1978-03-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in light of recent representations made through my office on behalf of the more than 100,000 women who are employed in the public service with regard to their concern over the "job ghetto", which has increased from 68.2 per cent in 1972 to 78.8 per cent, they continue to work in-in spite of the minister's assurance that "the government has taken steps ... to try to improve opportunities for women in the public service"-and in light of the fact that of all the women in the public service, over 33,000 or about one-third, earned less than $10,000, in comparison with less than 10 per cent of the men, and that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women stated in its most recent annual report with regard to the appointment of women, "this inaction calls into question the government's commitment to equal opportunity for women in Canada", 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission immediately review each department's five-year plan of action to ensure no further erosion of the advancement of women, to upgrade the salaries and responsibilities of women in the public service and to report back to the House on a new plan of action within 30 days.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.


GOVERNMENT URGED TO ACT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF ADVISORY COUNCIL-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is one with which I am sure all hon. members will agree. I hope they will permit it to be passed. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House takes note of the fact that this is International Women's Day and calls on the government to act forthwith on the recommendations made recently by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, particularly in terms of employment, training for skilled occupations, appointments to management positions, and pension equality, and this House expresses the hope that in the next parliament the number of women members will be substantially increased.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move an important motion of pressing necessity.
In view of the activities of the Canadian army in Quebec during January 1978; considering that such activities violate the legislation and regulations governing fishing and hunting, the quality of the environment and wildlife conservation; since no permission had been requested to do so, taking into account the considerable damage caused by dynamiting, manoeuvres of tanks and other heavy military equipment; and since these were clearly provocative activities owing to existing tensions between the federal government and the Quebec government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the federal government officially apologize to the Quebec government for such disorderly and irresponsible activities of a Canadian army force and that all damages incurred be paid.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 8, 1978


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the rules of Standing Order 43. It arises from the CBC coverage of the Pacific Western plane crash at Cranbrook, B.C.- coverage which combined the worst aspects of sensationalism, irresponsibility and inaccuracy. The problems in the initial reporting were compounded by the later announcement of the story on "Front Page Challenge" when it was categorically stated that the airplane crashed while trying to avoid a snowplow which was on the runway. This statement was made well in advance of the completion of the inquiry by the Ministry of Transport.
I seek to move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That this House admonish the CBC for reporting well below the standard expected of the Crown corporation and urge that it review its procedures in reporting disastrous accidents.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can be made at this time only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the fact that when, in 1972, the police in the province of Quebec charged six Cubans with unlawful possession of machine-guns, the federal government intervened to get the charges dropped and then apologized to the Cubans involved. In view of the fact that under present gun control laws many Canadian citizens are subject to charges for merely possessing a firearm in contravention of the regulations-without, I might add, any chance of the same treatment accorded the Cubans-I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House repudiate restrictions which infringe on the rights of Canadians at a time when the government apparently neglects the use of much more offensive weapons by foreigners resident in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take up with the Minister of Finance an answer he gave me yesterday when he said he did not expect the government would be giving the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States any new information which was not already available to the Parliament of Canada.
My clear understanding is that the SEC requires that any government going to them, as the Government of Canada proposes to go to them, must give details of its budgetary and fiscal position for the current year. In other words, it would appear that the government of Canada would be required to disclose Canada's 1979 budgetary position. Will the minister tell us now whether the government, in filling out its prospectus to an agency of another country, will be setting out in detail such matters as estimated economic growth, any changes in fiscal policy which may have resulted from the first ministers' meeting, and the anticipated budgetary deficit?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 verified this problem with my officials and they have assured me that there is no information that is required by the filing of that prospectus with the SEC that has not been made public already in Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 wonder if the minister could address himself to the specific question I put to him, as to whether or not the government of Canada will be detailing the growth estimates for 1979, any changes in fiscal policy resulting from the agreements reached at the first ministers' meeting, and the anticipated government deficit. Will those matters be part of the prospectus given to the SEC?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the way I replied to the question covered all those points, Mr. Speaker. I said-and I repeat- that there is no information which will be given to this organization that is not public information. I verified this fact this morning with my deputy minister and other officials and they have assured me of that.


Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We will see, when the time comes, whether the minister is more forthcoming to an agency of a foreign government than he is to the House of Commons of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But on the question of the minister's very unusual reluctance to bring in his first budget as Minister of Finance, given the fact that now, after the first ministers' meeting, the government of Saskatchewan and the government
March 8, 1978

of Ontario yesterday brought down budgets, and given the fact that the treasurer of the province of Ontario has been asking the government of Canada to prove its sincerity in the discussions at the first ministers' meeting, will the minister explain to the House of Commons why he is not acting now on the agreement of the first ministers' conference and why, in light of the dollar situation that gets worse every day, he continues to add to the uncertainty of our economic policy by refusing to bring in a budget? Will he tell us when he intends to bring in a budget for the people of Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member would not want me to present the same type of budget that was presented yesterday, when the Ontario government increased taxes. The Leader of the Opposition is asking us to cut taxes. 1 think some notes should be compared in that party.
On the question of the Canadian dollar, I was very pleased yesterday to hear the man who shows a lot of responsibility as treasurer of the government of Ontario say that he likes the Canadian dollar as it is. I can see that the view of the Ontario administration, vis-a-vis the Canadian dollar which makes Canadian goods more competitive, is acceptable to Ontario. But, of course, it is not acceptable to the official opposition.


CALL FOR INTRODUCTION OF BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The sadness for Canada is that we have a federal Minister of Finance who continues to refuse to accept his responsibility to provide some economic leadership to the country. The ministers of finance of other jurisdictions are prepared to act on the agreements of the first ministers' conference. This minister continues to play games and evade bringing in a budget.
Will the minister now confirm to the House of Commons that he has let it be known to private groups with whom he has been meeting that the question of when a budget will be brought before the House of Commons of Canada is now out of his hands and has been turned over to the Prime Minister and his political advisers; and that that decision will be taken on the basis of the political interests of the Liberal party and not the economic requirements of this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, about five weeks after 1 became Minister of Finance, I brought into this House what 1 call an economic statement; some call it a mini-budget and others call it a budget. It took me less than five weeks to change the economic policies of the government. In that statement I provided a stimulative stance for the Canadian economy in 1978 to the tune of $3 billion. That started on January 1, 1978.
1 think it is only common sense that I should wait to see what the effect will be before I bring down a budget. I said that there will be a budget. There will not be a budget, however, until I have had time to assess the stimulative stance I took in my economic statement of October 28. I will not write a budget because the hon. member wants me to bring
Oral Questions
down a budget; I will have a budget when it is time to have one.


VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-BORROWING TO SUPPORT RATE OF EXCHANGE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my follow-up question to the Minister of Finance relates to the $200 million he indicated the government intends to take down, or has taken down in respect of our $1.5 billion line of credit with Canadian chartered banks. Will he indicate if the government have taken down any further funds, or have they made any initial preparations to take down further funds in respect of this credit, in order to support our dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said at the time I made the announcement about the first $200 million that if there were to be further drawings from that facility in the marketplace, it would be indicated at the time we publish the reserve figures at the beginning of next month.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the government has acknowledged that a falling dollar triggers inflation, is the minister aware that in the three months ending January, Canada had the highest three-month annualized inflation rate of any of our major trading partners; higher than the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan and Germany? If he is aware of that, will he indicate whether the government is totally indifferent to the decline in the dollar and, in fact, is saying a lower dollar is good-inflation be damned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the figures on inflation were published early last month, we say that the inflation rate had dropped from 9.5 to 9 per cent. We are still confident that we shall fulfill our objectives, namely a rate of inflation of about 6 per cent by the end of 1978.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the status of women. In view of the fact that 200,000 women in Canada are single parents, one-third of whom are living at or below the poverty level, and in view of the fact that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended eight years ago that the federal government institute a guaranteed annual income for single-parent families with dependent children, will the minister tell us when such a program will finally be implemented?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal of the government is to institute an income supplementation program that would
3564

March 8, 1978
Oral Questions
not be aimed only at single-parent families with children, but at all families with children and at people of an age between 55 and 65.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Such a proposal was discussed with the provinces in the course of the social security review. There have been differing views expressed by the provinces. My successor is currently studying this matter, examining whether there are various alternatives to implementing such a proposal. The exact time when these studies will be concluded and when we will have the financial resources to put this particular proposal into effect is a matter that will be considered by cabinet at a later stage.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right in saying he is having difficulty getting this expanded program accepted by the provinces. I was referring to a particular, narrow program involving single-parent families headed by women. We could have achieved more progress in that regard. Because of the concerns expressed that women are not receiving proper attention under government programs and planning, the cabinet issued a directive in 1976 entitled "Integration of Women's Concerns into Policy and Program Development", which was to be monitored by the co-ordinator on the status of women. Why has there been no accounting to date of the progress that has been made? Will the minister table the report, or is he too embarrassed about the results?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no embarrassment about the results as such. There has been no formal report on this particular subject. This is a matter of continuing concern. The co-ordinator on the status of women has been in touch with all departments of the federal government. She is working on a regular basis with the department, seeing that the directive of the cabinet in this respect is being implemented by the various departments.
At the level of the cabinet committee and the cabinet itself, I am charged with the responsibility to see that those particular concerns are taken into account in cabinet decisions. In that respect, there is no formal report that has been written and none will be forthcoming. It is a matter of current and continuing concern which arises on every issue as it comes before parliament or as important decisions are taken by various departments. So it is a matter that is integrated into the current operations of government. We are trying, in every policy decision, to make sure that these concerns are taken into account.


Reginald Cyril Symes: That is a disappointing reply, because we have no way of knowing just what progress is being made, when we cannot have the information.


PROGRAMS TO UPGRADE SKILLS OF WOMEN
Reginald Cyril Symes: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I view of the fact that the unemployment rate among women is 17 per cent, when the hidden unemployed are taken into account, and that the minister recently indicated that of the $450 million for the employment strategy fund, $48 million would go for native programs and $ 117 million for youth programs, can the minister enlighten us as to how much will be spent on programs meeting women's needs, especially in light of the report on the status of women which states that in the minister's own departmental programs women are underrepresented in the apprenticeship and skilled programs that are available?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would not pretend to have all the statistics at my fingertips, but I should point out to the hon. member that in the upgrading and language courses the percentage is about 54 per cent for women. In the skilled courses the figure is 40 per cent for women. In the managerial and administrative courses it is 34.5 per cent for women.
I believe I indicated earlier that under our Canada Works Program the percentage of participation of women is actually higher than the percentage of women in the labour force. That is not to say we are satisfied with those statistics; that is why there are programs like Affirmative Action which convince firms to do upgrading and to give training courses to move women into their untraditional forms of employment. All these things are necessary. I think most assuredly that day-care centres to give women an equal opportunity to participate in the work force could be improved upon.


An hon. Member:: When?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister say whether he was aware of the manoeuvres of the Canadian forces in Quebec during an exercise of the Canadian detachment of the allied forces of NATO and would he say to what extent these manoeuvres were authorized?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: have had questions on this matter from the hon. member for Pontiac and other hon. members on this side who have expressed concern. There is no need for concern. This is normal training for the Canadian armed forces prior to deployment to the Arctic Express exercise in Norway. It has

March 8, 1978

taken place in the past with the permission of the licensee, who in this case is the E.B. Eddy Company.
The local conservation officers are aware of this situation and some concern was expressed this year-in January, I believe. As soon as that concern was expressed, the operations were stopped. We then asked if they wanted the training discontinued, but the conservation officers did not want that. Inspections were made and it appears there was no damage to wildlife-animals, fish or beast.


René Matte: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I understand very well that there are such manoeuvres but they take place under an agreement with the authorities concerned. As there was apparently no such agreement in that case, could the minister tell us now whether he has received official complaints from government authorities in Quebec and what he intends to do to deal with this conflict, given the impact of these incidents?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no conflict. Authority has been received from the licensee who has the cutting rights there. I think it would be appropriate for future operations to have such a clearance with the province of Quebec, in view of the fact that it could affect-although it has not affected-game and wildlife. There is no conflict whatsoever.


STATUS OF WOMEN
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my questions relate to concern about women in the work force. I have an additional problem. A moment or two ago a ministerial briefing book was put on my desk: it seems to be a briefing book for the minister responsible for the status of women. I expect one of these books shortly, but I may have to wait for an election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: While giving the minister time to review his music, I would like to pose a question relating to the same matter to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A few days ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration issued a report refuting some of the serious concerns raised by a group of women in the public service about growing discrimination and non-application of equal opportunity programs. In his somewhat fragmented reporting of statistics from his department, the minister gave statistics only for the CR-5 group and omitted, noticeably, CR-6 and CR-7 as well as the important categories of PM and AS. Can the minister indicate whether substantial progress has been made
Oral Questions
in those areas, as indicated by the general nature of his press release? While he is on his feet, can the minister also indicate whether the 44 acting appointments of females which were made on a temporary basis were made permanent? What percentage later became permanent appointments?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the release was not to refute that which was said by the group referred to by the hon. member, but to put it into some kind of perspective. A suggestion had been made that there were none in the SX category and none in managerial roles, and that there were no women in charge on the Immigration Appeal Board staff. In response to that suggestion, we felt we should put some of the counterstatistics on the record, and in effect that is what was done.
With respect to the particular categories to which the hon. member has referred, the odds are that we have not improved in those areas. That is probably why that was not included in my report. However, I would be very happy to check it out to see what the situation is. I do not have at my fingertips information regarding movement from temporary to permanent positions, but I will check that out.


REQUEST FOR ANNUAL REPORTS ON EFFICACY OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister responsible for the status of women has had a chance to review his notes, and because of his over-all responsibility since 1974 for implementing equal opportunity programs for women and the commitment made in the fall of 1975 with respect to reviewing, on an annual basis, the progress being made in various government departments and Crown corporations, can the minister indicate why no yearly accounting has taken place?
Very obviously, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is interested in trying to set the record straight. When can the minister responsible for the status of women give us a firm indication that we will have a comprehensive report so that doubt, uncertainty or anxiety on the part of women presently employed in the public service will not continue?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for returning my documents. I am glad that there is at least one hon. member opposite who returns documents that do not belong to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I want to assure the hon. member that reports which have been requested of all departments have been filed and have been received by Treasury Board. Treasury Board has assigned officers to review these reports with the individual departments to see whether further improvements can be made in terms of plans. I will be glad to see what information can be made public in this respect, in addition to all the information
80033-13%

March 8, 1978
Oral Questions
which is being made public by the Public Service Commission on an annual basis and also in appearances before the parliamentary committee.
If Treasury Board can also provide additional information to the hon. member when the estimates come, I will certainly be very happy to help: and I am sure my colleague will be very happy to make that information available. At the present time, these reports are being reviewed with individual departments by officials of Treasury Board.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate why he feels it has been necessary to keep these annual reports secret? There is very real interest and concern that people in the public service, and the public generally, have in the leadership the federal government can provide in this area. Will the minister make a firm commitment that the reports will be made public? He shows no reluctance in issuing plans of action and making general statements public.
Will he give us that information, particularly because of the offhand remarks of his colleagues, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, about women being marginal or of secondary importance to the work force? What steps is the minister taking to clear up the very great disservice these ministers are doing the women of this country?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think the greatest disservice that could be done, not only to the women of this country but also to the cause of women generally and the cause of honesty in politics, would be to make the kind of statement the hon. member has made about my three colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: 1 challenge the hon. member to indicate a single instance in which any of those three colleagues of mine have made any statement of the kind referred to by the hon. member. I hope the hon. member will stop peddling that kind of stuff, because I believe he is an honest man.
With regard to the question, the hon. member knows those documents are not under my control or responsibility. I will be glad to raise the matter with my colleagues. 1 think this matter should, indeed, be further examined and, if possible, I would be very glad to see those documents tabled or made available to a parliamentary committee when the secretary of the Treasury Board appears. I will explore this matter.


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It arises from the growing sense of urgency about resolving the problem of the construction of floating dry docks on

both the east coast and the west coast. Because there is a potential buyer-either the province of Nova Scotia or a Canadian shipping company-and because of the uncertainty which still surrounds the finalization of the sale, I wonder if the minister or his colleague could give the House an indication of the stage the government's plans have reached or the stand of the department involved with respect to replacing the floating dock, particularly at Halifax but on the west coast as well.


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as I said some time ago, my department is carrying out a study on where best to assist the development of large and small dry dock facilities on the east coast. Until that study is completed, I really think I should not comment.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Minister of Industry, TTrade and Commerce. This matter has been before the government for three or four years. In light of the urgency, will the minister indicate to the House when he expects to receive this report and when, having received the report, he expects to make a decision? I ask this question because some 1,400 jobs are directly involved at the port of Halifax.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I expect the report very soon, and as soon as I get the report the decision will be made rather quickly thereafter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs when we in this House can expect a comprehensive report on the Belgrade Review Meeting of the Helsinki Final Act.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to say with precision, but the meetings ought to conclude within the next few days, although that is by no means certain. As quickly after that as it is possible to assemble a full and comprehensive report, I will be glad to make it available to hon. members in whatever is the most appropriate forum.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, based on a story in this morning's Globe and Mail indicating
March 8, 1978

that a proposal was made by the minister, secretly, late last week to the executive committee of the Yukon territorial government and to the Council of Yukon Indians with respect to setting up a public inquiry which will be charged with inquiring into constitutional development.
Will the minister explain whether the story is accurate and, if it is, why there was this gross intrusion into the affairs of the people of the Yukon who should make these decisions through their elected representatives in their own assembly?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that last fall I met with the members of the Territorial Council and we discussed the question of the next phase of constitutional development. I told them at that time that I felt we should focus on a process which could lead us in that direction. I promised the Council that I would give it some thought, discuss the matter with my colleagues and come back to them with a proposed process. That is what I did Friday of last week in Whitehorse. I am awaiting a response from them.


Erik Nielsen: The article goes on to stipulate one of the considerations and says that such a public inquiry created by the federal ministry, instead of by the elected assembly of the Yukon, will create a resource revenue-sharing program with one-third of resource revenues going to the native people in the Yukon, one-third to the other 80 per cent of the population of the Yukon, and one-third to the federal government.
Does the minister not realize that such a proposal, including federal intrusion by setting up such an inquiry, is furthering the creation of an apartheid situation in the Yukon, and by such a suggestion he is encouraging the inevitable result of seriously imperilling the pipeline legislation which is now before the committee?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the piece of alarmism that my proposal on Friday will in any way jeopardize, compromise or affect the pipeline. I think it is irresponsible for the hon. member to make that sort of suggestion. Secondly, he knows as well as I do that we are both trying to work toward avoiding any form of apartheid in the Yukon. Dean Lysyk drew to our attention that a fracturing is taking place there. I am trying to find a process that will abridge that fracturing. I would hope to have the hon. member's support in that effort.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the minister will have my support, as he has all along, with respect to the avoidance of an apartheid situation in the Yukon, which I suggest he is furthering. The only method by which he can circumvent that situation is adopting the policy which has been expressed on this side of the House by our leader and create a province of the Yukon. That will solve his problem. Will the minister consider that?
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


STEPS TAKEN TO AVERT STRIKES
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General rose in his place in this House yesterday and said, concerning the Post Office:
I think everything is being done to avoid a strike. I can teil you, sir, that if we have a strike at this moment, it would not be our responsibility. Everything, as far as management is concerned, is being done to avoid it-
In view of that, could the minister now tell the House when the CUPW first made its contract proposals, when the department first responded in detail to these proposals, and why the conciliation process has not yet started?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question put by the hon. member for Nickel Belt is very clear. As everyone knows very well, we are now at the conciliation stage and each party is discussing what clauses may or may not be negotiated. As soon as that matter is resolved, conciliation as such can start, which should be within about a week.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Postmaster General's answer reveals a complete lack of knowledge of what is taking place with respect to the negotiations within the department, in view of the fact the union first made its proposals to the department ten months ago, in April, 1977, and to this day the Post Office Department has not responded to those proposals of the union, and in view of the fact that after requesting and having the union agree to conciliation in November, 1977, the department turned around in January and asked for a delay so they could respond to the union's proposals of ten months earlier, could the minister tell the House just how this lack of response and record of inaction constitutes the fact that management is doing everything it can?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, I think we are doing everything we can. It might be useful for the hon. member for Nickel Belt to know exactly what I have done in the last month. I have met with all the union leaders. I have met with top management. The GLT agreement has been exercised and we do not have any rotating strikes at the moment. We have nominated the president of the conciliation board. The Hubling commission is reacting now concerning the horror stories of last December.
We have visited many plants in Toronto and other places and talked to the workers. I have repeatedly invited CUPW to come and talk with us. I have even invited the president, Mr. Parrot, to discuss his "pet baby", which is the establishment of a Crown corporation. I said to him, "We will discuss it together". Up to now we have had only refusals.

March 8, 1978
Oral Questions


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: 
William Heward Grafftey: It is quite regrettable that the minister does not understand my question since it is of the utmost importance that we know if the money granted by the federal government is actually spent by the provinces on social services. I ask this supplementary question because in the past, for instance, the money granted to the provinces by the Secretary of State in Ottawa for education in the second

language was used for entirely different purposes. Let us say that after one year, a province says that the money granted under the agreement signed yesterday was not spent on social services but for other purposes. Could the minister tell the House if other provisions of the agreement that she has signed yesterday with the provinces provide that in addition to provisions related to the needs of the provinces, they have to explain how they have spent that money? What guarantees and what powers does the minister have to correct the situation where money would not be expended for social services?


Miss Begin:: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, there are three grounds on which payments to the provinces can be withheld. I do not think the best way to start reciprocal agreements is by talking about but not believing in Canada and Canadians. That is certainly not the case on this side of the House. This agreement is an historic one, on several counts. Among other things, it gives-at a very critical time for the economic situation of this country-a five-year guarantee on a ten-year proposal for payments escalated according to population, for the benefit of a very vulnerable sector of this country. The current budget of $516 million for social services will, in ten years' time, be approximately $1.9 billion. That is the extent of the federal commitment to social services, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Due to the fact that an announcement should be made shortly on the dairy policy for next year, and also the fact that there will be increased facilities in Canada for the manufacture of specialty cheeses, will the minister confer with his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and have the import restrictions on cheese lowered for the next dairy year by 15 million pounds, as requested by the dairy industry?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we think the quota we have at the present time is realistic. We know that production and consumption of cheese has increased substantially in Canada, especially in the last two years. There are three cheese manufacturers and processors from other parts of the world considering locating in Canada: one in Prince Edward Island, one in Quebec and one in Ontario. Our producers can provide enough for them to produce the high quality special cheeses that these industries intend to produce.
We are quite satisfied that we have adequate controls at the present time to allow our industry to develop. If other entrepreneurs want to take hold of things and go ahead and produce the cheese that we know they have the ability to produce, they can compete with imported products.
March 8, 1978


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the answer of the minister. It is another indication that he is failing to look after the people that he was given the job of looking after.


AMOUNT SPENT IN PROMOTING SKIM MILK POWDER
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It is prompted by his actions and the reasons given for the abrupt removal of the skim milk powder subsidy, meaning a loss of some $13 million. What advertising or promotional programs, if any, were carried out by the government to encourage greater utilization by lower income groups of that product, bearing in mind that the minister's own agency, the Canadian Dairy Commission, had a budget of $4 million to spend on advertising and promotion. What portion of that $4 million was spent in promoting skim milk powder?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say how much was spent to promote skim milk powder. I am sure we all recognize that Canadian society was never more educated with regard to the fact that skim milk powder is a highly nourishing type of food and was put on the market at a very cheap price. That knowledge was available to all. Surveys show that some of the people who are the greatest users of skim milk powder did not read either one of the official languages, but they knew the value of it.
The ads were provided by the supermarkets and the dairy industry promoting this product. The people who use skim milk powder to the greatest extent are not those for whom the subsidy was intended. Continued use of skim milk powder is taking place in the upper income groups; therefore, it is contrary to what the whole policy was for.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister has not answered my question. Will he reconsider his decision and give serious consideration to providing a subsidy to regions of the country with high unemployment or those regions where the wage rate is lower than the national average? Also, will he make available to us the study on which he based his decision to discontinue the program?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the study was made by Statistics Canada. With regard to the use of skim milk powder in the far reaches of Canada, that is not only being considered by my department but by other departments. They know that this is the easiest way to ship this highly nutritious food, skim milk powder, which contains so many of the minerals that are necessary for those in our society to survive. Therefore, we are doing that very thing.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL ASSIST CERTAIN CITIES TO OBTAIN NHL FRANCHISE
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
In view of the fact that the minister has publicly indicated that she hoped Quebec City, Winnipeg and Edmonton would obtain NHL franchises, and that the Quebec Nordiques announced yesterday that they would apply very shortly for such a franchise, could the minister advise the House whether the government would accept to grant financial assistance to these cities and help them meet the NHL requirements as to the capacity of their sport facilities?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, not only with regard to hockey facilities does such a need exist. I draw the hon. member's attention to a number of Canadian cities where stadium needs are also paramount for Canadian Football League survival. I am in favour of examining this question with the provinces and the cities involved to determine whether there is a disposition to enhance facilities such as the hon. member suggests. In respect of hockey, I think we are primarily speaking about Quebec City and Winnipeg. I do not think that is the case in Edmonton, because this government has just put $3.8 million into the coliseum as a result of fhe Commonwealth Games facility.


PENSIONS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the double standard which has developed with regard to the payment of government funds. How does the Prime Minister justify the advance payment of $2 million to Shaul Eisenberg for post-contract services on the sale of a Candu reactor for which no work has been done and for which the chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has said he expects no work to be done, yet the government does not request the return of that $2 million, while at the same time the government persists in its tight-fisted attitude of withdrawing from some 2,500 Canadian women who were in receipt of spouse's allowance but for whom the spouse's allowance was cut off on the death of the husband, an amount that comes to less than $500,000? How does the government justify paying to Mr. Eisenberg on one hand and taking away from Canadian women on the other?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the premises of the question asked by the hon. lady are, of

March 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
course, false. In the first case, the facts are not as she stated. In the second case, the question is, does the government apply the law as it exists and does it try to bring in better policies, as the ministers have suggested, of working toward a guaranteed income for certain persons, or does it not apply the law? I wonder if the hon. lady is suggesting that we should not apply the law.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I now understand why the Prime Minister was the only party leader not in the House on Monday to take part in the debate on women's rights. In light of the report of the Canadian Council on Social Development respecting women and pensions, which shows that single, divorced and widowed women between the ages of 60 and 65 are among the poorest of the poor in Canada, without any access to pensions, without husbands supplying support for them, and in most cases without access to the job market, will he explain by what criteria the government decides that married women in that age bracket are entitled to pensions, while at the same time single or divorced women, who in many cases are worse off, are not entitled to the same benefits?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The simple answer, of course, is that we do not want to force two people to live on the pension of one person. The course the hon. lady suggests would have the effect of expanding even further Canada's expenditure in the social welfare area. Of course, the government is always prepared to spend more money, particularly on needy cases-


An hon. Member:: Like Shaul Eisenberg.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but she and her leader have been saying that the government has been spending too much. She has to make up her mind what her policy is.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Would the Prime Minister personally undertake to read the letters from single women, widowed women, divorced women in the age group 60 to 65, detailing the hardship under which they are living at the present time because of the policy of the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought I had extended a lot of leeway to the hon. lady in her first two questions, but now she has gone a bit too far.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Discussions have been held concerning the motion put forward a day or two ago by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Preliminary to any resolution of that problem, of course, would have to be the reconstitution of the Committee on Rights and Immunities which may take place at a later time. It is not, therefore, opportune for me to comment on that aspect now. I would only want to wait to see whether

that committee is reconstituted. There have been some discussions about the possibility. 1 can, however, without prejudice, inform the House that, as I undertook, I have entered into some conversations with members of that committee, not with all of them, but with the majority of them, and have determined that there is a consensus among the members of that committee that the subject raised by the hon. member for Yukon could be canvassed very usefully by that committee in an effort to come back with a report quite soon.
As hon. members are aware, that committee has met in the past and has reported to the House on one matter affecting rights and immunities, and would be quite pleased to discuss other matters, particularly to discuss the subject of rights and immunities on a priority basis as they are affected by the Official Secrets Act, and attempt to analyze the position of a member in the face of that Act when there is confidential information in possession of a member, and also, if possible, to canvass and examine the matter of a privileged source of information if, in fact, it does exist, and, if it does, to try to define it and determine whether or not in fact there is any legal authority or precedent for the existence of such a right in the hands of an elected person as there is in the case of lawyers who receive confidential or privileged information.
I should stress that in the past the committee has functioned in a format which is conducive to this kind of work and that it would wish to continue to do so, so it would not be the kind of meeting which would lead to the taking of testimony or the examination of an individual grievance. Rather, it would be a study of the general subject raised by the hon. member in the hope of producing some consensus which would be worthy of report to the House, possibly before the Easter recess. If the committee is reconstituted, and if there is a consensus in the House, it would be my hope that we could begin work right away and, if so, it would not be necessary to pursue to the end the procedural regularity of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon.


John R. Rodriguez: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member for Nickel Belt would permit me to make an announcement before we take up his question of privilege, about which he has given me due notice and which relates to previous notices he has given me?


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMISSION
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of all hon. members at this time to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of the Right Hon. Roy Harris Jenkins, President of the European Economic Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 8, 1978


PRIVILEGE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I want to read into the record a letter which I received yesterday from the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais):
Dear Mr. Rodriguez,
On Wednesday, March 1, you raised a question of privilege in the House of Commons asking the Speaker to obtain any tapes or other objects resulting from electronic surveillance against yourself, and to discover why that electronic surveillance operation was undertaken and why the tapes have not been turned over to you.
Unfortunately, I was not in the Commons when you raised your question of privilege but I gave assurances to reporters outside the House that no such tapes existed. On Thursday, March 2, in reply to a question from Elmer MacKay, I stated that:
"not even incidentally do we have any record of the honourable member for
Nickel Belt being subjected to taping or to any other surveillance".
The full text of my response to your question of privilege is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the question of privilege raised by the honourable member from Nickel Belt yesterday. I wish to advise you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, members of this House that I am informed by the RCMP that no authorization was ever given to Warren Hart to conduct electronic surveillance on any member of parliament.
The RCMP advised me that they do not have any tape or any record of tape existing of a conversation between one of Mr. Hart's targets and the member for Nickel Belt. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to turn over any tapes or transcripts to you or to the honourable member because if they exist, they were never in the possession of the RCMP.
In view of this reply, Mr. Speaker, the other concerns of the honourable member as to the reasons for the undertaking of an electronic surveillance and to why he was not informed do not apply".
If you so wish, I would be pleased to state this in the House as a formal reply to your question of privilege.
Jean-Jacques Blais, P.C. M.P.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have no reason to question the veracity of this letter. It was written by a person who is both a member of parliament and the Solicitor General. There is, however, an important problem. We have in our possession a copy of the sworn affidavit of a Mr. Warren Hart in which he says:
On explicit instructions from members of the security service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I conducted electronic surveillance on the then Solicitor General of Canada, namely the Hon. Warren Allmand, a member of the Canadian House of Commons, and John Rodriguez from the Nickel Belt riding, and the NDP in British Columbia.
There is clearly a contradiction between the sworn statement of Mr. Hart and the statement of the Solicitor General in the House and in his letter to me. There is a further complication here because the Solicitor General did state in the House on February 27 that Mr. Hart was in the employ of the RCMP. He is also reported in the press as saying outside the House that the taping of both the former solicitor general and myself was "accidental", although he changed that word to "incidental" on February 28.
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
Let me repeat that I am not questioning the word of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) who, as a member of parliament and a minister, we must believe would not deliberately mislead the House. However, I must make the point that the Solicitor General's statement may be seen as irrelevant to my point of privilege, for two reasons.
First, over the course of previous months we have seen frequent occasions in the House when it was made clear that present and past solicitors general had not been fully aware of activities under the jurisdiction of their departments. We were told, for example, that the solicitors general had no prior knowledge of certain illegal acts and, again, that as members of parliament we should believe them. Thus, we may be lead to the conclusion that once again in this case a solicitor general may lack certain knowledge.
Even if the Solicitor General's statement is accurate, however, there is still a question of privilege to be dealt with. Mr. Hart has stated in a sworn affidavit that he conducted electronic surveillance operations against me under the orders of the RCMP. If his statement is true, if he did conduct electronic surveillance operations against me, whether or not he was acting on the orders of the RCMP, then my privileges have been breached since such surveillance breaches the confidentiality of my communication with my constituents and with it my ability to perform my duties as a member of this House.
If, however, Mr. Hart's statement is completely false, my privileges have still been breached. Mr. Hart's notarized statement has been made public, and both the statement and the specific allegation that I have been the subject of electronic surveillance have received extensive publicity.
A Canadian press article, for example, in the Ottawa Citizen of February 28, 1978, has as the headline, "Blais Confirms Hart Taped Allmand, M.P." and reads in part as follows:
Solicitor General Jean-Jacques Blais confirmed in the House of Commons Monday that Warren Hart, an FBI informer working for the RCMP, accidentally eavesdropped on former solicitor general Warren Allmand and MP John Rodriguez (NDP-Nickel Belt).
Again in a Canadian press story in the Ottawa Citizen of March 1, 1978 there appears the headline as follows:
'Control' of Informer Arranged by RCMP
And in the article this statement occurs, Mr. Speaker:
Hart claimed part of his duties were to electronically eavesdrop on then solicitor general Warren Allmand and NDP MP John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt). Blais has said conversations of Allmand and Rodriguez were taped accidentally while Hart was bugging someone else.
And, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hart has gone further-to make statements on national television in which he again stated that such electronic surveillance operations had taken place. Thus, whether or not Mr. Hart's statement is true, it has been given such extensive publicity as to call into question in the minds of my constituents the confidentiality of our communications. This, as I have stated before, distinctly impairs my ability to perform my duties as a member of this House.
3572

March 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
The government has established in the McDonald Commission a mechanism whereby certain actions of our federal police force may be examined, but I believe in this case that is not the mechanism that should be used. In this case we are not discussing general policies or actions but rather the possibility of a specific breach of the privileges of a member of this House. As such I believe that breach must be examined and dealt with by members of this House.
Only by taking such an action will it be possible to ascertain clearly what has taken place, and what has not taken place. The question of whether or not I was the subject of electronic surveillance, whether officially sanctioned or not, must be clearly answered. If the action did not take place, then the sworn statement of Mr. Hart must be discredited by investigation so as to reassure my constituents.
If the surveillance did take place, then the circumstances surrounding that surveillance must be investigated and reported on in a public manner. I believe the only body which can and should undertake such an investigation is the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of this House. I, therefore, move, Mr. Speaker:
That this matter of privilege concerning possible electronic surveillance against myself, the sworn statement of Mr. Warren Hart and the statements of the Solicitor General be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and that that body be requested to undertake to bring before it any persons having or claiming knowledge of this affair, so that the whole truth may be discovered and publicized in such a way as to restore the confidence of my constituents in the confidentiality of our communications and thus end the breach of privilege which exists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief contribution, and I should say at the outset, sir, that it is in support of the motion that has just been moved now by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
It seems to me, sir, that we have facing us in this House, particularly during the time the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) has held his portfolio, some rather curious events and circumstances with respect to his answers relating to matters within his jurisdiction. The reason I support the motion now placed by the hon. member for Nickel Belt in one aspect is that this is another example of a situation in which we receive in this House, or have received, a categorical denial with respect to activities of the security service or of people who have been engaged by the security service with respect to the members of parliament.
I should point out that it is not from the point of view of the interests of the members of parliament that this motion should in fact be accepted and supported by all members of the House but, rather, on behalf of those people whom we represent because, sir, the fact of the matter is that the point of confidentiality does not lie in the interests of the member of parliament. We derive, sir, no particular benefit from that confidentiality. It is the constituent, the person who has the grievance, the complainant in many instances, who wants, requires, and, indeed, should have this particular confidential-

ity in dealing with a member of parliament in the highest court of the land, as is parliament.
The reason that I am quite concerned about the answer that has been given by the Solicitor General, and the apparent contradictions which now appear in the national press, on television, and in other ways, is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) received from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a categorical assurance by letter that there was absolutely no instance of any member of parliament being under surveillance by the security services or any other police force under the federal jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not qualify that by saying that this was incidental-that the person was under surveillance incidentally or indirectly. He made the categorical statement in that letter and assured the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that, out of the mouth of the Solicitor General himself, now comes an exception, an exception to this particular proposition that was put forward by the Prime Minister.
I say to you, sir, that if this is in fact the kind of answer we receive, it not only speaks badly of the Solicitor General but I want to say, sir, that it speaks absolute volumes about the Prime Minister and the way in which he cavalierly gives assurances to officers of this House.
So, sir, I simply want to say to you that as far as I am concerned I support very strongly the position that this particular motion is an ideal situation by which a direct conflict is documentable in that the Solicitor General has said one thing in the House, and said another thing quite the opposite, outside the House. It should be referred to the committee on that basis alone, but, more important, the whole question of the rights and privileges of a member of parliament to receive representation and information from constituents from the people of this country on a confidential basis, should be examined thoroughly by this committee, using this particular instance as the focal point for its examination.
Sir, I therefore wish to support very strongly the motion put forward and assure the hon. member of my support in this particular endeavour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Rosie Brown or Douglas Brown or Rosie Douglas, or whoever it was. He was probably the person under surveillance and it was incidental that words of the member for Nickel Belt, who is usually quiet and reserved and non-vocal, would accidentally get on that particular tape. But, Mr. Speaker, I, as a member of parliament, frankly do not believe that tape was destroyed. That tape was used, and undoubtedly was translated into a document. That document does not refer to the member for Nickel Belt. That document, Mr. Speaker, refers to an investigation that was going on against someone that we agree was under surveillance. We certainly did not hire the police to make a tape that they were going to destroy because "incidentally" they would get some background noise.
I am surprised at some of the things that have happened recently and at the reluctance of most members to look at the RCMP in relation to the problem of security.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have said that no members were under surveillance, to the best of their knowledge. I suggest the key words are "to the best of their knowledge", and that their knowledge is not very good.
1 sincerely believe that I observed the surveillance of a member of parliament in the Toronto airport by an officer acting under the jurisdiction of the RCMP within the last two weeks. This was not done by myself alone. There were two other members of parliament discussing this openly.
The gentleman who was carrying out the surveillance was well aware of the fact we were discussing him. He was doing one of two things; he was either carrying out surveillance of that hon. member of parliament or, worse still, he was attempting to intimidate that member of parliament. He was not intimidating me. I do not think I was important enough in the circumstances to be kept under surveillance, and the gentleman who was with me, that other member of parliament, was not involved to a degree that surveillance could be justified.
I have been here long enough and have been involved in enough things of various natures that I am sure intimidation would not really be effective. This leads me only to the conclusion that another member of parliament was under surveillance.
Let me suggest that the Solicitor General does not know anything about this for one of two reasons; he does not want to know and has never asked, or the RCMP is not about to tell him anyway.
It is my belief that these things should be in the open and discussed. It is very doubtful if the hon. member for Nickel Belt will be damaged, but a member of parliament could be damaged as a result of the fact he is given this great amount of attention on the national media. Intimidation is a two-edged sword as far as a member of parliament is concerned, particularly having regard to the information he may accept.
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
The Solicitor General may well suggest this was incidental or accidental and the surveillance no longer exists, but I doubt if that is true. I think it would be very hard to make any kind of case against someone who has been under surveillance for sometime, during which time a tape has been made which has whole sections missing. I doubt if any case could be made with a tape that has blank spots every few minutes. We know what happened in another country regarding a tape with missing sections. I think some questions would be asked again in respect of a tape made during an inquiry which had blanks, or missing sections in a record made from such a tape. I cannot visualize the RCMP carrying on that kind of surveillance over a period of time, bringing a man in from another country, and all the other things that have happened, if they were then all of a sudden going to destroy the tape and the evidence which had been gathered during that period of surveillance.
We have not yet reached the point where we are burying our mistakes in this country. I believe it would be wise to bring them to light and have a look at them. Undoubtedly when we established the security apparatus of this country we really never spelled out what it was supposed to do. I am sure that some types of activity which may be anti-government, and that means anti-Liberal, would appear to be subversive to some officers. I am sure one would not have to go as far as being against a provincial government to be considered by some as being subversive. It may be felt that an individual was subversive if he said something during an angry moment about somebody who was considered the boss.
This matter should be examined, because I believe that after a full examination of this and a number of other matters before Your Honour at the present time we would have a much better system of national security and a much more clear understanding of what members of parliament can do and the protection which exists for them. Lastly, I am sure that we could establish once and for all what are the real responsibilities of the Solicitor General regarding our national police force, what accountability on their behalf he must have to parliament, and how open he should be with this institution.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, I submit that this involves a question of fact. The whole matter revolves around a statement I sent to the hon. gentleman in letter form, which I am sure he received today. I am just reiterating what I said, that I have conducted a very thorough and full investigation with the RCMP, and I am saying in this House, as I indicated in the letter I submitted to the hon. gentleman, that there has been that very thorough investigation during which I interviewed supervisors in the RCMP relating to this matter. 1 did so because of my concern about the rights of members of parliament, and I would use my best effort to allay any suspicion that may arise.
As a result of that very thorough investigation, for which I take full responsibility, I can assure the hon. gentleman that his fears ought to be allayed, because there is not, and never has been, any tape of any conversation involving the RCMP in relation to this matter, in any particular. As I indicated to the hon. gentleman, the RCMP-
soosa-i^A

March 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez


Mr. Benjamin:: They are not going to tell you.


Mr. Blais:: Surely the hon. gentleman does not-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They lied before to your predecessors.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am suggesting to the hon. gentleman that he ought to have a bit more respect in terms of the RCMP than he is manifesting now. I suggest to him that the statement I made to the hon. gentleman, and the replies I have given in this House, were quite categorical. There is no indication that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has been the subject of any taping. What Mr. Hart has said in his affidavit is just what he has said in that affidavit, and I understand that matter is now a matter at which the McDonald Commission will be looking. It is seized of the matter and is interested in having Mr. Hart attend before it.
In terms of proceedings in this House, Mr. Speaker, I, as a minister of the Crown, have stated there is no cause for the hon. gentleman to make the allegations he has made.
[Translation}


Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I have to support the motion of my hon. colleague, particularly as it has been clear for a few months that we should use all available means to know the truth. We can no longer be satisfied with the answers of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) which, as it has been proven, can vary from month to month according to the immediate circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, we do not care about how the Solicitor General manages to escape his responsibilities, we want to know the truth because the famous issue of national security has paved the way for so many illegalities that nobody even in this House is safe, since we have no form of guarantee with regard to our real freedom.
The motion of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) being referred to committee, this could provide the opportunity to shed more light on all these matters more or less relating to security, and especially to this interference with individual freedom. Mr. Speaker, I would personally have many incidents to relate on this matter, and that is why I believe, on behalf of all my constituents, that we have the duty to tell the people of all the means available to some authorities who, under the cover of national security, push their weight around. Not only do they not bring about this security, but on the contrary they are traumatizing the whole population. That is why I wholeheartedly support the motion put by the hon. member.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, I have another thought on the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones).
[Mr. Blais.1


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, this subject, which should be referred to the committee, is very serious. I know that debate in this House on the subject could continue from now until eternity. It seems to me that this is not a matter such as the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) has indicated will be investigated by a judicial inquiry. We are a body which should not have to look to judicial inquiries to correct our problems. We should be able to wash our linen within our House through a committee of the House.
I think the motion of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is a proper motion. It might certainly clear the air on this matter and a lot of other matters if the subject matter of the motion is referred to the committee without too much rehashing in public. I believe it should be done immediately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I earnestly hope that Your Honour will find that my friend, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), has a question of privilege, and, if you do, I shall be pleased to second his motion for the reference of this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
It seems to me, sir, that what is at issue is not the activity of the RCMP, not even the question of why the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) said one thing at one time and another thing at another time, in both cases being properly advised by his officials. The issue is whether or not the hon. member for Nickel Belt has had his name brought under a cloud. The issue is whether his capacity to do his job as an MP has been impaired. I suggest that the answer to that is yes either way.
If it is true that he has been the subject of surveillance by somebody working for the RCMP, surely that, by definition, is an interference with the rights and privileges of a member of the House of Commons. On the other hand, even if it turns out that there was no electronic surveillance, in view of the sworn statement by Mr. Hart and in view of the nation-wide publicity given to that, many people in this country, particularly many people in the constituency of Nickel Belt, think that my hon. friend has been made the subject of electronic surveillance. I suggest that that puts him in a very difficult position.
I have listened with interest to the debate on what the RCMP is doing or not doing, and whether we should say things about how the RCMP informed the minister, and all of that, but when it comes down to the question that Your Honour has to decide, it is a very simple one: does a member of the House of Commons have a question of privilege? I feel very strongly that the hon. member for Nickel Belt does have one.
Having said that, may I say that it seems to me the things that must be investigated relate, on the one hand, to the statements made by the Solicitor General and, on the other hand, to the sworn affidavit made by Mr. Warren Hart. The Solicitor General has said on one occasion outside the House that the hon. member for Nickel Belt was the subject of surveillance, accidental or incidental. The Solicitor General has admitted that Mr. Hart was in the employ of the RCMP. The hon. member for Nickel Belt admits that he was in a
March 8, 1978

certain automobile with Mr. Warren Hart. So there do seem to be things that have to be cleared up. I think we need to know why the Solicitor General was advised to say one thing on one occasion, and now says that there is no record of any such surveillance. I come back to the main point: we need to have that cleared up, not for the sake of the good name of the RCMP or the good name of the Solicitor General. We need to have it cleared up because a member of this House has had his position impaired. That is one aspect that needs to be considered.
The other aspect that needs to be considered is the question of Mr. Hart's affidavit, his assertion that in a car, along with the hon. member for Nickel Belt and Mr. Rosie Douglas, he recorded certain conversations. As I said, all of that is before us in the form of a sworn affidavit. My insistence is that the issue is not how the RCMP acts or how Mr. Hart acts. The issue with which Your Honour should be concerned and with which we should be concerned is with regard to a member of the House. Has he been molested outside the House-to use some of the language in the book-has he been interfered with, or has his position as a member of parliament been impaired? It seems to me that it has, and on that basis Your Honour should rule that there is a prima facie case of privilege and allow the motion to be put. If you do that, I certainly will be happy to second the motion and, if Your Honour puts the motion, I hope the House will agree to it.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) mentions is a matter of fact, and in support of his statement he invokes the affidavit of an individual known as Hart. Running counter to his statement, that fact, we have the categorical, clear, specific and nonequivocal version of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Blais) who formally denies the assertion of the hon. member for Nickel Belt. As Speaker of this House, you are therefore up against the fact that there are two absolutely contradictory versions. After looking into the procedural aspect of the situation and consulting Beauchesne on the matter, I respectfully suggest that this cannot be considered a matter of privilege. Beauchesne, on page 102 citation 113, edicts clearly as follows, and I quote:
But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
In addition, I have often heard you say in this House, Mr. Speaker, that when opinions differ on facts, the question of privilege cannot be invoked, and you turned them down accordingly. At this time Mr. Speaker, there is a motion before the House and I maintain respectfully that this institution is being abused by a deliberate attempt to nourish an atmosphere of suspicion with regard to the RCMP. What the hon. member for Nickel Belt is suggesting, and what comes out of the argument of all hon. members who rose in support of the motion of the hon. member for Nickel Belt is nothing
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
else but an attempt to undermine the credibility of the RCMP who, in the present case, assured the Solicitor General of Canada that the hon. member for Nickel Belt has not been subjected to electronic surveillance. So if the members of all opposition parties want to use this institution to move a motion with the obvious intention of blaming the RCMP, we on this side of the House are not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to take advantage of this situation to abuse this House and blame the RCMP. Furthermore, this is obviously a lack of respect for an institution established under federal legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the MacDonald Commission has been established to inquire into a number of facts related to the RCMP. The question raised by the member for Nickel Belt will be examined by the MacDonald Commission. Why should we approve this overlapping and force a House committee to play the political game of the opposition and investigate facts that are categorically denied by the police and by the Solicitor General of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, maybe because I talked too fast the hon. gentleman could not catch the translation of what I said, but if he would just take the trouble to listen, I am sure he will bow to common sense. A federal body, established by a law of Parliament and, as such, entitled to our respect, will investigate the very matter raised by the member for Nickel Belt. Given the circumstances, and pursuant to section 4 of the Inquiries Act, which the Leader of the Opposition can very well read, the commissioners are granted the authority and the privilege to interrogate even ministers. This should take care of his objection. The investigation will be thorough, but meanwhile this motion on a question of privilege is contrary to the rules of this House. It is a question of conflicting facts, of differences of opinion, but not a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to hold the matter under consideration. There has been a considerable amount of argument put forward this afternoon to the effect that, in order to support the motion of privilege by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), it is necessary to discredit the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) and the RCMP, and I think I ought to disabuse the House of that proposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the situation is such that the hon. member for Nickel Belt-and I will have to examine the transcript-began by saying he had assurances from the Solicitor General, which he accepts-the Solicitor General had put them in writing-that certain facts were true. Again I say I will have to examine the transcript. I do not want to put words into the mouths of those who have argued, but I think we have to examine two things.

March 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
First, accepting the assurances given by the Solicitor General that no instructions for this alleged activity were given by the RCMP and therefore that the RCMP was not responsible for them-and this has not been recorded or kept by them-in the face of those assurances there may still be a question of privilege relating to the position of the hon. member about whom an allegation had been made by way of a sworn statement that he has been the subject of electronic surveillance. That may stand on its own, and it may not. I do not know.
The point is that it seems to me there is a very serious possibility that the hon. member for Nickel Belt may have a question of privilege while the Solicitor General's assurances may be totally accepted, in which case one of the difficulties I will have will be in resolving the matter of the reference of the statements of the Solicitor General to the committee. That may be a problem, but basically the possibility of electronic surveillance of a member of the House of Commons and a sworn statement to that effect by some sort of an intelligence agent is, on the face of it, a very serious matter.
I am concerned that by allowing that to stand alone as a question of privilege we may be opening the door to questions of privilege which would be raised in every case that a member, no matter where he may find himself, either inside or outside this building or in or outside the performance of his duties, may be interfered with in any way and that we may be extending the parameters of questions of privilege.
However, I do not want to inform the House that I take this motion seriously and that I accept, along with other members who have spoken today, the assurances given by the Solicitor General. He has told the House today in his letter to the hon. member for Nickel Belt, and he has stated on the record of the House of Commons, that those statements given by him were upon advice in his ministerial responsibility, and they are accepted as true, as they always have been in this House. Nevertheless, there may rest in the hands of the hon. member for Nickel Belt a very important question of privilege, and I need some time to reconcile these problems and to try to sort them out. I will try to come back to the House with a decision as soon as possible.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if I might just interrupt the right hon. member for one moment. I think there are one or two ministers who have been waiting to table documents, and I wonder if, out of courtesy, we might permit them to do that and allow them to go before the right hon. member's question of privilege. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its courtesy. Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table, in both official languages, the immigration regulations, 1978.


PRIVILEGE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, today we have witnessed once more what has been taking place here with regularity, namely, a denial of the opportunity for hon. members to raise questions under Standing Order 43. I say at once that the individual who speaks on behalf of the government is the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard). 1 have watched him in action day after day and week after week. He spoke with sonorous emphasis this afternoon, but normally he speaks with bated breath. Whenever a motion which the government does not want is moved, in those subdued, sibilate tones he uses he says no, and the wishes of the House of Commons are thereby denied. I did not know until today that the hon. member had such a vociferous capacity, but one learns. I have only heard him in operation when denying the right of hon. members in this House to introduce resolutions.
Today two were introduced, one by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) in connection with this day of days, International Women's Day. The resolution the hon. member for Egmont was asking permission to move was a reasonable one. I am not going to read it because I do not want to clutter the record, but it was reasonable. In effect it said that the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission should immediately review each department's five-year plan of action to ensure no further erosion of the advancement of women. I thought that would be generally accepted, but the hon. member, the voice of the government, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, said no.
Then a little later the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) endeavoured to move the following resolution:
That this House takes note of the fact that this is International Women's Day and calls on the government to act forthwith on the recommendations made recently by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women . . .
Again I am not going to read the entire resolution.


Yvon Pinard: And report within 30 days.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman had an opportunity to speak, and we now learn that he has a voice. He said no. This is the type of thing which makes a farce of parliament.
March 8, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Members in all parts of this House have spoken today in mellifluous language on behalf of the rights of women and about International Women's Day. Members of the government have done so. Outside the House the greatest of ejaculations have been uttered in favour of women. When a member of parliament tries to move a resolution, however, it is turned down because of a rule which is unjust and unfair.
I mention this because the time has come when Canadian people should realize that it is impossible to get resolutions before this House because of one member. I do not say in this case that the hon. member was speaking for himself because he spoke for the Government of Canada by virtue of his position as a parliamentary secretary. However, he has turned down the women of Canada, and they are being deceived. They think parliament turned them down. Parliament did not turn them down. It was the Liberal government through a parliamentary secretary acting for the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman is raising by way of a question of privilege the operation of a rule of the House which has not, to my knowledge, in any way been transgressed. The rule reads fairly clearly that a motion can be moved with unanimous consent. It is the right of any member to withhold his consent, and I am not sure that it is the right of any member to comment on the withholding of that consent or to identify people. It may be an impropriety to comment on a proper invocation of any rule.
I wonder if we are anywhere near a question of privilege in discussing the unfortunate effects of a rule which is operating the way it is written on the books. It may be appropriate to move to change that Standing Order, but I have grave reservations, first, if it can be done by privilege, and secondly, unless there is some impropriety in the exercise of the rule, if it is proper to make reflections on the invocation by any member of this House of any Standing Order so long as he is doing so in the proper way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have been here a while in this House and I have never seen anything to equal what is happening today. I am simply pointing out to the women of this country that what happened was the voice of the Liberal party, hypocritically on the one hand supporting women's rights, and in the House of Commons denying the statement. Your Honour rules that that is not a question of privilege, and I accept your ruling as I always do. I simply put it on the doorstep of these people with their hypocrisy, pretending to the Canadian people that they believe in women's rights, and then preventing discussion in the House.


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


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) for making a suggestion which could be described as what would seem to me to be a constructive intervention. I have a lot of respect for institutions and I also have a lot of respect for this institution, including the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Theoretically, if one takes the political flavour out of his comments, what he is actually complaining about is a rule-


John George Diefenbaker: No politics. The politics are from over there.


Yvon Pinard: I let the right hon. member talk and he even blamed me for not talking often enough. I think he occasionally talks too often. So I would ask him to have the courtesy to show respect for this institution and let me talk as I have been given the right to do, Mr. Speaker.
I would say it has been obvious for some time now that abuses have taken place with respect to Standing Order 43 which requires an emergency that is not always set forth. Mr. Speaker, you have heard recently motions under Standing Order 43 with excessively long preambles which were sometimes frivolous and sometimes tainted with political partisanship. Motions introduced under Standing Order 43 sometimes contain very positive elements, I admit. As it happens, a motion was introduced today dealing with the status of women and, generally speaking, on the whole, that motion appeared to me, as a private member, to be quite acceptable. However, it included restrictions which would make the government's job very difficult with respect to the proposed business for today because that motion-in which the right hon. member for Prince Albert, probably by inadvertence, omitted to read everything-specifically said at the end, and I remember it quite well, that the committee would have 30 days to report to the House.
This institution wants the government elected by the majority of Canadians to be responsible for establishing the priority of subject matters submitted to this House. If every time a motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 must be passed because it includes some good provisions we would never be able to achieve a program serving Canadians and we would deny the right of the government to establish priorities. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this is why I emphasize the necessity for motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 to respect the nature and spirit of this Parliament and to be written in the future with a preamble which will be less binding on the government and not compel us to change the legislative program we must follow to solve the various problems we are facing.

March 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert implies a change to the Standing Orders of this House. I fully agree with him but I think he has suggested only 1/116 of the parliamentary reform that should be done here in the Canadian parliament. There are 116 Standing Orders and the hon. member complains about only one of them, but a more serious reform should be considered to modernize our parliament, to make it more efficient, to rejuvenate this institution and also allow our constituents whom we meet regularly and who are now watching what happens in this House through television, to allow them to witness a performance that would be more worthy of parliamentarians and politicians.
In conclusion, I subscribe to the intent of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, if I made a right interpretation of his desire to change this institution to make it more efficient, but I contend that he does not go far enough and that he suggests only 1/116 of the parliamentary reform for which we have been asking on this side of the House at least since my coming here, three years ago, and which is often denied to us because of the lack of consent from opposition members.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the parliamentary secretary in the latter part of his remarks attacked the institution which he purported to revere at the beginning of his remarks. I listened to his submission with great interest. He mentioned the rules of this place, and he is quite right in respect to some of them.
One of the problems in the House of Commons is that the government has always tended to use the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons, and view it as a legislative mill as if the only business which was important was the business the government chose to designate as important. Over the course of the last little while the private member in terms of being able to advance something in this House has slowly but inexorably had his rights limited and removed, all in the name of the legislative necessities of the government. That is a fact.
We have been sitting in this House now since October, the beginning of the session. Unfortunately there has been no move on the part of my hon. friend's senior to put a reference before the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, not one. What has happened, therefore, is that these rights have been limited. As the government has come to regard parliament only as its own precinct for legislation we have tended to look away from the other side of parliament, and seek an opportunity that all members on all sides of the House ought to have to examine the relevancy, the propriety, and direction of programs. Somehow or other, Mr. Speaker, this whole thing has gone out of whack. We might as well be candid with each other. One of the reasons that Standing Order 43's are shouted down, sometimes by one and sometimes by many-


John George Diefenbaker: Generally by one.
[Mr. Pinard.l


Walter David Baker: -is that the government is always concerned that there will suddenly be a debate if consent is given and then the matter becomes a matter for discussion before the House or potentially so.
I say to the hon. member that members of parliament do not put motions frivolously under Standing Order 43 most of the time. They put them forward using one of the few vehicles left to private members to put a point before the public and perhaps influence the government, or at least bring public opinion to bear on a matter that may concern them with respect to their constituents.
There is this ungodly fear that something from a private member might come forward to upset the government's program, and if you look at the order paper today the program is pretty slim in terms of meeting the necessities of the country.
The other day when speaking on this topic, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) proposed a solution to this matter. You will recall the solution, Mr. Speaker, I do not have to repeat it. I do not know whether that is appropriate to get by this impasse which led the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council to call two motions with regard to the status of women on International Women's Day frivolous. They certainly were not advanced in any frivolous way.


Yvon Pinard: You are not being honest.


Walter David Baker: When he said today that he was concerned about the government's program, he was admitting that this matter, the whole question of the operation of Standing Order 43 and the right of private members to advance these motions, was always subject to the convenience of the government. It was not intended that way.
It is time the public realized what is happening in terms of my right and the right of other private members to bring forward motions under Standing Order 43. It is important that those motions do not just occupy members of the opposition. There are members of the government who are suddenly having the courage to get up under Standing Order 43. Some of those motions should be examined.
It is unfortunate that backbenchers are having denied to them, day after day, the right to have something dealt with by the House of Commons, something that is important to them as members and that may indeed go beyond the importance of a particular member's responsibility.
If we are to get out of this impasse, it would be well to remember that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization dealt with matters that were presented prior to the last session of this parliament. It is equally important that there is anxiety on all sides of the House to deal with reform of the parliamentary process.
Perhaps the right hon. member for Prince Albert in dealing with this matter under Standing Order 43 has managed to focus the attention of the public on a House of Commons where the rights of the private member are being overbur-
March 8, 1978

dened to a greater degree each day by the movement toward the government considering this House as purely its own.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) with the usual respect I have always had for him and other speakers. Of course Your Honour's comment that this is really a matter of concern about the rules affecting this chamber rather than any question of privilege hold absolutely true.
1 was interested in the rather outraged approach to the fact that denials for the movement of Standing Order 43 motions are always on this side of the House. I heard a very reasonable motion put forward the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee). After a logical explanation as to why it was urgent, it stated:
That this House condemn the artificial distinction made by the Leader of the Opposition as to North American and European Canadians, and that this House recognizes the great contribution of Canadians of European descent to our society and our nation.
That was denied. There was a no. The reasonableness was attested to by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) who rose in outrage saying that the no came from this side of the House. Of course it had not. It came from the opposition. In that sense, this works both ways.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what I regret most of all about this is the determination indicated once again by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) to treat this very fundamental reduction of the rights of private members of the House of Commons as an insignificant matter, a matter to which some kind of debating trick response can be deemed to be sufficient.
As has been pointed out by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and very important for parliament, there has developed on the government side of the House the practice of designating a parliamentary secretary whose single responsibility in this House is to say or to indicate no when private members of the House of Commons raise Standing Order 43 motions to try to have the House of Commons consider matters of very serious importance to those members of parliament.
Of course it is going to occur from time to time when there is an unreasonable motion put forward, as there are from all sides of the House from time to time. It would be natural that in the face of unreasonable motions from time to time there would be members of the House who would say no because they took exception to the particular matter being proposed.
We are dealing here with a very different case. We are dealing with a regular practice of the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House of Commons. Virtually every time a motion comes from this side from a private member who wants to exercise the traditional right of a private member to have parliament consider a matter of very real importance to that private member, when that matter is put forward a representative of the Liberal government
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
automatically says no. That is a very different situation from a matter being judged on the basis of its merits.
What we have here is a clear determination by the government to use, in a way in which the rules were never intended, the opportunity to object to a private member for party purposes, trying to stop the House of Commons from considering matters that, in the view of at least one of our members, are very important.
This becomes doubly important. It is part of a continuing process which we have seen through this decade of the limitation of the powers and rights of individual members in this House of Commons.
The other very important matter here had to do with changes with regard to the control of the estimates. No member here is able, with the rules that are now in place-I do not intend to disinter history, but it is important to bear this in mind-as a matter of practical fact to limit or control in any particular one five cent piece, if I can quote an historical phrase, spending by the Government of Canada, given the changes in rules relative to estimates.
That is a very serious restriction upon the prerogatives of an individual member of parliament. One of the few prerogatives that a private member now has is the opportunity to raise a matter of very real importance on the floor of the House of Commons and to have the possibility erected of that being debated. That has been resorted to by many members of the House of Commons. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is in the chamber. On occasion he has used Standing Order 43 for a matter which I presume to be of very real personal interest to him, something he believed that the House of Commons should debate.
On these matters which are of very real concern to private members of parliament, who have few other means by which they can have their concerns considered by the House of Commons, there is one person in this House who has been given a responsibility, given a job by his party, to say no. That is the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). That is a very serious limitation on the ability of private members to bring business to the attention of the House of Commons.
The argument has been made on the other side, and I accept its legitimacy in part, that from time to time noes have come from both sides of the House. However, any fair examination of the record will show that far more frequently matters are turned down by that side of the House. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert said, almost every day on almost every question, the no comes automatically on assignment, as the job of that particular parliamentary secretary, from the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government. In my judgment, that is a very serious limitation upon the ability of any private member in this House which was designed not just for governments but for private members as well. It is a very serious limitation on the ability of a private member to have this House of Commons seize upon a question which that member considers to be important.

March 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
As he has done so often in the past, the right hon. member for Prince Albert has performed a signal service to the House of Commons today by rising in his place to take exception to an automatic practice which severely limits the rights of private members of parliament in this House of Commons.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to straighten out the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). I do not think he was in the House when I stood up after that motion under Standing Order 43. As reported at page 3244 of Hansard of February 27,1 said:
So there will be no misunderstanding, I said to the motion by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) that this motion is not true and it should be debated.


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief because I know the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and others are waiting to bring forward important legislation. However, I cannot help making a few comments on this subject. 1 have been sitting in this House for about 12 years now and I have noticed the increasing number of motions presented under Standing Order 43. I estimate that during this present session the number of such motions has doubled or trebled. I hope the House leader for the New Democratic Party will say a few words on this aspect. He knows that, if even half these motions were accepted, the legislative calendar would be completely cluttered up. There is no way in which an already overloaded House could accept the legislation involved.
I listened to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who made a very thoughtful contribution. I think we all recognize that backbenchers must be able to use this parliament as well as the leaders of the parties. After all, they represent a lot of people. The problem is that some of these motions under Standing Order 43 imply important changes, or amendments to government legislation-legislation which might have taken weeks to get through the House in the first place.


An hon. Member:: Months!


Thomas Lefebvre: Other motions would involve major items of government expenditure. How is one to reconcile an already overloaded legislative calendar-members are saying we are already sitting too long in Ottawa, spending eight, nine or ten months here when we should be getting out in our constituencies-with the need to allow adequate time for the consideration of initiatives put forward by private members? I would suggest that the House leaders should hold discussions and maybe come up with proposals to submit to Your Honour, or to a committee of the House, designed to reconcile the legitimate rights of backbenchers on both sides of the House with the need to make progress with the legislative calendar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) for his invitation-


Mr. Howie:: It was too much for you to resist!
[Mr. Clark.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even so, I rise to speak on this subject for only a few minutes. I have a hunch we are not going to solve this problem today. But it is my earnest hope that immediately after the forthcoming election, when a new parliament assembles, we shall appoint a committee which will grapple with this task. The difficulty, as I see it, is this: the government, as has been said today-and I agree-must have arrangements by which it can put its business before the House. There has to be a schedule which cannot be upset or interrupted in an unplanned way. I support that position. But it is also true that private members of the House ought to have an opportunity to present their ideas.
We have rules which are supposed to provide for this. We have private members' hours. There, however, it is not the case of somebody saying, no; it is a case of somebody on the other side saying too much until the best of ideas are talked out. I believe, there is almost as much farce connected with the private members' hour as there is with the period having to do with motions under Standing Order 43. We have developed the late show and, if I do say so myself, having had something to do with the introduction of the procedure, I think it works very well. Members get the opportunity to say more than they can in the question period, and they do get an answer. Still, we have not solved the problem of balancing the right of the government to time it can count on with the right of private members on both sides of the House to have their ideas considered.
I have served on a number of committees on procedure back in the days when there were special committees, and in more recent days when there has been a standing committee. A lot of study and a lot of research has been done but the main thrust of most of the reports which such committees produce is to limit the rights of private members and make sure that the government gets its business through. I think that is the reason why these reports do not reach the floor of the House; they are too one-sided.
It seems to me if we are to solve the difficulty of getting the proper balance between the government's rights and the rights of opposition members we shall have to find a means to get the government business through a little faster.
I say again, as I have said on other occasions, that I think the time has come for us to consider categorizing government business as "important", "routine" and "very minor". I would be quite happy to see an arrangement made whereby the opposition parties could say that they wanted, say, three or four bills open to unlimited debate but in return would be prepared to see some eight or ten unimportant bills go to committee without any debate. If we could get some method of better planning and make better use of time spent on government legislation we could then leave a little more time- whether an extra hour here or a day or so there-for private members' ideas to be considered.
I am not cynical-I have been around here too long and I love the place too well. I think it is a good place. As for motions under Standing Order 43, I realise that most of the time those I move get turned down. But there is some satisfac-
March 8, 1978

tion in being able to make them, to get an idea into print. Maybe it gets shown over the television, too; the people out there know what we are proposing, and to what those people over there are saying no. I think there's value in that. In the last few days, using what few devices there are, we have been pressing the case for equal rights for women. We haven't won any battles on the floor of the House this week but we have asserted the principle of our position and I think it has been good.
As I say, I have no hope that in the atmosphere of the House, where we are just wondering on what date the election will take place, we will be making any major changes in the rules.


An hon. Member:: What's your guess?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is my prediction? June 26. If I am out a bit, if will be only by a week, so don't call me a false prophet.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is good we have had this discussion. I think it reflects the experience of members in this parliament, namely, that we have not done either job well-we have not handled the government's business with an eye to the best use of time and we haven't given recognition to the proper rights of private members. I think we should have the wit and the wisdom very early in the next parliament to sort out this whole business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: As vice-chairman of the committee on procedure for the second session I want to say, briefly, that although discussion of this question may be of value to hon. members, only the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) can decide to bring forward matters and refer them to the committee. He has not done this for two sessions. I am afraid representations should be addressed not only to the Chair but to the President of Privy Council urging him to let go and refer some of these problems to the committee so that it can act and make references back to the House so that a lot of these difficulties can be eliminated.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank all hon. members for their enlightening observations on a very difficult subject. The right hon. member made reference to this in the House a few days ago. At that time I indicated what I think, what has been expressed again here today by the right hon. member and by others who have contributed, that there are severe constraints on the operation of this rule as there are constraints on the operation of any other rule.
Indeed, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) set aside one of these motions the other day for a very important reason, and that is that often when a motion is put forward, no matter how meritorious it may seem, members may take an objection in principle to being asked, because if the solution seems to be that the matter be voted upon, or
Privilege-Mr. Alkenbrack
carried without debate, that in itself is often an affront to members of the House of Commons who say that on important subjects they were not elected to this House to pass motions in a wooden way without debate.
The rule has very severe limitations on it, because if the solution proposed is that motions be passed without debate, that is not very satisfactory. If it is because it is worthwhile they are debated, then that obviously is not satisfactory either because there is no time and, therefore, the rule is now being used primarily as a replacement for a grievance procedure which is non-existent. Again, I say that perhaps the most important note was that from the hon. member for Edmonton West, that is, if changes in this and other procedures are going to be made, it will have to be a matter for study and recommendation by the procedure committee.
It is not a matter for the Chair and it is not a matter of privilege in its basic form, but it certainly is an admonition and a hope that the procedures committee might examine this at the earliest possible moment. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was very realistic in saying that the hope it might be done between now and a general election is very slim indeed, but perhaps his prediction may be right for the date and wrong for the calendar year, in which case there will be lots of time to get it through.



MR. ALKENBRACK-EXTENSION OF ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Agreed.']
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege which has a relationship to the important point of privilege raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and other hon. members of the House, including the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). It is just of a little different nature.
In my 16 years as a member of this House this is the first complaint, sir, of this nature, that I have ever made to you, or any other able or respected occupant of the chair, and I am confident that it will be given your able consideration. It arises because of my inability to ask an important question in the interests of 120 petitioning constituents that I tried to ask twice last week, and again today.
Sir, there is nothing more important than the oral question period in the operations of this House and the rights of members and their constituents. The following is my point of privilege, with my constant respect for the Chair.
The privileges of all backbench members are lately very much limited and denied by too protracted questions and unreasonably long answers permitted in this House, resulting in many members being precluded from placing important questions before you. If these intolerable conditions continue, then as a reasonable concession to the privileges of all backbench members, 1 ask the Chair to consider the extension of the oral question period in order that important problems of our constituents might be made known to this House, and to the government, and or failing that, that there be strict

March 8, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Alkenbrack
limitation on the length of questions and long speeches by ministers serving as answers.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, during the past number of weeks 1 have been trying to ask questions that were very important not only to my constituents but probably to other members and people across the country interested in these questions, and I have been unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. During my observations here in the House I have noticed many backbenchers become very discouraged when they have repeatedly tried to ask a question on behalf of their constituents, something that is not only very important to them but very very important to the people that elected them.
1 know that your job is sometimes a very very difficult one, Mr. Speaker, but I think that probably there should be more consideration given to backbenchers in the question period, particularly to the opposition, I often think that some people must envy your position, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, because I see you get prompt attention from your mailmen and little notes that go up to the Chair. I know that all this has placed you in a very awkward position, but I would like you and other members of the House to realize also the position in which it puts the ordinary member. He has to answer to his constituents at home, not only why he was not on his feet in the House of Commons on every subject, but why he was not bringing to the members of this House the problems that are facing this country today in which they are all interested. I would like to speak at some length on this but I realize our time is precious. An hour and a half have been taken approximately on questions of privilege today, and at this time I will go no further on the matter.


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I heartily agree with the hon. gentleman because even my constituents are wondering why, on this side, members do not ask any questions. In fact a very wonderful lady not only wrote me, Mr. Speaker, but she asked me why we do not ask questions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). She was wondering why, since we have television in the House, Liberal members do not ask questions of the other side. It is very important and it shows that the people of the country are very very interested indeed in what we are saying.
I have all the sympathy in the world for the opposition in regard to the backbenchers on that side having to take a second place in many instances to those who are asking questions because, as is obvious, Mr. Speaker, many of our members on this side do not get a chance to ask questions. We are batting an extremely good average if one or two of our members ask a question in this House in any one day. We realize, of course, that it is the role of the opposition to ask questions, but we also realize that the general public, since we have television in this House, are wondering why we on this side sit like dead ducks and are not ourselves asking some pertinent questions. It would be wonderful for us to send Hansard back to our constituents and to let them know the questions we have asked in this House, and also to show them

the interest that we have in representing them here which we like to do as well as does the loyal opposition.
I want to let it be known, sir, that the rules to be brought forth, the important matters which the loyal opposition bring to your attention should also apply to us on this side of the House on an equal status.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) shared with that good lady who wrote him the news that he will be able to ask questions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, since this has been brought up by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) I, too, would like to express a certain amount of frustration with regard to the question of privilege raised by my good friend, the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack). 1 think that a good deal of the problem stems from the lengthy answers that we receive from the ministers on the opposite side.
I am sure you realize the frustrations that the average backbench member of parliament experiences when seeking your recognition, and I say this with the highest amount of respect for yourself, Your Honour. But the difficulty lies in a backbench member rising to seek recognition. He can do it for the period of a week and by then the question is outdated. He also has to work in conjunction with the timetable of the minister opposite, hoping that he will be in the House.
I just wish to take this opportunity too, sir, to share with you my deep respect for the hon. members on this side of the House who took time to raise this very important issue in regard to the privileges of backbench members of parliament. It shows the legitimate concern they have for we more junior members in this House of Commons. I would like to pay tribute to the right hon. member for Prince Albert for bringing this to the fore, and to the leader of our party.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very amusing interesting debate on the "ordinary member". I am beginning to wonder which member of this House is the ordinary member unless it is the Independent member of the House of Commons-the one who was elected as an independent member of the House of Commons, sir. There is no person in this House who really has been discriminated against more times and in more ways by the legislation that is presented.
I ask the government and I ask the opposition to examine the debate today on the word no. I heard a debate today on the word no. It is an amazing thing to me for the leader of that party to use the word no. I have had it said to me by members of that party so many times it is not even funny.
March 8, 1978

Getting back to the question, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) does not speak to me, and I do not speak to him, according to the papers, but this question of privilege is a good one. I have been on my feet for at least three or four weeks straight trying to ask questions in this House. During that time I have been in to see Mr. Speaker. He has promised me that the next day I will be permitted to ask a question. However, I do understand his problem, and he has a devilish problem. He has members of the opposition parties, and I am not a member of an opposition party-God forbid-asking lengthy questions which could be shortened down into very brief questions. If questions are to be asked during the question period they should be brief, and supplementary questions should be shortened.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the preambles are too long you should cut them off, snuff them out, and if the answers are verbose, toss the answers out. I think we could reduce these questions and answers so that we could all get a break and a crack at asking questions and receiving answers. If members were given this break, and Cabinet ministers did their homework and knew the answers, we would be better off. If ministers do not know the answers they should say they do not know.
I know kids who have gone through school and graduated with Ph.D's who still at times have to say they do not know the answers but will get them for me. The ministers should be truthful and tell us they do not know. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to ask a question tomorrow!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness I must note there are several other members who want to participate in this discussion. This is a matter of great importance raised by the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack), the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), and others who have contributed.
I think we all understand the very difficult constraints we operate under during the question period. There have been times when I have had to admonish members on both sides of the House about making questions and answers brief. We have a show of splendid co-operation then for a short period of time, which soon tends to dissipate. It is difficult for the Chair to see members of the House trying day after day to be recognized, and know that their legitimate questions are being deferred because of pressing matters of national concern that do take up a good deal of time.
On the other hand, it is not very appropriate for the Chair to be intervening constantly to keep members on both sides of the House under check. We have to try to strike a balance.
It is ironic, I think, that today, if my memory serves me correctly, and I tend to remember these things with great relish, the question period began on an exemplary note. It seems to me the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), in leading off today, asked questions on matters of the economy.
Public Service
He and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) had a series of four questions and answers in the space of less than five minutes. If we could do that every day it would be a wonderful thing. However, thereafter it seems that things began to run downhill. Many questions and many answers were lengthy. Both sides were equally at fault.
Perhaps I should, after these representations, try to intervene more often. I do not like to intervene too often. On the other hand, I do see the problem building up. It will be interesting to note tomorrow how much assistance and cooperation we can get. Perhaps it will be enough to last us all the way through until Easter.



Robert Knight Andras: for leave to introduce Bill C-28, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mrs. Holt:: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect for your position and for you yourself, and I want to preface my remarks by saying I have the greatest admiration for you any your sense of justice, I do feel that backbenchers on this side did not have a chance even to comment on a debate about the ability of backbenchers to ask questions. I rose in the hope that I could make just a short comment, but I was not recognized. I would appreciate being given the right to speak for the backbenchers on this side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) was standing, as was the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and two or three other hon. members in this corner, including the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie). 1 think we all recognize that the matter was not essentially a question of privilege but a very serious grievance. Therefore, I attempted to get a general participation. There was, I thought, a rather able respresenta-tion from the government side of the House by the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay). I might have carried on and heard all other members, but I thought I had heard sufficient on the matter.
I regret that all hon. members were not given a chance to participate. If 1 wanted to take a very hard line perhaps I should have closed it off right at the beginning because the matter was not essentially a question of privilege, but rather a serious grievance. I have been well advised of it and I hope we can improve the situation as quickly as possible. I regret that all hon. members who wanted to contribute could not do so.

March 8, 1978
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 887, 888, 889, 891, 892, 922, 1,075 and 1,079.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. Mitges: 1.	By province, how many names are on the mailing list for news releases and circulars of the Multiculturalism Directorate?
2.	For (a) 1975-76 (b) 1976-77, by programme, how many pieces of correspondence requesting information or assistance were received within the Directorate?


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: 1. There are over 6,000 names on the mailing list, which includes persons across Canada, individuals from the media, ethnic organizations, ethnic press, members of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism and members of the general public who make enquiries.
2. As inquiries for information and assistance from the Multiculturalism Programme are addressed to, and processed by, not only the Multiculturalism Directorate but also through offices of the Minister for Multiculturalism and the Secretary of State, the Departmental Secretariat and all regional and local offices of the Department of the Secretary of State, such information is not readily available. It would involve an inordinate amount of work at significant cost to gather such data.


Mr. Mitges: From the time of the Prime Minister's announcement of a multiculturalism policy in October 1971, how many directors have been employed by the Multiculturalism Directorate and, in each case, what was his/her (a) name (b) term as director (c) salary range while serving as director?


Norman Augustine Cafik: (a)
Name
Jennifer McQueen Orest Kruhlak Mike Andrassy Stan Zybala Orest Kruhlak
(b)
Title and Term of Office
Chairman of Citizen's Culture from 1971 to March, 1974 Acting Director from March, 1974 to August, 1974 Director from September, 1974 to December, 1976 Acting Director from December, 1976 to January, 1977 Director from January, 1977 to date
(c)
Salary Range


Mr. Mitges: 1.	In (a) 1975-76 (b) 1976-77, what was the total number of staff of the Multiculturalism Directorate?
2.	What was the total number of staff associated with each programme under the Directorate and how many were (a) permanent (b) part-time (c) term (d) on contract?
2.	1975-1976
(i)	Directorate
(ii)	Canadian Identities
(iii)	Ethnic Liaison
(iv)	Canadian Ethnic Studies
(v)	CCM Secretariat
	1976-1977 Directorate Canadian Identities Secretariat Ethnic Liaison
3.	1975-1976 Directorate
	Canadian Identities
2
1
1
3.	What was the salary range of each of these employees?
4.	How many of the employees were involved in more than one programme and, in each case, what was the programme?


Norman Augustine Cafik: 1. (a) 40; (b) 40.
(a)	(b), (c), (d)
3 permanent No employees were employed as part-12 permanent time, term or on contract.
15 permanent 5 permanent 5 permanent
	(b) (c) (d)	
5 permanent	None None None	
27 permanent	None 2 term None	
5 permanent	None None None	
I permanent	None None None	Salary Range
PM-7		$24,500-33,000
ST-SEC-2		8,324-11,163
AS-2		12,819-16,204
PM-6		22,705-28,083
PM-4		15,817-19,549
PM-3		14,054-17,523
PE-4		15,700-25,100
CR-4		8,743-11,364
PM-2		12,879-16,207
CR-3		7,823-10,232

March 8, 1978

Order Paper Questions
1975-1976			Salary Range
Ethnic Liaison	1	AS-4	14,937-18,6272	CR-3	7,823-10,2321	ST-SEC-2	8,324-11,1631	ST-STN-2	7,808- 9,5061	PM-3	14,054-17,5231	CR-4	8,743-11,3646	PM-4	15,817-19,5491	PM-5	18,986-23,4731	PM-6	22,705-28,083Canadian Ethnic	1	AS-4	14,937-18,627Studies	1	ST-STN-2	7,808- 9,5061	AS-5	17,847-22,1681	AS-3	13,638-17,0801	PM-1	10,536-14,666Secretariat	1	ST-STN-2	7,808- 9,5061	AS-5	17,847-22,1682	CR-4	8,743-11,3641	AS-2	12,819-16,2041976-1977	Salary RangeDirectorate	1	PM-7	26,400-33,0001	PM-4	17,241-21,2991	AS-2	14,293-17,6541	ST-SCY-2	9,892-12,0111	ST-STN-2	8,706-10,228Canadian Identities	2	ST-SCY-2	9,892-12,0111	AS-4	16,431-20,4279	PM-4	17,241-21,2994	CR-3	9,363-11,1733	CR-4	10,394-12,4093	PM-2	14,296-17,6573	PM-3	15,459-19,1231	PM-5	20,695-25,4731	PM-6	24,748-30,333term 1	ST-STN-2	8,706 10,228CR-2	7,768- 9,256Secretariat	1	AS-5	19,542-24,0181	AS-4	16,431-20,4271	AS-2	14,293-17,6541	CR-4	10,394-12,4091	ST-SCY-2	9,892-12,011Ethnic Liaison	1	ST-SCY-2	9,892-12,011
4. 1975-1976: No record; 1976-1977: No record. As the term Multicuturalism Directorate denotes a structure unit created for the implementation of the multiculturalism policy, all employees of the directorate are involved in the implementation of the Multiculturalism Programme.


Mr. Mitges: Of those programmes of the Multiculturalism Directorate which are not involved in distributing grants and contributions, in what way is the productivity of the programme assessed?


Norman Augustine Cafik: The productivity is assessed by the intensity of liaison with client groups; volume of correspondence; reports of conferences, seminars and workshops; summaries of research studies and surveys. As multiculturalism deals with such socio-cultural concepts and problems as inter-group relations, cultural integration, cultural sharing impact on ethnic groups, etc. an effective asessment would necessitate a costly socio-metric study.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	For 1977-78 what new programmes have been or are going to be introduced into the Multiculturalism Directorate and, in each case, which ones will (a) be involved (b) not be involved, in distributing grants?
2.	What number of staff are expected to be associated with each programme and how many will be (a) permanent (b) part-time (c) on contract (d) term?


Norman Augustine Cafik: 1. The only new programme introduced for 1977-1978 is the Cultural Enrichment Programme to encourage and support voluntary organizations which undertake projects and activities of cultural enrichment through the preservation and development of languages other than English and French.
2. One person (permanent) will co-ordinate this program at headquarters. The operations by and large are decentralized and are being implemented by existing field staff.


Mr. Herbert: Does the government intend to introduce a combined grant and tax incentive programme to encourage companies to invest in research and development in Canada in cases where there is presently a choice of another and more attractive location?


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: In 1977 the government extended the 5 per cent investment tax credit for a further three years and expanded it to cover both current and capital expenditures on scientific research and development. In addition, the rate of the credit was increased in areas designated under the Regional Development Incentives Act. In Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northern

March 8, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Ontario, northern Alberta, northern British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and all designated regions in Quebec other than the Gaspe, the rate of the tax credit was raised to 71/2 per cent. In the Atlantic provinces and the Gaspe region of Quebec the rate of the credit was increased to 10 per cent. In addition to the investment tax credit, an immediate deduction is allowed under the Income Tax Act for both current and capital expenditures on scientific research related to the business of the taxpayer. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce provides assistance to business under the Enterprise Development Program. This program, introduced in 1977, replaced a number of assistance programs to business including: PAIT: Program for Advancement of Industrial Technology; IDAP: Industrial Design Assistance Program; GAAP: General Adjustment Assistance Program; AAA: Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program; FTIAP: Footwear and Tanning Industry Adjustment Program, and; PIDA: Pharmaceutical Industry Development Assistance Program; PEP: Program to Enhance Productivity. The government is very much aware of the vital importance of maintaining the competitiveness of Canadian technology. Accordingly, the effectiveness of these incentives and the need for additional stimulus is under review.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Did the Department of Employment and Immigration provide funds in the past two years to Canadian Pacific Railway for on-the-job training of trainmen, apprentice engineers, engineer trainees, road foremen or carmen and, if so, what amount was provided in the (a) Moose Jaw (b) Saskatoon division?
2.	Was there any cost of living arrangements made for instructors and, if so, in what amount?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes, in the past two years, sixteen brakemen (yard) and ten locomotive engineers were trained under the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program, which includes on-the-job training, (a) Moose Jaw Division: $4,412. (b) Saskatoon Division: $18,411.
2. Yes, in the amount of $288.


Mr. Stevens: Was publication of any newsletter, information sheet or other similar document produced by the Department of Employment and Immigration suspended at any time in the last year and, if so, in each case (a) what was its title (b) what was the subject-matter (c) for what reason (d) how long did or will the supsension last?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a) Canada Manpower and Immigration Review, (b) Information and statistics on Canadian labour market from public sources and reviews of manpower and immigration developments in Canada, (c) Economy measure, (d) For an indeterminate period.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to re-hash this, but I have starred question No. 145 which has been on the order paper since October 19, and was previously on the order paper in July, 1977. It has not been answered. I think if the parliamentary secretary would get those who should do the leg work, some of those lazy bureaucrats, off their butts, they could get that answer to us, and get it to us forthwith.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a question which concerns various departments and, generally, those departments' public servants do a very good job of answering questions for the House. As for the hon. member's question, I will make sure he gets an answer as soon as possible.



MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 55?



COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS JUNE, 1976, RESULTING IN CESSATION OF OPENING OF MAIL BY SECURITY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 55-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy and/or other evidence, of the instructions issued by the Assistant Director General of Operations of the Security Service which allegedly resulted in June 1976 of the cessation of the practice of intercepting and opening of the mails on behalf of the Security Service.
[ Translation]
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Director General (Operations) RCMP, in July, 1976, gave this instruction orally and it was communicated downward by subordinate officers. Therefore, no directive of instruction exists and I ask that the hon. member withdraw the motion.
March 8, 1978


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member I should like to have the matter transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-9, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and Malaysia and conventions between Canada and Spain, Canada and Liberia, Canada and Austria, and Canada and Italy, for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Judd Buchanan (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-10, to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I think that hon. members are aware that in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I have been asked to present in his name the remarks he would have liked to make himself before the House this afternoon. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in his statement to the House last April, on the occasion of second reading of the Auditor General Act, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) announced the intention of the government to create the office of the Comptroller General of Canada. That measure follows the main recommendation of the annual report of the Auditor General of Canada presented in 1976.
The object of Bill C-10, to amend the Financial Administration Act, is to establish a position of deputy head of a department whose incumbent, made accountable to the Treasury Board, would be made responsible for ensuring the quality and the integrity of the financial administration systems
Financial Administration Act
and the related practices and methods used in the federal public service. Hon. members will not fail to notice that the wording of the proposed amendment reflect the provisions of section 4(2) of the Financial Administration Act. This section describes the rank and status of the Treasury Board secretary. The Comptroller General will be responsible to the President of the Treasury Board and this office will actually be a new and somewhat specialized body serving the Treasury Board. It is therefore important that the part of the act governing among other things the structure of the board as well as the implementation of its responsibilities in the field of management, be modified.
In his previous statement, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board described the main tasks and responsibilities of that new function. Not only will the Comptroller General have to answer to the Treasury Board on the quality and the integrity of the financial management policy, on the ways and control systems, but he will also have to establish and implement the policies, procedures and ways needed to assess the efficiency and the working of government programs, and submit reports on those matters. To prevent any misunderstanding, I would like to take a few moments to discuss the nature of the relations between the Comptroller General, on the one hand, and the other deputy heads of departments, the government, the Auditor General and the secretary of the Treasury Board, on the other hand.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, to keep in mind that in matters of financial management and control, basic responsibility and accountability are at the subhead level, where they should remain. However, as pointed out by the Auditor General in his report of last year, efficient control includes the distribution of responsibilities and system so that the work of one person or system component be constantly and automatically checked by another person on component, without unnecessary overlapping.
Therefore, while comptrollers in the various departments will report directly to their subheads, a functional relationship will develop with the Comptroller General, who will be the outside official responsible for scrutinizing department systems. The Comptroller General will issue guidelines to help departments discharge their responsibilities in respect of financial management and program evaluation practices.
Mr. Speaker, as is clearly stated in this legislation, the Comptroller General would report to the government through the President of the Treasury Board. This involves a logical and necessary relationship. Systems under the Comptroller General are aimed at ensuring that the government have pertinent, precise and complete information. In the development of systems, the incumbent should therefore consult the people who will be using them and account for the resources used. Such a relationship with the government would also enhance the Auditor General's efficiency, allowing as it would the nomination of a high-ranking official who would be

March 8, 1978
Financial Administration Act
charged mainly with financial control and other control and reporting systems, and to whom the Auditor General could give certain precise comments.

The Auditor General will continue to be the person who reports to parliament and who will examine the public accounts to make sure they satisfy parliament's interests. Any differences between the office of the Comptroller General and the office of the Auditor General will normally be resolved through discussions between the respective offices and, when they remain unresolved, would be reported in the Auditor General's annual report. These interrelationships should promote not only improved managerial effectiveness of government operations but also more complete and accurate information to parliament.
In light of the close functional relationship between the proposed position of Comptroller General and the existing position of Secretary of the Treasury Board, I want to reiterate that the introduction of this new office will not in any way change the responsibility of the Secretary of the Treasury Board in the field of resource allocation.
As explained in detail to the Public Accounts Committee last April 26, the Secretary will retain responsibility for the direction of the resource allocation and the control processes of funds; and ensure that they will not be reallocated without due authority. The Comptroller General will ensure compliance with the financial and other related control policies of the government. In other words, he will oversee the practices and procedures to ensure that the government's operations are as efficient as possible.
In terms of specific allocation of human resources and functions, hon. members will recall that many of these duties which the proposed Comptroller General will assume are, at the moment, assigned to the financial administration branch and the efficiency evaluation branch of the Treasury Board secretariat. These two branches will therefore be transferred to and form the nucleus of the comptroller general's organization.
Beyond these changes I must add, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the work undertaken to date on certain aspects of financial administration, a variety of more technical amendments should be made to the Financial Administration Act. It is hoped that these proposed amendments can be introduced in the near future. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that our demonstrated efforts, and indeed achievements in this whole area of financial management, are a tangible proof of our determination to maintain the highest possible standards of control in this all important area of governmental administration.
The Auditor General, himself, commented in this annual report that the initiatives this government has taken with respect to guidelines for Crown corporations, the new Auditor General's Act, and the increase in funds allocated to his office, and I quote:
... taken together ... comprise strong appropriate and effective measures to achieve, ultimately, a satisfactory system of financial management and control within the federal government and restoration to parliament of an appropriate degree of control over the public purse.

We are happy with this recognition of our efforts and our accomplishments by the Auditor General while, simultaneously, agreeing with his observations that there is more to do in the area of financial management and control. The "action-oriented leadership" that he hopes for will derive from the position of comptroller general.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this bill will be given speedy approval, thus enabling the incumbent of this new position to get on with the further improvements that we wish to make in this vital area.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are considering at second reading today what I am sure must be the shortest bill of this session and perhaps of any session, but it is a bill which could have profound implications for the operation of the administrative functions of government. This bill, therefore, is vitally important.
The bill purports to establish a senior financial officer for the government who would, in carrying out his functions, assure that proper financial management and control procedures are used within the government. I use the word "purports" because that is in fact not what this bill does. This bill merely creates another deputy minister. That is the sole impact of this bill. The bill ascribes to that position a title different from those currently in use in the civil service. That is all the bill does, absolutely nothing more, and let this House and the country not be led to believe that merely through the passage of this legislation we are proceeding toward better financial management and control which, as the Auditor General has pointed out, are so necessary because of the sorry state of financial management and control in this government.
I have to ask, what is in a name? The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) through press releases and other comments, including those in this House-although they were uttered today by his parliamentary secretary because the minister evidently does not feel this legislation is important enough to warrant his being here to introduce it-would have us believe that this legislation, coupled with the hiring of Mr. Harry Rogers, who is to occupy the position created by this legislation, is somehow an adequate response to the recommendations of the Auditor General in his report of 1976, which were repeated, incidentally, in his report of 1977. I do not believe it is unfair to ask what magic occurs when, instead of designating the position title as deputy minister, secretary or under-secretary, as these positions are known throughout the civil service, the person is instead designated comptroller general? What magic occurs as a result of that designation which gives that individual the authority to fulfil the obligations and responsibilities the Auditor General clearly indicates are in such desperate need of fulfilment?
Unless this legislation is substantially amended to define within this act the roles, obligations, and responsibilities of a comptroller general, then through the passage of this bill we will have done absolutely nothing more than create another deputy minister. Frankly, it is medicine show flimflam. The
March 8, 1978

President of the Treasury Board is the flimflam man who stands before the House and the people of Canada and says that in this medicine he is now flimflamming he has the cure for the Canadian government's financial management and control problems. All he has is a bottle with a different title, but the bottle is the same as the other bottles on the shelf.
I want to make it clear that in no way am I expressing criticism of Mr. Harry Rogers. While he is not known to me personally, by all accounts he is a man of outstanding capabilities and precisely the type of man who will make a very welcome addition to the senior levels of government, particularly in the area of financial management.
However, we are terribly concerned that by giving Mr. Rogers a title and absolutely nothing else by way of authority we shall be causing him to operate under such a handicap that his chances of truly addressing and arresting the trends of financial mismanagement so clearly outlined by the Auditor General will be minimal at best.
It is well worth recalling the observation made by the Auditor General in his 1975 report in which he stated as an initial conclusion of the financial management and control study started in May, 1974, that:
The present state of the financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
In support the Auditor General gave numerous examples of the waste which was resulting therefrom and proposed a number of recommendations for remedial action. One year later, as a result of further study, in his 1976 annual report the Auditor General was moved to state:
Based on the study of the systems of departments, agencies and Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General financial management and control in the Government of Canada is grossly inadequate. Furthermore it is likely to remain so until the government takes strong, appropriate and effective measures to rectify this critically serious situation.
That kind of audit for a privately owned company would result in the bottom falling out of its share prices on the stock exchange, probable delisting by the regulatory authorities of the provinces, and certainly the immediate dismissal of at least the senior financial officers of that corporation. Of course nothing of the sort happened in this instance.
The Auditor General offered a number of recommendations for ways to improve the financial management and control of the federal government's operation, and key amongst these was the recommendation that a Comptroller General be selected and appointed. The Auditor General then went on to describe in some detail the type of person who should be hired for this position and the types of functions that would come under the authority of this individual.
In addition, he proposed other changes in the operation of government which would lead to better and more effective financial management and control. I will not repeat all of these, but I think it is worth repeating for the record paragraph 2.15 of the Auditor General's report of 1976 in which he stated:
Financial Administration Act
To avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, I should emphasize my belief that a fundamental restructuring of the Treasury Board secretariat is required. The functions relating to resource allocation, personnel policy, administrative policy, and management of the official languages program, would remain with the Secretary of the Treasury Board or would be otherwise assigned as the Government may decide. All functions relating to financial management and control would be assigned to the Comptroller General of Canada, a deputy head like any other but with a status comparable to that of the Secretary of the Treasury Board. His responsibilities relative to other deputy heads and his relationships with departmental financial officers are described in Part 3 of this Report. His basic responsibilities would include the design, development, implementation and monitoring of adequate systems and procedures to ensure that the form of the Estimates provides a sound basis for the Government's budgetary control system, that public moneys and assets are under effective custody and control at all times, that accounting procedures and financial reports throughout government (including the Public Accounts) conform to acceptable accounting principles and standards, that expenditures of public moneys are made with due regard for economy and efficiency, and that satisfactory procedures measure the effectiveness of programs where they could reasonably be expected to apply. The responsibility for maintaining the central accounts of Canada would be transferred to the Office of the Comptroller General from the Department of Supply and Services where it is now located.
In other words, the Auditor General was very specific as to the functions and responsibilities of the Comptroller General and defined clearly what his role should be. Thus it comes as some surprise and, indeed, is somewhat disturbing to see that the legislation the government produces in response to this very proper recommendation of the Auditor General really only creates another deputy minister and gives him the title of Comptroller General. As I asked earlier, what is in a name? How can just a name provide the necessary authority to fulfil the responsibilities which clearly should come within the range of responsibilities of the new Comptroller General? To understand this obvious omission from the bill we have to examine the government's initial responses to the recommendations of the Auditor General. We have to speculate some about the internal debate that must have occurred in cabinet prior to the decision being made that indeed somebody would be appointed and be given the title of Comptroller General.
The House will recall that when the Auditor General first made his recommendation in his report in the early winter of 1976 the initial response of the government was negative. Then the government said, "No, we do not want a comptroller general, an appointment such as that would interfere with such things as ministerial responsibility, the smooth operation of the civil service, the Privy Council office" and all other manner of things. However, the gross mismanagement brought to the attention of the House and the public of Canada through the Auditor General's report caused the public to state that that was quite an unacceptable response from the government. The government could mutter about ministerial responsibility all it wanted, but the people of Canada wanted much more control over the management of their tax moneys. This pressure caused the government to do a flip-flop.
In April of 1977 the President of the Treasury Board indicated that the government had decided, after all, to accept the recommendation of the Auditor General and hire a Comptroller General. While we can never be sure why the government did not accept this proper recommendation of the Audi-

March 8, 1978
Financial Administration Act tor General straight away, we can engage in some fairly accurate speculation as to the reasons. Certainly we all have our sources and we have heard of the rumours and mutterings that were part of this debate.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the office of the Comptroller General will result in another central agency function which will restrict the flexibility of the managers of existing departments and agencies of the government. Nobody wants another authority looking over their shoulder to ensure that they are performing their financial functions properly. It is an additional annoyance to deputies, assistant deputies and so on. Consequently, they resisted it, and resisted it quite vigorously. Such resistance may well have been merited had these senior officials been demonstrably efficient and effective in fulfilling their responsibilities, which clearly the Auditor General indicates they have not been.
It is common at this point for ministers and their deputies to invoke the principle of ministerial responsibility in defending their position. Their arguments go something like this. They say: "Look, we have a job to do, we have certain responsibilities to perform and a department to manage." Let us manage that department and, under the principle of ministerial responsibility, the minister is thereby accountable for any mismanagement in his department. We need no further checks. Let us manage. We have ministerial responsibility. Ministers will be responsible and then democracy will take care of things. We have a great deal of recent experience, to indicate that when in fact it becomes time to face up to the responsibilities the principle of ministerial responsibility seems to collapse. We have especially during this administration had numerous instances where examples of gross incompetence have been evidenced all the way from the Bonaventure to the recent AECL escapade. We have had examples of clear-cut illegal activity.
The Auditor General's report is full of examples of sheer mismanagement. Yet at no time in the last 10 years has any minister resigned or been asked to resign as a result of incompetent or illegal activity occurring under his area of ministerial responsibility. Nor indeed, Mr. Speaker, have there been any examples of any senior civil servants having to pay the price for gross mismanagement under their areas of responsibility. Therefore when any minister or deputy minister or Prime Minister or anybody else tries to claim to this House and to the public that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility provides the necessary safeguards, checks and balances, they are guilty of peddling the flimsiest and shabbiest flimflam.
The net effect of that whole operation is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his principal secretary, Michael Pitfield, make the decisions; the ministers are merely mouthpieces. That is the net result of this horrible complex collegia] system which the government has put in place. Under those circumstances how can we talk about ministerial responsibility?
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is being told by his officials today to bring forward a budget. He would like to bring forward a budget, but it is not his decision. Some
[Mr. Andre.l
committee in cabinet is sitting before the Privy Council office. The Minister of Finance is the mouthpiece, he is here to explain. If he does not explain a situation properly he will be transferred to another job and another mouthpiece will be appointed. But to suggest the Minister of Finance is making decisions and to hold him responsible is ridiculous.
There is no opportunity for the public to supervise ministerial responsibility. Can we supervise ministerial responsibility as members of parliament? We had a discussion this afternoon about the difficulty of members of parliament in even getting their questions before the House. There is no way that a committee of the House can summon a minister before it. There is no way we can force a minister to answer. There was a time when the House could hold up the estimates of a minister's department until he gave members the answers and they got the answers they wanted.
When it comes time to cover up and hide and to resist freedom of information action, we have ministerial responsibility trumpeted forward. When it is time to face up to responsibilities aften something has happened and when a "boo-boo" has been brought to the public's eyes, well, ministerial responsibility is quickly abandoned. How are we expected to supervise ministerial responsibility? How is that responsibility ever measured, assessed, or how does anyone hold a minister responsible? Can it be done at elections?
There have been 115 ministerial changes in the last 10 years. If someone is dissatisfied at the way the Post Office is being run, what minister will they hold responsible? There have been four or five ministers over the last few years. If someone is angry at the solicitor general's operation, who will they hold responsible? How can there be ministerial responsibility when no minister stays put and they are moved around? It is musical chairs. Then there is the cabinet system, the so-called collegial system which this government runs. Ministers do not make decisions in this government. Decisions are made in committee in this collegial apparatus. There is committee upon committee upon committee. That procedure has been taken away from us. There is no such authority. There is absolutely no way in which the House of Commons can hold a minister responsible or can force him to live up to his responsibilities.
To talk about ministerial responsibility is strictly a sham. It should be dismissed from the lexicon of arguments. We do not have ministerial responsibility under this particular government.
It is necessary therefore for parliament to build into this legislation the type of activity and performance we expect from a Comptroller General so that he can in his day to day administration, ensure that proper respect is paid for the taxpayers' money, otherwise the government will do whatever it wants and we will have had no change from the current situation which the Auditor General points out is in disarray.
Nobody in this party likes the notion of imposing new central control or more bureaucracy, more red tape on an already overburdened government. However, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we like less and that is the waste and
March 8, 1978

mismanagement of the public's funds and, therefore, because of the failure of this government truly to be responsible or to exercise ministerial responsibility, we see no alternative but to accept and strongly advocate the prescription of the Auditor General, namely, to put in place a Comptroller General with the necessary authority to fulfil the functions as defined in paragraph 2.15 of the Auditor General's report of 1976.
The other argument used internally to try to dissuade the House or the internal decision makers from the idea of a Comptroller General, making sure that the Comptroller General never in fact has any authority, is that you are really not talking about very much money after all. It is really peanuts. If we had brought in a Comptroller General and he really did his job, he might save a few tens, hundreds, or maybe millions, and what is that in terms of a $50 billion budget? That is the argument on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: It used to be said that if you looked after the dimes, the dollars would look after themselves. In this case, if you look after the millions, the billions will take care of themselves. More important than the amount of money, and I agree in terms of a $50 billion budget sometimes $10 million, $20 million, $30 million or $100 million, does not have that much impact, is the attitude of disrespect for money which the public has. That is extremely important.
As a member of parliament I am running into a situation that I am sure honest members opposite would have to admit exists. There is a reluctance to pay tax. Because they read and know about the $2 million given to Shaul Eisenberg, the $17 million spent here, blown there, poured down the drain here or poured down the drain there, there is a genuine reluctance on the part of people to pay taxes.
Accountants tell me they are being asked by their clients to do things in terms of their tax returns which, if they had suggested them to their clients ten years ago, the clients would have fired them. There is a change in attitude. They feel the government has so little respect for their tax dollars that there is a sort of gamesmanship building up whereby they will do their best to prevent the government from getting any of it. They will keep back as much as they can. That is a change in attitude in ten years. Ten years ago the feeling was that a citizen had a responsibility to contribute his share. That responsibility was looked upon as an honour, one of the privileges of living in a free society.
The other aspect of mismanagement and wastage of money which is having a terrible effect upon the body politic is the contempt the public is beginning to feel toward government and politicians. They watch the manner in which their money is being poured down the drain. They read of wastage in the Auditor General's report. They read that the situation in terms of financial management is serious, grossly inadequate. That causes them to have serious contempt toward the government and toward the politicians because we get lumped in with the
Financial Administration Act
government, in their view. That is not healthy for the country and our democratic system.
We hear from cabinet and senior officials comments such as "Even in industry things are not handled properly. Occasionally something is spilled, but so what? It is not very important in the whole scheme of things. It is not that much money." We hear ministers and deputies talk as though it is their money. They talk as though the money involved belongs to the government. They say the government tries to do a good job of spending, but if they spill a little bit here and there, corporations do the same.
It is not like industry where the money belongs to the corporation. If they want to spill it, that is their business. Here the money does not belong to the government, but to the taxpayers. The government is merely the trustee of those funds. As trustee, it does not have the right to state that it will sacrifice a little efficiency for speed, flexibility, and all those things that senior officials and cabinet ministers want. It does not have that right when acting as trustee of the public's money.
We need ongoing, regular, day-to-day precautions, procedures and control mechanisms to ensure that this money is treated as it is, namely, money held by government in trust for taxpayers. It does not belong to the government, to those who play with it. When they start thinking that way, we are in trouble.
Colleagues from my party will have more to say about the government's failure to manage its responsibilities properly and, indeed Mr. Speaker, we in this party have a considerable number of recommendations to make to the government on ways in which it could reorganize itself, and indeed divest itself of some of its responsibilities so that it might better manage the ones that remain. I will not take up much time in the House in my remarks but 1 do indicate to the President of the Treasury Board, or his parliamentary secretary, that while we intend to support this legislation at second reading because we strongly believe in the necessity for a Comptroller General, we are most unhappy with the fact that this bill does not provide a definition of that function, and in committee we will be demanding that additional clauses be added to the bill so that Mr. Rogers, when he assumes his responsibility, has the necessary legislative authority to perform this most vital function which he is called upon to perform.
Without legislative authority, there is one chance in ten that the Comptroller General will be able to perform the job he is called upon to perform. The cabinet and the senior civil service do not want a Comptroller General and resisted it mightily, and only the overwhelming weight of public opinion caused them to rescind on this resistance.


An hon. Member:: How do you know that?


Harvie Andre: I keep my ears open. You should do the same. In the interest of proceeding expeditiously with this bill in committee, I wish to repeat something for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary. I hope he will take it to his boss who, for some reason, did not think it necessary to be here when this

March 8, 1978
Financial Administration Act
bill was being discussed. I refer to the President of the Treasury Board.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is a remark the hon. member should regret. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has a very important bill for first reading on the PSSRA amendments. After waiting in this House for over an hour while another debate was going on, he was called to a conference to explain the details of that bill. I have been a member of this House for 12 years and a member of the Public Accounts committee for seven years. I believe I am quite able to represent the minister on an occasion such as this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: As the parliamentary secretary indicated, the President of the Treasury Board scheduled these events so that he could not be here this afternoon. He sets his own priorities. That is up to him. He can do what he wants.
I will repeat something for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary who, if he is as competent as he indicated, will have no trouble communicating this message. It is vital that there be a Comptroller General in place in the government apparatus to bring the serious situation, to use the words of the Auditor General, under control. It is absolutely essential that he have legislative authority to perform his function. Without that, he will be gobbled up in a huge mass of whatever. There is not one chance in ten that the necessary controls can be brought in unless he has the authority of parliament to perform his function. We will be insisting upon that. We shall be insisting upon it. I do not think it is an unreasonable request, provided the government is sincere in its desire to have a Comptroller General with muscle. There will be no difficulty in agreeing with us that legislative authority should be granted. On that basis we could get the measure through committee in half an hour, get it back before the House, and implement it in short order.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the measure before us relates to one of the recommendations presented by the Auditor General to parliament in his 1976 report. Hon. members will recall the language of the 1976 report by the Auditor General. He said that expenditures were out of control. He indicted the system which had developed following the implementation of the recommendations of the Glassco Commission of a decade earlier. He drew attention to the fact that there had at one time been an office of comptroller general, one which had been abolished in a desire to decentralize government operations. The philosophy of the Glassco Commission was to let the deputy ministers manage. In the name of that philosophy, the central controls which had previously existed within the Treasury Board were substantially relaxed and the mechanism which Mr. Glassco had devised to replace them were not put into operation.
The response of the government to the serious charges made by the Auditor General took many forms. The first was a

substantial improvement in the staffing of the Auditor General's department and a significant increase in its budget. The second was the presentation of special legislation relating to the Auditor General which had been a dream of his predecessors in office. This bill, introduced by government and passed by parliament, pioneered some of the concepts of the functions of an Auditor General. In addition to a post-audit of expenditures, the Auditor General was empowered to consider the question of value for money spent and to break new ground in trying to improve the efficiency of government operations. But the government's response has not been limited to these things.
In the field of Crown corporations, a special investigation is under way under Mr. Lambert. We have issued guidelines to improve the operations of Crown corporations. The Public Accounts Committee, which includes the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre)-I am sure he will listen to me as courteously as I listened to him-has laboured long and hard trying to deal with the precise recommendations of the Auditor General and his staff. The government has decided that the recommendation concerning the Comptroller General, and his establishment at the level of deputy minister, are acceptable.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre is a good friend, and when we meet in committee our relations are always amiable; but I wonder whether he has really represented the response of the Auditor General correctly. I quote from the record of the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee-this is a direct quotation from the Auditor General:
I would like to speak briefly on the Comptroller General, an announcement made by the minister yesterday and confirmed this morning. I am biased, completely biased, and I declare my bias. My bias lies in the fact that I think this is a tremendous forward step for the Government of Canada ... I think-I will put my neck out here-this is going to represent a brand new chapter in financial control by the government of funds contributed by the taxpayers.
The record is there for anyone who wants to examine it.
No one can say the Public Accounts Committee or the government took lightly the criticisms which were put forward by the Auditor General. Quite the contrary. Every single major recommendation the Auditor General has put forward has now been given legislative effect. The bill before us today creates a new office. It is important to realize that under this bill the Comptroller General will not be responsible for day-today decisions as to how money is to be spent. That will still be the job of the deputy ministers. But within Treasury Board there will be two deputy heads, both with the rank of deputy minister. They will be responsible on the Treasury Board side for the allocation of resources and for the implementation of those financial control procedures which have been spelled out in such detail by the Auditor General.
In addition, as the hon. member for Calgary Centre has pointed out, the Comptroller General will have the responsibility of making sure that the estimates are in a form in which they will be of maximum use to members of this place when examining the record of public accounts. This is not an easy task as estimates get bigger and bigger. When you are spending upward of $45 billion a year it is a tough job to stay on top.
March 8, 1978

I listened again this afternoon to a version of the Golden Age from the hon. member for Calgary Centre. There was a time, he told us, when parliament could do things, when it could hold up a minister's estimates. Mr. Speaker, I was first elected to this parliament in 1963. There was no Golden Age. I remember a time when estimates were all taken in Committee of the Whole House. The opposition would zero in on one particular estimate. The government would rally in its defence. There would be division after division, and we would not change one dollar. The progress made, though, was very small and slow. I see my good friend from Nova Scotia sitting opposite and I know he will agree with what I am saying.
No really satisfactory mechanism has been devised either by this parliament or by any other parliament to vote supply in the way it was done a generation ago when supply was a relatively small item of business which could be easily envisaged and examined by an elected parliament of the nation.
The bill before us makes specific provision for what will be essentially a staff function provided within Treasury Board to the various departments of government. The Auditor General has enthusiastically endorsed it, and hon. members on the other side will, I am sure, all vote for it because they know in their hearts that it has to be done There will, of course, always be ways of improving the manner in which we deal with estimates. The sums of money now involved present a very great challenge to the parliament of any nation. I am pleased to be here today to lend my support to this bill.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, as a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill. On the face of it, the measure looks rather simple and inoffensive, but I say that the necessity for introducing it shows there is something seriously wrong, otherwise the country would not require the services of a comptroller general.
I should like to take the House back to my native province for a minute or so. In Nova Scotia, in the old rum-running days, the ships used to carry a man called the supercargo. He was in addition to the captain. It was the supercargo's job to see that the rum was delivered to the right place and the right man in the right quantities. While today we are not dealing with rum, I submit to you, sir, that the principle is somewhat the same. We need a comptroller general to make certain the taxpayers of Canada receive value for their tax dollars, and that moneys allocated are used for the expressed purpose outlined by parliament instead of being spent on some pet project far in excess of the original estimates. We, of course, on this side support the thrust of this bill.
Someone may well ask, however, why we need a comptroller general? In my opinion, we need this super bureaucrat because our ship of state is way off course, and if we continue to follow our present route, our nation will find itself floundering on the rocks of disaster and despair.
Financial Administration Act
In Ottawa today we have a government that ignores or intentionally misreads the lessons of history. Cabinet ministers call for national unity, for public confidence, and for spending restraints. They stand in this House and enunciate noble policies, high principles, and shining goals, but then they forget this high purpose, Mr. Speaker, when the day-to-day political game is played.
The diagnosis of Canada's sickness really does not require prolonged consultations or reference to complex charts. The reasons for our malady can be stated very clearly and very briefly. In the past two years or more we have tried to hide both the symptoms and the sickness like a social disease. We had hoped that our ailment would go away by itself if it could only be hidden or covered up. The truth is that it can only be cured when we expose it, when we recognize it, and deal with it now before more damage is done.
This, I submit to you, sir, is one of the reasons why we need a comptroller general, but I also believe there are others. We are still in the grip of serious inflation-something like 9 per cent annually. We have priced ourselves out of the world markets as well as out of our own markets. We are paying the penalty of high unemployment, again at the expense of our youth where we see admittedly something like 910,000 unemployed, and heaven only knows how many more who are not legally on the record. We are spending recklessly. We are borrowing needlessly, mindlessly. We are committing our children, and our children's children, to a debt for years to come- a debt we do not have the courage to face in our lifetime. We buy the dream of having the highest wage rate in the world, by printing more dollars, by issuing more bonds and by borrowing more money abroad-borrowing it almost on a daily basis now.
We accept almost without a murmur a budget deficit this year that will be as great as was our entire budget when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power. There are younger members of the House who may doubt that statement. They need only look back to the Treasury Board's publication of February 19, 1973, put out then by the Hon. C. M. Drury, President of the Treasury Board. In it you will see some very interesting figures. I hold it in my hand and you will see there listed under 1967-68 the total expenditures for all of Canada. We were a nation at that time of 20 million people. The total budget for all of Canada on that date was $9,872 million.
On March 31, 1977, the finance minister, Donald Macdonald, called for expenditures for 1977-78 of $41,900 million, with an estimated deficit of $7,160 million.
According to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), on page 2 of the 1978-79 edition of "How Your Tax Dollar Is Spent", we read the projected total spending is $44,450 million for 1977-78. Therefore this represents an increase of 8.2 per cent over the total 1976-77 expenditures. I say to you, sir, that it is also $2,550 million more than was predicted by his predecessor, for a total deficit of some $9,710 million to service now an estimated 23 million people in Canada.

March 8, 1978
Financial Administration Act
These figures are frightening. Yet these people who sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, have the gall to call this restraint. We have been preaching this type of restraint, according to Charles Lynch, as reported in the Gazette of February 23, for the past five years, so there is no question of where the fault lies. Now we know why the Auditor General stated in his 1976 report that he was deeply concerned that parliament and, indeed, the government, have lost or are losing effective control of the public purse.
What do we see on page 1 of the summary of the 1978-79 expenditures? According to the minister of finance, for the 78-79 fiscal year the target ceiling for total spending is $48,800 million. This, he states, would represent an increase of 9.8 per cent over projected total expenditures of $44,450 million for 1977-78. Because of its magnitude, Mr. Speaker, because of its importance, and to emphasize my point, I wish to recap those figures. This government under the present Prime Minister was elected in 1968, ten years ago. In that year "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent" listed total spending for Canadians by the federal government at $9,872 million. Now we are told, total spending-ten years later-will total $48,800 million or, in round figures, $39 billion more to service only an additional three million Canadians. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that we have massive unemployment? Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that we have horrendous inflation, plus a devalued dollar?
The financial insecurity brought about by the government's mismanagement of our economy has also brought us rates of crime, drug addiction, child abuse, violence, and sex perversion that are soaring to staggering levels. And as if this is not bad enough, we as Canadians must endure scandals in public affairs that make headlines every week. In these circumstances who should be surprised that our country is facing its most severe test of national unity in its 110 year history? The wonder is that other provinces as well as Quebec are not talking of leaving Confederation.
We must ask ourselves how this national tragedy happened when we are blessed with the second largest and richest land mass in the world. We are blessed with enormous resources in fresh water, minerals, forests, and arable land, with untold resources in and on three oceans. As well, our boundary to the south is protected by a powerful and friendly neighbour. The future is bleak, but our place in it is not entirely hopeless.
Present government spokesmen keep saying that our problems are largely due to general world conditions and that they have no remedy for this problem. This is a false doctrine. There is a great deal we can do about our future and our fate if our leaders have the courage to lead. Canada and Canadians can meet the challenge if we face up to reality. The road to national recovery may well be long and difficult, but the signposts now show the route very clearly.
Before this government can expect to command respect, it must first clean up its own act and make itself respectable both politically and economically and in its concept of public service. Members of the government must convince themselves and the nation that a united Canada is possible and worth
[Mr. Crouse. 1
striving for. Supporters of this government, some of whom refused to stand in this Chamber when I rose and led in the singing of "God Save the Queen" on the anniversary of her Silver Jubilee, must learn that patriotism is not an obsolete and ridiculous word.
This government must learn and must recognize that it can no longer buy its way out of trouble by more borrowing. More spending cannot cure inflation. If we pump up the money supply only to fund what in some cases amounts to useless projects, we will simply have more inflation, more unemployment, and nothing else. This government must realize that this nation can only be held together by encouraging a unity of spirit within the public mind, not by confrontation, wise-cracking, threatening, posturing, or through compulsive legislation. Without respect in high places, there can only be contempt, discontent, and disunity. These are simply some of the reasons why we in Canada need a comptroller general. Our problems are primarily economic while this government tries to deal with them from a cultural and linguistic point of view.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is insane to contemplate tearing our country apart simply because of pride of language or culture. The Prime Minister and Mr. Levesque, both of whom are cut from the same cloth, and came out of the same mould, must be made to realize, with the tragic examples before them of Ireland, Viet Nam, and Africa, that matters of culture, language, and religion cannot be enforced by oppressive legislation, or even by force of arms as has been suggested by the present Prime Minister, but can only be done by the desire of people to work together and live in tolerance, with mutual respect for each other.
The Prime Minister and Mr. Levesque must learn that there are matters of greater human benefit and importance, not only in Canada but also in the world family of nations, than pride of language and emotional fervour over racial origins. These two men must learn that there are opportunities and there is plenty of room for everyone in Canada, except, I say to you, sir, political bigots.
International forecasts about the future of Canada are not very bright, and as a result of this there is a loss of confidence in Canada's future. Our dollar today is hovering around the 88-cent level vis-a-vis the American dollar. This is not due to a loss of confidence in Canada. I say to you, sir, it is due to a loss of confidence by the international financial community in the present Prime Minister and his colleagues.
These grim forecasts about our country going down the tube need not necessarily come true. I disagreed violently with the Prime Minister, for example, when he said on a CTV interview on December 28, 1975:
We haven't been able to make it work-the free market system-the government is going to have to take a larger role in running institutions. It means there is going to be not less authority in our lives but perhaps more.
This is not the way in which leadership must be provided to this country if we are to go forward. There are solutions to our problems, but it is up to us as a people to find and implement
March 8, 1978

them. To help remedy our national sickness this government must first set an example. This government must heed the old prescription of "physician heal thyself." The cure cannot be achieved with sugar-coated pills, cover-up tricks or clever repartee here in parliament. The nation is waiting to be convinced, waiting to work toward holding Canada intact, united, and strong.
Canadians, with few exceptions, know that Canada is worth fighting for and, who knows, this bill that we are debating today may well be a beginning. The Chinese say that a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. Hopefully this first small step is one in the right direction, for the need for a comptroller general is due to weak financial management and control of government programs, the lack of strong central direction by the Treasury Board, the growth of government spending, the lack of accountability to parliament, and the impact of government spending on Canada's economy.
As stated in the explanatory note of the bill:
The purpose of this amendment is to establish the office of the Comptroller General of Canada and to provide for the assignment of duties and functions to the incumbent of the office.
The first part of the above objective formalizes the government's intention to create the position of comptroller general which is a positive response to the Auditor General's principal recommendation in his 1976 report.
The second part of the above objective, however, only provides for the assignment of duties and functions of the comptroller general. It does not, I repeat, spell them out in the legislation. Certainly, in my opinion, an outline of the major duties and responsibilities, if contained in the bill, would have strengthened this piece of legislation.
Even a person of Mr. Rogers' capability, the recent appointee to this position, will need all the support he can get from this parliament if he is to have a fighting chance to regain financial control over the federal government, and that is why I gave the earlier figures of the outlandish lack of control which has existed during the ten years of the present administration.
1 say to you, sir, unless this bill is amended, parliament and the people will have no control over the role that the comptroller general will play, either now or in the future. In my opinion the duties of the comptroller general must be given legislative authority. I also find it regrettable that there is no provision in the bill for the comptroller general to report to parliament. I believe the annual report of the comptroller general to the Treasury Board should, by legislation, be referred to parliament for consideration by the Public Accounts Committee during its review of the Auditor General's report.
Just what have we on the record regarding this position? On April 25, 1977, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) announced in the House the government's intention to establish the position of comptroller general. He also placed on the record the relevant duties and responsibilities of the position, namely:
Financial Administration Act
The Comptroller General will report directly to the President of the Treasury Board. The office will carry the rank and status of a deputy minister. The Comptroller General will be responsible to the Treasury Board for the quality and integrity of the financial control systems and administrative policies and practices in use throughout the federal civil service.
It is worth while noting here that the greater part of these responsibilities will comprise those that were assigned to the financial administration branch of the Treasury Board secretariat, as created in March, 1976, under a deputy secretary, then Mr. Stuart Mensforth. The President of the Treasury Board also stated:
A special functional relationship will exist between the Comptroller General and the chief financial administrators of departments, agencies and corporations, thus enabling the Comptroller General to provide necessary direction on financial matters.
The Comptroller General's authority and responsibility will be applicable to expenditure control systems and related administrative practices and procedures, after and within the authorization of the allocation of resources by the Government and Parliament.
Here it is worth noting that the entire responsibility for the control and direction of the resource allocation and control processes will remain with the secretary of the Treasury Board, and will not be transferred to the comptroller general.
What does the Auditor General think of the comptroller general's responsibilities? In his 1976 report, page 16, he considers such a key position as "the most important and responsible financial position in both the public and private sectors of Canada."
Both the President of the Treasury Board and the Auditor General have indicated that a major restructuring of the Treasury Board secretariat will be required. The Auditor General sees the position of comptroller general as having a status comparable to that of the secretary of the Treasury Board. He also sees the responsibilities of the comptroller general to include clearly:
The design, development, implementation and monitoring of adequate systems and procedures to ensure that:
(1)	The form of the estimates provides a sound basis for the government's buddgetary control system;
(2)	public moneys and assets are under his effective custody and control at all times;
I would point out that Bill C-10 does not deal with this interesting and necessary recommendation. It goes on to state:
(3)	accounting procedures and financial reports throughout government (including the public accounts) should conform to acceptable accounting principles and standards;
(4)	expenditures of public moneys are made with due regard for economy and efficiency;
(5)	satisfactory procedures measure the effectiveness of programs where they could reasonably be expected to apply; and
(6)	he should be maintaining the central accounts of Canada, a job which is presently being carried out by the Department of Supply and Services.
Again, sir, this recommendation is not a part of Bill C-10, and I submit that it should be.
In effect, what the Auditor General has advocated, and so far the government has agreed to only in principle, is the type of financial control exercised by the chief financial officer of
3596

March 8, 1978
Financial Administration Act
virtually every business organization of any size in Canada or throughout the world.
The Auditor General also spells out the selection criteria for this position, and I quote him when he states:
The Comptroller General must have the appropriate professional qualifications, with a proven record of outstanding competence and achievement at senior levels of responsibility, and with extensive experience as a senior financial executive in a large scale organization in either the public or private sectors. He must have the ability to gain quickly the confidence and respect of the Treasury Board, cabinet, parliamentary committees, heads of departments and Crown corporations who will look to him for functional leadership in financial matters.
These are very special qualities and I hope that when the government appointed Mr. Harry Rogers-a man whom I do not know personally but of whose abilities I have heard glowing accounts-the government was thinking about the Canadian people and their basic needs.
It is obvious from the facts that I put on the record that we are sadly in need of a comptroller general, for in his 1975 report, the Auditor General stated:
The present state of the financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
The Auditor General further buttressed these comments by stating in his 1976 report:
In the majority of the Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control is weak and ineffective. Moreover, co-ordination and guidance by central government agencies of financial management and control practices in these Crown corporations are virtually non-existent.
That is a frightening admission of the manner in which Crown corporations look after the tax dollars of the Canadian people.
After two years, the Auditor General finally reached the opinion, and I will quote the following statement from his 1976 report:
Based on the study of the systems of departments, agencies and Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control in the government of Canada is grossly inadequate. Furthermore, it is likely to remain so until the government takes strong, appropriate and effective measures to rectify this critically serious situation.
In closing, I say to you, sir, that this is a damning criticism of this government's over-all management of the Canadian taxpayers' money, and I hope that by appointing a comptroller general we will help rectify the serious problem as it relates to the financial control of expenditures made by this government. This is the challenge he faces. The manner in which he carries out his duties may well determine, in light of what we hear today, whether Canada remains solvent or whether its financial structure is totally destroyed by the present government's incompetent management of our affairs.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate there are many things I would like to say on behalf of my party in addressing myself to Bill C-10 which has been a long time coming before the House for second reading. In view of the fact that the Auditor General suggested very strongly over two years that we should institute in our civil service in Ottawa the office of comptroller general, and in view of the fact that it is now about four minutes to six, I would appreciate it very much if I could call it six o'clock so that tomorrow I can begin the major portion of my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 5.55 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 9, 1978