1978-05-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Having regard to the fact that the government has decided that the Canadian taxpayer shall pay the $10,000 damages assessed by the court against the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) for having cruelly maligned, defamed and libelled Lawrence Stopforth, I move:
That this House condemns such action which means that the damages caused by the minister's gross wrongdoing is being imposed on taxpayers who are not responsible instead of being payable by the minister who was the wrongdoer.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO PUBLIC SERVICE POSITIONS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the number of members of parliament is rapidly diminishing due to a frenzy of government appointments of unwanted Liberal MPs to positions in the judiciary, the civil service, Crown corporations and agencies, to the other place and possibly to the staff of the House of Commons itself, as well as to the consular and diplomatic corps, in view of the fact that there is increasing nervousness among Liberal backbenchers and cabinet ministers as to their prospects in the coming election, and the very real danger that the House of Commons quorum of 20 may be threatened if the election is long postponed, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) further importuned by worried
Liberals looking for a safe berth on the ship of state, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That either the Prime Minister call the election immediately, before this House becomes vacant by attrition, or that he cease and desist from further patronage appointments of members of parliament who are now in danger of becoming an endangered species.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the U.S. environmental protection agency has found positive evidence that the herbicide 2,4-D is carcinogenic, in view of the fact that 2,4-D is a component of the herbicide Aqua 20 which requires an exemption from the federal government of label restrictions for use in waters normally under restriction, and in view of the fact that the British Columbia minister of the environment, Jim Nielsen, has stated that the provincial government still intends to use this potentially dangerous herbicide in the Okanagan Lake system this summer in spite of the reports from the U.S. environmental protection agency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House directs the minister of the environment to refuse the waiver of the label restrictions to the government of British Columbia until such time as full-scale testing is conducted to determine if the use of 2,4-D is safe.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for discussion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.

May 1, 1978
Considering the impassioned debate taking place in Quebec as a result of recent federal intrusions in exclusive provincial jurisdictions; considering the protests of the four western provinces blaming the federal government and supporting Quebec's claims; considering that over the past ten years this government has got into the habit of scoffing at Quebec authorities, treating them as second-class citizens; considering that there can be no peace without absolute recognition of provincial rights within their jurisdiction as spelled out in the constitution, with a view to ensuring that harmony and safeguarding provincial autonomy, thus ending the current crisis, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert);
That the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), in a responsible manner, recognize for once his mistake and reconsider his last decision. If the minister is not convinced that the three opposition parties are expecting such an honest effort from him, he should demand a debate to explain that jurisdictional matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas a great deal of crime in the province of British Columbia is committed by those supporting a drug habit, and whereas the heroin traffic in British Columbia results in untold damage, both economically and socially, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt):
That this House supports the innovative measures being proposed by the government of British Columbia for the treatment of heroin addicts.


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.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of extreme urgency in my constituency, namely, the loss of 300 to 400 jobs which will occur as a result of the announced closing of the RCA plant in Smiths Falls which, on a per capita basis, is even more disastrous to that community than the recent deplorable, sizeable lay-offs by Inco in Sudbury. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That in view of the fact that officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have now met with the mayor and the industrial commissioner of Smiths Falls, the minister of that department make an immediate statement as to the government's views on this situation, outline what plans the government has to be of assistance, and specifically take active steps to deal with this crucial situation affecting a sizeable part of the eastern Ontario economy when he meets with the Smiths Falls municipal officials and the members of parliament from the area on Thursday morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the strike which has been taking place for many weeks at Baie Verte, Newfoundland. In view of the health and safety conditions at Advocate Mines where the asbestos dust level is causing serious health problems, particularly for small children, and in view of the asbestos operations which if allowed to continue will, according to health authorities, cause respiratory problems and perhaps asbestosis, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the minister of the environment, under the provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, to consult immediately with the provincial authorities in Newfoundland and take other immediate steps to curtail serious asbestos dust problems produced by the Advocate Mines' operation at Baie Verte.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 1, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It relates to the circular sent out by the Minister of National Revenue to churches and charitable organizations limiting the expression of their views on political issues and, indeed, setting out the consequences if these organizations do not conform to the government guidelines.
Would the minister say whether the issuance of these guidelines at this particular time was a cabinet decision, or was it just the Minister of National Revenue acting independently of the cabinet, trying to exercise questionable authority by sending out these regressive regulations?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will try to answer the question asked by the hon. member. I understand that the circular which has been put out was under preparation last summer and was the distillation of existing information which was asked to be put together by the former minister because of an interest in clarifying what exactly is a charity under the Income Tax Act.
The purpose of the circular was to put together information relating to existing jurisprudence on the subject as to what is a charity under the Income Tax Act and what is political activity. There is absolutely no relationship between any possible future event and the putting out of this document. It was undertaken last summer at the request of the minister's predecessor and in response to requests from the field.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. I should like to refer to a letter which was sent to my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, dated April 18, 1978. It was written by the Minister of National Revenue. He stated that indeed, the charitable status of organizations would not be prejudiced by "limited attempts to promote the interests of these organizations at the political level".
In light of that, what type of criteria did the minister have in mind when he said that he may approve limited attempts to promote the interests of these organizations? In what way is the minister able to sit in judgment on the activities of the churches as to whether their attempts or interests should be limited in any way?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure no one would attempt to limit the interests of the churches or their activities. As I understand the income tax law, in order to qualify for charitable exemptions, it provides that all resources, including physical and financial, must be devoted to charitable purposes.
Oral Questions
Some people in the community, cynically, do not regard politics as essentially charitable.


MINISTER'S INTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question I put to the minister concerned who would interpret the minister's expression of "limited attempts" by charitable organizations and churches to promote the interests of their organizations. How can the Minister of National Revenue have the power or authority to interpret what is meant by "limited attempts"? If I may, I should like to direct my final question to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I was under the impression the hon. member had already put a question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My final question is directed to the Prime Minister, because in this instance we have not received answers from any minister in the House who would be speaking for the Minister of National Revenue.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In light of this unaccountability, when will we have the benefit of a minister holding the portfolio of Minister of National Revenue in the House of Commons who will answer and be accountable to the House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is an acting minister and a second acting minister. They will gladly deal with policy matters raised by the hon. member.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Who is the acting minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The acting minister is the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Beatty:: Where is she?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The second acting minister is the Solicitor General.


Mr. Gillies:: Neither of them is here.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Egmont.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Neither the acting minister nor the second acting minister is here.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Egmont.


REASON FOR CIRCULATION OF DOCUMENT ON REGULATIONS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just shown the utter fraudulency of the present

May 1, 1978
Oral Questions
situation wherein neither acting minister nor the minister himself is in the House. The Deputy Prime Minister clearly is unaware of some of the developments which have gone on respecting this highly intimidating document put forward by the Department of National Revenue.
Two years ago, on May 17 when a similar issue arose, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who was then minister of national revenue, indicated to me that political activity had no definition in the act. Also, he admitted that 36,000 organizations had charitable tax status at that time and not one prosecution or action had taken place on the basis of any improper political activities.
Can someone on the other side, the Prime Minister or anyone else who would like to provide an answer, indicate what actions were taken which led to this government department producing a document laying down in specific terms the conditions under which charitable groups in this country could operate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that fact is the explanation of the guidelines which are being given out by the minister. The department is attempting to explain an area of the law which is general, which has to do with charitable donations and with the Income Tax Act. Because these activities are not defined, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, the department is putting together cases on jurisprudence to indicate to the public how they should be guided.
It seems to me that rather than calling this an intimidating document, the hon. member opposite should welcome the department's trying to explain the law and the regulations.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what area of reality the Prime Minister is following, but obviously if the government had been serious and responsible in this matter, there would have been some kind of advance consultations with a good cross-section of charitable organizations in respect of this issue. The fact that there has been none is an indication of the kind of respect the government has for voluntary organizations in this country.
In view of the fact that one church body, the Mennonite Central Committee, has already responded by having interviews with officers of National Revenue, trying to define what the government is getting at in this regard, and that the government, according to officers of National Revenue, have agreed that the Mennonite Central Committee can raise questions in respect of capital punishment, the purchase of fighter aircraft or a change in milk policy but cannot get involved in one of the church coalitions having to do with the upcoming disarmament assembly at the United Nations, will the Prime Minister indicate whether this action of intimidation in the circulation of last February is a direct attempt to remove the legitimate political rights of thousands of voluntary organizations in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take objection to the word "intimidation". The department is attempting to explain an area of the law which, as with many areas of the law, has need for explanation. The hon. member knows there is such a thing as administrative law and he knows that the general law has to be applied by departments and by ministers in specific cases.
It would seem to me that this circular-which I have not read-is an attempt, by the description given to us by the hon. lady, to help the taxpayer know what is deductible and what is not. If there is some desire on the part of the taxpayer to obtain further clarification, of course he is always welcome to meet with officials of the department of revenue in order to obtain that clarification. Surely the hon. member should not describe as intimidation an action by the department to explain an area of administrative law.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have one final supplementary question. The use of the word "intimidation" is mild, compared to the reaction of some of the voluntary organizations which have looked at this document. The Prime Minister, if he has not read it, should read it at the first opportunity, because it is putting the government on record as being an arbitrator in respect of the activitie of non-governmental organizations, in respect of publications, in respect of representation and activity, suggesting that their activities must be impartial and objective-


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


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Will the Prime Minister indicate whether he or any other official of the government has instructed the Department of National Revenue to enter into serious conversations with charitable organizations to clear up what is, at the very least, a very bad misunderstanding between the government and these organizations or, better yet, withdraw this particular piece of intimidation and put the whole operation of non-governmental organizations in this country on the respectable footing they have always occupied?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it that in this society nobody likes to pay taxes. The fact is that when you are a charitable organization, you do not have to pay taxes; you are exempt from certain provisions of the Income Tax Act. That is what the law says. Surely, what exactly is a charitable organization, how each particular organization qualifies under the act, and how others do not qualify, are matters for administrative law. Tribunals, in the end result, make a judgment in a particular case as to whether an organization is charitable under the law.
The department, surely, is discharging its duty in attempting to explain, for the benefit of the organizations themselves, what the courts in the past have viewed as charitable and otherwise.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Big Brother is calling the shots again.
May 1, 1978


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Big Brother? Obviously, the government is the one who is collecting taxes, and obviously the taxpayer can call the government what he wants. But the taxpayer is asking for guidance, and surely the government should not merely say that anyone who says he is charitable will not have to pay taxes. Surely that has to be defined, and that is the attempt of the policy paper.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You had better read it.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Environment). It concerns the very serious strike that has been going on for some weeks in Newfoundland, and it particularly concerns the health and safety not only of the workers involved in the operation but of the women and children living in the community.
My question is this: A year ago this month the then minister responsible for the environment issued a press release stating that the federal government would begin immediately to monitor emission levels of asbestos dust from asbestos mining and milling operations throughout Canada. Would the minister inform the House if this has been done at Baie Verte and, if so, what was discovered?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, my officials have advised me that the company has already taken steps to reduce air pollution at the mine site, as required by the regulations under the Clean Air Act. There is not enough time to list all the things that have been done, but I will try and put some of them on the record. A so-called bag-house is already under construction to limit the emission from the drying-up operation. The expected completion date prior to the work interruption was June, 1978. A bag-house is also in the engineering stage to control minor emissions from the dry-rock storage building. It is scheduled for completion in late 1978.
1 am advised that the company is doing all it can to meet the regulations under the Clean Air Act.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would, when providing the information, take care to answer the question. I asked him for specific information, since the government undertook to monitor such operations more than a year ago. If he does not have it at his fingertips now, would he make available to the House the reports of such monitoring in that community, in light of the fact that one medical authority is quoted as saying that there is a pollution count 4,000 times higher than the level of safety.
More specifically, I ask the minister in my second question, considering that many people in the community-apart from the direct effect of the mine itself, without working in the
Oral Questions
mine-are concerned with what has been described as a mountain-high hill of tailings nearby, and depending on which way the wind is blowing it can blow the dust loaded with dangerous fibres, as I understand it, as far as 30 or 40 miles- this is what many people would like to see removed-if he could inform the House whether the federal government, under the existing law, has taken steps to ensure that this safety precaution is carried out?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I also heard the radio report this morning on CBC and I have asked my officials to provide me with an up to date report on all the points that were raised. Certainly, all the points that the hon. member has raised will be looked into and I will be very happy to give him a full report. However, I am informed that a considerable amount of action has been taken and the company has been moving very well to comply with the regulations. I will make sure that the action is stepped-up if it needs to be.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that the miners themselves, and the wife of virtually every miner, as I understand it, took part in a demonstration at the weekend on the precise ground that what the company has committed itself to do is not sufficient to meet the health requirements, would the minister now make a commitment to the House, with specific reference to the mountain-high hill of tailings, that he will ensure that it will be dealt with properly from a health point of view in the immediate future?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to provide the hon. member with information on that particular question.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. Because at the hearings held throughout Canada by the Pepin-Robarts commission many Canadians expressed the wish for Canada to have a new constitution, can the minister tell the House whether he has had discussions with the provincial leaders on the subject in the last few weeks?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the government has already echoed the wish expressed by Canadians to give ourselves a new constitution that is truly Canadian; the right hon. Prime Minister, through his efforts in the last ten years, has proved that he is willing to do everything possible to achieve that end. I have had conversations with some of my colleagues in the

May 1, 1978
Oral Questions
last few months, but must say that I have not held meetings on the subject with my provincial colleagues in the last few weeks.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of starting serious discussions on the possibility of having a new constitution, can the minister tell the House whether he would look kindly on the provinces holding a conference to work out the basic principles of a new constitution, following which they could report to the central government to show their good will with regard to the new constitution that would guarantee the rights of the provinces and lead to greater stability in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister has already written twice in the last few months, in the last year, to the provincial premiers and, at the first ministers' conference in February, he and his provincial counterparts agreed on holding a conference on the constitution probably sometime in the fall.
I hope that conference will be held in the spirit of co-operation indicated by the hon. member. He can rest assured that we envisage the conference in that spirit and hope that, on the other side, no one will amuse himself by untimely banging the door.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Transport. It has been confirmed that China has expressed dissatisfaction with Canada's ability to meet its grain transportation commitments. It also appears that China is ready to enter the grain market in a substantial way, with the distinct possibility of much higher world grain prices-prices from which Canadian farmers may not benefit because China has indicated it may look to the United States for its requirements. What is the government doing to increase our grain movement to and through the west coast so that we may participate in future sales?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have done a great number of things, including the very important purchase of 8,000 hopper cars and tax incentives which allow the railways to double-track and increase the capacity to the west coast. Millions of bushels of additional storage has been constructed in Vancouver, and there are proposals for important facilities in Prince Rupert.
The fact is, we have been unloading more cars on the west coast each day than at almost any time in the past, constantly setting new records. This year we are exporting perhaps as much as 150 million bushels of wheat more than we actually

had available from the 1977 crop. We are setting a new record and doing very well.
Obviously, if we had more wheat and more capacity, we could export more because of current demands. But we are doing very well indeed. Our plan is to encourage farmers to produce more and to continue expanding facilities so that we will be able to export far more grain than at present. I do not think, however, that hon. members should overlook the fact that a record is being set.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would tell that to the Chinese. We have heard that statement in the House before. I ask the minister if officials from the Canadian Wheat Board are planning to go to China in the next few days, in an effort to calm any fears the Chinese might have about our inability to deliver grain and, if so, could he indicate what instructions they have been given? This is truly a serious situation. Prices appear to be rising, yet we are not able to fulfil all our export commitments.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are exporting more and fulfilling our commitments at a rate more rapid than we anticipated when those commitments were made. There is a backlog from the December-January period which will take some time to clear up. I dismiss the hon. member's suggestion that there is any deep-seated concern on the part of the Chinese in this regard. They know our record and they know our generally very good performance. I was in China less than a year ago and found no problem with their attitude.
I say again to the hon. member that it should be obvious that when we are exporting a record volume, twice as much as in any year when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was prime minister, obviously we have come close to our maximum capacity, but we will build more capacity because we will export more than hon. members opposite ever dreamed of.


GOVERNMENT MEMBERS APPOINTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE POSITIONS
John Carnell Crosbie: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that there is no economic or finance minister here today-Finance, Treasury Board, Revenue and ITC are all missing. Are the vacancies to be filled on the Canadian Transport Commission and on the Canadian Pension Commission, and is the government now considering the appointment, as mooted in the paper, of the hon. member of parliament for Cochrane as a member of the Canadian Transport Commission in lieu of appointment as ambassador to the Vatican, or the appointment of the hon. member for Kitchener to the Canadian Pension Commission in lieu of running for the Liberal nomination in Kitchener? Are these under consideration, Mr. Speaker?
May 1, 1978


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to the absence of the Minister of Finance, he is attending a meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Mexico City. I think hon. members opposite will realize the importance of that. As far as the rest of the question is concerned, I take it more as a representation than a question. Hon. members were complaining a few weeks ago that we were naming too many Tories to public positions and that we were depleting their ranks. Now I see the hon. member is trying to get even, and I will give that consideration.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have no fears in that direction. My question was, where will Flynn fly or Stewart cavort?


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of an answer from the Prime Minister I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. In connection with the two judicial appointments made last week of members of parliament to district courts in Ontario, did the minister refer the names of these appointees and other potential appointees to either the benchers of the Law Society of Ontario or to the appropriate committee of the Canadian Bar Association for their recommendation? If he did not, why not; and if he did, would he expand on that?
The other part of my question to the minister is to ask how he was able to persuade the hon. member for Ottawa Centre to accept an appointment when the day before he had said that he wanted to run?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to answer all the question, but with regard to the first part about whether the names were referred to the appropriate committee of the Canadian Bar Association, the answer is yes. Any other answer would be exceptional.
With regard to the rest of the question, I can only say that, contrary to newspaper reports, knowing both members appointed to the county and district court I have full confidence in them as members of the judiciary, and they were appointed on my recommendation.


APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNMENT MEMBERS TO ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question in the same vein. Is it correct that Her Majesty's Consular Corps is to be strengthened by the appointment of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine to the position of consul in New Orleans? If this is the case, when will the appointment be made?
Oral Questions
In addition, to save asking a supplementary, will the Prime Minister advise the House whether a Liberal member of this House will be ushered from the ranks of those who must have their mandates renewed or otherwise by the electorate to be appointed Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, who that member might be, and when the appointment be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will tell you what happened, Mr. Speaker. Over the past-


Mr. Alexander:: Take it easy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You take it easy. Over the past few months a great number of Tories have been coming to us asking to be appointed: I think as many as 10 or 12, but I have not made a count. When they came, the government did the usual thing: we asked ourselves whether they were qualified. Even though they were Tories, we appointed them because we judged they were qualified. We do not think a person is disqualified from serving the public in another capacity merely because he has served the public for 5, 10 or 15 years in the House of Commons. This is the position of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Nobody believes you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Having appointed some ten or so Tories to the public service by order in council, it is true that a few Liberals said, "Can we be appointed?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said, Mr. Speaker, "If you are not running away as the others were, if you are honestly wanting to change your career, then we will consider it. But not otherwise."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: I guess he has not met Joe Flynn.


SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT OF HON. MEMBER FOR KITCHENER
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and, hopefully, a short supplementary which I would like to direct to the Prime Minister. Some time ago the hon. member for Kitchener told his constituency association that there was a federal appointment waiting for him. Since then we have had senators Haidasz and Guay appointed, judge Poulin appointed and commissioner Sharp appointed, and others; and, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, even some Conservatives. Therefore, I would like to know what will happen to the hon. member for Kitchener, and will the Prime Minister tell the House why this member, who seemed to be off to such a good start, has not gone to his final reward?

May 1, 1978
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: You do not seem to be concerned about many individuals.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it the hon. member is making a representation on behalf of the hon. member for Kitchener. I think that is very noble of him. It is something we do not usually expect in this House from the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Environment). This morning I was in touch with a number of environmental groups from all parts of Canada, some of whom refuse to have their names revealed because of fear that being in touch with me would deprive them of the status which they have under the Income Tax Act. I wonder if the minister has been in touch with the Minister of National Revenue to determine whether representations made by them to members of parliament, all or several or just a few, on matters of policy or legislation, unsolicited, will deprive environmental organizations and others of the status they enjoy under the Income Tax Act?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this question has not been raised with me. I will be very happy to look into it.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the minister will make inquiries, and that he will provide assurances to the House in this area and in many others, otherwise the groups are bound to conclude that the regulations designed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa West.


REPORT ON POLLUTION OF OTTAWA RIVER
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the minister of the environment: It seems to be his day. Following his answer to a question in this House last week, can the minister tell us when we can expect the release of the report of the special joint study concerning pollution of the Ottawa River?


An hon. Member:: Change the government.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this report will be released on May 8; that is the target date that I have now. We have had consultations with the government of Quebec and, of course, the government of Ontario. We believe we now have cleared up all the questions

that were raised, especially those raised by the government of the province of Quebec, and thus we can release the report. It is a matter of getting the report printed in the proper form.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. It arises from a statement the minister put out today which is headed, "Basford introduces justice omnibus bill". Those are, of course, amendments to the Criminal Code. First of all, my question deals with the subject of rape. The bill provides that an act of rape will be treated as a form of indecent assault. As the Minister of Justice knows, the fact is that consent is no defence to assault.
Do I take it now that the provision in this new bill will be that consent will not be an element of the crime in proving rape? Secondly, the statement goes on to say that rather than restricting the offence to an act of penetration of a female, it will reduce the crime of rape to indecent assault. Does he mean that under the new statute the question of rape or indecent assault, however he wants to describe it, penetration is immaterial and the element of consent is no longer an element of the crime?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to embarrass the hon. member, but I feel bound to say-I take this to be the case-that he did not see my note on the envelope which I sent to him. This information was being sent to him as a courtesy, and not for comment or publication until the bills therein had been read for the first time later today. I am sure the hon. member's question was put now quite inadvertently.
I am not sure I followed the question of the hon. member in its entirety. The proposed amendment is to improve the law relating to sexual offences and the commission of sexual offences to take cognizance of the position taken by many-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps, in the circumstances, both the question and answer would be better left till the introduction of the bill. The hon. member for Central Nova.


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is absent today, so I would like to reserve my question.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is by way of a supplementary to the question posed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby to the Minister of State (Environment): it concerns the situation in Baie Verte and the

May 1, 1978

asbestos mines in Newfoundland. I ask the minister why his department has not seen fit to provide an on-site inspection and, as a consequence of that inspection, enforce the federal law which he has responsibility to enforce. Why were the levels of asbestos dust at this site allowed to pass the acceptable standards without the minister's department moving in?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will check the specifics of that particular question. There was considerable work being done by the government of Newfoundland, because we do not have complete jurisdiction over this particular facility, and I would expect that to be the answer. I will certainly check it out. I am advised by my officials that the levels of dust at this particular plant at Baie Verte are monitored, and I take that to mean we are watching the situation day by day as things happen.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister tells the House that the situation in Baie Verte is being monitored. Surely he must know-it has become a matter of national news-that there is a strike at this mine because the levels of dust are unacceptably high and therefore pose a serious health threat not only to the mine employees but to the residents of the town. If the strike continues, will the minister look upon this as an emergency situation and send his officials there immediately?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will take that into consideration. When the news report came out I asked for a report immediately. As soon as I get that report, if immediate action needs to be taken on my part I will be happy to so advise my staff.


An hon. Member:: Six months!


NATIONAL SECURITY
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, in the absence of the Solicitor General. It concerns the 24 reports which are mysteriously missing for the years 1971 and 1972. We now know that those reports were summaries of original documents presented to the Solicitor General for his perusal.
Given the fact that the APLQ surveillance and break-in took place in the year 1972-the actual break-in was October 6, 1972-can the Minister of Justice now give us his unequivocal assurance that none of the documents perused by the then solicitor general referred in any way to activities with respect to surveillance of subversives, or alleged subversives, or surveillance of that agency during that year?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a complete answer to that question because, as Acting Solicitor General, I am not briefed on the precise detail of the question. As I recall the answers given by the Solicitor
Oral Questions
General, he made it clear that the documents upon which the summaries were prepared were not destroyed and were available if, indeed, they had not been given already to the McDonald commission. Whether any of those summaries contain information relating to the APLQ break-in, I do not know.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The minister is well aware that in any testimony given before the McDonald inquiry, the solicitor general at the time could not be cross-examined on his knowledge, with the assistance of the missing reports. Those reports would be very significant to the inquiry. Also, out of the McDonald inquiry we now have evidence of 419 illicit entries, if I could put it that way. Breaking and entering without warrant would be another way of describing what occurred. Now, 402 of those incidents occurred in British Columbia. Since writs of assistance are available in drug cases-so these are clearly not drug cases-would the minister advise us why it was necessary for 402 illegal entries to be made in the province of British Columbia in that short period? What were they for?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will obtain an answer and give it to the hon. member.


INQUIRY WHEN SECOND REPORT ON ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS WILL BE TABLED
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister tell the House when the second report on economic boycotts will be tabled? This report was to cover the period August 1, 1977, to July 31, 1978, and was promised early in March.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe it is the intention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to table it soon.


William James Kempling: Could the Prime Minister tell us when the Bryce commission report on corporate concentration will be tabled? I understand that this report was submitted to the government last November. I suppose we may see it at some time in the future. I understand it is being edited.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The report of its being ready last November is, as far as I know, completely false. I believe it is being made ready now. My recollection is that it will be ready in the first half of May, but I would have to check that. I am certain the November date is not correct.

May 1, 1978
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE


TAX STATUS OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to those asked by hon. friends who are concerned about the tax status of charitable organizations. The right hon. gentleman indicated that he has not yet read this circular which has been a subject of debate in the House for at least two weeks. My question concerns policy. Is it the policy of the government to deprive charitable organizations of their tax status if they make recommendations to support or change government policy or the law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is really asking me for a legal opinion. I can answer him by saying that this is the precise question to which an answer is attempted in the circular put out by the department. The law, I repeat, is general. It states that charitable organizations will not pay taxes. The circular tries to indicate what is and what is not a charitable organization.
If the hon. member wants an answer to a particular question about a specific charitable organization, I would undertake to ask the department to give its advice on the matter. But, of course, that advice would only be based on the department's interpretation of the law and on the jurisprudence: in the final analysis the issue would be decided by the courts.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister is mistaken. I was not asking for an interpretation of the law; I was asking for the policy of the government. We know what the effect of this circular has been. We know it has caused real concern among charitable organizations which feel their tax status has been changed. Is it now the policy of the government to deprive charitable organizations of their tax status if they make representations which seek to support or change the law or policy of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That cannot be said to be a policy of the government. The policy of the government is embodied in the law. The law itself needs interpretation. I cannot, in all sincerity, tell the hon. member that I know how the law would be applied in a particular case. If he is asking me whether it is our intention to deprive charitable organizations of their tax advantage, the answer is, of course, that we are not. But that begs the question: What is a charitable organization? When would it cease to be a charitable organization and become one which was interested in politics, or sport, or making money?
It is the job of those in the Department of National Revenue to interpret the law, and they do the best they can. If this circular is not satisfactory, I am convinced the department would be prepared to meet with representatives desirous of arguing the case further. The law is that charitable organizations do not pay taxes. But the definition of a charitable organization has to be interpreted. This is done by the department and by the courts. It is not the purpose of the govern-

ment to try to interpret the law in such a way as to try to penalize anybody.


Charles Joseph Clark: The document states, in part, that written or oral representations to all or mostly all members of parliament or ministers as part of a campaign to influence intended or specific legislation cannot properly be made by a charity wishing to maintain registered status. That is the clear language of this document, plainly showing a policy on the part of the government to attempt to stop actions by charitable organizations which, in the words of the document, might embarrass the government.
Since the Prime Minister appears not to be clear about the document and about the policy, I should like to ask him this: Will he suspend this document and its effect until it has been reviewed in consultation with the charitable organizations which are adversely affected by it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If it were within my power to suspend it, I would tell the House right now that I suspend it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. lady laughs. This is not what her leader asked. I hereby suspend it, then.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must explain, at least to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a distillation of the law. It is an attempt to help the taxpayer by distilling the jurisprudence in those areas where the law is applied. If the taxpayer does not wish to be guided by this, he need not. If this document can be improved, it will be improved. But it will remain, in the last analysis, for the courts applying the law to decide whether an organization is charitable or not. And this is hereby suspended, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Now that the Prime Minister has backed down and suspended this document-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -I applaud him for doing it. Hon. members opposite can bleat as much as they like. Will the right hon. gentleman give us a commitment, having suspended this document, that any further interpretation of a similar nature will be worked out in consultation with the charitable organizations concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am assured that this document was prepared in consultation with many charitable organizations. One hon. member opposite shakes his head: I hear him shaking his head.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is possible, of course, that they have not all been consulted. I must say I do not think the Leader of the
May 1, 1978

Opposition understands the law and its application in administrative fields.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will you give us an undertaking to consult with the charitable organizations concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The departments are at all times called upon to administer the law under their jurisdiction. The government has nothing to do with this. It is the function of the departments to put these documents together, and they are as helpful as they can be to the citizens concerned.


PRIVILEGE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. When I received this package from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) I opened it. It was not sent to me in confidence. The envelope was upside down. I did see a note from the Minister of Justice that the bill would be read later today. I want to apologise. It was an accident on my part because I did not read the outside of the envelope. The Minister of Justice has confirmed that. I just want to say, after having been here a number of years, that I have never broken confidence with any minister or any member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my answer, I fully accept the statement of the hon. member. He and I have been either minister or official critic for quite some time, and I know that our relationship is such that confidences are not broken.


MR. COSSITT-HOUSE OF COMMONS-VACANCIES IN MEMBERSHIP
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief question of privilege. Under the rules of the House I know that I do not have the right to object-and I certainly would not-to the fact that the Chair saw fit in its judgment not to allow me a supplementary question. In retrospect I realize that this judgment was probably quite correct and that the supplementary question which I had for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is really a question of privilege rather than a question.
In about 50 words or less I would like to outline that question of privilege. As of today there are approximately 14 House of Commons vacancies, and over one million Canadians are deprived of representation in this House. This obviously interferes with House business with regard to having full Commons committees operating, having quorums at all times and so forth. These vacancies increase the workload of hardworking members who are already here and who must fill in by assisting in representing those constituencies which are not
Introduction of Bills
represented. I ask the Prime Minister on this question of privilege why he does not, despite the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Flynn), call an election immediately?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that he does have a question and not a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Ronald Basford: for leave to introduce Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Parole Act.


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

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-449, to amend the Winding-Up Act (publication of notices).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment to the Winding-Up Act is to extend to all provinces in Canada the requirement that public notices and announcements be issued in both official languages.


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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: for leave to introduce Bill C-450, to amend the Railway Act (signs, notices and forms).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to remove from this act the restrictive
5010

May 1, 1978
Order Paper Questions
provisions concerning public notices and announcements and to permit use of both official languages in all provinces in Canada. At present, this requirement is limited to Quebec. This bill also proposes the adoption of international symbols for railway crossings.


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

Stanley Ronald Basford: for leave to introduce Bill C-52, to amend the Criminal Code and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto and in consequence thereof.


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

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-451, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1978 (duration of House of Commons).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, this bill in effect would set a four-year term for parliament without curtailing the right of members to force an election earlier or later, if either is the desire of 100 members. I introduce this bill at this time because representation in this House is now being depleted very rapidly, and I think most hon. members would agree that it would be easy to find 100 members who would be in favour of having an election called if this bill were implemented.


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

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,362, 1,376, 1,379 and 1,454.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Were any grants made to the Positive Action Committee of Montreal by the Department of the Secretary of State and, if so, for what specific purpose?
2.	How many persons does the Committee employ and what amount of the grant will be paid to them for their employment?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1. Yes, a grant of $50,000 has been approved of which $20,000 has been paid in fiscal year 1977/78 and $30,000 is earmarked for fiscal year 1978/79 subject to satisfactory completion of specific phases of the study. The organization is undertaking a study to assess the impact of current trends in Quebec upon the social, cultural and economic fabric of Montreal. This study is intended to provide a better understanding of the present situation and enable governments and citizens to act to maintain the vitality and bilingual nature of the city.
2. Assuming acceptance by the department of all phases of the study: Honoraria to about ten individuals who will direct committees and write reports: Amount, $20,000; Student assistants (about ten): Amount $10,000; Translation: Amount $5,000; Preparation, typing, printing of surveys and draft reports and other miscellaneous expenses: Amount $15,000; Total $50,000.


Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska): 1.	Since the passing of the Canada Student Loans Act, did the government give any fiscal compensation to the Province of Quebec and, if so, what was the (a) nature of the compensation (b) total amount?
2.	How many students per province benefitted from a loan under the Act?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. Yes. The government of Quebec opted out of the Canada Student Loans Act in 1964 and, under the provision of that act qualified for an "alternative payment", (a) The alternative payment is an amount obtained by multiplying the total net amount paid by the federal government to lenders in respect of interest charges and loss or death claims on loans issued by provinces participating in the program by the quotient obtained by dividing the 18/24 year old population of the opting out province by the 18/24 year old population in participating provinces for the year concerned, (b) To June 30, 1977, a total of $76.2 million had been paid to the province of Quebec under the alternative payment provision.
2. A cumulative total of the number of students assisted by province is not available because many students receive aid from more than one province during their education. In the loan year 1976/77 assistance was authorized under the program to the following numbers of students by the provinces shown: British Columbia: 16,887; Alberta: 14,015; Saskatchewan: 5,069; Manitoba: 7,759; Ontario: 88,732; New Brunswick: 6,567; Nova Scotia: 9,471; Prince Edward Island: 1,458; Newfoundland: 4,888; Yukon: 80; Northwest Territories: 55; Total 154,981.
May 1, 1978


Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska): What is the salary of the (a) President (b) Vice-Presidents (c) various categories of employees working for the Canadian International Development Agency?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) $49,500-$65,300; (b) $33,300-552,300; (c) AG, $27,510-$31,738; AR, $27,941-$35,358; BI, $27,029-$31,170; ES, $24,481-539,324; ED-EDS, $23,258-537,800; ENG, $15,892-540,800; FO, $24,828-529,124; LS, $13,127-526,187; AS, $14,122-532,500; CS, $9,842-$29,400; FI, $14,676-532,600; IS, $10,620-532,600; OM, $12,340-532,900; PE, $13,500-536,100; PM, $15,746-534,900; PG, $ 10,047-$29,471; FS, $23,299-533,684; DD, $10,983-$16,374; EG-EDSS, $16,738-518,772; GT, $12,372-522,064; SI, $13,423-521,486; DA, $11,935-514,543; CR, $8,483-$15,177; OE-MSE, $7,319-59,085; ST-TYP, $7,855-58,568; ST-OCE, $9,803-510,712; ST-STN, $7,368-510,228; ST-SCY, $7,443-515,447; GS-MES, $8,268-58,268; GS-STS, $8,794-58,794.


CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS-PETITIONS
Mr. Malone: Has the Secretary of State received any letters or petitions since January 1, 1978 protesting the present methods of awarding Canada Council grants and, if so (a) how many (b) how many signatures were attached to the petitions?


John (Moody) Roberts: Between January 1 and March 31, 1978, the Secretary of State Department received approximately 450 letters concerning the methods of awarding Canada Council grants. It is estimated that some 1,000 signatures were attached to the letters.

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 545, 1,146 and 1,364 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Are investigators entrusted with compiling statistics on unemployment and, if so, how many are there in (a) Canada (b) each province (c) each constituency?
2.	How many hours do they work per month?
3.	What is their average salary per (a) hour (b) month?
4.	What are their travel expenses per mile?
5.	Since 1970, what has been the annual cost of compiling unemployment statistics for Statistics Canada?
6.	(a) By whom (b) in what manner (c) for how long, on the average, are such investigators appointed?
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
7.	Do the investigators visit new households each month and, if so (a) how many (b) according to what criteria and how are the samples determined?
8.	What are the names and addresses of the investigators in the Constitutency of Shefford?
Return tabled.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each month of 1977, for which information is available, by what percentage did the estimated number of unemployed exceed the number of persons receiving unemployment insurance benefit payments?
2.	In each case, what estimated percentage of those receiving payments were not available for work?
3.	What is the general character or group and the percentage of each, of those seeking employment but not receiving unemployment benefit payments?
Return tabled.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): During the 1976-77 fiscal year, did the government allocate funds to the Young Canada at Work Programme and, if so, what was the (a) total amount (b) amount for each province (c) amount for each Quebec constituency?
Return tabled.


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



POINT OF ORDER


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have risen a number of times regarding questions which have been on the order paper for as long as two years. Without going through all the numbers and taking the time of the House to do so, I refer to questions beginning with questions beginning in the 30's and on up. Each time I have raised this point of order all I have received from the parliamentary secretary have been guarantees that they will do their best, that many questions have been answered, a very high percentage, and so forth.
I would like to refer specifically to two questions which are long standing but which are easy to answer, and there is really no valid excuse for the government's not having answered them. The first is question No. 54 regarding the brother-in-law of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), Tony Merchant, and the amount of legal business he has received from the Government of Canada, including what he was paid to represent the Crown in a case against radio station CKRM. That question is simple enough to have been answered months ago, but the answer has not been forthcoming, and I hope it is not due to the fact that Tony Merchant is a Liberal candidate for the coming election.
5012

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
The second question to which I would like to refer is No. 45. The matter dealt with in this question should concern hon. members on both sides because it is very serious. It has to do with the fingerprinting of public servants. This has been going on for months and months and, in fact, several years under this government, yet no one on the government side has seen fit to do anything but admit that it is going on. My question asks how many have been fingerprinted and why they are being fingerprinted. It asks about people who are outside security sensitive positions such as positions in the Department of National Defence and so forth. Why is this going on among people who are not in security positions? What are the numbers involved, and why is this House not being told of this situation?
There is an invasion of privacy involving thousands of public servants. The government is well aware that many refused to be fingerprinted, yet nothing is forthcoming.
I am surprised that members of the free press of this country have not gone after the government for not doing something about this situation and for not making the reasons public.
I conclude by asking the parliamentary secretary not to give a general answer but to refer specifically to questions Nos. 45 and 54 and to tell me when the answers will be forthcoming.
[ Translation}


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I shall find out whether questions Nos. 45 and 54 are those which the hon. member mentioned today.
[English)


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen (for Mr. Andras) that Bill C-10, to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, when the debate ended on Friday I had been responding to my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board (Mr. Lefebvre), with respect to the difficulties that we in this House have with respect to inspecting, controlling, and superintending, in the way that the House of Commons has

always intended that it be done, the expenditures of government. I will not repeat the arguments which I advanced at that time because I know the parliamentary secretary is very anxious to have the debate conclude within a reasonable time, an anxiety which, I want to assure him, is shared on all sides of the House. Hon. members are free to read the remarks I made at that time.
A number of things have occurred in the House since the introduction of Bill C-10 and the comments made in the second reading debate on the bill which bring to mind just how important is the position of the comptroller general. For instance, let me refer to the case of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) and of a public servant, Mr. Larry Stopforth, a case which Mr. Stopforth won in the courts of law wherein he was awarded not an unreasonable amount in damages for libel, through repetition of a statement about that gentleman's professional performance, made in the House of Commons, for which the minister was found liable to pay both damages and costs. The case is now subject to appeal and, therefore, I make no comments on the merits of the matter, but what is important with respect to that case, so far as the use of the public money is concerned, particularly because of the nature of the case, is that there seems no way in which it could be reasonably found that a minister of the Crown, in the course of libelling one of his public servants, could be held to have been acting within his authority, and therefore, by tradition, custom or otherwise, have his damages paid out of the public purse. It is one thing to defend him; it is quite another to go that far and to indicate that one is prepared to go that far.
This is important because it calls into play the whole question of ministerial responsibility. Surely there has to be some action somewhere with respect to a minister of the Crown regarding what he does in relation to the operations of his department or in relation to the position he takes in so far as his public servants are concerned.
What happened to Mr. Stopforth as a result of what has now been judiciably found to be a wrong in terms of the description of what he did? He was found not to have been grossly negligent by a court of law. What happened was that this highly placed public servant, who asked only for the privilege of serving his country with the skills and the expertise that were his, has now found himself doing work that does not occupy or challenge either his intellect, training, or ability. Notwithstanding the fact that questions have been raised in the House about the matter, the position of that public servant and how he has been treated by the Government of Canada- that is where it lies because it was a minister of the Crown who maligned him-are a travesty that no right-thinking member of the House of Commons should tolerate for one moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: But this government is prepared to tolerate it and, while tolerating it, is prepared to say that, in the unequal balance between its resources in the legal sense and the resources of a public servant in his private
May 1, 1978

capacity, the government is prepared to add yet another weight to that inequality, that is to cover the indemnity and save from penalty a minister who has maligned a public servant.
There have been a number of things that have happened in the last little while that enrage one, that make one wonder about the direction in which this government is going and about its sense of responsibility, but there is nothing that has occurred in the last little while that has shaken people as much as the knowledge that this government would stoop, without any statutory authority whatsoever-and that is admitted-to paying those damages. If there was even a case for a requirement of a comptroller general, if there was ever a case for a subsequent inquiry by the Auditor General, if there was ever a case of the misuse of public funds, then we have that in the case of Larry Stopforth versus Jean-Pierre Goyer. I suspect that that is the kind of thing a comptroller general would never allow to see the light of day, not that it would be hidden but that it would never occur.
If I sound angry and incensed about it, I am. I am angered that this should be tolerated. The government can seek redemption, if it wants, by backing off publicly from such an untenable position. What sanction is there? You and I, Mr. Speaker, if we go to court, have to pay our own fees. That is quite one thing. If damages are found against us when we have not been acting correctly in the course of our duties-and there is no way that a member of the government, in slandering or libelling a public servant, can be held to be acting in the course of his duties-then, like everybody else, we have to go to the bank and borrow the money if we do not have it. I suggest that if this kind of thing is allowed to stand, then the whole doctrine of ministerial responsibility will be split asunder and the balance of fairness that should be found in a judicial proceeding will not be found in this case. I for one, so long as I am here, will say to those who are here representing the minister today that it is absolutely unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice, and we might as well say so.
The other thing that concerns me is the mind of a minister who would allow the kind of information circular to be put out with respect to registered charities, political objects and activities, that was the subject of the discussion today in the question period. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can say that he withdraws it. He is right, but he does not have the power to withdraw it. That is not the question. The question is how has it occurred. How did he ever decide that we can send out a circular which has been deemed unjust in the reasonable representations of good organizations in the community, churches, and charitable organizations? It involves an expenditure of public funds and, if you can accept what the Prime Minister said, it has been going on for some period of time.
Perhaps the comptroller general will be helpful in ending this practice. Is it any wonder charitable organizations are concerned about it? Is it any wonder people who observe this government and are outside those organizations are concerned
Financial Administration Act
about its attitude and mentality? The Prime Minister said that it is a distillation of the law and an attempt to expand the law. The former minister of national revenue gave the lie to that when he told the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) that there was no definition of political activity. In this case, justice varies with the length of the minister's foot. Is it any wonder people are concerned about what kind of government we have? What are the moral standards of the government? What can we believe?
The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) pointed out today the effect of this. For instance, if those who favour a continuation of the law in respect of abortion decide to write members of parliament, then they are in danger of losing their charitable status. If organizations in favour of expanding the grounds or removing it from the Criminal Code, decide to write their members of parliament, then this so-called law is infringed and they can lose their charitable status. One must think of the charitable organizations in Canada and the wording of that doctrine, as set forth in the gospel according to the Department of National Revenue dated February 27, 1978. In part the document reads as follows:
An activity is considered political if it is designed to embarrass or otherwise induce a government to take a stand, change a policy, or enact legislation for a purpose particular to the organization carrying on the activity.
Presentation of briefs is considered to be a political activity. Would this include the presentation of briefs to members of parliament, ministers of the Crown, and departmental officials? Surely this practice cannot be allowed to continue. The Prime Minister must do more than displaying little theatrics as he did today. They are likened to his flouncing out of the House a few days ago, saying, "I withdraw it". He does not have the power to withdraw it, and he realizes that.
Certainly Senator Guay ought to be roasted for permitting this document to emanate out of the bowels of the Department of National Revenue. One cannot blame the Public Service for this. Public servants are under direction, control of and are responsible to ministers. In turn, the ministers are responsible to the House of Commons and ultimately to Canadians. We hope people will have an opportunity to make a choice very soon, but in the words of Geoffrey Stevens, perhaps this government suffers from congenital cold feet.
I commend the document entitled "A Legacy of Spending" which is now available in bookstores. It brings together information from the order paper, debates, and the government, on a host of areas. It indicates an attitude of wastefulness, improvidence, and congenital lack of judgment on the part of the government. I will not point to many areas, as other hon. members have done so.
Can one imagine a Young Canada Works program giving $25,121 to an organization known as Creation II to deal with human information overload? The metro Social Planning Council received two grants of $18,000 and $43,000. The funds were used mainly to draw up applications for other groups wishing to receive funds from the federal government. Is that not a waste of public money? Approximately $40,000 was used to produce two pro-communist plays for presentation

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
in metro Toronto high schools. The recipient of this grant stated that he had strong communist leanings. Also he received a $26,000 grant to produce children's plays for public parks. Can one imagine that type of program?
There is a place for a granting program. I am not arguing that. But I am concerned about the looseness of the department which is administering this program. Should these things be allowed to happen? A minister of the Crown took great pains to tell parliament and the public that he makes the ultimate choice, for the Young Canada Works program. According to that minister, it is not done on the recommendation of hon. members of parliament, nor on the recommendations from ministerial advisory groups. The minister indicated that he makes the final decision.
A grant of $15,880 was given to a project known as "The Shadow of Dracula" to produce a full-length film with this intriguing title, using the residents of a housing corporation development in Toronto. Is that how public funds should be spent? Is it any wonder hon. members of the official opposition support the concept of a comptroller general, and have done so for some time? At the outset we were dismayed by the government deciding to stand against the concept of a comptroller general. It was indicated that, for some reason or other, there was a mystery surrounding that concept, and that it might interfere with ministerial responsibility, which is a doctrine the government is prepared to ignore when it is convenient.
The sum of $23,500 was granted for a study on how to demystify the dance, another project which was approved by a minister of the Crown and not a public servant. It was not approved by a member of parliament for the area, nor by a member of the public who was involved in a ministerial advisory group which supposedly advises ministers of the Crown. This is one of the projects which was "ultimately approved by the minister". That justifies the office of comptroller general.
Various other examples are contained in the document to which I referred. For example, a drafting clerk at Dairyland, Coquitlam, Mr. Maurice Muirhead, received $306,784. That grant was under a Local Initiatives program and not Young Canada Works. Is it local initiative for a man to be able to con the government out of $306,784? According to the reports, the man had no qualifications whatsoever. He had a full-time job, and yet received four grants totalling more than $250,000. Surely that was not done on the advice of the hon. member of parliament for that area, nor on the advice of constituency advisory groups which are supposed to represent the taxpayers of Canada. Again this was a project approved by the minister.
I could refer to many such projects, but in particular I should like to refer to those famous buttons which were produced by the former minister of national health and welfare and charged to the Status of Women. Has Your Honour ever heard any of the women's groups talking positively about the Status of Women program instituted by this government, except to say it is the greatest study on cosmetics since

Revlon? Have you ever heard them speak in a laudatory way about that? No, you have not, Mr. Speaker.
We had a question on the order paper of the House of Commons asking how much it cost to produce those buttons, which read "Why not?" or "Pourquoi pas?", on behalf of that program as a promotion. The answer by the then minister of national health and welfare, now the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde), was that they cost $62,224. I suggest you could go to any self-respecting women's group in this country, and its membership would find a positive use for that $62,000 odd.
Why do I raise these questions and why do I put these examples on the record of this House of Commons? A young person came to see me last Thursday. He is a graduate of a university, with a degree in psychology. He wants to put his skills to use. He has studied for four years, plus one, and cannot now get a job. He cannot find employment. He has had difficulty in finding employment even in an area outside his skills.
We have one million people unemployed in this country, including young people who cannot fulfil their ambitions or even use their training. They are discouraged and upset. I think of what the Prime Minister has said about these people wanting to move somewhere else, and I say to myself that if ever there was a government which needed a comptroller general, in the face of these examples I have given surely this is the government. If ever a country needed a change of government, in the face of the matters I have raised surely it is this country.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), when he was leader of the opposition, suggested that the government spills more sometimes in respect of some projects than it spends. I think of the senior citizens who petition members of parliament about the inadequacy of pension programs and the whole performance of the spouse's allowance. The moment an individual over 65 dies and leaves a widow between ages 60 and 65, even before that spouse is buried the survivor has that allowance taken away. When this occurs, and when I think about the wastage by this government which says it cannot afford to do better, then I say no wonder the Canadian people cannot believe in this government, and no wonder they cannot credit it with being able to speak the truth on anything. No wonder we need a comptroller general in Canada.
I happen to be a member of the committee on statutory instruments that twice has said the use of regulations to increase the postal rates is wrong in law, yet we have heard the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) say he does not care whether it is wrong in law. It apparently does not matter to him whether this practice flouts parliament. He says he will run things by order in council. When I hear that kind of thing, and the refusal of a minister of the Crown to deal in any way with the question of the legality of this in the face of that unanimous report, then I say there is no stronger case anywhere for a comptroller general. That report was not just
May 1, 1978

supported by members of the Conservative and NDP parties, but was unanimously passed by members of the Liberal party as well as members of the Conservative and NDP. It said that the last postal rate was illegal, and that suggestion was supported by members of both Houses of Parliament. In spite of that, a minister of the government has said he does not care whether it is legal or illegal, he intends to go ahead with it anyway.
I also consider what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and Senator Jack Marshall, who was the veterans affairs critic in this House before being summoned to the other place, have attempted. Those two gentlemen have asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to do certain things for widows of veterans and for veterans themselves by simply living up to the promises this government has made to a dwindling group of Canadians. They have asked this government simply to comply with doctrines that are existent. They have combined, time after time, to move motions under Standing Order 43, but members on the government side have turned them down. I suppose they have done that because they are worried about restraints on spending. But when this government wastes money as though it were going out of style, then I say we need a comptroller general in this country.
At the report stage of this bill we moved amendments that would give the comptroller general some power and some status in law. We moved amendments to give him some way to muscle into that club of deputy ministers in order to do his job, by requiring them to perform according to guidelines rather than by order in council or guidelines that have come from the bowels of government behind the green covered doors. We tried in that way to give the comptroller general the power to require performance according to the guidelines adopted in the open here in this place, yet we heard government members say they would not give us that kind of regulation.
In view of all this, I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and to Senator Jack Marshall that they ought not wonder why their reasonable requests, made on behalf of widows, veterans, widows of veterans, unmarried people, and spouses left alone as a result of death, have fallen on barren ground, because this is the kind of government we have, and this is the kind of government that had to be kicked into acceptance of the concept of a comptroller general in the first place. However, when we try to arm the comptroller general with some teeth, the government turns us back.
There are many things to be done in this country. I think of many people I have met who are handicapped and are trying to enter the public service, and trying to find a place in other areas of employment, asking only to be given a chance to compete as equals, all to no avail. They are not asking for special treatment, they just want an equal opportunity.
When I read that report prepared jointly by Treasury Board and the staff of the Public Service Commission and hear the minister say that his heart is in the right place-and I think it is-but he can support only these baby steps of implementation because to do otherwise would be very costly, and I stack
Financial Administration Act
this against the wastage which is set forth in this book, then I despair and wonder about the meaning of words such as honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, things that we ought to expect of this government.
Surely all of us have seen that brief relating to funding of research and development prepared by the Canadian Advanced Technology Association for consideration by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). I am not going to read it now, but it asks for a reasonable and certain approach to a funding program for research and development in order to assist in the development of Canadian industry, and employment opportunities for Canadians. When I think of the waste of some of the government programs, waste so great that we do not have any money for these programs of merit, then I say this makes the Minister of Finance looks pretty sick when he suggests the opposition is always advocating the spending of money.
There are great things to be done in this country. There are things that can be done for the disadvantaged. We have come to be accustomed to accepting second best, the lowest common denominator, because that is the kind of government we have. There are the disadvantaged, but there are advantages to be had, there are opportunities that we can build. There is an economic sector crying out for action and industrial strategy that should be put forward by this government. There are employment opportunities that should be made in the private sector and condoned by a government that really cares. It is no answer to say "you are going to spend money," when so much money is being wasted.
If there are some hon. members who have not seen a copy of that book, I would suggest they read it. It is important that we understand that there has to be a program with respect to spending and, indeed, there must be with respect to approaches to programs. That has not happened here.
As a result of this waste, senior citizens right now are saying, "I have inadequate housing; I don't know how I can make ends meet; I have to give up my home." Veterans come to me and say-and this is not unique to myself-"I am having trouble. Would you see what you can do about having the Pension Commission look at my pension?" Young people come to me and say that they want to work and they want opportunities to use the skills we asked them to get so the world would be their oyster, so that we would benefit from their learning. In the face of all this the government-leaderless, directionless, listing and drifting-allows these opportunities to pass by, and these people who are disadvantaged remain disadvantaged.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act


Walter David Baker: I thank hon. members, Mr. Speaker. I will not indulge the good intentions of the House any further except to say, sir, that there is a challenge in this country to be met and there is a government inadequate to the challenge. It is important that these programs, and the funds that are available for the programs, be utilized in a fair, honest, and unwasteful manner. The government has demonstrated that it is absolutely incapable on all of those counts.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Bill C-10 the first thing I would like to say- and it has been said on a number of occasions-is that the government really does not want a comptroller general. There is no question that ministers were dragged, kicking and screaming, and that it was forced upon them as a result of the effectiveness of a very alert opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear hon. members laughing. The fact is well known. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who talked somewhat at length about a book entitled "A Legacy of Spending." It is an indictment of the way this government has misused and misappropriated the public purse.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was right when he indicated that we need a comptroller general that will get involved with the Canada Council. It seems to me that what they are doing, with the acceptance of this government, is condoning undue exploitation of sex, vulgarity, indecency, filth and depravity. At the same time-and it has been mentioned by many members, particularly of late by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton-we turn a deaf ear to our veterans, and our widows.
What has happened to those who were able to become involved with the spouse's allowance? The government says, "Here is money because you are now 60"-and up to 64- "and married to someone who has the old age pension." But the moment that person, who is entitled to the old age pension, passes away, this government in its callousness and cold disregard for those who can least afford to be hit so hard, says it is going to take this money back. Yet, it condones dirt, filth, and thinks that this will be accepted by the Canadian people. Canadians want to know the priorities of this government. How can the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) stand up and say, "Well, I can't do anything about it; the Canada Council is an autonomous organization set up by parliament"? Surely, every now and again this government must take some leadership and must give some leadership.
I do not buy this bit about autonomous groups frivolously wasting and spending the taxpayers' dollars without a minister being responsible. The sooner we bring on the election, whenever his lordship wants to call it, the sooner you are going to see a dramatic change in the way this country is run. It seems to me that their flimflam, their cover-up, is not being accepted any more.


An hon. Member:: What is that word?
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Flimflam.


Walter David Baker: Spell it for him.


An hon. Member:: It is the first time I have heard it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What the Canadian people are looking for is some honesty.


An hon. Member:: What about some facts?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear the hon. member requesting some facts. He ought to know that as a result of the last Goldfarb poll the Liberal party is in trouble. That is why we have not gone to the people.


An hon. Member:: Tell us what you can do.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I certainly appreciate my weekend's in Ontario, because when I go out west to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, or Alberta they all say, "Do not waste your time out here because we are going to vote Tory, we are sick of the Liberals." They have always been sick of the Liberals.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Order!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I heard my hon. friend say order. The people in the west say, "Go back to Ontario."


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member who represents Oakville should know that his time is extremely limited. I do not want to bring him into it, Mr. Speaker, but he asked to be involved in this debate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I thought I would put something on the record as far as his future is concerned.
We are dealing with Bill C-10, Mr. Speaker, and it is a frightening bill. It has only one clause, and bills of one clause must be questioned for their motives when the explanatory note merely brings into being the comptroller general. There is merely one clause, and the explanatory note says:
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 that office.
It is misleading because it does not provide for the assignment of duties and functions to the incumbent of that office. In no way can anyone read into it any particular assignment or anything that is close to an assignment.
When members of parliament see bills of one paragraph come before the House, it is necessary that they probe them and that they probe deeply, as we have probed. Once we give the government this bill, the comptroller general is gone as far as members of parliament are concerned. He will not be reporting to parliament; he will not even be reporting to an appropriate standing committee; but he will be reporting through the Auditor General. That is not acceptable to us and


An hon. Member:: Could we talk about the bill?


An hon. Member:: All our time is limited here.
May 1, 1978

that is why we have attempted to give some idea as to what the responsibilities of the comptroller general should be and must be. We are not going to give this government a blank cheque.
This country has been very disturbed to discover that Treasury Board has lost control of the public purse. In the Auditor General's last report, and many other reports he has commented regarding the financial management and control by this government. I am not trying to say we are not not for the comptroller general, because we believe that this office is required in order to control public spending. The Auditor General said that the financial management of government departments, agencies, and Crown corporations is "grossly inadequate" and a "serious situation."
Although I support the legislation because it is surely a step in the right direction, I am concerned about the bill as drafted. The Auditor General had some ideas on what this bill should do. He spelled out quite specifically the functions and responsibilities of the comptroller general in paragraph 2.15 of his report for the fiscal year ending March, 1976, as follows:
His basic responsibilities would include the design, development, implementation, and monitoring of adequate systems and procedures to ensure that the form of estimates provides a sound basis for the government's budgetary system.
That is the plank that the Auditor General considered necessary-it is part of the criteria he wanted, and we in the opposition approved and tried to move an amendment to that effect.
In paragraph 3.10 of his report he stated:
The role of the Comptroller General of Canada should be to see that departmental systems function in this fashion, and to examine the estimates of departments, not from a resource allocation point of view, since this should remain the responsibility of the Treasury Board Secretariat, but to make sure that the underlying systems reliably reveal planned efficiency and economy and that detail is adequate enough for subsequent analysis of variations between actual and planned results.
That is what the Auditor General said, and it is he who gives us leadership. We do not have the expertise, so we have to call upon him. The government will not tell us anything because it is secretive and does not like the opposition or the people of Canada to know anything. That is why we have to call on the Auditor General to tell us. He gave us direction and we, if we are to be responsible, must follow it.
Reaction to what the Auditor General stated has been negative and vague, in my view. This legislation does not spell out the specific duties of the comptroller general at all. If the position is not given a clear, statutory mandate, it is my submission that it will be nothing more than window-dressing. It will be just a name. We will have no more assurance that he will be able to control the public purse than we had with Treasury Board, and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton indicated how much control we have had there when he read excerpts from "A Legacy of Spending".
In his 1975 and 1976 reports the Auditor General recommended responsibilities for the form of both the estimates and the public accounts. It is noted that the responsibilities of the comptroller general as described by the government do not
Financial Administration Act
presently include the form of the estimates, except to provide advice. They just want the comptroller general to be some weakling, without power and without clout. All they want him for is to give advice, and we know what this government does with advice-it just throws it in the wastepaper basket. I cannot understand the arrogance of this government. After ten years of arrogance you would think ministers would learn a lesson but they are insensitive.
The Financial Management Institute agrees with the Auditor General that the comptroller general should have direct responsibility for both the estimates and the public accounts. One challenge for the position will be to foster public confidence in the integrity of the financial information presented by the government. This challenge will obviously be more difficult if the comptroller general is responsible for the form of the public accounts and for consistency between estimates and public accounts but can only advise on the form of the estimates. Surely these facts point to the need to spell out the mandate of the comptroller general.
I want to emphasize that, as the legislation stands, it does not establish the position in the manner that the Auditor General proposed. One almost wonders why the whole project or problem is being dumped into the lap of the new Comptroller General. The government does not want to give him any assistance-it does not want to tell him what he should be doing-it does not want him to have any legislative clout. We must go along with this bill, however, because we feel it is a step in the right direction.
This party examined the Auditor General's report thoroughly and offered a meaningful amendment to this bill which could not be called offensive. It was couched in general terms and was not offensive to the Financial Administration Act, and would have given not only the comptroller general but the public an idea of what was intended with this new office. Without the terms of reference or the mandate spelled out, it is only window-dressing. We offered an amendment which read in part as follows:
(2.2) The Comptroller General of Canada shall design, develop, implement and monitor such systems that will ensure that
(a)	the form of Estimates provides a sound basis for budgetary control;
What is offensive about a simple statement like that? It gives a direction in terms of budgetary control and provides a sound basis for it.
The next thing we said about the duties of the comptroller general was this:
(b)	public moneys and assets are under effective custody and control at all
times;
Is that offensive to Canadians, to the government, to the comptroller general, to the Auditor General, Mr. Speaker? The only sector to find that offensive is this government, this arrogant government.
The amendment continued:
(c)	accounting procedures and financial reports conform to accepted accounting principles and standards;
5018

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
What is so wrong about that? It is clear, meaningful and desirable, but the government decided it did not want it. It wants the comptroller general to be under its control. That is what will happen when this bill is passed.
We gave them another idea in this amendment in these words:
(e) satisfactory procedures measure the effectiveness of government programs;
Is that offensive, Mr. Speaker? Of course not, but the government wants to throttle the comptroller general and, if this bill is passed, that is what will happen because he will have to take orders from the Treasury Board. He will not be responsible to parliament. Mr. Speaker, I am getting sick and tired of agencies, Crown corporations, and even this government not being responsible to parliament, and the Canadian people are getting sick and tired of it.


Walter David Baker: They are going to get rid of them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I accept what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton just said-the Canadian people will get rid of this government.
We even went further in the amendment and indicated that if we had somehow or other stepped on the toes of Treasury Board, the secretariat or this government, they could put in the "Catch 22" phrase in the following terms:
and without restricting the generality of the foregoing shall perform such additional duties and functions as may be assigned to him by the Treasury Board.
What is wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? The government does not want it-it wants to flimflam the Canadian people, to govern in secrecy.
I was concerned about this, so I thought the best thing would be to ask the Auditor General what he thought of the amendment. The poor man has been listening to Treasury Board and the law officers of the Crown who wanted to talk about precedents-they claimed that this thing had never happened before and therefore they could not spell out the duties of a deputy minister. I say that is a lot of nonsense. This parliament can do anything it wants as long as we have an alert, an awake and responsible government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And the Auditor General is good, let me say that. All hon. members would commend him highly for the very significant role he has accepted and for the way in which he is discharging his duties. Thank goodness we have him. He is not afraid of these guys. The government whip has said he is an old friend of his. The whip in due time will have to determine whether he has any friends in Hamilton Mountain.


An hon. Member:: Do you?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not represent Hamilton Mountain. The hon. member who is the Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs, I think-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) when he referred to Hamilton Mountain that it seems to me in committee that Mr. Macdonell said:
I know that Mr. MacFarlane has a tremendous reputation in the sports field.


An hon. Member:: Is that a point of order?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, do you know what the hon. member has just done? He has misled the House. I want him to tell me that he is reading that from some report or some committee hearings whereby the Auditor General makes a specific reference. I do not want to pursue it. But if he does not have it I want him to stand up and say that he is just joking and just trying to bring some levity to this debate. We do not need any levity because it is a very serious matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain is rising on a point of order.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, this item is from the Committee Report on Miscellaneous Estimates. It appears at page 2:46. It is a very serious point and I was not joking at all. He said:
I know that Mr. MacFarlane has a tremendous reputation in the sports field, and he has used the analogy of two referees, referees of authority, and so on. This gives me an opportunity to clarify what it is I am trying to say because it is quite clear that there has been a misunderstanding . ..
Mr. Macdonell was clearing up a point where he had used the words umpire and referee, and the analogy which I had used in sports aided him in clarifying that he had not meant this at all, which is what this bill is all about.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wish the government whip would go back to sleep because he is being offensive at this particular time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest that all members of this House have tremendous reputations and I suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) to get on with Bill C-10 and go back to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was trying to do until some of the smart-alecks on the other side intervened without any reason. This is not acceptable, and it is no cheap political trick. There is another dummy-dummy in the backbench; they are trying to get in. 1 did not mention anyone's name, so he is safe.
I will return to what I was trying to put before this House in terms of the edification not only of the other ministers but of

May 1, 1978

the one sitting on the front bench. No one else cares about the bill. I am sorry, I see the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) as well, and the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand). Are there any more? We will not count the government whip. I will carry on with what I was trying to say concerning the Auditor General.
I went through each and every one of those particular subamendments that we found were required in order to make this bill more effective and acceptable. I do not want to take up the time of the House but I think it is necessary that hon. members should know. I refer to each and every one. I have just read (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Because it is important I will read them into the record. I quote from the committee report on miscellaneous estimates, issue No. 8, Friday, March 17, 1978, at page 8:12: and page 8:13:


The Chairman:: Thank you, Mr. Alexander.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Auditor General. When you asked yourself those two questions, the why not and the why, it seems to me, and check me if I am wrong, you did not really throw out the window the suggestion that there could be some spelling out of duties and functions. You, and I say this with a great deal of respect, are interested in it, but I think what concerns you is the possibility that the Comptroller General's hands would be tied somewhat. Given the fact this is a new function or a new job, there are not new responsibilities, but there is the separation of them, what bothers me is that you indicated this type of function has never existed before. In the light of that I have a feeling that we around this table should at least give some direction and some indication of general duties and functions. I just want to read this to you because it does not seem to offend, if it is worded this way. It is purely a guideline which gives some indication as to what the committee thinks the duties and functions of the Comptroller General should be.
The Comptroller General of Canada shall design, develop, implement and monitor such systems that will ensure that
(a)	the form of estimates provides a sound basis for budgetary control; Without getting into whether you are for such an amendment, would you agree that should be a function? I will stop there.


Mr. Macdonell:: Mr. Chairman, those words have quite a familiar ring to me.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a suspicion that they are in my 1976 report.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All right. So then, in other words, it is yes.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Is that what you call poetic licence?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In other words, the answer is yes, sir.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now, we will go to the second one.
(b)	public monies and assets are under effective custody and control at all times;


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Another effective ring.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is that another effective ring?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Indeed, it is.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right. That is number two.
(c)	accounting procedures and financial reports conform to accepted accounting principles and standards;


Cyril Lloyd Francis: This is House of Commons, dispense, Mr. Chairman.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Dispense. May I have a yes to that one too, sir?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I like everything you are saying sir, very much.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am glad you like it, sir, because we are getting down to the crunch soon, you see. Now, the next one.
(d)	expenditures of public monies are made with due regard for economy and efficiency;
No question about that.
Financial Administration Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not think I could write that better myself.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: So, I take it that the answer is, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Okay. Now, the next one.
(e)	satisfactory procedures measure the effectiveness of government programs.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: You would make a very good speaker.
I do not want your job, sir. But we will see to it that if there is a choice it will be filled by someone who is equally as competent as you are.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Excellent. Now, my last one is even more in keeping with what we are trying to do, particularly as we look at the clause in the bill. The last one and I think this is going to assist you greatly, sir.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am all ears.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And without restricting the generality of the such other duties and functions
which may be assigned to him by the Treasury Board.
That is taken right from the bill. I will ask you again, what is so offensive about that in the act?
Here is where we come to the meat of the issue. I want to be fair to the Auditor General. Even though he accepted what I was attempting to do, he had reservations because of what the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) had to say, and I am not blaming the Auditor General, he is not a politician, he has a job to do. They told him, "Well, I don't know whether we can accept the motion put forward by the opposition because it is without precedent." Mr. Macdonell goes on to say at the bottom of page 8:13:


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I will put it this way. There is not a thing offensive to me in everything you have said. I think the offensiveness is apparently caused-I have asked these questions as long as two years ago- because as an amateur in this business of constitutional law, I have bumped my head into the whole principle of ministerial responsibility.


Mr. Andre:: The minister would still be responsible.
Mr. Andre is the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Mr. Macdonell goes on to say:
All I am telling the committee, sir, with respect to the answer that was given to me, is that it is not done that way. Again, I would declare my own bias. Anything that can strengthen control of the public purse, I am automatically for.
I recognize and I did try to say that I find nothing offensive at all in this but I have to concede the point that it is certainly exceptional and people that admittedly know a lot more about parliamentary procedure and about how you do things legislatively in parliament say that you just do not spell out the detailed duties and responsibilities of an administrative official because the minister-in this case it would be presumably the committee of ministers known as the Treasury Board-are the people that are responsible to parliament for the administration of the duties aside from the act.
So the only reason we are not being shown any leadership is because the government is afraid. It is afraid to take that first step. I think that when we are treading new ground we should try to bring about some understanding of the need for financial management and control, and in creating this new office we can surely have the gumption to move ahead and not only establish the post of comptroller general but ensure that his views are to be respected.
Another thing that bothers me is this: after persistent prodding from this side of the House the minister did table something in March for the edification of hon. members. A
80038-28V2

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
request was made to him on Thursday, March 16, and in response he sent over a three-page document which gives us some idea what are the responsibilities of the comptroller general. But those duties are not set out in legislation. They will not be found within the Financial Administration Act. The government at its pleasure will determine those responsibilities. The part I do not like is this: parliament means nothing. We have no say in the matter. The government can lay down what the duties of the comptroller general are to be, and parliament has no role to play.
A dozen or more responsibilities have been laid out. We read, for example:
The Comptroller General would be responsible for the Treasury Board's interest in the following items:
1.	Financial Officers-development and maintenance in conjunction with PPB and PSC of training programs for financial officers. Liaison with Personnel Policy Branch concerning the general level of financial staff within the government and with PSC, departments and agencies concerning transfer and promotion of senior financial officers. Representation on selection boards for senior financial positions.
2.	Ensuring that internal audit procedures support the Treasury Board Secretariat's audit for compliance.
It goes on and on. Yet who will be in a position to know just what his responsibilities actually are? Mr. Speaker, we shall never know, because those functions can be changed and amended at the whim of Treasury Board. Is this what parliament really wants? I do not think so. The government determines the role of the comptroller general but does not want anything specific to be expressed in legislation. We are hoping that before this debate is over the government will have second thoughts and admit that what the opposition is proposing is capable of working, that it will not be offensive to the principle of the Financial Administration Act or to the responsibilities of ministers. After all, we are breaking new ground, and in these circumstances we ought to do all we can to ensure that the post which is to be brought into being will be effective and that it will carry some clout.
I placed a number of questions on the order paper in an attempt to ascertain just what the Financial Administration Act was all about. In all fairness I must say that the President of the Treasury Board answered my questions, but when I read the answers to two or three of them I became concerned. I found there was a certain amount of confidentiality attached to provisions of the Financial Administration Act which will be passed over to the comptroller general. What disturbs me is that the comptroller general, in terms of analysis, views and reporting, will be involved with matters which are confidential and, as a result, people will never know what is going on. Let me put on record what I had to say in the committee about this aspect, one which I particularly dislike. The relevant part of the record reads as follows-I am quoting from issue No. 10 of Monday, April 3, 1978, Minutes of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates at page 10:15:


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I placed some questions on the order paper back in January dealing with the Treasury Board's planning branch-some 19 questions. In two instances I have become a little concerned. You have done an excellent job in terms of answering most of the questions.

The minister was in attendance at that time so I did give him credit for what he had attempted to do. The record continues:
You have indicated that the planning branch terms of reference were to initiate and undertake studies of the effectiveness of selected government programs. When I get to questions such as, "What projects have been undertaken by the planning branch since 1970-71 in fulfilling its mandate?" your answer is: "The information requested refers to internal departmental projects of a confidential nature and cannot be released."
Question 7 is: "Which of these projects have been concerned with ensuring that programs are effective and that the desired results and benefits of the programs are being achieved?" The answer to that is: "The information requested refers to internal departmental projects of a confidential nature and cannot be released."
What is going on, sir, when we are talking about effectiveness?


Mr. Andras (Port Arthur):: Mr. Reid is Deputy Secretary of the Evaluation Branch which has now taken over this function. This branch will be working with the Comptroller General.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is that the same as the Efficiency Evaluation Branch?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is that confidential too, sir?


Robert Knight Andras: I think you have just announced it, Mr. Alexander.


Mr.   Reid.Mr. T. Reid@Deputy Secretary, Efficiency Evaluation Branch, Treasury Board: Mr. Chairman, the question is clearly put, and the answer was also quite clear, that in the cases in which the planning branch has done in-depth evaluations inside the Treasury Board Secretariat, those evaluations are done to prepare advice to ministers and that advice is confidential to the department.
That is my point. This is now being taken over by the comptroller general and the whole area will be confidential. Looking at this apparently innocuous bill it seems there are likely to be no problems. But it is dangerous. I continue to read:


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I see. Now we say that the efficiency evaluation branch, if I understand it, is going to be transferred to the "almost" office of the Comptroller General. Am I to understand then that the efficiency evaluation which will be done by him is as well confidential?


Robert Knight Andras: In some cases it will be, I think, Mr. Alexander.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, how are we ever going to know how effective the Comptroller General is, Mr. Minister, when you refuse to spell out his duties by way of legislation and he is taking over a group that is going to be involved with confidential information? All I want to know is, where does a member of parliament happen to come in?
This is the sorry plot that this government is attempting to foist upon the Canadian people. We cannot have it.
There are two reasons why 1 find this bill offensive, but still I have to go along with it. Hopefully, the comptroller general himself will in due time stand up, be counted, and raise hell. I do not like the fact that the duties of the comptroller general are not spelled out. They are hidden, and he will be working in secret. Because of the devious approach of this government he will be covering up, even if he does not want to do that.
There is a problem regarding confidential information with which the efficiency evaluation branch deals but which will be taken over by the comptroller general. Is this fair, when we are talking about restraint? Is this fair, when we are talking trying
May 1, 1978

to bring about some meaningful discussion by members of parliament in the creation of this new office? I say no.
I have tried my best to point out the problems associated with this one paragraph bill. They are enormous and frightening, and the government should not proceed in this way. It is hiding, covering up, and dealing in secrecy, and it is not fair that the new Comptroller General should have to face such a lot, knowing that if this government had the necessary intestinal fortitude, it could have accepted the amendment which we introduced earlier. That would have given some indication of what the job is all about and what we can expect of the comptroller general.
Perhaps I am just whistling in the dark, because this is a callous government which does not really care. As long as there are enough hon. members opposite to vote us down, they are not interested in meaningful and responsible amendments or submissions. However, I never give up hope. I have been here ten years, and every now and again a chord can be struck. Some hon. members opposite are laughing at me, and that is very unfortunate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are just getting started.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is necessary that we give leadership. In view of the way the government is spending, perhaps it does not want the comptroller general to have any clout or any teeth. As the bill stands, he will be toothless.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much time. I just want to plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board (Mr. Lefebvre). He knows the position of the opposition. As a member of parliament he knows what we are attempting to do. He knows that there is some merit in our position. He knows we should be moving in the direction the opposition wants this government to move. I know he has a speech to make. I will not say it has been prepared by departmental officials, because that would not be fair.


Thomas Lefebvre: I have it my hand.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just because it is written in long hand does not mean that it has not been prepared by departmental officials. However, I do not want to get involved in that because I see that the parliamentary secretary is getting sensitive and touchy. I do not want him to get touchy because I want him to understand and to agree that I have an exceptionally good point. I and other hon. members have attempted to put this point before the House for the edification of the Canadian people. I hope that on second thought, after listening
Financial Administration Act
to our cogent and important arguments, the government will accept our amendment. It would not have to accept it in its present form if there are technical difficulties with respect to drafting, but when the parliamentary secretary stands up, I hope he will move in that direction. If he does not do so, I will be extremely disappointed.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, if I say as much as the bill does, I will not talk for a long time: it will not take me more than two minutes to cover it all. Nevertheless I want to express my opinion about the principle of this bill under which the government would appoint a comptroller general.
The first time I read the title of the bill, even before I received a copy of it, I figured it would be quite a voluminous bill because I thought, and I still do, that the duties of the comptroller general would be of the upmost importance; I even consider they are more important than those of the auditor general because, in my mind, the auditor general's duty is to examine the administration of departments, to discover errors that have been made and to make parliament aware of these gaps, whereas I consider the comptroller general is more of a consultant, of a counsellor to the various departments and to the government. That is why the appointment of a comptroller general, as stated here, and I quote:
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 that office.
Naturally, at first sight, nobody can be against the appointment of a comptroller general, but first we should know how the comptroller will be selected, what kind of man he will be. Will he be free in his actions or will he be bound to the policy of a party or that of a government? Mr. Speaker, this question always comes up in our parliamentary system. The bill says, and I quote:
The Governor in Council may appoint an officer called the Comptroller General...
Mr. Speaker, of course we would want an independent person, a person qualified to judge without prejudice the action and policies of the government, a person to be appointed by the minister or by the cabinet-in fact, this person will be appointed by the governor in council, that is by the cabinet. But are we to believe that they will select that person in the ranks of Progressive Conservative, NDP or Social Credit candidates? We all know the Liberals well enough not to expect them to do that, unless they pick someone from the Senate, but it is quite obvious that the people they send to the other place are no longer very useful.
Mr. Speaker, we know that election time is coming, some candidates will be defeated and every time I defeated lawyers in an election, they were appointed judges the next day. This is

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
so true that at the last election I was invited to the swearing-in of the lawyer I had defeated. I congratulated him and told him publicly as he is a friend of mine: I should not be the one to congratulate you; it should be the other way around because if I had not defeated you, you would not have been appointed judge. He understood and replied: That is true, if I had been elected to parliament, I would not be a judge now.
Mr. Speaker, this is another case of such an appointment and I suspect that this is what will happen under this bill when a public servant is appointed by the party. We read in the bill that a person appointed by a party will play the role of advisor and counsellor to the government and the various departments. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this sounds false; this distorts the vocation of the public servant because he will be held in a strangle hold as many are now and as the government itself is held captive by financial interests.
If this person is to be appointed as a result of party pressures, we will have only what we can expect. I believe that it would be more logical to have an elected comptroller general. He could be elected in parliament by a majority of two thirds. This way I believe we could have a public servant who would be completely outside of political influences. I cannot believe that the 264 members of parliament could not find in Canada someone objective enough to forget party politics. I suggest this would be the best way to choose such a person, a person whom I consider somewhat like the defender of the people, like the ombudsmen who now exist in Canada and the provinces.
Of course, I believe that the responsibilities of the comptroller general are as great and even greater than those of a minister in charge of a department. However, I do not believe that it would be logical for the comptroller general to report to the auditor general. Under the bill, he would report to the auditor general rather than to parliament.
It is the auditor general who will evaluate his work and he will be asked to submit his report to him. But he should submit his report to parliament so that this institution may review it as it does for the auditor's report. Those two men will certainly not share the same bed. They will have separate responsibilities and they should not depend on each other because, if they are two friends and particularly two friends from the same party, they will forgive many things to each other.
As concerns the rights and duties of that comptroller general, as I said earlier I think that his duties are even more important than those of the auditor general himself. The comptroller will certainly have control over taxation. This comptroller should have executive powers and not only act in an advisory capacity. He will have the right to control taxation rates as well as the Canadian debt so that a government may not decide to multiply taxes and deficits as today. In the last ten years, we have only heard about taxes and deficits.
I think that if the comptroller could demonstrate to the government the adverse effects of this uncontrolled debt, it

would be good for the health of the Canadian economy and beneficial to everyone. We should also control pensions, particularly old age pensions that are totally ludicrous. They are ludicrous because we say that our pensioners will get $254, but it is not true. They get old age pensions of $150 and $155 and the rest comes from welfare or the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul Society, as long as Canadians will not be recognized the right to a full pension because workers have to contribute to a full pension, but when it is time to collect the pension, they are given only 50 per cent of it.
A comptroller could show that to the public and tell the government to stop fooling the people. The pensioner is asked during all his working life to pay 100 per cent unemployment insurance premiums, social security premiums or pension contributions, but he is not told that, at the time of retirement, he will be entitled to only 50 per cent of a given insurance, the old age security and a few dollars from the Quebec Pension Plan. And if he gets more, the Quebec Pension Plan will take his old age security from him. He is not told that and to top it off he is offered a ludicrous basic exemption that makes him pay taxes even on his old age pension. I think that if the comptroller were here he could prevent the government from causing all those difficulties to our pensioners and it is absolutely necessary in a democratic system to have a man able to advise the government.
There is certainly no shortage of civil servants but I feel there is no expert to tell the government how to spend some of the subsidies. Sure, subsidies are granted by the Department of Employment and others, but how are they spent? I do not have enough time to go into that but I believe there is much to be said about the subsidies of the Department of Employment. Besides, people complain a lot about the way they are spent, and especially those of DREE.
For my part, I call that department the department for the distribution of subsidies to privileged people. It is a typically political department, 100 per cent political, where the money spent is the least profitable. We find small millionaires who became millionaires thanks to those subsidies; no control was exercised over those funds and we end up finding out that of the $400 million to $500 million allotted in subsidies by the department, only about some $200 million were wisely spent, that the other millions disappeared into thin air as dust would in the wind. If we had a comptroller such circumstances would occur less frequently and we would have a better idea of how the money is spent, that money, our money, our tax dollars are spent in Canada. We often get leaflets in which the government explains how our tax dollars are spent but there is a world of difference between what they say in those folders and what we see happening. If the leaflets were written by a comptroller and checked by the auditor general, I think that literature would inform the Canadians generally far better. Once again, it is not that I am against the appointment of a comptroller; it is just that I should first like to see the terms well defined, so
May 1, 1978

that we will know where we are going with such a short bill which states only that we are going to have a comptroller.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-10 is being considered, sometimes we lose sight of the bottom line of government spending. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) touched upon the fact that when we are considering the powers of the comptroller general, which hopefully will result in greater restraint on the part of the Government of Canada in the future, we must remember we are fighting for a minimum of expenditure at the federal government level in relation to the services and programs which are put into place. There must be a minimum of expenditure to ensure a minimum of taxation as far as Canadians are concerned.
In the six years I have been here the government has given great lip service to restraint from time to time, but in fact government expenditures have skyrocketed during the decade of our present emperor, which skyrocketing has resulted in an unbelievable tax load for Canadians. The impact of that tax load should be emphasized because governmental expenditures in Canada today are one of the most significant contributing factors to our relatively high wage structure and lack of competitiveness in world markets. Canada has become so loaded with governmental expenditures that approximately 8 per cent more of our gross national product is carried in the form of government expenditure than is the case in respect of our neighbours to the south. That 8 per cent translates to possibly $16 billion of additional government expenditure, compared to what it would be if our load were the same as that of our counterparts in the United States. I should like to bring that into perspective.
Often we forget that Canada shares a continent, and that we must stay competitive with our neighbours to the south. If we do not, the result will be huge trade deficits, such as we are experiencing at the present time. That shows up when the tax loads of American and Canadian families are compared.
The 1966 report of the Royal Commission on Taxation, commonly known as the Carter report, contained startling observations concerning the tax paid by American families compared to Canadians. In that year the Carter report pointed out that Canadian tax was approximately 20 per cent higher than the United States tax, which contributed to the exodus or brain drain into the United States, and that the inequality between the American and Canadian tax levels must be adjusted to ensure that it no longer existed.
Certain significant recommendations were made in respect of the tax load in Canada. Those recommendations were designed to ensure Canadian families ceased being overtaxed in comparison to their American counterparts. In 1978, rather than this difference being lessened, most regrettably we find, under the aegis of the emperor who has ruled this country for the past ten years, the tax load as a percentage in relation to the American tax load has widened.
Financial Administration Act
I have had occasion to visit three chartered international accountancy firms in order to receive the benefit of what they are advising multinational corporations in respect of the tax impact when those corporations transfer employees to Canada. The information was startling. One chartered accountant informed me of the advice he gave one international firm. That corporation intended to send a Canadian back to Canada who had been working in the mid-United States. Prior to implementing that transfer, the firm asked what amount it would have to pay to that employee to ensure him the same take-home pay in Canada as he was receiving in the United States. The chartered accountancy firm advised that multinational corporation that its employee, who was being paid $27,000 a year in the American mid-west, would have to be paid $44,000 Canadian, if he were transferred to Ontario, in order for him to receive an equivalent after tax take-home pay.
I should like to refer to two other examples which will illustrate what I am attempting to indicate. There examples are based on the relative after tax positions of individuals residing in the State of New York and Ontario, Canada. In both of these cases it is assumed that the individuals have been transferred to Canada by their employers for a period of more than one year, and that their families will reside in Canada with them. Because the cost of housing in Ontario is higher than in New York, the employers agreed to pay housing allowances to compensate the employees. The agreed upon amounts are received by the employees in addition to their base salaries.
In short, and I hope this is understood by hon. members, these are not cooked figures, they simply are figures a chartered accounting firm gave a multinational corporation in answer to a request to show what it would have to pay an employee in Canada after transferring him up here to ensure that he would be as well off in Canadian currency terms as he was in the United States. Before giving the example I should mention that the chartered accounting firm made the observation that the employer would incur substantially higher compensatory costs in Canada than in the United States for the same services from the employee.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Leader of the Opposition has just come in the House and I wonder whether he realizes that by filibustering this bill, the opposition is preventing passage of a legislation dealing with the language spoken by all Canadians before the courts and which would allow them to be tried in the official language of their choice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I do not think this constitutes a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should never be surprised in this House, but it is one thing for a backbench Liberal member to be unconcerned, if you like, with the explosion in expenditures in this country from about

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
$10 billion to $50 billion under the reign of the emperor who now rules the nation, but it is quite another thing for that same backbencher, ten minutes after my standing up to speak in respect of the tax implications of that explosion, to suggest I am engaged in some type of filibuster. Surely that is ludicrous.
What I am trying to point out is that one of the inherent problems we are living with in Canada is the result of the cost of government in Canada imposing a non-productive burden on Canadians much greater than is imposed on our American counterparts. This in turn is translated into higher gross wages in Canada, making us non-competitive.
This is a serious issue and, regardless of the wishes of the hon. member not to hear this, I intend to put some of these figures on the record. When a chartered accounting firm comes to me and suggests that I should be aware of the tax implications in Canada as compared to those of the United States when considering how we are to get back some of our competitiveness, then I think it is important to let hon. members and the people in the country know what are the figures about which we are talking.
The first example I want to give is of an employee by the name of Johnson who receives a basic salary of $19,700 in New York State. The company wanted to transfer Johnson to Canada and has been informed by its chartered accountants that he should first of all receive a housing allowance per year of $5,328 to compensate him for the higher cost of homes in Ontario and, secondly, that his OHIP payments should be included. It also suggested that the company must pay him what is referred to as a "tax equalization", which in short amounts to what the chartered accountants estimate the man needs in tax equalization to end up with take-home pay, after paying Canadian tax, equal to what he is getting in the United States. The amount of that payment is $3,968.
In total, to pay that employee doing virtually the same job in Canada for the company it will cost that international employer $29,380 compared to, and I emphasize this, $19,700 being paid in the United States. In short, by shifting one man to Canada at a wage rate of $19,700 the international employer must pay a difference of $9,680, or a gross salary of $29,380.
Let me point out how this works from the employee's stand point. His gross income in Canada will be $28,996. In Canada he pays taxes at all levels of $7,781, and receives an allowance of $5,328, giving him a net disposable income of $15,887. In the United States that same person with a gross income of $19,700 pays out $3,813 in taxes, giving a net disposable income of $15,887.
Just to summarize what I am saying, to give this man with a gross salary of $19,700 in the United States the same take-home pay in Canada of $15,887, he must be paid $28,996 here.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I notice that certain hon. members on the other side have not joined in this debate, presumably because they have no concern about the expenditures with which we are concerned on this side of the House. Those hon. members have the audacity to talk about what the man in this example

gets in Canada. Let me tell them that he gets in Canada-a lot less than he is getting in the United States at the present time.
Let me give another example. This chap is earning $35,460 in the United States. Before calling it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I just-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. When I hear a small "f" front bencher wasting all that time to quote statistics to make a comparison with the United States and deliberately omitting to speak of the numerous social benefits we enjoy in Canada, I say that he does not put into practice what his party is advocating.-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED [Translation]
["It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.\nAt 5.47 p.m. the House took recess."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follow: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Regional Economic Expansion-Government action to assist areas of disparity; the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington)- Finance-Measures to prevent dumping of steel beams-Definition of "fair world price"; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)-Regional Economic Expansion-Costsharing of trans-Canada highway.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public, private bills and notices of motions.



The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: First I should draw to the attention of the House, if you will bear with me for a moment, that the first five items on the order paper under private members' notices of motions were called and allowed to stand at the request of the government on April 17, 1978. In accordance with my ruling on December 5, 1977, and Standing Orders 19(1) and 49(1), these items can be stood a second time only by unanimous consent. If that unanimous consent is not forthcoming, the items will be dropped from the order paper. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with notice of motion No. 15 and that all preceding notices of motions stand, not at the government's
May 1, 1978

request, but by unanimous consent of the House, in the hope that we might very soon proceed with Bill C-42.


Mr. Paproski:: Yes, so agreed, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Agreed and so ordered.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of directing the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make appropriate changes in its lending policy regulations to provide incentives to builders and developers who incorporate in their building plans the use of passive solar energy designs and/or solar energy systems for space and water heating.
Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate to deal with this motion today because on Wednesday of this week-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) on a point of order.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I had the floor when this was last before the House. However, I will relinquish the floor to my friend across the way, and when he is finished I will follow. I had not realized the bill would be on the list today, so I am not really prepared. I could be ready in five minutes if my friend from Guelph wishes to continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In order to recognize the hon. member for Hastings at a later date we need unanimous consent.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, presumably the hon. member knows his subject very well and we are quite prepared to let him go on with his speech. If he needs a few minutes to refresh his memory, we on this side of the House do not object to his speaking again a little later today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is unanimous consent.
Use of Solar Energy


Francis William (Frank) Maine: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate to deal with this motion today because Wednesday of this week has been designated as "Sun day", the day of the sun, a day on which we will be focusing attention on solar energy. I would like to say a very few words in support of the motion by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I think it is a very important motion, that it should receive the attention of this House, and hopefully get consent to go to committee. We must encourage people in a very tangible, financial way to utilize solar energy in the design and construction of their houses and in innovations with respect to solar energy technology.
A recent example of solar energy technology being harnessed in a land base use-which should be a symbol to Canadians of what can be done and urge them to greater heights-is this solar energy, battery-powered electronic calculator that was made in Japan. It is a tremendous feat in technology. As you can see, it is very small, completely rechargeable, and powered by a solar battery located here. It is this kind of technology that is ahead of us and that will create jobs and make solar energy more applicable to life on planet earth and not just in space technology, as it has been used in past applications to date.
I do not see the encouragement for this industry in Canada. I do not see new ideas being utilized such as this electronic calculator. I have a few more examples, but I will be brief so as not to use much time in this private members' hour.
At the University of Toronto I recently observed an aluminum covered plastic in the form of a solar blind which would go up and down between two panes of window glass to act as a solar reflector thereby controlling the temperature inside a house. It was operated by a motor which was both triggered and repowered by solar energy. An area where solar energy is in use in this country, and which has been used historically a great deal in Europe, is in the use of shutters to keep heat in as well as control the amount of light coming into a building. Generally, normal shutters have to be opened and closed daily, but these could be both activated as well as powered by solar energy. There is sufficient technology in this country to develop and utilize such inventions through solar energy.
Another area for the use of solar energy is the controlling of lights. Solar energy could activate the lights in a building as well as power the mechanism that would turn them off and on at a suitable time interval. This would replace the usual timers currently being used which operate on a 24-hour-a-day basis using a great deal of electricity. Those three examples are just a few of the new applications that I can see for solar energy technology in the housing industry.
Solar energy would help to create new jobs, new industries in Canada. It is very appropriate and worth-while to support the motion of the hon. member for Davenport, and I do so.


John Raymond Ellis: I apologize once again, Mr. Speaker, for not being aware that this was going to be coming up. The very few moments that I will spend in continuing with what I was saying on February 3 last have to do first with the

May 1, 1978
Use of Solar Energy
question of support for this motion. I made it very clear that day that I intended, because of the manner in which these motions have been handled in the past, to talk it out, which I did. In so doing, however, I did not have enough time to put forward my support for the basic principle of the motion moved by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
One of the questions I wanted to ask that day was whether or not either the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who is responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing, or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) would in fact give us some guarantee that the subject of this motion would be acted upon. One of the criticisms I had then, and continue to have, is the lack of support for renewable energy sources within this House. The information that I have is that the budget for the last full fiscal year was something in the order of $6 million. As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) has said on previous occasions, "the government could spill more money than that in any given afternoon."
The need for energy from renewable resources has been well proven. Whether or not this motion in going to committee would give more support to that very necessary subject, is something about which I have a great deal of question. This motion-and I made the point earlier-merely asks that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation consider changing its lending policy to provide for extra loans. Unlike the United States, it does not provide for relief from the extra costs, or support for those who put in renewable energy sources.
On February 3 I had just arrived at the point of telling the House about a Mr. Ball in the village of Wellington, who has gone to the extent of spending approximately $20,000 to install wind generators powered by solar energy in his home, and other innovations for using renewable energy to heat and light his home. He has done an exceptionally fine job and, being a machinist, he has done all of the work himself, including the designing. This has brought his regular electric bill down to approximately $25 a month, but even reducing it by that much will not enable him to regain his $20,000 investment. There is just no way he could do it taking into account the interest he would have to pay on the money, yet no provision is made by the government to reimburse him for the savings in non-renewable energy resources that he is putting into effect.
It seems to me that we could follow the lead given by the Congress of the United States. There are a number of programs in effect there to reimburse individuals by way of better interest rates, better mortgages, and outright grants, if they are prepared to use renewable energy resources for heating or lighting their homes. I think even a heater for a swimming pool should qualify.
There has also been a great deal of study in the United States into various ways of using renewable energy resources. Several symposiums have been held to study the technology, and the information is readily available. Here in Canada,

where the need for renewable energy resources is far greater, I have not come across any good information which would help people who want to use the resource. We have a problem with high unemployment, yet there is not a single program to encourage industries in this field, particularly small businesses, to become involved in the development and construction of parts and equipment necessary to the use of renewable energy in homes. At a number of home shows I attended recently, all of the technology came from the United States.
I have no quarrel with the motion of the hon. member for Davenport, Mr. Speaker, as I think it is time the government put legislation before the House to support the use of our renewable energy resources.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House but I should like to take a few minutes to express my personal support and that of my colleagues for this motion. It is not necessary for me to remind hon. members that we are still in the midst of an energy crisis. We have tended to become so used to the energy crisis that we may feel it has passed away. The fact is that in terms of non-renewable energy resources, particularly oil, gas, and coal, in that order, we are rapidly running out of resources. We also have fewer sources of hydroelectric power, and therefore anything which can be done to help this country face the energy shortages which will confront us in a few years ought to be done immediately.
The best estimates show that by the middle of the 1990's Canada will be spending about $5 billion per year on imported oil. This will create problems with our balance of payments and costs of production, and it could deliver a serious blow to our economic future. I think we have not been tackling this problem as seriously as we should. No one would suggest for a moment that there is any simple solution to the energy shortage or that a good fairy will wave a magic wand and the problem will disappear.
There will have to be a three-pronged attack, Mr. Speaker. First, we must develop other non-renewable resources-oil from shale or tar sands or heavy oil. We have to make better use of coal than we have done in the past.
The second thing we have to do is embark upon a much more ambitious conservation program to reduce consumption of energy. A good deal of the consumption of energy in this country is wasteful. We consume huge quantities of energy simply because it was cheap in the past and we took it for granted that there would be no limit on the amount of energy available in the future.
The third approach is the one which this motion touches upon, that we must begin immediately to develop the renewable resources. That may be energy from wind, from harnessing the tides, from thermal power, from putting shafts down into the earth and capturing steam, or it may be from capturing the greatest source of energy of all: the sun.
Development of solar energy is something like motherhood and patriotism-everybody supports it. But we really have not done very much about it, Mr. Speaker. Some experiments are
May 1, 1978

going on in my constituency where a number of people are heating their homes using solar panels, others are using wind energy and some are using a combination of both. The government of Saskatchewan is financing construction of a house in which all the heating, lighting, and electrical appliances are powered by solar energy. This experiment will be very useful.
I have seen solar energy programs in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and particularly in Australia, which has made great strides in developing solar panels. So far, however, we have only touched on the fringe of this subject.
We could do several things, one of which is mentioned in this motion. The government, through CMHC or any other mechanism it wants to use, could provide financial incentives for people building houses, and particularly for developers, to instal solar energy units in one form or another. That would give us an opportunity to see how they work, to compare costs, and to get people accustomed to them.
The main problem, however, is that we have not yet embarked upon a massive research and development program to produce an economic unit that would provide solar energy at a relatively low cost. The units which I saw are in Australia and which were being sold at agricultural fairs were relatively cheap by comparison to any solar panels that we buy here, but they were still fairly expensive.
I am convinced that if the government were prepared through the National Research Council and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to call in the whole of the electrical industry in this country and say to them, "Let us put on a massive program to produce a solar energy unit that will be the cheapest in the world", it could be done. Of course, it will cost money. But it will cost a great deal less than it will cost if we wait until the time comes when we do not have sufficient energy from other sources or if we wait until some major power, such as the United States, Japan or West Germany develops cheap solar energy and we have to pay a very high price for it.
I am sure that by 1990 there will be a $1 billion solar energy industry available to any country that has the foresight to establish the production of an economic solar unit. Canada can be the country, because there are many nations in the world which have warm climates and lots of sunlight, but they have no oil, no coal, and no gas. These countries do not have the technical know-how or research facilities to produce solar units themselves, but they would be prepared to purchase them if they could obtain them at reasonable prices from a country such as Canada.
I notice that the United States is already moving rapidly into this field. I am afraid that we will miss the boat. I hope that those of us who are supporting this motion, and I think we all are, will press the government to go one step further and not only provide financial incentives for the consumer to put in solar units but also spend the necessary money for research and development so that there are cheap solar units which we can purchase, manufacture, and export to other countries.
Use of Solar Energy
Sometimes we tend to spend money protecting and subsidizing industries which are on their way out. We ought to be spending money to develop industries which are in their infancy and which have a tremendous potential for the future. In my opinion, the solar energy industry is one where an investment by Canada at the present time would bring great benefits in the future, not only for our own people but for the export trade which we could develop.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of interest in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) in which he invites the House to tell the government that it should, and I quote:
Consider the advisability of directing the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make appropriate changes in its lending policy regulations to provide incentives to builders and developers who incorporate in their building plans the use of passive solar energy designs and/or solar energy systems for space and water heating.
Mr. Speaker, the motion is worthwhile. It urges the management of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to devise plans enabling those who are involved in housing construction to provide for the possible uses of solar energy to heat buildings, houses and the water used by the people who live there. It seems to me that worth-while though it may be that motion places parliament in an inferior position towards the Crown corporation. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a Crown corporation which receives the funds the Canadian parliament agrees to allocate to it no matter how many millions are involved and that corporation administers those funds. The corporation sets up regulations concerning borrowers, those who want to benefit from the National Housing Act and build homes in which Canadian families can live decently.
Mr. Speaker, we should not expect the impossible from management. They should not be put in a position where the population would see the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as being the Canadian parliament. Yet the fact is that this is pretty much the intent of the motion. Mr. Speaker, if we really want our Crown corporations to perform well, they should not be put into some kind of a yoke. I for one am quite in favour of using solar energy. For several years I have been a supporter of the possibility of using solar energy for heating houses and domestic water.
Mr. Speaker, I even attended once in an African country a conference of the Association of French-speaking parliamentarians. I remember how glad and pleased my colleague the hon. member for Bonaventure-!les-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) and I were on that occasion to consider seriously for hours on end the possible ways and means to tap, collect and make better use of these sources of energy. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine has just suggested something to me. Collect the energy and use it to meet the needs of

May 1, 1978
Use of Solar Energy
the people. These nations have solar energy to spare, but they lack the technology to use this energy to pump the water they need. And the conference considered very seriously this problem and this possibility to use these energies which are made available to us by God.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to blame anyone in Canada, absolutely not. I do not intend to blame anybody but we have a housing policy which puts under a yoke those who need to go to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Of course, the corporation is responsible for the management of the funds which are made available to it and gives yearly accounts to the Parliament of Canada. The corporation lends at rates which force borrowers to refund three or four times the amount of the loan.
To have the right to own a house under the present policy, the borrowers have to sign a contract under which they agree to refund three or four times the value of the house. It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that there are now many more tenants than owners in our country because ownership is becoming increasingly impossible for a working couple with an average income under the onerous conditions for the refund of the loans or of the loan they can obtain to be able to own a house.
So, Mr. Speaker, under the present circumstances, it is obvious that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation feels obliged to impose obligations which are well beyond the repayment capacity of borrowers. And from year to year we see ever fewer couples prevailing themselves of this legislation and of the advantages which have been enumerated because they do not foresee the possibility one day of really becoming owners of the house they will have to maintain, in addition of municipal and school taxes and so on.
And this is why I say that in a normal society when one witnesses a phenomenon such as this when there are more tenants than owners, it becomes a source of concern. When a man owns a property it is like his little homeland. He is prepared to make all the necessary sacrifices to ensure the protection of his rights. It is his little homeland and he is prepared to accept any sacrifice to make sure it is truly his. When the majority of people in a country are not made owners but simply tenants, unfortunately-and history has shown this, the past bears this out-people are not interested in defending their homeland against attacks that may come from all sides. They let themselves be carried by ideologies and are prepared to accept anything, because they do not believe they could be worse off.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I find that the hon. member's motion is timely because we also have in Canada that opportunity of working to discover more fully the resources of the sun-solar energy. I understand that in recent years the government of Canada-and I say this with pride-has made efforts to carry out research to discover the possible uses of solar energy so as to reduce the cost of maintaining a house, and more particu-
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).l
larly when it comes to heating water and keeping our houses warm, something which our climate has made necessary in this country.
Mr. Speaker, even if unlike the countries of Africa we do not have the advantage of enjoying a scorching sun all year round it is still possible to allocate more money to trying to find the necessary means for storing solar energy. It could be used advantageously by future home owners to reduce their costs, with the resulting advantage of being eager to have access to ownership and saying with pride, I own part of my homeland.
Mr. Speaker, that is the pride we have to transmit to our children if we want them to be really responsible citizens. Or, in short if we want them to be able to fight to protect their rights and the freedom that will enable them to enjoy the rights which come with the ownership of a piece of property. Mr. Speaker, that is why I think that the motion of the hon. member for Davenport is so timely. I know the House gives its unanimous consent to directing our research work in a serious way towards the use of solar energy. Mr. Speaker, I would not like us to find ourselves in the kind of mess we have been in for 50 years.
The energy of our rivers and of all those natural resources fell under the control of corporations which developed those resources to make profits and not to provide services. I consider that it is the responsibility of parliament to vote the necessary funds to carry out further research which could be valuable for Canadians instead of leaving them in the hands of those who can eventually centralize and cash in on those energies to make more profits and take unfair advantage of the people. Let us be careful.
Past experience should compel us to take steps and make parliament truly responsible, which would enable our researchers to work efficiently and submit practical proposals. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) would thus be able to make solar energy available to all Canadians at prices in line with the ability to pay of each individual who wishes to gain ownership. This is why I seriously support the motion of the hon. member for Davenport, while suggesting that if one day the objective aimed at in the motion is attained, it should be beneficial to all Canadians.
I am concluding my comments so that this motion may be passed, because I do not want it to be said that I killed it as it has unfortunately happened too often in the past. I am in favour of life, Mr. Speaker, I am not a murderer. I am anxious that steps be taken so that all the assets given us by our Maker are made available to all mankind.


Mr. Ross Milne (Paliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as a person who has engineering training and who had some re-
May 1, 1978

sponsibility for the design of buildings a few years back, I want to support this motion and to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), for putting it forward. I was interested in the building trade at the time when new or adequate insulation standards were introduced, and perhaps by virtue of that I have some understanding of the enormity of the task of getting common acceptance for the use of solar energy in every-day housing and in other applications.
I want to comment on the positive role that the National Research Council has been playing in co-ordinating research effort and in advancing the state of the art. I hope that with the passing of this motion and in subsequent action on it by the government not only will the financial aspect of this motion be supported but also that recognition will be given to the fact that this is another problem which has to be addressed before there will be any wide scale acceptance of solar heating in mass produced housing.
Builders are reluctant to use new methods unless it is demonstrated to them that they are reliable, that they perform well and that down the road they will not be plagued with operational problems which will interfere with their business. The only point I want to make is that there is a large role for some government agency-I am not just sure which one it ought to be-in doing the innovative work for the early adapters, and in making sure that design work is done and that this new method is promoted. I do not mean to be negative toward people in the building business, but very few of them are prone to spend very much money or time to design new and innovative designs or to try out new ideas, and it seems to me that this is one of the roles that the government will have to play. It will have to do the engineering, the verification and the product testing so that people buying can be sure that the product is reliable and that its performance will be good. In addition to making appropriate changes in lending policies toward the application of solar energy, I hope that there is recognition that there is a large design, selling and demonstration job to be done.
I would like to put on the record the good work the community college in my riding is doing at the present time. It is putting together an alternative energy source house to demonstrate not only solar but also many other types of renewable energy approaches which can be used. I think this type of thing, along with the intent of this motion, will further the art.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Financial Administration Act
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I suppose there is unanimous consent to let you say that it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the House agree? [English]


Steve Eugene Paproski: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.47 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen (for Mr. Andras) that Bill C-10, to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At five o'clock the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) had the floor.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as you have said, at five o'clock I had the floor and, you will recall, I was pointing out that as the result of the expenditure explosion which the federal government has permitted to occur in Canada, a very unhappy level of taxation has been reached. It means that the average Canadian family are paying substantially more in income tax than their counterparts in the United States.
I pointed out that this has resulted in Canadians being enticed to some degree to emigrate to the United States where they feel they bear a lighter tax load or, conversely, it means that Canadians who stay in Canada demand exceedingly high gross wages so as to have the same take home pay as they would if they were living and working in the United States. This is of particular concern to Canada today when we have lost a certain competitiveness in relation to our main trading partner, the United States.

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
If I could summarize, I am saying that as a result of our tax system and, more important, as a result of present expenditures paid either through direct taxation or by debt, we now have a much greater imbalance than was the case even 10 or 15 years ago between the tax load in Canada and that in the United States. I pointed out that a person in the United States earning a basic salary of $19,700, according to one of the largest accounting firms in the world, would need to earn $28,996 in Canada to give him the same take-home pay after tax. To carry the example further, a person in the United States earning $35,460, according to the same international accounting firm, would need $53,714 simply to get the same take-home pay after tax in Canada.
I think that that type of dramatic evidence should be enough to arrest the propensity that the government has shown for spending. Surely every day that we question the government on the flight of capital from Canada to the United States we are touching a nerve; we are touching something that is very undesirable. But when you add the fact that it is not only capital that is leaving but some of our best, most highly trained professional people, people who are moving because they feel that the tax load which they now have to bear in Canada is unbearable, the situation is all the worse.
Another international chartered accounting firm has given me the benefit of a schedule that they sent to one of their international clients in which they gave a tax equalization comparison for 1967, comparing a person who lives in Ontario with a person who lives in New Jersey, U.S., assuming these persons have a $20,000 salary, a $40,000 salary and a $60,000 salary in each country. This breakdown indicates that the person earning at the $20,000 level pays $1,000 more tax in Canada, compared to his counterpart in the United States. In short, that person would be required to pay $3,708 in Canada, compared to his counterpart in the United States who would be required to pay $2,734. The person earning $40,000 would pay $3,900 more taxation in Canada than in the United States. The person earning $40,000 in Canada would pay $12,369, compared to his counterpart in the United States who would pay $8,472. The person earning $60,000 would pay $6,400 more taxation in Canada than in the United States. In short, he would pay $22,737, compared to his American counterpart who would pay $16,330.
Now that the emperor has had ten years to place this burden upon Canadians, surely that heavy burden is evident. A significant thing which leads to this imbalance regarding tax load is the fact that the American counterpart has many more deductible items to subtract from his income before he pays taxes. More importantly, the tax load in the United States does not have to be as high. In fact, it is roughly 80 per cent of our tax load, because their expenditures are not as high. With regard to the gross national product, all governments in the United States take 35 per cent, whereas the governments in Canada take 43 per cent. The 8 per cent difference is borne by

Canadian taxpayers. The bulk of that difference is an unnecessary charge.
Once again I should like to refer to the 1966 report of the Royal Commission on Taxation, usually referred to as the Carter report. Page 158 of Volume III reads as follows:
For many Canadian workers, the market for their services is continental, not Canadian. This is especially true for highly skilled and professional employees who are increasingly sought by United States and other foreign employers as well as by employers in Canada. The so-called "brain drain" from Canada has been widely noted and deplored by many observers. We are anxious that the Canadian tax system should not contribute to that drain.
It continues:
We are, however, concerned with reducing Canadian taxes on skilled workers and professionals to the point where there are no major tax incentives for emigration to the United States.
Then it refers to various examples, such as I have given, in respect of comparative tax loads. It concludes as follows:
... taxes are substantially above the average for the respective countries. As can be seen from the data given in the table, income taxes are higher in Canada in all examples.
The Carter report found evidence of a tax imbalance, and it made recommendations as to how a new equality could be arrived at between the Canadian tax level and that of our neighbour to the south. Unfortunately the government only listened partially to the recommendations contained in that report, the net result of which is that the imbalance has widened rather than narrowed.
This brings me to the following crucial question: Why has there been such an explosion in government expenditures? I hope the Comptroller General, when he takes office, will do something about this explosion. This explosion is evident when one considers the government as an employer in our economy. In an earlier speech, I referred to some figures which I should like to give again. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) was almost hysterical because he was embarrassed by the growth in the public service since the government took power. I should like to refer the President of the Treasury Board to the 1977-78 publication of the National Finances. At page 82 it is spelled out clearly why we are living with the expenditures of today. This publication was put out by the Canadian Tax Foundation, and reads in part as follows:
The increase in the number of employees is a striking indication of the growth that has taken place in the size of the government during recent decades. In March 1925, when figures were first published, federal government employees numbered 39,000, compared to 121,000 at March 1946 at the beginning of the postwar period, and 580,022 at June 30, 1977.
I am glad Your Honour was seated when I read those figures. Is that charisma in action? Perhaps the Economic Review tabled on Friday fills in the other gaps, which explains why expenditures have risen so dramatically. In this connection, I refer hon. members to the Economic Review dated April 1978. At page 88 they will see how the deficit has been allowed to grow in Canada during the ten years the emperor has ruled us. The federal government deficit is shown as being $7,343 million. During the 1960 to 1970 period, the average surplus was $80 million. Thus, we came out of the 1960 to 1970 decade with an average surplus at the federal level of $80
May 1, 1978

million, arriving at a deficit of approximately $7.3 billion last year.
Perhaps Liberal backbenchers have been told in caucus not to worry about that deficit because it is a hangover from the unemployment problems, and that if the economy increases at its potential growth rate, that it will disappear. The figures I have referred to put the lie to that claim on the part of the government. Even if full employment accounting is used, this government is in a deficit position. For example, in 1977, even if the cyclical adjustment is taken into account, the deficit will be to the tune of $4.4 billion. Mr. Speaker, that is very, very serious. In its own Economic Review, the government admits that if this country were back to full employment the deficit would still be $4.4 billion. Surely the need for an effective comptroller general is evident. It is not only the impact of these deficits that is important for consideration, but the fact that the deficits must be paid in order to avoid incurring additional debt, either foreign or domestic.
Again in this regard we have some startling figures. We find at page 89 of the same Economic Review to which I have referred that the total net debt of the federal treasury in 1976 was $15.5 billion, while in 1978 the report shows the debt to be $40 billion. In fact, the report shows a jump of almost $11 billion between 1977 and 1978, and those figures are taken from the Economic Review of the Department of Finance.
Let me refer to the gross figures. The gross debt this year will be $77.8 billion, compared to $28.4 billion when the emperor first took power in Canada. These are some of the reasons I earnestly hope those on the government side will bring pressure to bear to ensure that the comptroller general is given a mandate which will be in truth meaningful as far as expenditure control at the federal government level is concerned.
Another interesting table in this Economic Review, which I am sure you have noted, Mr. Speaker, is Table 42 appearing at page 168 of the April issue. You will note here a sharp contrast between government price increases and the consumer price increase. I emphasize this because the government likes to represent that somehow or other inflation has been caused by labour, big business, the provinces or foreign disturbances and things of this kind. What the government rarely points out, although it knows this is true, is that the government has been in the vanguard in respect to increasing prices in the last ten years.
Table 42 points out the implicit price indices, which are the broader indices, rather than the consumer price indices. For 1968 this shows that personal expenditures on consumer goods and services, taking 1971 as 100, in 1968 stood at 90.8. That is on the personal expenditure side. On the government current expenditure on goods and services side the figure stood at 82.8. However, in the last ten years there has been a dramatic increase, not so much on the personal expenditure side as on the side in respect of government expenditures on goods and services. We find that this jumped from 82.2 in 1968 to 191.30, and again I emphasize that this is the implicit price
Financial Administration Act
index put out by the Department of Finance covering government expenditures as far as price escalation is concerned. In other words, based on the 1971 implicit price index for government expenditures the jump was well over 91 per cent. During the same period personal expenditures jumped from 90.8 to 158.
To express that based on the 1971 year equalling 100, we find that personal expenditures as far as price increases are concerned went up by only 58 compared to government expenditures which went up at the rate of nearly 100. When we consider the role of a comptroller general in this country we must bear these facts in mind. The truth is that it has been government expenditure, not only in volume but in actual prices, that has put this load on the taxpayer. Not only has there been an increase on the unit side; actual prices have skyrocketed as compared to price increases on the personal expenditure side.
I touch upon these points because I feel it is often overlooked, when we are thinking in terms of the weight of expenditure, who eventually pays the bill. There is no way the government can spend money and not pay, any more, Mr. Speaker, than you or I can. The fact is that when the government spends it must either pay for that expenditure through taxation or by borrowing money, which means the government is asking generations down the road to pay for those expenditures. Or it can take a third course, which this government is wont to do, and that is counterfeiting or printing more money in order to create a balance. That, of course, leads as much as anything to the inflation which this government likes to decry so much.
If that is so, that surely points out why it is absolutely necessary and essential that we get a better hold on government expenditure, and that is why I believe the move toward the establishment of the position of comptroller general is a welcome move; but only if he can be given the mandate he needs to do something effective in controlling these expenditures.
I recommend that hon. members read another Canadian Tax Foundation publication put out in January of this year entitled "The Expenditure Budget Process in the Government of Canada". It is authored by Douglas G. Hartle, professor of economics at the Institute for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto. He served as deputy secretary to Treasury Board from 1969 to 1973. Various comments are made in this little booklet concerning the budgetary process as well as the expenditure process in Canada. This was before the comptroller general idea came into being. Mr. Hartle points out that he hopes the Auditor General might be able to do certain things in order to get a better handle on the type of expenditure we have been discussing during this debate. At page 118 Mr. Hartle states:
To this end we propose that the Auditor General report to parliament annually on each program or project for which he carries out a financial audit. The report should answer the following questions.
1)	Has the department or agency specified the criteria by which it wishes the
efficiency and effectiveness of this program or project to be assessed?
2)	If so, have these criteria been made public?

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
3)	If they have been made public, what is the reference?
4)	If they have not been made public, what reason or reasons does the
department or agency give?
5)	If the department has specified the evaluative criteria-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly yield the floor to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) if-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I definitely heard a "no" and I recognized the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).


Benno Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As much as I would like to defer to my colleague the hon. member for York-Simcoe, I can see that government members recognize quality when they see it and are waiting for what I am going to say.


An hon. Member:: We knew you would be next.


Benno Friesen: I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on this bill that will introduce a new member to the government bureaucracy, namely, the Comptroller General. All hon. members have heard the story that a drowning man sees his life pass before him as he is going down for the third time. The government is going through that experience right now. They are about ready to meet their Maker, and seeing their whole life passing before them, they are engaging in a little bit of deathbed repentance. That is better than no repentance at all, but I wonder just how genuine the repentance is if it comes at the last minute. It is like the boy who when he was falling over a cliff said "Lord save me"; and just then his clothes caught on a branch, whereupon he said "Never mind, Lord, the tree has got me". That is the way the government feels about repentance.
The provision for a comptroller general is a kind of commentary on the government itself. While we on this side called for the creation of this office in the government, I do find two very serious shortcomings in the way the government has brought this bill forward. First of all, it has nothing to do with the establishing of the levels of the budget, and the government can tax all it wants in spite of the creation of this new office. It can continue to tax the Canadian people, and the comptroller general has no control over that. If the government has any kind of self-control or sense of feeling for the Canadian people and the weight of the burden they are already carrying in taxation, there would be no need for the office of comptroller general.
What we need is a little historical sketch as to where we have come in the institution of parliament. Many centuries ago

it was the king who had the ultimate, total and absolute control over the powers of taxation and spending. He could act according to his whims, and it was not until the barons got hold of him at a place called Runnymede, England that they began to limit the exercise of his powers. Some time after that the House of Commons began to limit the powers of the king and say, "Look, you are going to have to come to us before you can exercise those so-called unlimited powers." Parliament then began to limit the taxation powers of the king.
Today, we have the emperor opposite, as he has been described tonight by the member for York-Simcoe, who feels that it is his prerogative to tax the Canadian people as much as he wants, and it is the prerogative of the Canadian people to pay without murmuring. That is noblesse oblige to do that. Over the centuries parliament began to control the taxation and spending powers of the king, but in one fell swoop over the past ten years the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been able to undo all the progress that the House of Commons was able to establish over the centuries.
We now face a government headed by a Prime Minister who feels that the only limits that ought to be exercised are the limits of endurance of the Canadian taxpayers and that they ought not to squeal. The government's principle is to tax as much as possible rather than as little as possible. Having taxed as much as possible, it is then the responsibility of the government to spend as much as possible rather than as little as possible.
I noted with interest that Pat Carney, one of our economists in British Columbia and now one of our candidates in Vancouver Centre-and who is going to turf out that Liberal who wants to make it-has said that the country is facing a potential taxpayers' revolt. I can understand that. The one who wants to be the Liberal candidate, the former mayor of Vancouver, illustrated Liberal economics very well in the way he is going for the nomination. As Pat Carney pointed out in her speech, he bought ads for $1,900 in major Vancouver newspapers which go all over the province-and obviously most of the readers are not eligible to vote for the man in Vancouver Centre-to get himself nominated in Vancouver Centre. That is the way the Liberals look at things.
I read an article in the Globe and Mail this morning about what one of the government backbenchers is experiencing in the city of Toronto, and that article said:
But, according to one senior Metro-area Liberal MP who has spent the past three week ends knocking on doors in his suburban riding, he doesn't need a public opinion poll to tell him that "it's turned to jelly in the past two months."
That is, the decline in support for the Liberal government.
The decline in Liberal support in his riding is palpable, he told a reporter over lunch, and he wasn't the least surprised that Mr. Trudeau and his advisers are attempting to get another reading of the lie of the land.
His constituents are expressing a general feeling of irritation and concern, a lack of confidence in the way things are going in the country and in their economic prospects, he said. This is, coupled with an increased antagonism toward Mr. Trudeau.
To his surprise, this feeling includes an element of distrust, and when he probed for the reasons, Mr. Trudeau's flip-flop on the issue of wage and price controls was often cited.
May 1, 1978

The problem that we are facing in this country is that the government feels it can do anything it wants; it can make any promises it wants, and it does not have to deliver those promises if it does not want to. The taxpayers of Canada, as 1 have said, are going to revolt and change all of that as soon as the Prime Minister screws up his nerve. There has to be a limit to taxation and spending in our country.
As constituted in this legislation, the office of comptroller general really does not deal with the issue of the level of increase in the budget. In the past few days the papers have been reporting the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is raising another $700 million in West Germany by a bond issue. Canadians are concerned about the interest that it is going to cost us in addition to the 12 per cent or 15 per cent that we are going to have to pay in exchange rates on that loan. The bill does not provide any kind of priorities in the way the budget is established.
A few months ago I went to visit a constituent of mine in Crescent Beach. I went to his office, and I spoke to his wife who was running the office because the gentleman cannot work any more. He is a veteran of World War II who was captured by the Japanese and held in a prisoner of war camp in the South Pacific. Many of the prisoners of war in those South Pacific camps suffered from malnutrition. When he came home he was emaciated, but after a little fattening up he looked all right, so veterans affairs discharged him.
Now, 30 years later, he is suffering from ancillary diseases resulting from his malnutrition during the war years, and he would like to get a disability pension. However, the government have an austerity program in operation and they just cannot afford the extra dollars that it would cost to give this man the kind of disability pension that he deserves. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) says that these men will understand very well because they are good Canadians; they will understand that we are on an austerity program and the government just does not have the money.
All the understanding in the world, regardless of how good these men are as Canadians, does not fill their stomachs. They still need that money to live on. Think of that, Mr. Speaker, and then think of the fact, as has been outlined in newspaper reports brought to the attention of the House last week, that the government has every intention of paying the $10,000 fine that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) incurred as a result of slandering one of his civil servants. The government is not only going to pay the fine but also the legal fees to appeal the decision. There seems to be all kinds of money for that but somehow there is not enough to pay those veterans who suffered in a prisoner of war camp and who would like to have another $150 or $200 per month-and deserve it.
Somehow our priorities are all mixed up, Mr. Speaker. Those who are able bodied-I will keep it at able bodied when I speak of the Minister of Supply and Services because I do not know if there is any ability in any other direction-but able bodied people like the minister get all the attention while
Financial Administration Act
a man who is totally disadvantaged, whose wife now has to run the business because he cannot, does not get the attention he deserves.
This bill, which brings into being another officer who supposedly controls spending, does nothing about the priorities the government is establishing. What happened to the austerity the Minister of Veterans Affairs spoke of? Where did this $10,000 come from all of a sudden? Maybe the government could print it. As I have said before, the United States has Fort Knox and Canada has the Reid Paper Company. That is just about the way we get our extra money. I think the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was quite right when he said last week that the government pays the expenses which accrue to a minister in the line of his duty. Now it has obviously decided that slandering one of his public servants is in a minister's line of duty and so the government is going to pay the expenses.
This bill holds out the possibility-and only the possibility- that the comptroller general will have some influence in controlling spending within the already established priorities. The second major shortcoming I see in the bill is that the comptroller general will have no effective control over spending. It is a short bill, Mr. Speaker, only one paragraph, and that is one of the delightful things about it. I wish there was more legislation like that.
For an understanding of Bill C-10 we must refer to the speech made by the minister in this House on March 8 on second reading. Obviously if the minister made a speech in the House it is recorded in Hansard. Nevertheless, he took the trouble to have it copied and sent to each member of the House. I do not know why he had to go to that expense when we could have read it in Hansard. Referring to the position of the comptroller general, the second paragraph of his speech notes:
... will be responsible to the Treasury Board for the quality and integrity of financial administrative systems and related practices and prcedures ...
You will note that he is responsible to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. Surely if the government is serious about controlling spending it would not mind if the comptroller general were responsible to the House of Commons or the public accounts committee. If they were serious about wanting an examination of how well they have lived within their means, they would not mind that; but perhaps the minister is a little bit nervous about letting the House of Commons look at the comptroller general's report before it has been dealt with by Treasury Board.
The next paragraph states:
Since the comptroller general will report to the President of the Treasury Board and will represent a new and somewhat specialized organization serving the Treasury Board,...
Mr. Speaker, we do not need someone else serving the Treasury Board. What we need is a tyrant-someone who will ride herd on the Treasury Board, someone who will sensitize their conscience. We do not need a servant of the Treasury Board. The next paragraph reads as follows:

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
In my previous statement, Mr. Speaker, I outlined the main duties and responsibilities of this new position. As well as responsibility to the Treasury Board for the quality and integrity of the financial administrative policies, practices, and control systems, the comptroller general will also develop and maintain policies, procedures and practices necessary to evaluate and report upon the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs.
That sounds good, Mr. Speaker, but if you look at the premise upon which it is based it is that he is responsible to the Treasury Board for all his actions and reporting.
On page 2 of his speech we come across this statement:
... as the legislation before the House clearly indicates, the comptroller general would report to the government through the President of the Treasury Board.
Why not report to parliament? Why not to the House of Commons-to the public accounts committee? There it would get detailed examination and scrutiny. The sentence that really disturbs me, however, is this one:
The systems that will fall within the comptroller general's purview are intended to ensure that the government has timely, accurate and comprehensive information.
Is it to be his job to collect information and give it to Treasury Board? It seems to me that in business practice the job of a comptroller general is to stop spending, not simply to provide information-to say "You have gone as far as you can, go no further."
From the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board it looks as though it is his intention that the Comptroller General will simply provide information to the government, not stop it spending as it should be stopped.
One page 3 of his speech the minister says:
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.
There is nothing about priorities in this bill, Mr. Speaker. The comptroller general is not going to be able to tell a minister that he will get 3 per cent, 5 per cent or 7 per cent but no more. It is still up to the President of the Treasury Board and the other ministers to decide how much they are going to spend.
As the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) pointed out several times in this House, a pattern is developing in departments such as DREE, external affairs, secretary of state; we see a ballooning of their administrative expenses. This, of course, leaves less money to be used for the purposes for which the funds were intended originally.
The minister went on to say:
As I 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.
So there will not be a recycling of funds. I welcome the limitation to be put on government in this respect so that unused funds cannot be put back into consolidated revenue or some other department. There will possibly be closer scrutiny of those one dollar items in the blue book.
Those are the two main concerns I have about the legislation, Mr. Speaker. There is no assurance that it is going to stop

or curtail government expenditure in any serious way. It has nothing to do with the establishment of the levels of the budget and the amount of spending. It simply says that when the Cabinet establishes spending limits the Comptroller General will make sure that they stay within those limits. That is some kind of help. But as long as it is the cabinet which sets those limits, the needs of the Canadian people will not be met.
It appears to me from what the minister has said that there will be no real power in the office of the Comptroller General such as to seriously limit government spending. Therefore, while this is the best that we can get out of the legislation, to that extent I suppose we must support it. It is far short of what we in the opposition had in mind when we suggested that the government create this office so that there would be genuine control of government spending.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on third reading of this debate. This matter has taken up a great deal of my time and concern since its first introduction into the House. While this debate is coming to a close, I think it is worth-while to remind the House and the country of the reasons for this piece of legislation and how it came about.
The House will recollect-and I hope the country will recollect and not forget-the Auditor General's report of 1975 in which he stated, and I quote:
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.
This is the kind of audit which, if contained in the annual statement of a privately held corporation or a corporation trading on the public stock exchange, would result in the delisting of that stock by the provincial securities commission. It would certainly result in a fall in the value of that stock and it would result in any decent, self-respecting investment broker or banker ceasing to have anything to do with a business that received an audit like that.
There was a recommendation attached to that statement of the quality of the comptroller. It stated that a comptroller general, a chief financial officer, be established to monitor the control systems of government so that these types of criticisms would not be applicable in the future. The government's response to that was exemplified by testimony before the public accounts committee. I quote from page 18:3 where the then secretary of the Treasury Board was asked this question by a Liberal member of that public accounts committee, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson):
Do you not feel there should be a chief financial officer?
To which the then secretary of Treasury Board, Mr. Osbaldes-ton, replied:
No, sir, I believe a government governs and the government is responsible for doing so and is accountable to the country and it must discharge that responsibility. I say that very directly.
May 1, 1978

That was the initial response of the government. It said no, that its job was to govern. It is responsible to the people, and regardless of what the Auditor General says or recommends the government intends to ignore it.
In the 1976 report of the Auditor General, a year later, after further examination the Auditor General was moved to say: 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.
I cannot comprehend any publicly held company remaining in business if it received an audit such as that. It would surely be driven out of business. Finally, after being told in such harsh terms as an auditor could possibly use, the government started to concede a little bit and said that they might consider the recommendation of the Auditor General and establish the office of a comptroller general. On April 25, 1977 the new President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras)-the former president of the Treasury Board who refused to accept this recommendation in the first place is the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien)-said that the government had decided to go along with the recommendation and establish the position of a comptroller general.
The government said that this comptroller general would have a special functional relationship with the chief financial officers, departments and agencies, but he went on to make it clear that the ongoing responsibilities of the secretary of Treasury Board would remain the same. In other words, he made it clear there would not be much change. He ended his statement with a bit of flimflammery of the type the President of the Treasury Board likes to use, namely, "we are endeavouring to give further evidence of our determination to maintain the highest standards of control." What an absurd statement, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General said that the control standards were grossly inadequate. The President of the Treasury Board said that they will continue to maintain the highest standards of control. That is more flimflammery.
What is the responsibility of Treasury Board in regard to financial management control? The Financial Administration Act states that the Treasury Board has the responsibility for financial management, including estimates, expenditures, financial commitments, accounts, fees, or charges for the provision of services or the use of facilities, rentals, licences, leases, revenues from the disposition of property, and procedures by which departments manage, record and account for revenues received or receivable from any source whatever.
In other words, according to the Financial Administration Act, Treasury Board already has responsibility for the financial management and control of its departments and agencies, a responsibility which it has totally failed to uphold. For the President of the Treasury Board to say "we will maintain those standards" I say is absurd.
After the denial and dismissal of the Auditor General's recommendation of a comptroller general and the subsequent admission that maybe the Auditor General's recommendation
Financial Administration Act
had some merit, what do we get? We get a one-line bill which says there shall be created another deputy minister. That is all that the bill says. It is true that the deputy minister shall have a fancy name, that his name shall be "Comptroller General." But what is in a name, after all? If a rose by any other name is a rose, then a deputy minister by any other name is a deputy minister. All this bill does is give us another deputy minister and nothing more.
The Auditor General's recommendations set out in great detail a restructuring of Treasury Board and the types of functions, responsibilities and activities that the comptroller general will engage in. These are set out in paragraph 2.15 of the Auditor General's report of 1976. I will not repeat them because they are here for everyone to see. What the Auditor General recommended was a substantial restructuring of the Treasury Board with the specific responsibilities of the comptroller general spelled out.
Why is there nothing in this act to reflect that particular recommendation of the Auditor General? When one asked the minister about this, as he was asked repeatedly in the House and in committee, he said that they operate under a system of ministerial responsibility. He said ministers are responsible to the House for what their deputies do. In no way whatsoever. The government holds constantly to this principle of ministerial responsibility when it would deny the House of Commons access to information or deny it the right to take any initiative with regard to certain legislation. But when it comes to admitting that it has failed to exercise proper supervision over the expenditure of taxpayers' money, it is quite another story. Do we ever hear of ministers resigning in such circumstances? Not on your life.
What are the chances of success for the comptroller general? We on this side hope he is outstandingly successful, but if I were a betting man I would bet that his chances of success are next to nil. What are we giving him by way of authority to move into government and cure the ills which the Auditor General describes as horrendous? He will walk into an operation which has carried the responsibility all along; he will walk into a Treasury Board structure which has proved to be a total failure, without any legislative authority; in short, it is without any tools with which to accomplish the job.
He will, it is true, be given a set of guidelines laying out a general job description. I should like to mention just one item:
Design and implementation guidance with respect to systems of financial reporting, financial management and financial control to provide assurance that public monies and assets are expended with probity, economy and efficiency and that public monies and assets are under effective custody and control. Assessment of the adequacy of such systems in departments and agencies.
The key word here is "guidance". In other words, the comptroller general will not have the authority to instal systems of financial management and control which will work. He will simply provide guidance. He will, in effect, be some kind of co-ordinator or teacher. That is no authority at all, Mr. Speaker; he will be eaten alive. Those 500,000 civil servants who have been operating out of control, according to the

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
Auditor General, will continue in the future as they have in the past. We are told that the minister will give the comptroller general the necessary authority, because the minister is responsible. But will the minister live up to that responsibility? I have not seen any president of Treasury Board resigning although the president of any company who receives an auditor's report similar to the one the government received would be gone within 24 hours. The fact is that the comptroller general is going into the den of lions with no weapons whatever.
What our party tried to do in committee and on report stage was to strengthen this position. I regret that at the report stage I was not able to be here to present my motion personally; I thank my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for doing so on my behalf. That amendment, had it been accepted, would, it is true, not have answered all the questions I have raised but it would have given the Comptroller General a certain legislative authority; he could have approached his task in the knowledge that the House of Commons had vested him with responsibility by statute to look after such things as the form of the estimates, the effective control of public moneys and assets, making sure that financial procedures and reports conform to accepted accounting principles and that expenditures of public money are made with due regard for economy and efficiency. He could have acted to see that specific steps were taken to measure the effectiveness of government programs.
A provision of this kind in the statute would have given him some leverage so that when he met the resistance which will surely be forthcoming he would have the necessary power to overcome it. It was a simple amendment and a reasonable one. Indeed, it contained an additional sentence-"that without restricting the generality of the foregoing he should be allotted such functions as may be assigned to him by Treasury Board." Had this amendment been accepted it would have made the task of the comptroller general easy. But it was something which the government was not willing to accept. Why? Because the government has no intention of changing things in any way.
The bill before us, the appointment of this individual, is simply window dressing for the benefit of the public. The government is trying to say: "Look, we are doing something about the fact that your tax dollars are being spent in foolish, inefficient and wasteful fashion; we have appointed the comptroller general." Nonsense, Mr. Speaker. They have appointed another deputy minister, that is all, and the same old gang will carry on just as they carried on before.
That was the only amendment we put forward in committee. Another had to do with the making of an annual report to parliament, through Treasury Board, which would stand permanently referred to the appropriate committee. In that way members of parliament would at least have an opportunity to examine the report on an annual basis, to question the comptroller general and to establish where he was meeting resistance with a view to backing him up should he need support. Again, we ran into opposition. The minister claimed that in

accordance with our parliamentary traditions a committee of the House could not be involved in the manner suggested. To put it another way, it amounts to some sort of rude interference when members of parliament seek effective ways of expressing concern about the manner in which taxpayers' money is being spent. Such things, we are told, are the prerogative of members of Treasury Board. But when things are getting out of hand, don't expect the minister to resign. No way.
We also introduced in committee, unfortunately without success, a sunset clause. We agreed with the recommendation of the Auditor General that something had to be done about the fact that financial controls within government were nonexistent, but we also recognized that the course proposed might not be the answer to the problem. There is a possibility that it will not succeed. There is a possibility that costs may be too high. After all, imposing another central agency on such a huge operation like this may restrict the flexibility of the government. It may introduce inefficiencies in itself, and so we think it only wise that when we take a step like this and create a new office, a new structure and a new way of doing things, we put in a sunset clause so that five years, eight years, ten years or whatever, at some point in the future the House of Commons asks itself what it did five years ago, what it put in place at that time, whether it is working, whether it should carry on as before and whether it should be dropped, amended or changed. At some time we should look into it. To me that is the only responsible action.
However, again we ran into resistance from the government and from the minister. The minister said the government could not tolerate that kind of interference by parliament in the operations of government because, after all, parliament has no right to interfere in the operations of government; parliament should mind its own business. I have always felt that the business of parliament is government, but apparently hon. members opposite do not think so.
So it is with some degree of sadness that I see this stage of this bill nearing its completion. It is a nothing bill, really. It appoints another deputy minister, that is all, full stop. We obviously cannot be opposed to nothing, and therefore we are not opposed to this bill. But I hope the public of Canada is not deluded into believing that this piece of legislation is a response to the observations of the Auditor General with regard to the quality of financial management and control of Canada's taxpayers' money because it is not. This is a nothing bill which does nothing in terms of solving the problems articulated by the Auditor General some three years ago and which remain outstanding. Given the level of taxation in this country and the amount of money which is just wasted through inefficient practices, it is indeed a tragedy that we carry on as before and an even worse tragedy that we have such an irresponsible government.
In closing, let me repeat that we on this side wish the new Comptroller General well. According to my knowledge of his
May 1, 1978

background, he is a person of exceptional qualifications, and perhaps he will be able to overcome the obstacles which will be put in front of him. I am not optimistic in that regard. If I were a betting man, I would bet that he will fail. I am saddened that we on this side of the House were not able to give him the legislative back-up necessary so that he could get to the root of the problems and improve the quality of financial management and control within the federal government. However, until the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) screws up his courage and gives the people of Canada an opportunity to do something about it, we have to live with the recommendations of that group opposite. Hence, it is our intention to let the bill pass at third reading with the realization that the job we face when we assume office will be that much harder.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in his concluding remarks the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) said that this is a nothing bill, and I do not know whether the Canadian public realizes just how much nothing there is in it. The bill purports to appoint an officer called the Comptroller General of Canada to hold office during pleasure. The bill goes on to say the following, "and to perform such duties and functions as may be assigned to him by the Treasury Board". That is the extent of the bill.
The explanatory note, which generally elaborates on the intent of a bill, says much the same thing, and then it says, "and to provide for the assignment of duties and functions to the incumbent of that office". As I see it, the explanatory note is very misleading. You would be bound to agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that to provide for the assignment of duties when there is no assignment of duties here-because the wording of the bill is "and to perform such duties and functions as may be assigned to him by the Treasury Board"-is a contradiction. There is a contradiction between the text of the bill and the explanatory note which I find more than a little disturbing.
I have forgotten just how many years ago it was-perhaps two or three-but I recall the circumstances under which the concept of a comptroller general came to the fore. It stemmed basically from a remark in one of the reports of the Auditor General to the effect that the accounts of the Government of Canada were in such a deplorable state-I am paraphrasing, but this was certainly the intent of his comment-that the day might come, and come soon, when the Auditor General would be unable to certify them as being accurate. That is a very serious indictment of the accounts of any organization, but for one which has a budget of some $42 billion, all of which is raised through taxation of the Canadian population or by other means, it is a damning indictment. It is an indictment of the accounting record of this government.
In addition to that background I remember one report in which the Auditor General recommended the establishment of the position of comptroller general. I think that was in the 1976 report. At that point that government stood up and said it did not need a comptroller general at all, that it had everything in hand and that instead of appointing a comptroller general it would appoint a royal commission of inquiry on
Financial Administration Act
financial management and accountability in the Government of Canada.
The government said that a royal commission would soon satisfy all the needs and allay all the worries of the Auditor General. That was the first reaction of the government. A commission was duly appointed. It was chaired by Mr. Lambert of the board of the Toronto Dominion Bank. There vere other members including a former public servant who was at the time the deputy minister of industry, trade and commerce. Time went on. I have forgotten just how much time passed. Then all of a sudden we understand that a selection process took place and a comptroller general was named. There was some questioning and prodding: Why this change from the royal commission approach, which was supposed to solve all problems, to what appears to be an acquiescence in or an agreement with what the Auditor General said? I do not think we really know the background on that story, unless it was that the government became particularly worried. However, what concerns me is that this turnaround is a mark of indecision and evidence of a lack of good financial control over accounts, and looking at the ten-year record of this government in financial terms and in parliamentary terms, I think the Canadian people have cause for serious misgivings about the promises and undertakings which are set forth in this bill. I would like to see it otherwise.
It was suggested by my friend who spoke just before me, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, that it was just the appointment of another deputy minister, nothing more. Certainly the powers that will be given to him are not now being exercised by the Treasury Board. They may or may not be those which were outlined by the Auditor General, and I shall come to them in a few minutes because I want to talk about some of them in particular terms. As I said, with the record of this government in the matter of ministerial responsibility, we have seen time and time again when the government has developed a new theory or a new principle, and I call the principle one of ministerial abdication. The government is prepared to slough off on to the public servant responsibility for acts which are properly the government's acts. So if the comptroller general does something wrong, it is his fault and out he goes.
This has been done in the case of the public servant, Mr. Stopforth, whose name, we find, has been cleared, although the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) defamed him in public. It is not one of the ministerial responsibilities to defame a public servant, and therefore it is not the responsibility of parliament or of the Canadian people to make good the judicial judgment at a trial covering that matter. It is the individual responsibility of the minister who has defamed the public servant to do so.
So in the matter of ministerial responsibility this government has shown itself to be utterly deficient. Let me recall that this government has managed to create just this year a deficit equal to the whole budgetary spending program the year it took office-that is, $10 billion. Is that a record of monetary

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
or fiscal responsibility? Yet we are expected to accept that sort of bill as an undertaking to provide what is required according to the Auditor General. And I certainly subscribe to the words of the Auditor General when he says that this sort of operation is needed. We have been asked to sign a blank cheque to allow a government with such a record to define in all secrecy- because this government is known, in addition to all its other defects, to operate in complete secrecy-the responsibilities of a comptroller general once he has been placed in office.
I ask myself: When it abdicates its responsibilities in one area, why should the government expect us to accept the notion that it will perform any more satisfactorily in another area? Its fiscal record is so abominable and so abysmal, I suggest, that we have every reason to think that in this area it will be unable to meet expectations. Therefore, we really do need a clearer definition in the legislation of the functions and responsibilities of the person whose post is being created by this legislation. We are not safe with a government with such a record of secrecy and we need an assurance in law that control will be carried out, in accordance with the efforts made by my colleagues in committee and at report stage to have the appropriate amendments brought in, efforts which were defeated by this government by sheer weight of number.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves what is a comptroller general. My first action, when I run into an expression like that, is to seek the dictionary definition as guidance. So I went to the 12 volume edition of the Oxford dictionary where I found the following definition of the word "comptroller":
An erroneous spelling of controller, introduced cl500, and formerly frequent in all senses; still retained in certain official designations, while in others it has been changed to the ordinary spelling.
So the word "comptroller" is really the erroneous spelling of the word "controller", which is more commonly used in English. I suspect it was done by a scribe who found it easier to write the word comptroller, which comes from the French word "compter", one who holds accounts. Then I went to the definition of "controller" and I found four or five definitions here. One reads:
One who keeps a counter-roll so as to check a treasurer or person in charge of accounts.
Another reads:
A household officer whose duty was primarily to check expenditure ...
Another reads:
An officer having similar duties in various public offices.
Another one is:
One who takes to task, calls in question, reproves, or censures: a censorious critic.
This is the definition which really meets the case. Another definition is:
One who controls or keeps under control; one who restrains, directs or manages.
That is what we need; we need a restrainer around here. Another definition reads:
Controller-general: an officer entrusted with the supreme direction or control.

Those are not the sorts of definitions that would be all that meaningful in an act, but surely when this act was being drafted there were some competent legal people who could define in two languages what a comptroller general was supposed to do and could put it into the bill.
I took a hint from my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, and I looked up the distinction that was made by the Auditor General when he was discussing the role of the future comptroller general. I think it is worth putting on the record again and again-it cannot be repeated too often-just what he saw the comptroller general as being required to do. These are the terms that should have gone into the bill. The Auditor General examined the structure of the Treasury Board and he said:
All functions relating to financial management and control would be assigned to the comptroller general of Canada,-
-leaving aside those of the secretary of the Treasury Board relating to resource allocation, personnel policy, administrative policy, and management of the official languages program, which would remain with the secretary of the Treasury Board or would otherwise be assigned as the government may see fit. He went on to say that the responsibilities of the comptroller general "relative to other deputy heads and his relationships with departmental financial officers are described in Part 3 of this report," to which I may have an opportunity to come.
Although this part is important, I consider it secondary this evening because my time is limited. There were five principal functions set down and I think they should be listed so that they are known. I know that in common law it is not the discussion surrounding a bill or an act which determines definitions in courts of law. For a better understanding of the meaning of this bill, the five functions of the Comptroller General should be laid down as they were seen by the Auditor General. As reported on page 3589 of Hansard, his responsibilities would be as follows:
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,...
All of us have complained about the estimates, the difficulties which are faced when reading the estimates and extracting something from them which is meaningful. We can criticize, examine and approve, but the estimates are deemed to be approved at the end of this month if they are not passed by deliberate act.
His second responsibility would be as follows:
... that accounting procedures and financial reports throughout government... conform to acceptable accounting principles and standards .. .
In itself that is an indictment of what is now the practice, or it would not have to be said. It is a shameful thing for a public servant to feel it is necessary to advise parliament in this regard.
May 1, 1978

His third responsibility would be:
... that expenditures of public moneys are made with due regard for economy and efficiency ...
This is a most important responsibility.
The fourth one would be:
... that satisfactory procedures measure the effectiveness of programs where they could reasonably be expected to apply.
His fifth responsibility would be:
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.
To that I say, "Amen". Nothing should be left in the hands of the Department of Supply and Services and its minister.
I have in my possession a publication entitled, "Guide on Financial Administration for Departments and Agencies of the Government of Canada". It is signed by a previous president of the Treasury Board and is dated September, 1973. Apparently it is full of meaninglessness, and was discarded by the Auditor General. How many thousands of copies of this were produced and distributed for guidance?
Certainly we need accountability and efficiency in the economy in order for us to know if the programs undertaken by the government are meaningful. This could lead us to zero-based budgeting, whereby programs start from zero and the individuals working on those programs are required to justify what they are doing. This will not be an easy process, but it ought to be introduced early.
That zero-based budgeting, which is an effective tool of management, could be started within the departments first, and then expanded on a department by department basis. The export development program regarding the line of credit to Algeria amounted to $1.2 billion. Can that program be examined? Would it stand up under the criteria of efficiency and economy? What about the Eneraction program? I call it the enervation program. In that program, people are taken off the dole and asked to assist in the provision of insulation for the elderly. These people know nothing about insulation or construction. They have applied for a grant to operate the government program. They undertake to train people in the field of insulating houses. People are taken from the unemployment insurance rolls to be trained. These people know nothing about construction or construction standards. The result of that program is that qualified insulators are going on the unemployment rolls. They are unable to get work because of this program.
There is a great need for an examination of the economy and the efficiency of government programs. The comptroller general should be encouraging department heads to examine programs such as these. This is the area in which his relationship with other government departments would come into play. Department heads could come to him indicating that they do not know if the Eneraction program is working or not. A system of examination, assessment and evaluation could be worked out to deterthine whether returns were being paid in the form of economy and efficiency. If not, then the program
Financial Administration Act
must be dropped. I use this program merely as an example. The public will never hear about these programs unless the comptroller general is given the real power he requires to assure economy and efficiency in government operations.
Surely it is not too much to ask for these clarifications to be added to the bill. As the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) suggested, there should be an annual report to parliament from the comptroller general so that parliament would know the comptroller general was exercising his functions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-10. The successful passage of this very important and long-awaited piece of legislation will enable the establishment of the office of the comptroller general of Canada. The setting up of a watch dog over the spending spree of the government is long overdue.
After grim warnings from the Auditor General that the federal government has pretty well lost control of the public purse, and as a result of persistent prodding from members of my party, finally we are close to starting along the long road to introducing some economic sanity into the government and its spending. The prodigal son spending approach of the government has led this country to the brink of bankruptcy. Elected officials must register their concern and fully support this bill. It is hoped that the appointment of the comptroller general will improve financial management and introduce some degree of accountability. Similar sentiment has been expressed by the Auditor General in his annual report.
One of the basic functions of parliament is responsibility for the public purse. We in the opposition consistently have been vigilant in requiring accountability for government spending. I must confess it has been a most frustrating experience. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I am well aware of the lack of accountability exhibited by the government. The committees have failed miserably in their efforts to apply brakes on excessive government spending. Through their long and extended testimony, ministers have tried to undermine the parliamentary tradition of scrutinizing government spending.
In its progress report of November 1977, the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability said the following:
We are persuaded that if accountability is to have full meaning and real effect, parliament must be a vital part of it.
I am one of those of the opinion that surveillance of government spending by parliamentary committees ought to be made more effective. A regular review of government departments should be conducted. We sorely lack effective mechanisms for obtaining government accountability. Accountability to parliament and to the people of Canada is the most essential element of our democratic process. If for some reason this privilege is abused, it plunges us into the kind of economic chaos we have been led into.

May 1, 1978
Financial Administration Act
Consider for the moment the following. Between 1969 and 1977 public expenditure amounted to S235 billion. The startling fact is that during all that time parliament made only two cuts; $19,000 in supplementary funds for Information Canada in March of 1973, and $1,000 from money intended for the CBC in June of 1973. This illustrates well the manner in which the government has bull-dozed its spending estimates through parliament.
The government has jndulged in questionable advertising campaigns on behalf of government departments reflecting party bias. The taxpayers are paying for the whims of the philosopher king who is engaged in playing games with the election date, thus requiring the CBC to station its technicians and vans on Parliament Hill awaiting the election announcement. This was mentioned last week by one of the previous speakers from our party. The cost estimate given in this regard was a startling figure.
I could go on and list the massive dose of inefficiency this government has given. I have only to mention the fact that the government's deficit today is more than the total budget of the last Conservative government in power by a good many millions of dollars.
For too long the king has thrived under the automatic passage of estimates by May 31. This built-in acceptance mechanism should be removed. Members should be allowed the opportunity to thoroughly examine the estimates before voting on them. That is the only way we can put an end to the spending legacy of this government.
Big Daddy, the biggest spender ever-and that is the federal government-certainly has a great deal to account for in the years to come, and possibly in the forthcoming federal election campaign. The Government of Canada is the greatest spender of all in advertising its own wares, telling the story of how good it is and what it has to offer. This is rather unusual when you consider that the government has no competition. I think of some of the great private concerns which spend millions of dollars to sell their products, such as Procter and Gamble, whose budget for advertising is phenomenal, General Motors, tobacco and alcohol companies. Yet their advertising budgets do not hold a candle to this government's. Certainly if there is a priority for the Comptroller General when he takes office it will be to investigate the advertising campaign in which the present government is involved. There is one particular aspect of one department which requires investigation, and that is the $1 million advertising campaign pointing out abuses to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The Post Office is an important department. I am vitally interested in it as a member of the committee. Some ten years ago this department had a deficit of $67 million. This year the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) says there will be a deficit of approximately $600 million. In 1968, some ten years ago, the employees of the Post Office numbered 36,000. This number has now increased to 66,000, but the service has not improved greatly. It is difficult to know when you can count on a letter being delivered. Let me give an example. Some telegrams were sent to me from my riding of Parry Sound-

Muskoka last Tuesday, some of which were delivered today. Those were telegrams so the House can imagine how much good those telegrams did!
In 1968 there were 236,000 employees of the civil service. Various members of this party have pointed out tonight that the number of employees presently in the civil service is about 500,000. These huges increases should be investigated, and let us hope the Comptroller General will be able to do so.
The proposed budget for this coming year is $45 billion. We are well aware that, with the supplementary estimates which will come in from time to time, by the time March 31 of next year arrives the budget will probably be $50 billion in round figures.
It has already been mentioned that various government departments as well as the government have talked about zero budgeting. However, that is as far as it has gone. Let us hope the Comptroller General will be able to do something to bring these departments to heel, cutting back on overspending.
A suggestion that the Auditor General and the Comptroller General should take into consideration is one involving an incentive system for various departments, having the deputy ministers made responsible. The deputy ministers would have to keep within their budgets or face penalties. If they stayed within the budgets they would receive bonuses. I am aware that deputy ministers are not among the underpaid in this country today, but if they could save taxpayers' money it would be worthwhile giving them an incentive to do so.
I have heard on good authority, and I believe government members will agree, that in certain departments just before March 31 there is an effort to spend that remaining portion of the budget in order that they will receive the same or a greater budget the following year. These people dust around and do their darndest to spend what money is left so that as much or more will be available in the following year. If they could save $300,000 or $400,000 they could be given bonuses of $10,000. I am sure they would think twice then before squandering taxpayers' money. This is an idea the new Comptroller General should consider and perhaps put into practice.
As a member on this side of the House I am in support of this bill. I trust it will accomplish something. Some hon. members are pessimistic about it, but I have the highest praise for the government for bringing it forward even at this late stage. I offer my best wishes to the new Comptroller General. Let him get on with his job as quickly as possible in order that we may stretch taxpayers' dollars a lot further than at the present time.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the debate since first reading of this bill with a great deal of interest and attention, especially the views put forward by members of the official opposition. One of the most interesting speeches was made by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), who I am happy to see in the House tonight. That gentleman is the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He is the only member of the opposition to hold the
May 1, 1978

position of chairman. Let me say that he carries out his task in this regard in a very excellent fashion. I appreciated the kind words he had for various members of this party, especially for the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and myself who, along with himself and members from all parties, have had an opportunity of working together in the Public Accounts Committee.
In his speech on this third reading of Bill C-10, he made a very interesting observation, to be found on page 4980 of Hansard dated April 28:
The tireless efforts of the Auditor General through the Standing Committee on Public Accounts have brought a realization that a chief financial officer is indeed needed at the Treasury Board level. Having worked on this subject matter for some time now, I can see the sense of the chief financial officer, the comptroller general, reporting through the Treasury Board to the House, though some of my colleagues may disagree with me. He is the one responsible for putting in place within our agencies, departments and Crown corporations, mechanisms which will demand a better performance in the management of our tax resource.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, the great work that was done by the members of the miscellaneous estimates committee to which this bill had been referred. This committee was responsible for calling forth the witnesses to be questioned on this bill regarding the functions and duties of the Comptroller General. On behalf of the minister, I wish to thank all those who have taken part in the debate and the committee hearings in relation to this bill. It was referred to the miscellaneous estimates committee at which time the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), the secretary of the Treasury Board, the Auditor General and the new Comptroller General himself, Mr. Rogers, appeared. We had been told before meeting him that he had been chosen after careful study and was a person who had had a very extensive career in the private * sector in a variety of positions of responsibility with a major international corporation. He indeed impressed all those present with his answers and coolness in spite of the fact it was his first time before a committee of parliament, and there was no doubt that he was an excellent choice.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), who is also in the House tonight, was the only member from the opposition parties who was able to be present throughout the hearings on the day Mr. Rogers appeared as the new Comptroller General replied to questions. Yet everyone who has spoken in this debate keeps saying over and over how important this position of comptroller general is. Further, I hope that in the future more and more members of this House will become more active participants in the Public Accounts Committee. As I know from long experience, this is one of the most important committees in this House.
This is an historic occasion, and as one who has been an active member of the Public Accounts Committee for approximately nine of my 12 years in the House, I join all members in welcoming the official establishment of this new office. I am sure all members will join me in wishing Mr. Rogers well in his new, important duties.
Financial Administration Act
I remind hon. members of the words of the Auditor General in committee when he stated that with this new office and the other changes that have been made since he assumed office, the Canadian government now has the most advanced system of accountability and control of any government in the western world. Even though members may have other priorities and may not become active members of either the Public Accounts Committee or the miscellaneous estimates committee, I would commend to them the reading of the minutes of these committees. Opposition members have especially taken objection to this one-paragraph bill setting up the office of the Comptroller General, but if they study the committee hearings and statements made by the ministers and others they will find the answers to all their questions.
Hon. members will find that in an unresolved conflict existing between the Auditor General and the Comptroller General, if this conflict still exists at the time the Auditor General makes his annual report to parliament, it will be included in that report. This will mean the necessity of a further report to parliament is disproven. In other words, if for some reason Mr. Rogers and Mr. Macdonell cannot come to an agreement on a certain item of government expenditure, then the Auditor General will include it in his report to be tabled in parliament, which is automatically referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
As I previously stated, this committee has been ably chaired by the hon. member for Capilano and other opposition members. Therefore, the committee will be quite free to carry on any investigation it feels necessary. Indeed, neither Mr. Rogers, the Comptroller General, nor the Auditor General, Mr. Macdonell, has any problem with Bill C-10. They are both confident that they can carry out their duties, and have testified to such in committee. I now hope that we can get through third reading of this important bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


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


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual consultations, and I understand that if you were not to see the clock for a short period of time we could now proceed to Bill S-8 rather expeditiously.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not misled anybody but I cannot agree to that. Why I cannot agree can be found if hon. members will look at page 11 of the bill, section 18. I have a 20-minute speech ready, but I am prepared to listen to the parliamentary secretary until ten o'clock.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, if you call second reading of Bill S-8,1 will be glad to begin. We have twice had misunderstandings which I cannot understand.
5042

May 1, 1978
Business of the House


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, the idea was to introduce the bill today and we would discuss it further tomorrow.


FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT
Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill S-8, respecting fugitive offenders in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the acting House leader if he could confirm the order of business for tomorrow.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as announced by the Deputy Prime Minister for Canada, we will proceed with second reading of Bill S-8 and then with consideration of Bill C-42. If we deal quickly enough with the latter, which concerns language before the courts, and I trust that the opposition parties, particularly the Progressive Conservative party, will not object to quick passage of the bill, we could go on to Bill S-9 and Bill C-4. So, Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, the order would be as follows: S-8, C-42, which should go rapidly, and then S-9 and C-4.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, recently I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) what new initiatives he had in mind to focus more specifically his department's resources in the critical areas of regional disparity, particularly since the department's

budget is down in real terms. Not only is it down in actual cash but new areas have been added and inflation has undermined this department's resources as it has so many other cases.
As it now stands, this department is failing in its task. In 1970, one year after DREE was created, unemployment in Canada stood at 5.7 per cent while in the Atlantic region, a classic area of economic disparity it was 6.2 per cent. Seven years later unemployment in Canada stood at 8.1 per cent while in Atlantic Canada it was 12.7 per cent. Clearly the situation is getting worse instead of better. Economic differences have become more exaggerated and critical.
As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), our former leader, pointed out a few weeks ago, the result of the combined policies with respect to Canada's various regions is such that to a substantial degree various regions have turned into government dependencies. Energy costs and transportation costs continue to plague the efforts of the Atlantic region to limit its failure to expand as it should.
I want to suggest to the minister tonight that he take steps to educate and work with other departments in order to do something about this lamentable state of affairs. Since the federal government is the largest employer, the largest buyer of goods and services in the country, it is time that the Atlantic region was given more equity.
In 1976, for example, total federal spending on goods and services was about $9.7 billion. Experts and analysts consider that approximately 85 per cent of all procurement is done in central Canada, leaving less than 15 per cent for the other eight provinces and two territories. I remember that shortly after coming to this place the then minister of supply and services stated clearly that his department was going to institute a more enlightened purchasing policy. This has not had any appreciable effect to date.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce also contributes to the under-development of Atlantic Canada. In a recent year, Atlantic Canada received only 1.7 per cent of the funds allotted for industrial assistance. On a per capita basis it should have received over five times as much.
Since my time is very limited tonight, I just want to make a suggestion to the minister. Although both his predecessors had experience in the Department of Transport as well as DREE, by taking the initiative he could accomplish something that they could not, except by paying lip service to the idea, and that is to make transportation a partner with regional economic expansion in attacking disparities in this country.
I should like to suggest this evening that the minister or his parliamentary secretary take a very close look at building something that has been talked about for many years in the Atlantic region, and that is a corridor road extending from the New Brunswick border through northern Maine to the vicinity of Sherbrooke in la belle province, Quebec. A corridor road would be a direct link through the state of Maine from New Brunswick to Quebec. It could be an extension of the Van-ceboro-Lincoln Road at the New Brunswick border which
May 1, 1978

would emerge in the vicinity of Sherbrooke, Quebec after crossing New Brunswick, saving approximately 200 miles on the existing route from Fredericton to Montreal and almost as far by driving through the United States on the existing highway route.
The construction of such a road could perhaps be of more benefit than the St. Lawrence Seaway as far as Atlantic Canada is concerned. It could be and should have been one of the areas of joint co-operation and negotiation between the United States and Canada whenever mutual concessions, aims and objectives were in issue, as for example in the recent pipeline negotiations or when Alaska highway matters are on the table between our two nations.
Such a road would reduce the driving time by approximately four hours and thus allow many additional trips in the course of a year with great savings in energy and maintenance costs. It would bring the Atlantic provinces much closer in real terms to markets in the rest of Canada. Many bulk commodities now tied to rail or water transport could look at potential new markets via road transport. Tourism would be facilitated. There is something to be said for building a road thereby bringing Gagetown, New Brunswick into close linkage with the military installations in the United States. Such a road would be welcome in both countries. It would be expensive. But it would be money well spent compared to some of the cosmetic capital costs involved in building unnecessary and grandiose skyscrapers and monster airports. It would do a great deal in real terms to overcome some of the natural disadvantages geographically that we have in the maritimes.
Let DREE help facilitate the arteries of commerce. We need improvements and opportunities in the maritimes, not handouts. DREE can help but it cannot do much in its present posture. It needs to take steps to either build sound infrastructures and to work with other departments in projects of this magnitude, or make its definition section more flexible. It could allow other industries, except manufacturing and processing industries, to be eligible for DREE aid, as is done in Germany, for example. If we continue to drift along with DREE in its present form, as statistics have shown we are not only perpetuating policies which are not helping the disparate regions of the country, but we are seeing as time goes by a steady erosion of the situation that existed even a few years ago.


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has raised several questions concerning the role of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Atlantic Canada and in his own province of Nova Scotia with respect to creating employment. While the minister feels that this department's efforts in this regard ought to be well known by now to most Nova Scotians, on the minister's behalf, as his former parliamentary secretary, I am pleased at this time to acquaint the hon. member with what is happening not only in his home province but in his own riding.
Adjournment Debate
He asks what new initiatives the department has in mind. DREE operates in concert with provincial governments in the identification and exploitation of development opportunities. Therefore, I do not unilaterally have new initiatives in mind.
What the department intends to do must also be put in the context of what it is already doing. The department is constantly working, in conjunction with the province, to find new initiatives leading to development agreements. In Nova Scotia the department has signed ten such agreements in less than three years, with a total value approaching one quarter of a billion dollars. We hope in the near future to be announcing further agreements which will contribute in a meaningful and permanent way to the betterment of that province's economy.
The agreements already in force deal with the natural resource sectors, such as forestry, agriculture and minerals. Others deal with industrial development, the Sydney steel mill, the Strait of Canso, tourism and redevelopment of the Halifax-Dartmouth waterfront area.
It is frequently suggested by members of the opposition, that all the department has to do to straighten out our economic problems is to develop our natural resources. We are presently fully committed to the natural resources in Nova Scotia. Another resource, the fisheries, has the full attention of an entire department of the government.
These agreements were not worked out on an ad hoc basis, nor were they proposed as purely political, counter-cyclical measures to create jobs out of thin air. In short, they do not represent the kind of stop-gap measures the hon. member thinks we ought to engage in.
If permanent jobs could be created simply by making interest-free money available to the private sector, we would have recommended this action a long time ago; but this approach is too simplistic. It makes no attempt to recognize the facts of economic life nor, I might add, does it take into account what the availability of too much "free money" would do to our conventional lending institutions.
What we can do, however, and what the department is doing, is to put federal dollars into the economy in such a way that, hopefully, more opportunities for investment will be created. Our development agreements represent the best thinking available as to how to stimulate economic growth by first creating an environment which is attractive to private investment.
This is not easily achieved. Nor can it be done overnight. Broad-based programs for forestry, agriculture, minerals and tourism must by definition be diffuse in their application. They carry with them, however, a number of opportunities for the private sector.
The hon. member might be interested to hear that residents of his own riding and of the surrounding areas have been benefitting from these programs for some time. Grants to farmers in Pictou county during the past two years have
80038-29)4

May 1, 1978
Adjournment Debate
amounted to more than $491,000. This money was provided under the agreement for development of the agriculture sector.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but his time has expired.


FINANCE-MEASURES TO PREVENT DUMPING OF STEEL BEAMS-DEFINITION OF &quot;FAIR WORLD PRICE&quot;
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, on February 20 of this year, as reported in Hansard at page 3006, I addressed the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The preamble reads:
The heart of much of the regional antagonism caused by federal rulings on matters like the dumping duty on wide-flange steel beams seems to be in our failure to recognize that often more than one market can exist in a country as vast as Canada.
Can the minister, or the Prime Minister, advise whether the government is negotiating an amendment under article 4(A)(ii) of the GATT agreement to reflect the fact that transportation costs and other regional marketing factors may create in Canada two or more markets, where in at least one Canadian producers sell none or almost none of their goods?
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) replied as follows:
We have recognized that there is a short-term problem in British Columbia. Of course, when we have one Canadian market we have to maintain a tariff and have an adjudication by the tribunal when it looks into a dumping case- whether it be steel or any other product-because we cannot accept dumping of products on the Canadian market. I am sure the hon. member would not be pleased if we did not protect, in the eastern market, the price of plywood that very often comes from B.C.
In answer to a supplementary question by my hon. friend from Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), the same minister ended his explanation by saying:
Of course, British Columbia producers will always have access to international steel as long as it is not dumped on the Canadian market.
It is not my intention, nor that of the B.C. government, to speak against the principle of protection against dumping. However, for the federal government to continue to treat this vast land with ports on the Atlantic close to European markets and with ports on the Pacific close to Asian and Pacific Rim markets as a single market is to keep in place a policy that is obsolete, a policy that maintains regional stresses, a policy that works against unity and a policy that enhances anti-centralist feeling to the disadvantage of federalism.
My argument against the position taken by the government is that injury should be isolated to the region or market where the injury can be identified. The main factor which determines markets within Canada is railroad freight rates, as anyone who has been in the business of distributing or manufacturing goods knows.
The issue facing us is that tariffs erected to safeguard against injury to domestic producers caused by dumping be considered in two parts; first, within the market regions of Canada where such dumping is causing injury and, second, within market regions of Canada where such dumping is not causing injury. We should limit the safeguard to the region in which the safeguard is prompted as a result of the threat or reality of injury.

As a member of GATT, Canada has accepted the principle of liberalizing trade between member nations. Indeed, this is the thrust of the Tokyo round. The suggested isolation of the safeguard resort would mean protection for the region of Canada needing it, leaving the benefits of freer trade to those not served by domestic production and historically dependent on offshore materials. Surely the federal government can see that this suggestion fits the spirit and objectives of GATT.
To continue as we are today will deliver the West Coast steel fabricating markets to the fabricators of Ontario. The loss to British Columbia will be in neighbourhood of 1,500 to 2,000 jobs, plus all the spin-off benefits attendant to this employment. If the concern of the government for unity and regional equity extends beyond rhetoric, I trust my plea tonight will be given careful consideration by the ministers concerned.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has raised a question concerning the recent move by the government to remit anti-dumping duties on wide flanged steel shapes imported from certain countries for installation in projects in British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and the Yukon Territory. The remission order, as hon. members are aware, will apply for the nine-month period from the application of the provisional anti-dumping duties; that is, for the period from September 29, 1977 to June 29, 1978. As noted in the press announcement, this action was approved to cushion the transition to higher input costs for fabricators in the areas mentioned. As such, it is both limited in coverage and temporary in duration.
The hon. member suggests in his comments that the temporary nature of the remission order will add to the uncertainty facing the steel fabricating industry in British Columbia. Moreover, he is urging that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) act quickly to announce the level of the final dumping duties involved.
Let me first say that it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to determine the level of the anti-dumping duties applicable. The law requires that this decision be taken by the deputy minister of the Department of National Revenue for customs and excise. In this connection I would like to stress, however, that any delay involved in arriving at a final determination should not be attributed to the Department of National Revenue. As I understand the situation, that department has encountered extreme difficulty in obtaining the necessary factual information from the exporters concerned in order to make its findings in such cases. Clearly, much of the uncertainty involved could be eliminated very quickly if the exporters would co-operate with the Department of National Revenue to this end.
With regard to the temporary nature of the remission order, I can assure the hon. member that the matter was given very careful consideration by the government prior to taking a decision. In this instance the government was faced with a

request from the provinces of British Columbia and Newfoundland to assist their fabricating industries to adjust to a new situation. This new situation resulted directly from a decision by the anti-dumping tribunal that dumped imports of the steel product in question were causing injury to domestic production. This decision, by a court of record, was in full conformity with the terms of the Anti-Dumping Act passed by this parliament. The government, in light of the representations it received, felt that a limited remission was warranted in this instance to enable time for the regional fabricating industry to adjust.
It must, however, be clearly recognized that the real issue at stake here is whether Canada is prepared to allow its domestic industry to suffer injury by unfair trading practices of other countries. The government has in the past and will in the future use all the means at its disposal to provide the environment in which our domestic producers can be assured of fair trading practices. At this particular time the steel industry worldwide is facing difficulty. This is expected to continue until such time as the world economy picks up. Other governments have taken special measures to guard against predatory dumping of steel into their markets. The Department of National Revenue has also stepped up its activity to ensure that steel is not injuriously dumped into the Canadian market in massive quantities.
It should be borne in mind-


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


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-COST-SHARING OF TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, on April 3 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question about cost-sharing and the reconstruction and improvement of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland. I asked him would his government agree to a cost-sharing arrangement of 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial, as the province had asked. The province originally asked for a 90-10 deal. The Prime Minister said that I should ask the DREE minister. He thought it was a matter for DREE. Mr. Speaker, this shows you how little the Prime Minister knows about what is going on in his government.
Negotiations were going on with the department of transportation, the minister of transportation of the Newfoundland government, since May of 1973 at least, over this cost-sharing arrangement. The Prime Minister is governing in the dark. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. He is pirouetting in the deep purple. Either that or he is so dithered about the election and whether to call it or not, or he is so puzzled about patronage, that he does not know what is happening in his own government.
In 1965 the trans-Canada highway, Mr. Speaker, was completed under the great slogan "We'll finish the drive in '65 thanks to Mr. Pearson". That is when the federal government agreed to pay 90 per cent of the cost of completing the
Adjournment Debate
trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland. But the highway was build to substandard; it was not built to the trans-Canada standards on the mainland. It was substandard then, and since then, Mr. Speaker, federal neglect of their obligations with respect to the Newfoundland railway and CNR neglect of the needs of the Newfoundland railway and mismanagement of the Newfoundland railway has resulted in most freight now being taken by truck rather than by rail cars across Newfoundland.
The figures are staggering. In the year 1971, 2,500 tractor trailers landed at Port aux Basques to go across the Island. In 1976, 28,000, a huge increase in traffic. In 1970 the railway moved 385,000 tons of freight. In 1976, six years later, just 397,000 tons, only a 3 per cent increase. But whereas in 1970 there were 3,292 truck and trailer units operating in Newfoundland, it went to 17,247 in 1976, a 424 per cent increase. In 1976, trucks carried about 90 per cent of all the freight carried across Newfoundland.
In addition, the federal government and CNR conspired with Mr. Smallwood, when he was premier of Newfoundland, to do away with the railway passenger service in that province, and since 1968 we have had a bus service only for passengers travelling across Newfoundland. The result is there is this tremendous increase in traffic on the substandard trans-Canada highway.
The highway is deteriorating completely. Anyone who trucks on that highway will tell you, as did the St. John's Board of Trade a few months ago, that repairs to transport equipment skyrocketed; the transport trucks are damaged by the condition of the highway. They said also:
And claims by business to the truckers have doubled because the freight being hauled across this province "has literally been smashed to pieces".
Of course, those costs are being met by the consumer. This is happening in a province like Newfoundland with its weak financial condition, with the federal government letting CN concur in the dumping of all the freight on the small and narrow Trans-Canada Highway, and with our recognition that
we are a special case, as was found by the MacPherson Royal Commission which stated in 1962:
The situation in Newfoundland is a special case distinct from the rest of Canada.
You cannot put it any plainer than that. They are finding that a highway network is beyond our resources and the government should see that the provincial government has money for roads other than the trans-Canada. At least a 90-10 deal is needed for the next ten years in the reconstruction of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland and its strengthening and upgrading. The province simply cannot find 50 per cent of the $250 million required.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), with his Teutonic, terrorist transport tactics, sent wires to the four Atlantic premiers in June of this year telling them that they would cost share 50-50 only, and that if they did not accept this 50-50 offer, the money would be used for some other purpose by the federal government. Because of this ultimatum, they all col-

May 1, 1978
Adjournment Debate
lapsed, with Newfoundland falling in line on March 29 of this year. Newfoundland surrendered and accepted this pitiful and incomplete offer. So instead of "We'll finish the drive in 65, thanks to Mr. Pearson", what we have now is: "On the Newfoundland highway, you drive with a bang, until you get rid of Otto Lang". We must get some minister of transport in there that is not hip on the user-pay principle of the present minister and who will treat Newfoundland fairly in this direction.
The present transport policy is to discontinue ferry subsidies in Newfoundland; it is to put an inadequate search and rescue service there; it is not to give us any kind of ice breaking service at all; it is to continue withdrawals by CN Marine and the CNR and an inferior ferry service from the mainland to Argentia.
This Minister of Transport will languish in history as the least sympathetic, the least useful, the most loutish and the most lumpish of all federal ministers of transport ever seen. His actions in Newfoundland, to put the best face on it, are barbaric. I am asking the government now to change this unilateral decision of theirs that they will finance only 50 per cent of the cost. We are talking of $250 million over ten years, not $250 million that must be spent this year, next year or the year after. It will cost $250 million over ten years, of which the federal government is now offering $125 million if they go for the whole ten years. This is a three-year agreement only. It should be a 75 per cent deal at least.
If you look at the brief submitted by the Canadian Railway Labour Association to the Government of Canada on March 20 of this year you will see what happened in Newfoundland. It reads:
In sum, what we now have on the island of Newfoundland is an inefficient passenger service; an inefficient freight service; a fast deteriorating trans-Canada highway and a rail system, operated by the frustrated Crown corporation, the Canadian National Railways; a federal transport policy based upon "commercial viability" and "user-pay concept".
That is what we have now in Newfoundland. What is to be done? If this government will not do it, then the next government, which will be of a different political persuasion-we hope, in any event-will have to do it, and that is to give the province of Newfoundland better financial terms to put across the island a decent trans-Canada highway and ensure that the Newfoundland railway continues to operate more efficiently and at a more reasonable freight rate, so that much of this freight traffic will go off the highway and back on to the Newfoundland railway where it belongs.
So I call upon the Minister of Transport, in his last month of office, to stop this loutish behaviour and to give Newfoundland a fair deal.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I really do not see where the hon. member is getting at with all the wordiness and verbal inflation that he uses when speaking of the Minister of Transport and even of the right hon. Prime Minister, who have spent all their energy in harmonizing the policies of the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Transport, and others in consultation with the provinces, in order to give the Maritimes the best possible road system for the best possible service to the population of those provinces.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to confirm that on Tuesday, April 18, the Minister of Transport of Canada and the minister of transportation and communication of Newfoundland signed an official agreement regarding a three year road improvement program for Newfoundland. This program will involve expenditures of almost $60 million. The agreement concludes fruitful negotiations with the four Atlantic provinces, and the road improvement program can thus be implemented without delay.
As the hon. member of the opposition is aware, the federal government agreed, in May 1977, to spend up to $125 million over the next three years to upgrade the transport system in the Maritimes, and a large proportion of that amount, namely $100 million, is earmarked for the highway improvement program, which is a program whose costs are shared equally by the provinces and the Government of Canada.

Work to be undertaken over the next three years in Newfoundland includes construction of additional lanes at selected locations between St. John's and Highway 70; strengthening and upgrading between highways 201 and 210; also between Port Blandford and Terra Nova Park, and between the park and Highway 320; between Georges Lake and Crabbes River; and between Bishop's Falls and Grand Falls. In addition, the agreement provides for the standardization of allowable axle weights and gross vehicle weights for truck using the primary highway systems.
In closing, I should emphasize that the government is anxiously awaiting recommendations from the Sullivan commission, which is reviewing transportation on Newfoundland. Of course, this recently signed agreement will not affect any of the recommendations which may arise from the commission's findings.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am talking about the Trans-Canada, not the DREE agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Tuesday, May 2, 1978