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Who says?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I remind the hon. yahoo across the way, who does not get to his feet when he speaks-
March 22, 1977


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I will get up when you sit down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -that if the public wanted a profit from public works operations like our streets, sidewalks, sewer and water systems, our post office and many other aspects of our society-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You are comparing apples and oranges.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 am not comparing apples and oranges. The hon. member would look better sitting there with an apple in his mouth and keeping his ears open.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a rotisserie.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Where would you put the orange?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture thinks that the actions of the minister are bad. That federation represents agricultural producers in every province. It disagrees with the Minister of Transport on tolls. This federation has not had an opportunity to discuss legislation with members of parliament. It submitted a brief many months ago. The minister and his predecessor have agonized over the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls, and the government has agonized over them for the last three or four years, but they have not had the courage to deal with them in parliament. The government chickened out with a $1 item in the supplementary estimates.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted to him has expired.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker,-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You smoked them out, Les.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Take the apple out of your mouth.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And the orange off your head.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Hon. members opposite seem to be hung up on this business of the apple and the mouth. I am well aware of the animal to which they are alluding, but like that animal, they cast a longer shadow when they are sitting down than when they are standing up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: You are a bore.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I would prefer to be that than an old sow.


An hon. Member:: Discrimination!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: All afternoon we have been sitting here listening to hon. members opposite crying in their beer. They have presented a motion which reads as follows:
Dollar Items
That in the opinion of this House the government's use of dollar items further diminishes the proper control of the House of Commons over expenditure, and additionally, circumvents the right of the House to fully discuss the creation of new policies, programs and agencies.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He can read.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It is an interesting motion, and I would have liked to have heard hon. members opposite discuss it. Instead, however, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and other speakers before him have said, they got up and railed about matters of procedure. It is becoming painfully obvious that what they are doing is perpetrating a cover-up of their own lack of policy alternatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: They claim that this House is under attack, and I agree that it is. It is being attacked by the Canadian public because little is being accomplished in this House, because of the opposition tactics of filibuster and delay.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to MacEachen.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I have already told him, and he agrees that the opposition is out to frustrate the efforts of the government to fulfill the mandate it was given in the last election. The opposition has never accepted that mandate; hon. members think they know better than the Canadian public.
This is an opposition motion, but I wonder where the opposition is. Time and again on opposition days I have sat in this House and listened to debates on opposition motions, and time and time again I have wondered where the opposition
was.
There are many important items of legislation on the order paper. There is one bill in particular which I personally would like to see back before the House for debate, and that is Bill C-27. We are talking about unemployment insurance and about alleviating the unemployment problems of this country. We are talking about paying benefits to those who are out of work. The opposition pays lip service to that, but talk is cheap. It takes money to buy jobs, and I would like to see the opposition put forward the proposals it has for dealing with this serious problem.


Ralph Goodale: They have none.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: They are interested in unemployment because they think they can make political hay out of it, but the fact is that the Canadian public is not interested in hearing that kind of rhetoric. If the opposition has proposals, it is strange that the latest Gallup poll turned out the way it did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Harquail:: They all stopped laughing when you mentioned the Gallup poll.
80010-61%

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items


Maurice Adrian Dionne: There are other very important issues facing this nation. There is the issue of energy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I invite hon. members to pay attention so that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) can make the point which he wants to communicate to this House.


Maurice James Harquail: 1 hope the opposition heard that.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I would hope that the opposition members would take heed of your advice. I noticed the hon. member saying that I am not making any sense. 1 would expect that from him. One does not expect the senseless to make sense out of anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the best self-destruction that I have heard for a long time.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: We have an energy problem in this country that the opposition has failed to discuss in any coherent fashion. We have the problem of regional disparity, which is an extremely important problem on which the opposition, as usual, is completely and totally divided. In the debate that is taking place in this House on Bill C-27, we have seen the opposition take every position in the political spectrum. The only consensus that they came up with was a silly amendment to put the onus on the cabinet or the governor in council to give them the power by order in council to decide the triggering time for qualifying periods and benefit periods in the country. That is a cop-out, sir. they will not say to the Canadian people whether or not they are in favour of the 12-week qualifying period. They will not say whether or not they are in favour of the benefit periods. They are cowards when it comes to policy in governing this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Where do you stand on it?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: When you
people allow the bill to come back, I will tell you where I stand on it.


An hon. Member:: Bring it tomorrow.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: We heard the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), this afternoon, refer to the performance of the government as being absurd. That party must be the experts in absurdity in this country. There is nothing they have done in the time that I have been here that could not be considered absurd. Every position they take is absurd because of the fact that it ranges all the way
from the far left to the far right. At least the NDP is consistent in being naive about governing the country. The Official Opposition is not even consistent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Merci beaucoup.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: II n'y a pas de
quoi, mon ami.
As the Minister of Transport has said, the opposition is not really interested in what goes through this House. It is interested only in delaying, on procedural points, the functioning of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It is time to bring the functioning of this House into the twentieth century so that those of us who are elected to represent the people can do what we were elected to do, instead of spending month after tedious month in this House putting up with the delaying tactics of the opposition and not being able to make the essential representations of our people that we need to do. That is an unfortunate turn of events because there are very many serious, fine, conscientious members of parliament in the opposition.


Walter David Baker: Thank you.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The problem is that they have no leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: They have a leader who won his position by default but has not got used to the fact that he has won, who does not know where he stands within his own party, and his party could not care less. That is the farce they present to the Canadian public. How long do they think that the Canadian public is going to be fooled by that kind of double standard?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: How can they expect the Canadian public to take things seriously when they have an opposition day and they do not even bother to come to the House? The Official Opposition of this parliament consists of ad hoc opportunism. That is the only way I know to describe it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Shame!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Shame for sure!


An hon. Member:: You talk about your own minister; even Otto cannot take it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that all hon. members would extend courtesy to the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) so that he may continue with his remarks.

March 22, 1977


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is painfully obvious, of course, that the opposition cannot take the truth.


An hon. Member:: They would not recognize it.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: We have heard a lot today in this House about the lack of opportunity by the opposition to discuss the supplementary estimates. They may have a point, sir. There may not be all of the time they would like. There may not be all the time some of us on the back benches on the government side would like, to discuss the supplementary estimates. Why do they not take advantage of the time they have? It is because they are incompetent. They do not know how.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: We saw a perfect example of it in question period this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) got up and completely blew it. He cannot even ask a question. If the opposition is provided with that kind of leadership, what can we expect from their own backbenchers?
Another perfect example of the way in which they fritter away the time of the House and the time of the members of this House is with Standing Order 43. Over the past several months I have paid careful attention to the substance-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You have never been here.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Oh, yes, 1 have been here. Come once in a while and you will see I am here.


An hon. Member:: That is the only line he had.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The substance of their motions on Standing Order 43 is absolutely ludricrous.


An hon. Member:: That is your personal opinion.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Maybe one in 25 motions presented by the opposition under Standing Order 43 has any real substance to it. Then they tangle it up in so much political nonsense and rhetoric that there is no way any sensible, responsible government could accept it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: When the very experienced member, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), got up to speak this afternoon, he started his speech with the words, "I find it regrettable". Well, so do I find it regrettable that we have to suffer the kind of incompetence from the opposition that we witness in this House day after tedious day. There is no hope, obviously, that there is going to be any improvement. They rail against closure. They rail against use of Standing Order 75. Isn't that a shame? When there is no leadership and there is no control by the opposition House leader over the actions of his own party, what does he expect from the government?
Dollar Items
This afternoon we heard opposition members refer to allotted days as a hairshirt. They consider the days allotted to them for the debate of serious subjects as a hairshirt they must wear. That really is a shame.


Mr. Halliday:: Garbage!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: If I were in the opposition-


An hon. Member:: You will be soon.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -I would not consider opposition days as a hairshirt. I would consider them an opportunity to put the government on the sport and make them answer questions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: But the government doesn't answer our questions.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Unfortunately my friends opposite do not know how to do that.


A. Daniel McKenzie: We are no friends of yours.


An hon. Member:: There speaks a redneck.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please, I remind hon. members to address their remarks to the Chair.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I regret having offended the sensibilities of the hon. member. If he says he is no friend of mine, that is his problem, not mine. 1 come now to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think in my first speech in this House I expressed admiration for that hon. member. Certainly he has one thing going for him-longevity. This afternoon he said, substantially, that really there is nothing wrong with the functioning of parliament. All the government need do is bring in bills which please the hon. member's party, and there will be no difficulties in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Sixteen per cent, and still holding firm.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seventeen per cent.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I understood why the hon. member said that. Why did he not smile? Considering that his party's strength was exactly cut in half in the last federal election-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was not.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -one wonders what the Canadian public must do to that party before it learns.

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the best you can do?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I now refer to something the Minister of Transport said.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Oh, boy!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I shall quote him, with fidelity. He said, sir, that Tories are interested in principle, not substance. I am not sure I agree.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Other government supporters agree.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: If he means principle, per se, I must disagree.


Walter David Baker: What does the hon. member know about principle? He wouldn't know how to spell it.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: If he means the principle of the double standard, or of the forked tongue, I would have to agree heartily with what he said.
I hope to see the day when we shall have a united, coherent opposition. I happen to believe this country can only be served by a viable party system. With all respect to my friends of the NDP and Social Credit Party, I look forward to the day when we shall have a two-party system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will see it. It will come.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I believe in the two-party system; I believe in one party being a responsible alternative to the party in power.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Obviously, the Canadian public is of the opinion that there is no such responsible and viable alternative to the party in power. That explains why the Liberal Party, with a few short interruptions, has remained in power in Canada most of the 20th century.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that your best effort?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The Minister of Transport said the opposition go from irrelevancy to irrelevancy. They not only go from irrelevancy to irrelevancy, but from inconsistency to inconsistency. He asked, when are they going to stand together? I ask, when have they ever stood together?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, to inform him that his allotted time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Goodale said no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting debate. It smoked out the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). Hon. members may wonder why the Minister of Transport was present in the House earlier. I see he has left.


An hon. Member:: He's at the airport.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No. He was here on account of bad weather. He was grounded.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Stick to the motion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Hon. members may wonder why, all the time he was ranting and raving, the minister never once turned his back on his backbenchers. I will tell you. He did not dare turn his back. He is the only minister here from the west. That is not quite accurate.


A. Daniel McKenzie: No. There is also the minister of nothing.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Quite right. There is the minister of nothing, and the Minister of Transport, both western ministers. Do you know why he would not turn his back on his backbenchers? The Minister of Transport is the most detested member of parliament in the west.


Ralph Goodale: Nonsense! Why does he get re-elected?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He is detested by all, including Liberals.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Is that the best you can do?


Ralph Goodale: Tell the House what happened to the strength of your vote last time, Jake.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has the floor.


Ralph Goodale: Ask an Albertan about Joe Clark.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the fishing season opened a little early. All the suckers are biting. And what is happening, out west? In the west, you see provincial Liberals divorcing themselves from the federal Liberals.


An hon. Member:: Stick to the motion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport tried to help his brother-in-law obtain the Liberal leadership in Saskatchewan, and he was defeated. Why? The Minister of Transport is the reason for his failure.


An hon. Member:: What about Hatfield in New Brunswick?
March 22, 1977


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 will get to you in a minute, friend. 1 come now to the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, one of the two members we smoked out. He said that the Conservative party does not stand together, but the Liberals do.


An hon. Member:: Tell Jim Richardson that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let us talk about an article which appeared in a paper which is known for its Liberal leanings, the Toronto Star. Today, on the front page, appears an article under the heading: "Trudeau Faces Revolt by MPs over Jobs Bill". It states:
The Trudeau government faces a backbench rebellion if it insists on pushing through a bill to make it even tougher for jobless Canadians to get unemployment insurance benefits.
It goes on to say-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as usual, the opposition is taking its cues from the newspapers. I gave no interview to the Toronto Star and the hon. member had better not build his hopes up on what he sees in a newspaper column.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The Chair has difficulty in recognizing if that is or is not a point of order. I did not hear what the hon. member had to say.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me to be particularly difficult tonight to get the attention of the opposition. The hon. member who is in the process of making a speech is taking his cues with regard to the state of the Liberal party from what he reads in the press.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is not a point of order. Order, please.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought, on that point of order, that the hon. member tried surreptitiously to indicate to the House that he wanted me to read the motion. I did not have to prove that I can read, but he has to, and that is why he read it. I want to go on quoting this article, and it says this-


An hon. Member:: What about the motion?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well, that's part of the motion. It says this:
The government could fall if Newfoundland M.P. David Rooney gets the four other Atlantic Liberals he says are also opposed to the bill to join him in voting against it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have difficulty in attaching the hon. member's remarks to the motion before the House. The Chair has difficulty reconciling them with $1 items.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am getting to the motion. I just wanted to point out to Your Honour that certain positions were taken with regard to the motion. I will respond
Dollar Items
to them and I shall be back on the motion in a minute. The point is that an allegation was made that the motion was not of consequence. Let me just finish, Mr. Speaker. It says:
The five, he says, have agreed that the bill is unacceptable to them in its present form.
Now, with regard to the motion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said we were not united. Well, when we get down to the bottom of this article we read:
Rooney says four other Liberal maritimers support him in opposing the bill. Liberal maritimer members include-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They include Rompkey, Breau, Corbin, and Maurice Dionne.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, where is Maurice Dionne. Where is he?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) seeking the floor on a question of privilege?


Mr. Corbin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I won't make a question of privilege out of it and waste the time of the House. The hon. member has deliberately misled the House by misquoting that newspaper article, and I wish he would read it as written.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair informed the House a moment ago that it could not hear the remarks of hon. members. Therefore it is very difficult to judge whether the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) was speaking on the motion. Most of his remarks I could not hear. I asked him to be clear and to relate his remarks to the motion before the House. I hope the House will concur with the feeling of the Chair and co-operate so we can hear the hon. member for Provencher.


Henry Perrin Beatty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you heard the hon. member opposite say that my hon. friend from Provencher had deliberately misled the House. My understanding is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Provencher.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Eymard G. Corbin: You lied!


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, how long can he get away with that? He is saying my hon. friend here lied. He is setting a precedent. We could all use that language.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair did inform the House a moment ago that it cannot hear what hon. members are saying. There is too much noise. There is too much

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
shouting across the aisle. 1 did not hear the remarks of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The only thing the Chair did hear pertained to a remark that the hon. member was reading from or quoting from a newspaper. I thought that was not a point of order, and 1 stood up to recognize the hon. member for Provencher. If remarks were made which the Chair did not hear, 1 think we should wait until tomorrow and read what Hansard reports.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Before I go on, I want to enter a caveat on two counts. First, in his intervention the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) said-and I believe I have his words correctly-that I had deliberately misled the House.


Eymard G. Corbin: That's right.


Robert Muir: Did you hear that? He has just confirmed it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I believe that Hansard will show tomorrow that the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria has in fact confirmed that he said exactly that. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I believe many members in the House clearly heard the hon. member as stating I had lied. I believe that is unparliamentary language. I believe both interventions are the subject of a legitimate question of privilege. I suggest that Hansard will show tomorrow what was said by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria, and I reserve the right to move a motion of personal privilege tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: On the question of privilege which has just been reserved by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and in connection with which Your Honour has indicated you will check Hansard tomorrow, unless, of course, there is an apology and immediate withdrawal tonight, when that will be unnecessary, the fact of the matter is that there has been a ruling here in the House in which I was involved with the Prime Minister not too long ago in which it was clearly held that the precedents go long beyond just a few months ago, and that such an allegation against an hon. member cannot be made. This affects not only the hon. member for Provencher but every member of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eymard G. Corbin: I will be a gentleman, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Eymard G. Corbin: It could well be that in the heat of debate I got carried away and I will withdraw, without any reservation whatever, words I used when I referred to the hon. member a second time, and I will go so far as to withdraw the statement that the hon. member is deliberately misleading the House. However, I do suggest to him that he look under his bed tonight and see if he would not agree with me that when he
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
quoted from the news release he may have inadvertently misled the House, because I know that particular passage by heart, having checked it many times over the weekend.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well, Mr. Speaker, as a gentleman I accept what the hon. member says, but frankly I still reserve my position on the word he used. 1 want to see what Hansard says. I am not saying it was deliberately misleading but he did not withdraw the word that he used.
I should like to get back to the matter I was discussing before being so rudely interrupted. If hon. members opposite find the quotes I am making, which I am reading from the Toronto Star, too hot then they can take issue with the Toronto Star, but that paper says very clearly that there are specific members who are opposed to Bill C-27. They accused us of being divided on Bill C-27, but I simply tell the House that both the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria and the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi are listed as being opposed to the bill, which is a government bill. I think that is all that needs to be said.
The whole issue today, Mr. Speaker, is the manner in which the government tries to railroad legislation. The fact of the matter is the government has a majority, but it is telling the people of Canada and the members of this House that it cannot run the House. It is saying that the opposition is too effective, that it cannot get legislation through, to the point where on Friday the government ran out of business.
Hon. members opposite also accuse us of not bringing forward pertinent matters. What does the record show, Mr. Speaker? On March 17 the following motion was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark):
That this House condemns the government's failure to set or fulfil reasonable economic goals, and urges the Minister of Finance to be forthright with the people of Canada by revealing in the budget the specific goals he will be seeking to reach with regard to employment, inflation, Canada's trade balance, and the rate of economic growth.
On March 4 the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) moved the following motion:
That in view of the desirability of encouraging an integrated approach to urban planning and development, and of promoting energy conservation, industrial development and employment, this House condemns the Liberal government's deliberate and cynical repudiation of its 1974 election pledge to give comprehensive and extensive aid to municipalities for the improvement of urban transport systems.
On February 23 we moved a motion having to do with non-renewable energy resources. On February 10 we moved a motion on unemployment. And so it goes on, Mr. Speaker, but this government does not respond.
The most reprehensible point on which the government stands condemned is this: it is using $1 items to circumvent parliament. We have constantly to remind it that it wants to circumvent the will of parliament, Mr. Speaker. Whether it is in committee or in the House, ministers do not want an examination of the estimates. Not only that, but with a majority government they say they cannot get legislation through the House and they have to use closure. This is because they cannot handle the House.
March 22, 1977

Just to show how decrepit the government is, on Friday 1 asked whether the premier of Manitoba was going to join the federal cabinet.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Wishful thinking.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Maybe it is wishful thinking, but the point is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) chose not to deny it. On Friday the premier of Manitoba refused to deny it too, so I can only draw one conclusion, and that is that the front bench is devoid of new ideas and that the backbenches are not even worthy of the front benches. This is why the Prime Minister now has to fish in NDP waters to see whether the Liberal party cannot get someone to bolster their sagging fortunes.
When will confidence come back to the govenment? Only when the government presents to parliament a clear picture of the situation, allows parliament to debate it, and the people's representatives to vote. This government has chosen not to do so and it stands condemned by its own actions.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this $1 debate today and to provoke the Official Opposition.

I am somewhat surprised to see that the opposition has preferred today to talk as usual about matters of form rather than matters of substance.
1 would like to tell the House right now that I intend to be polite and concise so as to allow one member of the Official Opposition to say a few words before the end of this debate in the hope that the Official Opposition can finally say something significant today.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity, since we are talking about questions of form and since our rules have been blamed, to call the attention of the House to the need not only to amend certain aspects of our rules, but to review them in their entirety to make this parliament much more modern, effective, worthy and able. It is without any partisanship that I refer to parliamentary reform since, like the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I attended this summer, before the resumption of the sittings of the House, meetings of the Committee on Procedure and Organization, where we discussed amendments to parliamentary procedure.
This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Edmonton West say that he had, by himself or with his party, suggested some rules to our House leader and that unfortunately their suggestions had not yet been implemented. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that parliamentary reform should be made in consultation with all parties of the House and not by one party alone. What I deplore most is the fact that the hon. member for Edmonton West suggested that we were unwilling to accept change, when the opposite is true. We are quite open to change. We have been requesting some changes for years and we hope that these changes will be made by a consensus of the members of all parties of the House.
Dollar Items


Mr. Cyr:: Including Stanley Knowles.


Yvon Pinard: As a matter of fact, it would be very helpful, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the true problems of the day in this House. Today, the Official Opposition missed a splendid opportunity to study in depth a matter of current significance to deal with a mere technicality and generally complain about the rules, because they thought fit to complain about the rules, and because it is against their nature to go to the bottom of things.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that we should have every reason to improve the image of our institution, which is now seen as a true museum. We should be considering reforms in the area of speech time, so that speakers from every party express themselves in a clearer, more concise, less partisan and more direct way. Without denying the opposition the right to state fully their views, we could amend the rules to allow for efficient but unobstructing opposition, and the best way in my view would be to grant 20 or 15 minutes' time to every speaker.
It seems to me that in this day and age, it would be fair and normal to consider a parliamentary schedule under which we could plan our activities as elected representatives, as devoted MPs anxious to know the public's opinion through sensible stays in our constituencies and families. I believe that a positive formula that would be acceptable to all parties in this House -it was discussed last summer-would be to condense parliamentary work into four days rather than five. I am not referring here to a process of shortening our work hours, but rather to redistributing the same number of hours into a lesser number of days. This would leave three days a week during which we could look after our elected representatives business in our constituencies, and then report here on the public's views.
Mr. Speaker, I have very little time to go in depth into a reform proposal I put forward in a speech on the Address in reply to the Throne Speech. I simply wanted to deal with some general matters requiring immediate changes, especially in the current context where we are considering televising this House, as the principle has indeed been accepted. We are now considering the ways and means, the cost of facilities and so on. The principle has been accepted, but clearly there can be no question of televising our proceedings as they are now being conducted. It is urgently necessary to amend the procedure. The Official Opposition is now complaining about one aspect of the standing orders. It seems to me that several other beneficial changes could be made.
Mr. Speaker, during the past two years, we have had unduly extended debates and the opposition missed a fine opportunity on the allotted days to raise questions which concern us as Canadians and it would have been a good thing to discuss them here rather than let the press or commentators in general analyze them. We have thus lost some valuable time.
We have imposed upon the members by requiring their attendance in the House to witness meaningless debates which were meant to delay our proceedings or prevent the proper operation of the House. If such is the complaint of the Official
800X0-62

March 22, 1977
Dollar Items
Opposition, I agree, but I say that it is its fault if our debates are so fruitless and so unproductive.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am now almost through. I promised to leave enough time for the hon. member of the opposition to close debate. 1 shall do so to be courteous, but I absolutely did not want to miss the opportunity of pointing out to the House, on this an allotted day, the necessity and the urgency of considering amendments to our standing orders. Those changes should be made with the agreement of all hon. members of the House, and that, as soon as possible so that we can, once again, restore the value of our role in this House, really express the wishes of the people and use our influence in the shaping of political decisions being made at the present time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving way so that this debate can be completed. I say to him that I thoroughly agree with his sentiments with regard to essential changes that are needed in this House.
After having spent more than 19 years in this House, I can tell the hon. member that a great many members on this side, and I suspect on the other side, experience frustration. I hope that when the time comes to suggest that there be changes the voice of the hon. member will be raised as strongly then as now so that we in this House can bring to the attention of the people of Canada the current and controversial issues. We could then deal with them rather than be shackled as we are to the precedents of the eighteenth and nineteenth century which dominate this parliament. I hope when the time comes members on the other side will not be mice that roar but members who come to the assistance of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Some nine days from now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) will be bringing down a budget, an exceedingly difficult task. I do not envy him his task. His task is increased in severity and size of the problems which await him because of the sorts of things which have been brought forward in the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).
No country can be properly governed unless there is a measure of co-operation, confidence, and understanding between the people who are governed and the government. That does not exist today. One reason is because of what we complain about in this motion. We have complained about these issues year in and year out for the past nine years. There has been deception, an attempt to hide the expenditures of this country so that we have no real opportunity to debate them. That situation has brought the estimates presented to this House from $14 billion in 1971-72 to $41 billion in 1977-78.
We have had no opportunity, either in this House or in committee, to examine with understanding, discernment, and a capacity to challenge, some of the estimates because of the very things the hon. member for Vegreville has included in his

motion today. For that reason the public have lost confidence in this government. It has attempted to stifle the need to inquire into a number of things, particularly the manner and the method of expenditures of public money.
No government can deal with the complex problems of today without having at least a reasonable measure of support and confidence from the people of the country. That does not exist. That is why in nine days from now the Minister of Finance will be facing an almost impossible task.
Because the government has conducted itself in this and many related ways, the people are asking why they should have confidence in a government which brings in estimates that are almost indecipherable because of the language used. It brings in $1 items which give the governor in council the right to expend sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars without ever facing the challenge of members of this House to decide whether those expenditures have been properly made.
The people of this country and the government march to the beat of different drums. The government is moving sideways, engaging in deception. If this conduct was carried out by people in civilian life, it would be the subject of an action for obtaining money by false pretenses. But because it is the government, because it is the Liberal government which has learned over many years of experience the way to deceive and in effect to defraud the people of Canada, by taking their money by such methods-


Mr. MacEachen:: Fraud, deception, what words!


Gerald William Baldwin: That is right. These are the kinds of words that this government should hear and listen to more often.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You might have to withdraw them tomorrow.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am talking about fraud in a system which has been perpetrated by a government-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A shocking abuse of language.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am sorry I missed the speech of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You did not miss anything.


Gerald William Baldwin: If I remember correctly, it was that minister who led a pack of ministers some years ago in breaking the law deliberately. We may recall the situation when we had legislation dealing with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and despite the firm and specific provisions of that act, the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the then minister of justice and one other minister conspired to break that law. I brought in a motion in an attempt to have the ministers impeached. I only regret that the former Speaker then in office said that although the right of impeachment
March 22, 1977

Dollar Items (Division No. 26)
exists, it has not been in use for so long that it presented some difficulties. I think we should bring it back.
++YEAS


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: This country needs the law of impeachment again so that those in high places guilty of misdemeanours should be subject to the kind of proceedings which took one president out of office in the United States, a situation which could prevail here.
These dollar items do not give us the facts we are entitled to have. Members of the House on both sides are the trustees of the public of Canada. It is our responsibility to ensure that the moneys which are raised in the form of taxation are properly spent and accounted for. That right does not exist today, and I say that the hon. member for Vegreville is to be commended for bringing this issue to the attention of the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Let the record show that when Mr. Reid rose to vote he was identified as Mr. Watson.
I declare the motion lost.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Hon. Ron Basford (for the President of Treasury Board) moved:: That supplementary estimates (D) 1976-77, laid upon the Table, Wednesday, March 2, 1977, except for Votes ld(a) and 77d relating to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Basford (for the President of the Treasury Board)
thereupon moved that Bill C-44, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1977, be read a first time and be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 58(10) the question is upon the motion of Mr. Andras, seconded by Mr. MacEachen, that Bill C-44 be now read a second time and be referred to the committee of the whole.
Mr. Basford (for the President of the Treasury Board)
thereupon moved that Bill C-44, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1977, be read a second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I rise on two points of order but I think the first can be cleared up rather quickly. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) is not here. I do not see, therefore, how a motion can be moved in his name.
My second point of order is this: can Your Honour assure the House that the bill which has now been printed has been checked to make sure that the items you ruled out of order this afternoon are not included in the bill which is before us?


Mr. Speaker:: The points of order raised by the hon. member are well taken on both counts. The motion in the pro forma version is in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, and to make the record correct, where 1 have said "Mr. Andras" I ought to have said "Mr. Basford for Mr. Andras".
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
Therefore where I have said "Mr. Andras" I ask that the record be corrected in that form.
In respect of the form and substance of the bill, I am able to give the House the assurance which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has sought. Therefore the question is on the motion of Mr. Basford (for Mr. Andras), seconded by Mr. MacEachen, that Bill C-44, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1977, be now read a second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-44, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1977.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may raise a point of order. I do not believe the question was asked when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair whether the bill was in the traditional form. I thought that was a question that should be asked of the ministry with the Speaker in the Chair rather than when you, as chairman, are in committee of the whole. I do not think I should ask it of yourself but that it should be asked of the ministry. Can we have the assurance that this particular clause is in the form that has been traditionally presented to us?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, the form of this bill is the
same as others passed in previous years, and it contains no additional borrowing authority.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 inclusive agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the schedule carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
March 22, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: the third reading of the bill.


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


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


INTERIM SUPPLY
Stanley Ronald Basford: That a sum not exceeding $5,113,286,796.42 being the aggregate of:
(a)	three-twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978, laid before the House of Commons on February 16, 1977, $4,803,459,729.75;
(b)	an additional eight-twelths of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources Vote L55, Regional Economic Expansion Vote 25, Transport Vote 90 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates, $4,857,333.33;
(c)	an additional six-twelfths of the total amount of Treasury Board Vote 10 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates, $32,400,000.00;
(d)	an additional four-twelfths of the total amount of Finance Vote 15 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $37,166,666.67;
(e)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Communications Vote 5, External Affairs Vote 5, Transport Vote 40, Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $90,005,000.00;
(0 an additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote L50, Transport Votes 65 and L75 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates, $13,357,666.67;
(g) an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 1 and L50, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 1 and 5, Manpower and Immigration Vote 10, National Health and Welfare Vote 40, Supply and Services Votes 1 and 15 and Transport Vote 50 (Schedule F) of the said Estimates, $132,040,400.00; be granted to Her Majesty on account of the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1978.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the question, 1 want to point out to hon. members that the printing of this form is unclear. On some occasions I hesitated to see whether the letter before a certain number was an "I" or an "L".
Interim Supply


Some hon. Members:: 


Mr. Speaker:: I hope I will be permitted some editorial leverage with respect to this. It will be recorded accurately in Hansard.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it was not
clear from your reading that there were additional sums beyond the three-twelfths or expenditures across the board which were sought or that there were some additional amounts. You mentioned six-twelfths, two-twelfths. These would be in addition to the three-twelfths. Precisely just how much money is being sought in this interim supply bill?


Mr. Speaker:: I can only indicate that the question which has been put to the House is in precisely the form of the notice on the notice paper. Any detailed information would, of course, have to come from the Crown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same or on a related point of order. Can we have an assurance from the government that in no case do these fractions add up to twelve twelfths?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In no case do the amounts sought in interim supply in this instance release the total amounts, and therefore the rights of hon. members to criticize the estimates in committee have been fully protected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am of course prepared to entertain a point of order at any time. However, the motion must be put at this moment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-44, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1978, be read a first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Wednesday, March 23, 1977