1978-06-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I move:
That this House views with disgust-
If I could revert to being a printer this afternoon, I would set that word in large, bold type.
-the recommendation of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service for increases in executive salaries in the public service to a new maximum of $73,200 a year, and this House calls on the government to reject such a recommendation and to concentrate instead on measures to increase the incomes of pensioners and all persons and families, some 25 per cent or more of the Canadian population, who are faced with the problem of trying to live below the poverty line, it being the view of this House that our first concern should be to meet the real needs of our ordinary people.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I have just been informed by the Saskatchewan minister of consumer affairs, the hon. Ed Whelan, and the president of the Consumer Association of Canada, Ruth Lotzkar, that the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), in a speech to the CAC in Regina earlier this week implied that federal funding may be withdrawn from that organization unless it ceases its criticism of the federal government's food
policy and other policies. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House instruct the minister to make a statement on motions explaining his remarks to the CAC in order to alleviate the fear that, in order to secure a government grant, the CAC or, indeed, any other organization, must follow a Liberal party policy line.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that a new shrimp fishery resource off Labrador and the northern peninsula of Newfoundland has been discovered sufficient for at least the issuance of 11 shrimp fishing licences, and that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) has now made a decision, without consultation with the Newfoundland government, that eight active shrimp licences should be issued for fishing off Labrador and Newfoundland but that only two will go to Newfoundland, while three go to New Brunswick, one to Nova Scotia and two to Quebec, with three licences additional to be reserved for Labrador residents who cannot yet use them because of lack of suitable fishing vessels and equipment, and in view of the fact that Fishery Products Limited has now announced it must give up plans to establish a shrimp processing operation at St. Anthony since such an operation would need four licensed shrimpers and not just the two licences reserved for Newfoundland so that heavy unemployment will continue at St. Anthony in Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House deplores the fact that the Minister of Fisheries of Canada has reserved only two shrimp fishing licences for Newfoundland of eight active licences to be issued, deplores his lack of consultation and co-operation with the government of Newfoundland, and directs the minister to change his decision so that at least four shrimp fishing licences go to Newfoundland fishermen to supply Fishery Products Limited at St. Anthony, thus creating extensive employment at St. Anthony; and that this action be taken immediately.


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

June 14, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel):
That this House views with concern the $4.3 million overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits to 15,385 claimants in the Nova Scotia, Vancouver and Montreal areas, and requests that the Minister of Employment and Immigration consider the introduction of an amendment to the unemployment insurance legislation which would give the minister discriminatory authority to nullify the obligation of the commission to collect moneys wrongly paid in cases where an incorrect coding results in the payments of extended benefits that it would not be possible for claimants to detect.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall told the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that the special investigation into grain transportation announced by the Minister of Transport seems to be an unnecessary matter that will delay and continue the existing conditions much beyond the period in which they could be improved.
In view of the fact that the Hall royal commission made recommendations to modernize our grain handling and transportation systems and to improve the utilization of railway cars, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House requests the government to require the Minister of Transport to cancel plans for a special investigation that would waste $600,000 studying what has already been studied thoroughly by the Hall royal commission, and this House calls upon the Minister of Transport to implement immediately the recommendations of the Hall royal commission which would deal with present problems in grain movement to the Pacific coast.


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


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the consumer price index announcement of today shows the most dramatic food price increases in many years, and in view of the fact that the Mallen report-a report done for the Food Prices Review Board-found that in the Canadian retail food trade "there is a definite correlation between high concentration and high profits" and "high concentration is associated with higher prices," I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House urge the government to adopt the policy options put forward by the Mallen report, including the establishment of a Crown corporation to enter into the retail food industry to compete with private firms in highly concentrated cities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Recent reported statements by Pierre Camu, chairman of the CRTC, have revealed that the governement House leader in the Senate was behind the CRTC requests for 80 hours of CJOR, Ed Murphy's Reaction Line, and this appears to be a case of partisan political interference in a regulatory body. I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That the government House leader be requested to make a statement in the other place, giving a full account of his actions and that the Minister of Communications make a statement on motions detailing the steps she intends to take to ensure that there is no political interference in this regulatory body.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


June 14, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance on a day when the figures indicate that for the first five months of 1978 the rate of inflation in this country was higher than before the controls program was brought in. The minister knows that when this government imposed controls, against its promise, it forecast a 4 per cent inflation rate for the fall of this year. When the minister brought in his budget, he forecast a 7 per cent inflation rate for 1978. Today's figures show that following the present trend in this country we will have an inflation rate of at least 11 per cent.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us what, in his analysis, has gone wrong? Why has the government failed to deal with inflation as they promised they could, what changes does he intend to introduce, and when will the House of Commons receive those changes?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was disappointed to see the inflation rate was high this morning. It was mainly due to food prices, which have increased very substantially mainly due to the beef cycle. As I have said many times, food is often imported, and in the beef industry there was a very substantial increase due to normal cycles and the fact that the income of producers is rising. We are out of controls-


An hon. Member:: You are out of control.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -in the case of food: we do not have price controls any more. We hope that this situation is temporary and will improve. I do not intend changing the policy at this time. I do not intend to reimpose wage and price controls.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the job of the minister is not to come into this House and express disappointment. His job is to come here and express new policy when it is clear that his policy is failing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Horner:: Don't cheat the farmers.


Charles Joseph Clark: He knows that this is not a temporary situation. We hear the hon. member for Crowfoot, the bold and lonely member who has so little influence here-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -on policy that even his colleagues will not accept his advice not to blame the farmers because he has been blaming the beef farmers of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: My question, in face of this do-nothing government, is: if they will not change their policies-and we have been told they do not intend to-will they at least be honest enough to change the inflation forecast, and will the minister tell the House the new forecast for inflation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the inflation rate in the other sectors of the economy is 6.2 from year to year. The change has been caused by food prices. Many of these foods are imported, over which we have no price control, nor do we expect to have any control. In the beef situation, as everyone knows, because of low prices in the past there was reduction in farmers' stocks and this is the price we have to pay at the present time. We do not intend at the moment to put that price increase on the backs of the farmers. I hope the hon. member will not speak from both sides of his mouth on that subject.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what is relevant here is that this government, when they imposed controls, forecast an inflation rate of 4 per cent for this fall. It is now likely to be three times what they forecast. Obviously, their policy has failed. We want to know what changes in policy they intend. If they do not intend to change any, what changes in forecast will they give us? Since the minister indicated yesterday that he will meet on July 7 with the provincial ministers of finance, can he tell us what specific proposals the Government of Canada intends to put before that federal-provincial conference; or is this just another conference which the minister has called so he can try to share the blame with the provinces for the failure of his federal leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I just said a few minutes ago that the inflation rate was 6.2 per cent in the other sectors of the economy, except in the case of food. I explained that we have no control over the price of beef and of other food products we consume in Canada, and that we do not intend to impose controls. Farmers are now asking more than before for their steers. We are in a market economy and this is a matter of supply and demand. We have eliminated controls in Canada since April 15 and prices are determined by supply and demand. The opposition had been urging us to do just that for one year and a half, to go back to a free market economy, and that is exactly what we have now.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if this minister refuses to tell the House of Commons what policies he intends, will he at least tell me, without getting into any specifics-I know how much trouble specifics on economic policy give this minister-does he intend to make any concrete proposals to deal with the current serious economic problems when he meets with his provincial counterparts in early July?

June 14, 1978
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that we review the general economic performance of Canada. I would like the hon. member to realize that we are creating jobs in Canada at a rate greater than experienced in the past ten years. We are confronted with a large increase in the participation rate, but I would like to tell the hon. member that all forecasters around the world at this time are predicting that only Japan will outperform the Canadian economy this year.


GOVERNMENT PLANS TO REDUCE EXPENDITURES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Instead of trying to put the blame for inflation on the food producers of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What a hypocrite.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -would the minister indicate whether he would be willing to bring in a budget or, if he cares to, at least make an economic statement showing new spending plans for the government for fiscal 1979 and fiscal 1980, with the earnest hope that they will narrow the $11.5 billion deficit which they have run up that is contributing to inflation? Hopefully, they will bring that down to a manageable level by fiscal 1980. Will he do that for the Canadian public?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know the usefulness of having a new budget. The hon. member does not yet understand the last one: we are still debating it after two months. We are not about to have a budget every month. The Canadian economy is basically healthy. We are having a problem this month with food prices. I recognize that it is difficult. We do not intend to freeze the prices of farmers. Members opposite are very good at speaking loudly and looking angry, but they never come up with propositions which make any sense at all.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, only yesterday the same minister was taking credit for stealing some of our ideas. Even if you accept his 6.2 per cent underlying inflation level, the minister fails to point out that that is 2.2 per cent higher than their target of October, 1975. In his refusal to give spending and deficit estimates for 1980 and ensuing years, does the minister realize that he is going directly against the recommendations of the OECD nations which asked all industrialized countries first to better control their spending and, second, to show forecasts for two to five years as to where they are going?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition supports the idea of an additional $2 billion in deficit at this time because he would propose to cut further the taxes of the citizens, which would mean that we would have a deficit of $13.5 billion. I think the financial critic and the Leader of the Opposition should meet to try to put their ideas together

because they are both moving in completely opposite directions.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: it concerns recent increases in the price cf beef. We realize the farmer is just now catching up to what he should have received for beef over the last four or five years. I am interested in knowing whether the minister has completed the inquiry as to whether there is profiteering at the wholesale, packing and retail levels, or are the wholesalers and retailers taking advantage of the increase that has been given to the farmer? If he has finished that inquiry, what are the recommendations? Will he set up a special agency to roll back the prices which retailers are charging?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have not completed our examination of that problem. The preliminary report indicates there has not been undue profiteering.


An hon. Member:: Undue?


William Warren Allmand: Well, profiteering. I do not want to nit-pick on those words. The initial report is that there has been none. However, I am continuing to look at this situation very closely. If there is any evidence of that, we will act. I remind hon. members that we have before this House Bill C-13 to deal with concentration and mergers. If the opposition would help us get that bill through, we will be glad.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On Monday of this week, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture issued a statement saying that the retail price of chicken has gone up by some 28 per cent in the last five months, while the price to the farmer has gone up by only 8.9 per cent. In other words, the middleman is once again making the profit. There has been a 27 per cent increase at the retail level, and a 20 per cent increase at the processing level. Has the minister investigated the reason for such a tremendous spread? If so, what is he going to do about it?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I brought the question of chicken prices to the attention of my officials several days ago. I noticed the same statistics which the hon. member has brought to the attention of the House. I have asked for answers with regard to that spread, and I hope to get them soon.
June 14, 1978


AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My final supplementary question is to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the right hon. gentleman has noticed that the price of vegetables has gone up by some 39 per cent in the last year. He knows we are not self-sufficient in the production of vegetables, beef, chicken and hogs; indeed, in almost all the foods in respect of which prices have risen so sharply.
I would ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do to make this country more self-sufficient in the production of food. If you exclude grain and oilseeds, last year, according to the government's own figures, we were a net importer of food to the tune of $1.8 billion. What does the right hon. gentleman intend to do to ensure that we produce more food, which would give a better income to farmers, a stable price to consumers and more jobs to Canadians?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand this question was dealt with in part before my arrival in the House. I can only repeat what has already been said, that the hon. member is right, we are not self-sufficient in food, and that some 30 per cent of what we consume is imported, a circumstance which is in large part due to the seasonal nature of our production. We import food because in many instances we cannot grow it in Canada during the season when it is required for consumption here.
In the case of beef, the single factor most responsible for the increase in the food price index, the beef cycle as predicted has caught up with us and we are now paying a high price because for the last two years beef producers have been receiving a very low price. Now that they are getting a higher price-a more reasonable one-we are sympathetic to the consumer, but we cannot blame the beef producer or attempt to take it out on him.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
While governments and constitutional experts are discussing the main issues of our collective future, political conditions are deteriorating. The Pepin-Robarts Commission on Canadian unity has yet to publish its report. The Prime Minister has recently tabled a white paper on proposals for discussion.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to distribute some kind of publication to let ordinary people
Oral Questions
know-since I feel that newspapers do not give accurate reports on what is going on here-what is going on in Quebec especially about the separatist movement now at work in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the hon. member and I can say to him that the federal government and surely the members on this side of the House consider that it is their essential responsibility to speak about those problems to the people. However, I would refer the hon. member to a group established within the civil service, one of the main duties of which is to inform the population about the reality of Canadian federalism and to underline its extensive benefits for the entire country, especially Quebec. I will be pleased to make sure that the hon. member obtains the address of those offices and that the many publications issued by them are made available to the hon. member if they are not already.


Léonel Beaudoin: According to some experts, on November 15, 1976 the voters wanted to get rid of the Bourassa government. Now a recent survey made in Quebec shows a clear rise of separatist feelings among Quebeckers. If the duty of senior officials is to warn or wake up people to the fact that national unity is in danger, what does the right hon. Prime Minister intend to do to improve a situation which, in my opinion, is alarming, this rise of separatism in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of the survey mentioned by the hon. member. Those that have been brought to my attention tend to show, on the contrary, that the influence of separatism among voters has long since peaked and that indeed the percentage has not varied much over the last ten years. I also suggest that the Parti Quebecois shares this view and that it probably did not see the figures the hon. member is talking about either, because I see that they take offence whenever somebody says they are separatists. They claim not to be, they are not even "independentists" any more. Now they are for a confederation. What that means, I am not very sure, but they reject the word separatist itself, so I would be surprised if they would do so because people are becoming favourable to that movement.


Léonel Beaudoin: One last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to demonstrate to the Prime Minister that Canadians generally and especially English Canadians in Toronto and in a number of English-speaking capitals in Canada are saying vocally and in print that Quebec's separation would not mean a blow more violent than the unforgettable deportation of the Acadians. On the other hand, it is a fact that many countries which were not yet ready for independence have fallen flat on their faces, made a terrible mistake, and joined the Communist bloc. Under these circumstances, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to set up a non-political organization-which might include hon. members of this house-to travel everywhere in
6396

June 14, 1978
Oral Questions
Canada and inform the man on the street of what is going in Canada.
Mr. Trudeau As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why the Pepin-Robarts Commission was set up by the House and the government a year ago was to travel everywhere in Canada and contact the man in the street and all those who wanted to appear at its hearings to discuss these matters. As to the part hon. members may play, 1 should like to advise the hon. member that soon after we introduce the bill in the House before the end of this month, we intend to propose the establishment of a parliamentary committee to consider this bill. I am aware of the fact that parliamentarians-both members of the House of Commons and the Senate-are in contact with the public and that they will be able to voice the preoccupations and aspirations of the man in the street.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who shows even less willingness to carry out his statutory responsibilities on behalf of consumers than his predecessor. I ask the minister if he was quoted correctly when he was reported in the press of May 27 as having said:
Consumers can expect less federal government protection in the future, according to Warren Allmand, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
If the minister was quoted correctly, can he tell the House exactly where consumers are to find protection? In the face of charges by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture with respect to price-gouging and profiteering on chicken, and charges by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association of profiteering on beef, where can consumers find protection if they cannot get it from the one who has statutory responsibility; or does the minister subscribe to the view just expressed by the Prime Minister that all consumers can expect from this government is sympathy?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to correct the very erroneous story which came out of a meeting I had in Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia. The story was completely false.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: We heard your voice.


William Warren Allmand: As a matter of fact, I indicated to the meeting that it was my intention to go ahead with several measures to help consumers, and I was asking for support. I do not know how the reporter could come up with that kind of story. I could mention to the hon. member many measures we have brought forward, including the recent bill with regard to which the

hon. member co-operated very much, to protect consumers against tax rebate discounting.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the House and the country will be glad to know that the minister is alive and well. Given the very serious charges of profiteering and price-gouging in the marketplace during this current wave of food inflation, and given the fact that there is no agency within the Government of Canada to monitor this situation apart from what we can expect from the Economic Council of Canada, has the minister in keeping with his statutory responsibilities to protect consumers, met with the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada with respect to forming some kind of alliance to ensure that that agency, which does not have statutory responsibility, will be able to adequately monitor the marketplace to ensure that this kind of gouging and price-fixing does not continue?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I did not meet with the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada because, as the hon. member says, the Economic Council does not have the power now to deal with this problem. However, there is an officer, contrary to what the hon. member says, who does have that power, and that is the director of investigation and research who has certain powers to investigate abuses of concentration, monopolies, and so forth. 1 have spoken to him. He has investigated, and is investigating these situations.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the fact that the Prime Minister wrote a letter to the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada asking the council to discharge this monitoring responsibility in the post-controls period? If so, is the minister now telling the House that this role has been taken away from the Economic Council of Canada? If that is so, who is going to discharge this role?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, of course I am aware of that direction by the Prime Minister, but that is not in place now. The Economic Council of Canada is in the process of setting up a system of monitoring prices which will go into effect once the Anti-Inflation Board is phased out. As the hon. member knows, the Anti-Inflation Board still has jurisdiction and will continue to have jurisdiction until the end of the fiscal year of the corporations which are now operating, which will be later this year.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF BEEF
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Live cattle market prices have dropped by about $7 in the United States, and by a little less here in Canada, due partly to the impact of President Carter's recent announcement about a 16 per cent increase in the American import beef quota and partly because of a too rapid increase in live cattle prices over the last two months.
In view of the fact that most cattle producers in Canada will not receive a nickel's worth of benefit from this recent increase
June 14, 1978

until they market their grass cattle some time next October or November, does the minister not feel that the middleman's take in this whole operation should be questioned either by his office or the AIB?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I answered earlier in the question period, we are examining that question. However, up until now I have been told by the people who are doing the examination that there is no evidence of infractions of the Combines Investigation Act or of profiteering as defined therein. I might say that if the House is not satisfied, as I am not satisfied, with our present Combines Investigation Act, we have a bill before the House which will greatly improve things. I would be quite willing to discuss with opposition members their willingness to pass that bill quickly.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not MacEachen's priority.


William Warren Allmand: Yesterday, I met with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. We had a very good meeting. They put to me their points of view on this subject. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was also there, and we had a very good exchange.


An hon. Member:: Now we know what happened.


William Warren Allmand: We are presently looking at some proposals to deal with the price situation in Canada.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his remarks. I ask if he is aware that in Toronto, retail beef marks-ups have jumped from 30 per cent last year to over 40 per cent in recent weeks and that the supermarket share of the consumer's beef dollar has jumped from 30 cents a pound in January to as high as 74 cents a pound now. Does the minister not feel that action is necessary now?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I already said that before these questions were even raised in the House I referred those mark-ups to my officials for examination. The mark-ups are continually under examination. Some of them are relatively recent, but they will be given very close attention and if there is an abuse of market power, we will deal with it.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Science and Technology: it relates to the fact that on May 3 this House unanimously agreed to a motion in favour of the utilization of solar energy. In view of the recently announced measures by the Minister of State for Science and Technology to increase the level of research and development by using the procurement practices of the federal government to support industrial research and development in Canada, would the minister inform this House
Oral Questions
whether he intends to ensure that from now on federal procurement contracts for the construction of new federal buildings will be used to provide a dependable and continuing market source for Canadian solar equipment, thereby encouraging the industrial development of solar equipment and the growth of a competitive solar equipment industry?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that my colleagues, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Supply and Services, and myself, wearing both hats as Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology, share the concern raised by the hon. member. We are now discussing and looking at some options. It is my expectation that announcements will be forthcoming on this matter within the next few days.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister having regard to the statements he made yesterday in which he said that parliament is not supreme and there is a division of power. He went on to indicate that there was no right on the part of the Government of Canada to grant a new trial. That is what he said.
The Hon. John Turner introduced an amendment to section 617 of the Criminal Code which allows the attorney general of Canada to order a new trial: that was done on December 19, 1968. The Prime Minister became leader in April, 1968. Thus, one can safely assume that the Department of Justice was preparing this amendment when he was minister of justice. I refer to this matter because he was all wrong yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask the right hon. member to put a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appear to be the only member of the House who cannot ask a question properly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no idea whether the right hon. member wishes to simply challenge my authority in this respect. The right hon. member has already put a considerable preamble and I think I have extended considerable leniency. Yesterday, I extended the same kind of leniency when the right hon. member was putting his question. However, there are other hon. members who want to share the question period and I must ask the right hon. member, if not in consideration of others-a precedent which we follow-at least in consider-
80045-38%

June 14, 1978
Oral Questions
ation of his colleagues, to put a question rather than a long preamble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I did not raise the question as to the words the Prime Minister used yesterday, "absolute bunk," as reported in Hansard. All across this nation Canadians heard the Prime Minister say what he thought.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: It starts with "bull" and ends with another four letter word. Those are the words he used yesterday and they were translated into the word "bunk."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I have today received several letters and wires from across the country in this connection.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice made a statement to the press-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must insist that the right hon. member use the question period as it is intended, and put a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour had been as fast on the draw yesterday, when the Prime Minister used those words, things would have been better in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing shameful about what I am saying. In connection with the Morgentaler case, on January 22, 1976, the Minister of Justice-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise later on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


HOUSING
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Will he confirm the correctness of the statement made in Toronto yesterday at a meeting arranged by the co-operative

housing organizations, which indicated that the date of implementation of new co-operative housing programs has been set back to January 1, 1979, and that in the intervening months a real exchange of views will take place with those organizations?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, I can confirm that, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, is it correct to assume, since the minister has agreed to continue the present policy for co-operative housing until a new policy has been agreed upon, that the present policy and the present system for determining rents in respect of non-profit housing-that is, those established by provincial and municipal governments and private, non-profit organizations-will continue until a new policy has evolved?


André Ouellet: No, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The rise in the price of fresh vegetables last month alone was a staggering 22.2 per cent which, incidentally, is four times the rise in the price of meat during the same period. For the minister's information, vegetables are absolutely necessary for a balanced Canadian diet. Will he tell the House why the government allowed this to happen?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, there is no control on prices in Canada. If the hon. member is proposing control of the price of food and vegetables in Canada, perhaps we can consider that. I do not think that is the type of policy they advocate, as they were complaining only a few months ago that we had too much control.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, the minister is really saying that the deep devaluation of the Canadian dollar, which his government promoted, is responsible for this situation. At the time he was devaluing the dollar, did the minister have an estimate of the impact of devaluation on food prices? If he did, why did he go ahead, knowing that millions of Canadian housewives who see their income falling below the rate of inflation every time they go through a check-out counter would have to bear the consequences of his action?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that there is not only value in the devaluation of the dollar; there is also a price to pay. Of course, we have to pay more for the food we are importing because the Canadian dollar has a lower value. At the same time, there are a lot of positive elements in a dollar which is weaker than the American dollar. Many Canadian industries have benefited enormously, such as those involved in exports, the paper industry, the wood industry and the aluminum industry. Many industries which export prod-
June 14, 1978

ucts outside of Canada are benefiting by the weaker dollar. As I have indicated, there are advantages and disadvantages. If we compare the two, I think so far the 90-cent dollar has been very good for the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I will direct this very simple question to the Minister of Finance.
A few months ago, the Minister of Agriculture decided that consumers could pay 50 per cent more for skim milk powder. In the light of that decision which affects low income families whose income happens to increase at a rate of 3 per cent slower than the rate of inflation, and given the considerable increase in food prices last month, would the Minister of Finance be ready to re-establish that subsidy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did not listen to the question carefully because I thought it was directed to one of my colleagues. I will listen to it again or answer it tomorrow after reading the official report.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, whether he would be willing to re-establish the subsidy on skim milk powder which was removed by the minister some time ago, in view of the increase in food prices?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will convey the hon. member's representations to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for this program.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Given yesterday's announcement that the unemployment rate had reached 11.5 per cent in the province of Quebec and that it was said today that the inflation rate is now 9 per cent for all Canada, and considering that there are 60 hon. members from the province of Quebec on the government side, without putting the blame on the Parti Quebecois, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will explain this situation to Quebeckers and what immediate steps he will advocate to settle the situation as quickly as possible?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as the unemployment rate is concerned, I have to repeat what has been said earlier today in the House, that all factors contributing to inflation in all sectors except food are doing down. So, except in this particular sector, in all others which have been subject to controls and in some which will continue to be controlled until the end of December, inflation is going down. The sector where inflation is rising both in the province of Quebec and in other provinces, is the food sector. As the Minister of Finance has stated, we believe this creates a real problem for consumers. However, it remains that farm income, both in Quebec and elsewhere, is not excessive and the price increases in this sector are largely due to external causes, particularly the frost in California and the fact that 30 per cent of our food products are imported.


SOCIAL SECURITY
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view the fact that yesterday's reports concerning unemployment and today's reports concerning inflation seriously affect poor families and senior citizens receiving a pension here in Canada, what immediate action can we expect from the minister to remedy the situation of those families?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, inflation obviously affects disadvantaged Canadians and that is why this House has voted the indexing of family allowances, which now stand at $25.68 per child per month. This is in addition to social benefits, to which all Canadian taxpayers contribute, in a proportion of 50 per cent, through the provinces; some of which are also to be indexed every three months. This may not be ideal but it is the best method currently available to ensure that old age security pensions and related programs for needy people stay in line with the value of the dollar.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it has become customary for this government, whenever

June 14, 1978
Oral Questions
attempting to defend its inability to deal with inflation, to blame matters on international trends, yet over the last six months the rate of inflation in Great Britain, for example, was 6.8 per cent, on an annual basis, while in the same six-month period ours was 9 per cent. Could the minister tell us-if, indeed, inflation is an international trend-why the British government, without controls, managed to do so much better than he did with controls, to say nothing of West Germany and Japan?


SURVEY OF HEAVY WATER NEEDS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There seems to be concern in the country that we are heading for an oversupply of heavy water if facilities presently under construction are completed. Did the minister's department or Atomic Energy of Canada Limited carry out a survey of future needs of heavy water before the $1.5 billion plant at La Prade was put under construction?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the decision in respect of the building at La Prade was taken some years ago when the Quebec government had put forward a plan which I think involved some 10,000 megawatts of power. At that time there were discussions with Ontario Hydro about heavy water requirements for the Ontario Hydro system. It was agreed that Ontario Hydro would build heavy water plants to supply its requirements for nuclear reactors and the federal government would build a plant at La Prade which would look after the heavy water requirements of Quebec and other provinces, as well as for export.
Recently, Ontario Hydro scaled down its forecast in respect of power needs for the province. Indeed, we have seen them stretching out their thermal stations and cancelling some. I believe they have also been cancelling some of their orders for residual oil. The result of all this is that they may well end up with a surplus of heavy water. I believe that is the reason they are considering moth-balling the Bruce "D" heavy water plant.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that in respect of future needs for export, Canada might be able to supply-I believe the minister told us this in committee-the heavy water for plants now under construction in Argentina and South Korea? Is the minister telling us that no federal export permits will be given to Ontario Hydro to supply heavy water to meet any export needs?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, recently, as a result of the error in forecasting on the part of Ontario Hydro, there was an indication that Ontario Hydro would like to discuss with us some participation in export sales. They have created a prob-

lem for themselves as a result of over-forecasting their needs. I believe they have even made the suggestion that because they have made an error in forecasting, the federal government should reduce in some way the program which is well advanced and committed at La Prade.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister: it stems from a recent story in a Toronto newspaper about a Toronto carpenter, David Grier, who has been ordered to appear in court in Hull, Quebec, on September 6. Mr. Grier has been charged with the crime of working in Quebec earlier this year, a charge that has been levelled at many other Ontario residents who have worked on construction jobs in the province of Quebec. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will direct the appropriate minister of the Crown to intercede on behalf of Mr. Grier and other Ontario workers who are being harassed by the PQ government of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be attempting to be helpful to Mr. Grier, but I can assure him that he is not. The two provincial ministers of labour-that is, of Quebec and Ontario-are meeting and discussing this general matter. It is a matter of provincial jurisdiction which has to do not only with labour legislation and contracts but the administration of justice. Though I understand the hon. member's concern, which 1 share to a certain degree, I do not think he is being helpful by intervening in this way at this time.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Yesterday, an important press conference designed to inform the media of the Canada Week celebration was held in Montreal. Of course, the journalists, technicians and cameramen of the CBC, a Crown corporation subsidized to the tune of $486 million dollars by all Canadian taxpayers, were there. Unfortunately, they were not seen or heard on the French news report. Would the minister responsible for the CBC remind this corporation of the importance for all Canadians of the Canada Week festivities?
June 14, 1978


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member on the importance of Canada Week, and I shall certainly raise the question with and convey his representations to the CBC president.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, if he will resume his seat: he is like the reluctant debutante. The Minister of Finance has stated that there is a steady decline in the underlying rates of inflation, despite the figures we have seen. The minister has reached that conclusion by eliminating food, energy and imports. Could the minister tell us where he is going to find a Canadian who does not eat, who does not need heat or ventilation and does not use anything that is imported? Also, when this mythical Canadian is found, how will the underlying inflation rates help him?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time we have used the underlying rate of inflation to describe the real inflation cause within the country. As I said earlier, the food problem always has a very different cycle in the operation of inflation. This was a very bad month and we have given an explanation for it. Part of the cause is the fact that much of our food is imported, there have been poor crops in the United States and beef prices are at a point in the cycle that is not advantageous for consumers at this time. We do not intend to penalize meat producers for that reason.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is a steady decline in the minister's credibility because of the nonsense he is spouting in answer to our questions. The minister has agreed that the question of increasing costs of imports due to decline in the price of the dollar is a factor. Is it still the government's policy, despite the effect of the declining value of the Canadian dollar, on inflation to follow the advice of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the Canadian dollar should be 90 cents all the time and that par is 90 cents? Is that the Canadian government's policy? Does the Minister of Finance agree that par is 90 cents, no matter what effect it has on inflation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have said that the lower value of the dollar has advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages is that it is helping, for example, the export of fish taken in Newfoundland. There is a price to pay for the declining dollar; one is that imported foods are more expensive. So we have a balance between the two. We do not have a fixed price for the Canadian dollar because it is floating: at this time it is between 89 cents and 90 cents.
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


TABLING OF SCHEDULE OF CLASSIFICATIONS OF SUPPORT STAFF
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will be aware that the matter of support staff positions for all members of the House of Commons have been under consideration for some time. I will be tabling a document today in that regard.
Before going on to routine proceedings, I thought that all hon. members would want to be informed of some rather important and significant steps that have been taken with respect to the staff of members' offices, particularly described as support staff for members of the House of Commons. In light of comments that have been made somehow a number of negotiations and efforts that have been taking place over the last 12 months regarding the support staff of members have managed to be either overlooked or ignored in discussions that have taken place with respect to the positions of staff of the House of Commons.
I should like to report to the House that the study is an excellent piece of work which has been done in the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services in respect particularly to the staff of members of the House of Commons. I say that in this way because, with respect to the provisions which we have recently enacted in regard to salaries of personnel of the House of Commons, we have always endeavoured to establish a balance which would seem to be just and reasonable between those who work for the House of Commons and the taxpayers who pay all of the bills for the operation of the House of Commons by trying to find out whether or not all of the members of the personnel of the House of Commons have been paid in such a way as to reflect favourably on their counterparts in the public service and in the private sector. By endeavouring to negotiate increases annually which keep employees of the House of Commons slightly ahead of their counterparts in the public service and the private sector, we feel certain that, without collective bargaining, they are enjoying the benefits of the best of both worlds.
In respect, however, to support staff for members of the House of Commons, who constitute a substantial aspect of the personnel of the House of Commons, it has long been recognized that this effort to tie support staff positions in the offices of the members of the House of Commons to some equivalent positions in the public service has not been a satisfactory arrangement because, obviously, many members have personnel and support staff who fulfil functions which cannot be described in the public service. By attempting to correlate those positions to positions in the public service, we have met with the rather legitimate concern on behalf of the support staff of the members of the House of Commons that, while the salary ranges may reflect favourably in respect to the secretarial positions in the public service, their responsibilities do not correlate accurately. Therefore, the objective of the very excellent and thorough work in the standing committee has been to find a regime which would liberate the support staff from this correlation to positions in the public service which are primarily secretarial in nature.

June 14, 1978
Oral Questions
The Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services has done a very excellent review of this situation, and after careful consideration and several studies they came forward with recommendations which were recently reviewed by the commissioners of internal economy. As I say, the object was to establish a new and special classification for the support staff for members of the House of Commons. After the commissioners of internal economy reviewed the recommendations, it was agreed that effective at the beginning of the next parliament they would become operative.
Since this parliament is now continuing for some time, it was recently asked by the members' services committee whether that implementation date could be fixed in a different way, and the commissioners of internal economy reviewed the matter and agreed that it would be appropriate to make the recommendations effective September 1 of this year. Accordingly, I am now able to table a schedule on classifications of support staff for members which we feel reflects the unique responsibilities of persons who work in the offices of the members of the House of Commons as support staff, and gives an option of several different formulae that may be adopted by a member of the House, depending on the particular needs that he or she may have. This is all within a fixed budget that is attributable to the support staff for the member.
I table this schedule today simply to indicate that the matter has been under review for almost a year and has been the subject of very careful and very extensive study. I would also say that between now and the implementation date members will find, upon tabling of this minute of the commissioners of internal economy, that they will now enjoy a number of options in terms of employment as of September 1 and positions and salary ranges which are freed from any correlation in the public service.
In addition to that, by the implementation date of September 1 it is hoped that a further option may be arrived at in co-operation with the management and members' services committee and the commissioners of internal economy, both of whom have expressed agreement in principle with this further option, and that is an option which may release some of the constraints that are upon the constituency offices in terms of the over-all staff requirements for members. That is to say simply that a further option will be studied to see whether or not one of the senior positions in the scheme which I am now tabling may be utilized in the constituency office. That, of course, bears with it a number of other consequences in terms of salary and other allowances in the constituency office, and it is worthy of very careful exploration and more precise definition. I merely wanted to indicate to members of the House that that matter will be further studied in the hope that that option can also be achieved in time for the implementation date of September 1.


PRIVILEGE
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, because the intervention by the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) did not end in a question, I was not afforded an opportunity to answer the erroneous allegations he made, and that is why I am raising it on a point of privilege at this time.
There are two matters I want to draw to the attention of the House. The first is that the right hon. gentleman alleged that I said there was no right on the part of the government or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to order a new trial. I did not say that. I was arguing that, in the case before us, in these circumstances it was not the proper procedure to order a new trial. As I argued, the case was before the courts, and in the very section quoted by the right hon. gentleman, section 617 of the Criminal Code, it does say "upon application on behalf or by a person." I know of no such application having been made.


Mr. Baldwin:: I made it in this House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would like to know what mandate the hon. member has to make such an application on behalf of the courts in this House.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: He has a perfect mandate, a membership in this House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a perversion of the Criminal Code. If any lawyer in this House could stand up and make on behalf of somebody before the courts an application in the name of the Criminal Code, we are really confounding the two orders.


Gerald William Baldwin: I made it to the Minister of Justice.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, one of the remedies in the Criminal Code in this very section is to refer the matter to the court of appeal. That is where the matter is now, and it would seem to me that that is where it best lay for the moment.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You do not even understand the problem.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The second point, Mr. Speaker, is that the right hon. gentleman suggests that in some way the record of Hansard was tampered with and that the word which appears in Hansard, the word "bunk", is not the word I actually used; and he rather deliberately indicated that I had used some other expression which was, presumably, less parliamentary in usage.
The record in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, is the record of the word I used, and hon. members of this House and those who watch the proceedings on television know that that is the word I used. If the hon. member wants to challenge that, then I will formally ask him to make it a point of privilege and we will refer you to the record, Mr. Speaker, and we will refer to the
June 14, 1978

witnesses. I understand that a morning paper from Toronto has also perverted the words I used and invented some others. The word I used is "bunk", the word I think should have been used is "bunk", and that is what it was.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, having in mind what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said, let me now respond to that allegation on a point of privilege. Section 617 of the Criminal Code reads:
The Minister of Justice may, upon an application for the mercy of the Crown by or on behalf of a person who has been convicted in proceedings by indictment-
On behalf of Dr. Treu I made application to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in this House for a new trial which can be construed according to the provisions of this act. It was rejected by the Minister of Justice; it was rejected by the Prime Minister. This is the Prime Minister and this is the Minister of Justice who gave effect to the provisions of the Criminal Code by ordering a new trial for Dr. Morgentaler who had been convicted twice.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He made application.


Gerald William Baldwin: Although I have my views on the question of capital punishment, this is the same government as its predecessor which, over a period of 15 years, has on a great many occasions interfered with the processes of the court by ordering commutation of sentences. They have no right in this instance to say that the government have not intervened in issues between citizens and the court.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, having been dragged into this, I should just like to make a short comment. First of all, I would refer to section 617 of the Criminal Code and my action with regard to Dr. Morgentaler. I exercised my right under section 617 to order a new trial after all appeals had expired and on the basis of a very formal and documented application from the counsel of record for Dr. Morgentaler. There is no such application in front of me with regard to Dr. Treu.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, on the second point of privilege referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), it is with sorrow that I rise. I was in the House yesterday afternoon, as I think you and a number of other members were, at the time the Prime Minister got into a rather heated exchange with another member of the House. As I understand it now, the Prime Minister has indicated that if any member challenges the interpretation he put on his words yesterday afternoon, he would like to see the matter referred to a committee.
Sir, with due regret and with sorrow in my voice-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I heard what the Prime Minister said yesterday. He did not say "bunk". I therefore challenge the Prime Minister that this matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Privilege-Mr. Trudeau


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If any application is to be made on procedural grounds in respect of what may or may not have been said by any member at any time, it will have to be upon proper notice under our rules. It will have to be a notice of motion with which I can deal. I have no motion in front of me now respecting the words spoken yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or by any other member. When I have such an application in front of me, I will be only too happy to deal with it, but it will have to be on proper procedural grounds.
I have no application in respect of that.
In addition, it may be that even what is now being alleged to have been said will or will not constitute disorder, privilege, or any other ground. I am obviously going to have to see it as a subject of formal application before I can deal with it. I have no formal application in front of me.
The right hon. Prime Minister indicated in his question of privilege that he felt he had a point to respond to, which is often the practice during the question period. He made other observations which drew a response from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and in turn from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford).
The matter still resolves itself into a dispute, however, or a disagreement between members and does not constitute a question of privilege. The matter now raised by the right hon. Prime Minister on procedural grounds is therefore finalized.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order, sir, maybe my understanding of what happened this afternoon is incorrect and you will quickly slap me down. I understood that the Prime Minister rose on two questions of privilege. They were the Prime Minister's questions of privilege, not mine.
With a great deal of bravado on the second point the Prime Minister indicated that, if any of us disagreed with his interpretation of what he said yesterday, then he was challenging us to rise in our place. I have risen in my place. I am indicating from what my memory is of what happened yesterday that the Prime Minister is absolutely wrong and in effect, perhaps unintentionally, is attempting to mislead the people of this country, if not the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He did not say "bunk".


Mr. Speaker:: I will tell it to the hon. member one more time. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has decided to participate in this discussion. I have not set aside his point. I have simply said that if he has a point to raise it will have to be done on proper procedural grounds. I am not interested in whether challenges have been issued or taken up. If matters are to be raised in this House they will have to be raised on proper procedural grounds.
If the substance of the matter is a remark made by any member at any time yesterday, if it constitutes a question of privilege it will have to be on the basis of the proper notice

June 14, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Trudeau
within our rules. When I hear the question of privilege argued and see the ultimate motion, then I can make a ruling. Without that there is nothing upon which I can make a ruling.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have already had three messages from those who listened to the TV last night. One is from a professor at Lakehead University who wrote:
I want you to know that there is public resentment at the language Mr. Trudeau used in replying to you yesterday. It is so offensive that it cannot be tolerated.
I told him he should write to the Prime Minister and tell him how outraged he is, and to please forward a copy of the letter to you, Mr. Speaker. I remember "fuddle-duddle" on another occasion. The Prime Minister said he used the expression "fuddle-duddle". I heard what he used-a four letter word beginning with "f" and ending with "k" followed by "you". You cannot make "fuddle-duddle" out of that.
It was very obvious yesterday when he was talking so blatantly and with such certainty that he did not realize the amendment had been made to section 617. I would remind him that the Criminal Code contains a special provision, section 617, which provides that the federal Minister of Justice may, upon an application for the mercy of the Crown by or on behalf of a person who has been convicted in proceedings by indictment, direct by order in writing a new trial if after inquiry he is satisfied that in the circumstances a new trial should be directed. This is a special remedy to provide in the Criminal Code at least one safeguard in the whole judicial process. It should be used carefully, sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances.
If ever there were extraordinary circumstances, they obtain in the present case. He did not know about this and gave these opinions on the law yesterday. He was all wrong and today he has to say that of course he knew of the existence of this section-which he did not know of or he would not have made the statements he made. Your Honour has already directed that I may not refer to what was said and I will not. I will simply say that the Prime Minister yesterday decided he could get away with that and he got caught by an intimate organ. I am not going to identify it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) say they heard something that I did not say. Mr. Speaker, 1 will make a motion if it is necessary. I just ask you to do what is done in such cases-to listen to the audio tape, if such is within your power, and report to the House tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: Oh, no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the two hon. members who said this are misleading the House. I am not saying they did this deliberately, but I am saying they are.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Shut up, George.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The long established practice of parliament is very clear. That is to say, when an hon. member of this House rises in his place and puts a matter on the record, it is accepted by the House. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said today that he did not speak the words yesterday of which he is accused. There is a very long established practice that the word of any member of this House is accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If at any time any hon. member of this House does not wish to pursue that course and wishes to pursue a separate course based on any allegations contrary to the word of an hon. member in this House, there are well established procedures for doing that. I simply say that that will have to be done formally and in accordance with correct procedure. However, at the moment the right hon. Prime Minister has given his word to this House and the practice is, of course, that that word is accepted.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to table under Standing Order 41(2) copies of correspondence in both official languages from myself to all of the provincial premiers concerning the government's white paper entitled, "A Time for Action".


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding any further with the introduction of new business, two questions of privilege are outstanding. First of all, there is one raised by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) with respect to the tabling by the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) of his report and other related matters, and second, a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) in respect to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Buchanan). I have had an indication from both ministers of their willingness to respond to the questions of privilege, the Postmaster General today and the Minister of State for Science and Technology hopefully either tomorrow or Friday.
June 14, 1978

Perhaps this will be the appropriate time to recognize the Postmaster General.
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) on Thursday, June 8, 1978. I should like to indicate that I was absent from the House when it was raised. Whenever I am absent from the House, it is always for very good reasons. An international philatelic exhibition was being held in Toronto, and I had to be there to welcome the general director of the Universal Postal Union and the new postmaster general of the United States. I can say, therefore, that I had excellent reasons not to be present in the House, because I was fulfilling the duties of my office.
The question of privilege which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris raised had several parts, the first one dealing with his appearance before the Standing Committee on Transport. Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who decides what the procedures of a committee are going to be. It is the chairman of the committee who decides and who must defend his position. I do not believe that there is a question of privilege in this case.
In second place, I will deal with the tabling of the annual report of the Post Office. It was quite normal, as I was appointed Postmaster General at the beginning of February and knew that the annual report should have been tabled at that time, that I should, as minister responsible for the Post Office, look at what was written in this report before tabling it; the report was tabled in both official languages within 14 weeks. After checking the records at the National Library and according to my information, I must say that since 1956, the Post Office annual report has never been tabled on time. I do not believe that I can be accused of starting a new trend. The 1977-78 report will be tabled on time.
A third point mentioned in the question of privilege is that during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, the hon. member obtained from myself and my officials four copies of the annual report, two in French and two in English. He complains that he was left with the two reports in French and that these were of no use to him since he does not understand this language. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry about this, but one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), who was next to him, laid hands on both English copies. That is why the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was left with both French copies.
I should also like to note, Mr. Speaker, that in 1956-57, as several members on the other side will recall, the English version of the Post Office report was tabled on October 18, 1957, and the French version on June 22, eight months later. I believe that we were right to hand the report in both official languages to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I am very sorry that he cannot read French, but he still had the report.
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Speaker, the fourth point mentioned in his question of privilege concerned the Crown corporation. I suggest that he read the minutes of the committee on transport on this subject. A committee made up of representatives of three departments is looking into this matter and the report will be made public in due time.
The fifth and last point concerns the postal rates increases and the allegation that the government illegally increased those rates. Mr. Speaker, I believe that even if we feel that the method used to increase the rates was quite legal, the matter is now sub judice and it is wiser to leave the decision to the judges. So, Mr. Speaker, I think that in the five points I have made, I do not see any grounds for a question of privilege, but obviously the decision is in the hands of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, I would welcome the intervention of the minister, after which I would have the opportunity to study both arguments put forward by the hon. member and by the Postmaster General in order to make a determination. I will do this as soon as possible to see whether a question of privilege exists.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 1,288, and 1,537 to 1,548 inclusive.
[ Text]


Mr. Jones: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, what French military and para-military forces are now stationed on St. Pierre and Miquelon?
2.	What is the origin and racial extraction of these forces and how long have they been there?
3.	Are any of these persons known to be Marxist activists?


Yvon Pinard: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms citation No. 171 (aa).


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the province of Manitoba?
2.	How many of the hospitals in Manitoba have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for Manitoba?

June 14, 1978
Order Paper Questions
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in Manitoba as of April 1, 1977 was 113.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in Manitoba as of January 1, 1978 was eight.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	How many of the hospitals in Saskatchewan have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for Saskatchewan?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in Saskatchewan of April 1, 1977 was 147.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in Saskatchewan as of January 1, 1978 was ten.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the Northwest Territories?
2.	How many of the hospitals in the Northwest Territories have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for the Northwest Territories?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in the Northwest Territories as of April 1, 1977 was 46.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in the Northwest Territories as of January 1, 1978 was two.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the Yukon?
2.	How many of the hospitals in the Yukon have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for the Yukon?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in the Yukon as of April 1, 1977 was seven.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in the Yukon as of January 1, 1978 was one.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the province of Newfoundland?
2.	How many of the hospitals in Newfoundland have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for Newfoundland?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in the province of Newfoundland as of April 1, 1977 was 48.
June 14, 1978

2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in Newfoundland as of January 1, 1978 was five.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the province of British Columbia?
2.	How many of the hospitals in British Columbia have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for British Columbia?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in British Columbia as of April 1, 1977 was 137.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in British Columbia as of January 1, 1978 was 55.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the province of Alberta?
2.	How many of the hospitals in Alberta have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for Alberta?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in Alberta as of April 1, 1977 was 167.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in Alberta as of January 1, 1978 was 26.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by
Order Paper Questions
any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the province of Ontario?
2.	How many of the hospitals in Ontario have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for Ontario?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in Ontario as of April 1, 1977 was 352.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in Ontario as of January 1, 1978 was 109.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the province of Quebec?
2.	How many of the hospitals in Quebec have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for Quebec?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in Quebec as of April 1, 1977 was 262.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in Quebec as of January 1, 1978 was 24.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one

June 14, 1978
Order Paper Questions
therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the province of Prince Edward Island?
2.	How many of the hospitals in Prince Edward Island have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for Prince Edward Island?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in the province of Prince Edward Island as of April 1, 1977 was 13.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in the province of Prince Edward Island as of January 1, 1978 was two.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the province of Nova Scotia?
2.	How many of the hospitals in Nova Scotia have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for Nova Scotia?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in the province of Nova Scotia as of April 1, 1977 was 58.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in the province of Nova Scotia as of January 1, 1978 was 11.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.
[Mr. Pinard.)


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many hospitals are located in the New Brunswick?
2.	How many of the hospitals in New Brunswick have therapeutic committees under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada for the approval of abortions?
3.	What are the tests and criteria for approval of abortions by each therapeutic committee in each hospital for New Brunswick?
4.	How many applications have been approved and how many rejected by each such therapeutic committee for each of the years since the appointment of each such committee to date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The total number of hospitals in New Brunswick as of April 1, 1977 was 39.
2.	The number of hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees in New Brunswick as of January 1, 1978 was eight.
3.	The federal government does not maintain information regarding the tests and criteria for approval of an abortion by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital in any province or territory.
4.	The federal government does not maintain information on the number of applications approved or rejected by any one therapeutic abortion committee at any hospital for any year in any province or territory.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question no. 786 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 786 shall be deemed to have been an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
[ Text]


Mr. MacKay: How many paper shredders does the government own or lease and, in each case (a) in what office, department, agency or Crown corporation is it located (b) what was its value when new?

Return tabled.
June 14, 1978


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a point of order. I rose on this point of order approximately two weeks ago in regard to question No. 423. I had it listed in the last session of the House of Commons. I wonder if I might be given an answer. It pertains to special travel privileges available to individuals in Crown corporations.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as of June 13 we had answered 1,310 questions out of 1,836 and although 125 new questions were put on the order paper last week, we now have an excellent average of 71 per cent.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 64 for the production of papers is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 64 be deemed to have been agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COPY OF LATEST ACCOUNTING BY GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC OF FUNDS FOR SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the latest accounting by the government of Quebec of the federal funds provided for minority and second language instruction.
(Motion agreed to.)
Yvon Pinard: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Government Waste



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the present government is the most wasteful in Canadian history and has established an unmatchable standard of incompetence, leading to today's high inflation and record high unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will note that, in accordance with subsection (11) of Standing Order 58, proceedings on this motion will expire later this day at the ordinary hour of adjournment.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that in this motion today there is a warning that all of us here at the seat of the federal government in Ottawa should heed. I sincerely believe that the present form of parliamentary democracy in Canada will become unstuck and will fail in the next decade if we do not return this federal system of government to a standard of accountability and morality acceptable to the Canadian people.
Anyone engaged in productive work, being accountable at all times to the tax collector, has to be not only outraged but actually frightened at the standard of incompetence and indifference with which this government manages our tax resources. We are now at the point where, for every dollar we earn, we collect only 80 cents. A person lucky enough to have a job must work from nine o'clock in the morning until two o'clock in the afternoon to pay his tax. Only after two o'clock in the afternoon is he working for his own spending money.
We are at the point where the rules of the game in the private sector are now so uncertain and confused that there is little incentive to expand and to risk savings which on an after tax basis are too expensive to risk. We are at the point where entrepreneurial talent and capital, aware of what has happened in England and seeing that the "English disease" is now well upon us in Canada, have left the country for a form of government which nurtures that aspect of man that reacts to incentives.
At the root of one of the problems this government faces is the disastrous situation within the federal system where mandarin status is measured by man-years and by the size of budget and expenditure control. Nowhere today does one find that old fashioned concern for the taxpayers' dollar. Nowhere within the system can one find a top level concern for what the tax resource is spent on for the value received in return for an expenditure of our tax resource.
Our work in the committees of this House allows us to meet some very bright and able people in our public service. Coming from the street, as I do, and from the world of productive work-and by that I mean adding to the value of goods in a competitive marketplace-what I see as a very basic problem is a legislation drafting environment, a resource allocation and

June 14, 1978
Government Waste
management process that has absolutely isolated itself from the world of productive work and the value system of the taxpayer.
To people like myself, Ottawa is an "Alice in Wonderland", a fairyland where accountability in terms fundamental to a taxpayer is completely lacking. When 1 say that the present government is the most wasteful in Canadian history with a standard of incompetence, and yes, morality that threatens the very concept of peace, order and good government, I owe the House some examples to back up that statement.
Some years ago when the late Arthur Laing, a former minister of public works, retired he made a statement in Vancouver to the effect that, if the Canadian people really knew what was going on, there would be a revolt. Although never a supporter of Arthur Laing, I knew the man well and his statement troubled me. Therefore, when elected in 1974 I started to look around the Department of Public Works to see what his remark was all about.
In the late 1960s, I guess about the year 1968, a successful history of Crown construction with a system of checks and balances and accountability came to an end. We saw the evolution of politically well-connected developers moving in on the domain of the Department of Public Works to the point where, in the next decade, that department was reduced to little more than a real estate management function with the National Capital Commission acting as its agent in the capital region.
For example, in the 1960s there were three major building projects being undertaken by the Department of Public Works. One was the Department of External Affairs building which was a $69 million project. There was a building to house the Ministry of Transport, a $68 million project. They were planning and had even expropriated land in LeBreton flats for a $100 million building to house the Department of National Defence.
The story, as l understand it, goes something like this. The external affairs building, as we know it today in all its beauty on Sussex Drive, was completed. The building designed for the Ministry of Transport was completed, but into it was moved the Department of National Defence. The Place de Ville tower, moving up through all height restrictions in place in the city of Ottawa to protect the aesthetic features of the Peace Tower, was built to house the Department of Transport.
That left us with LeBreton flats, 122 acres, which has cost the people of Canada a little over $53 million; in other words $434,426 per acre. Remember that this land was expropriated from 258 owners for a national building in 1962. When we now see property of this cost being used for another purpose, such as subsidized public housing, we really have to wonder where all our marbles have gone. How can the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) expect us to believe that the story that the eight public housing units built on one quarter of an acre of this land at a stated cost of $40,000 to $46,000 is true when the land value per unit is over $13,000? If Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation claims that the land cost is only $25,000 for the one quarter acre on which

these eight units are built, who is going to pay for the difference of $83,000 for that one quarter acre which has a real book value of $108,600? Where in public accounts will this difference show up? What department of government will subsidize this difference? The Minister of State for Urban Affairs is talking about 425 public housing units at 30 units per acre on land that has a value and a direct cost of over $434,000 per acre. That land ends up costing $15,000 per subsidized public housing unit.
Another example to explain the rationale behind this motion is the CN recapitalization bill which we have finished debating in committee and in this House. We allowed CN a debt cancellation and capitalization program so that they can go into the private money markets, which are very disciplined, for more of their borrowing to meet those needs. This is the third recapitalization in which the Crown corporation has been involved, and some of us are very concerned lest the same thing happen as happened after the 1952 recapitalization when the CNR went on a spending spree and spent $1.8 billion.
In talking about waste and incompetence let me draw attention to the ferry crossing which the CNR has been asked to provide between Matane, Baie Comeau and Quebec city. Originally Canadian Pacific had carried out a feasibility study on the Baie Comeau-Quebec city project. They found that with a $10 million capital investment they could provide a completely workable service which could earn them a profit upon which they would have the privilege of paying taxes to both the provincial and the federal governments.
Then the politicians got into the act. They asked for a triangular run between Matane, Baie Comeau and Quebec city. Further feasibility studies were carried out and the CPR concluded that the project was not feasible. So the CNR entered the scene. Mr. Speaker, the CNR is in for $100 million and feasibility studies show there is no way in which the company can ever turn a profit. This is the kind of waste and decisionmaking which illustrate the need for a system which will give the people some voice in the decisionmaking process followed by these corporations.
I turn now to the operations of the National Capital Commission in Hull, Quebec. They have led to empty office towers in Ottawa, to space left unoccupied to the financial detriment of the whole community. This is waste without equal in the peacetime history of Canada. Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project, the nature of which insults every working taxpayer in Canada, has yet to be explained in believable terms by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan).
Some non. Members: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: But over and above this new assault on the public purse, we now learn that the National Capital Commission and the government have spent $150 million on roads in the city of Hull. Where else in Canada, including Ottawa, has such a level of federal assistance been given to any town or city? Why cannot the productivity of the port of Vancouver be
June 14, 1978

increased immeasurably by the use of $150 million in grants from the federal government to create the multi-level crossings which are needed to serve this port, a port which is in an obsolete condition? This amount of money would enable the port to be restored to a high state of productivity and reduce the amount of energy and time lost in coping with single level crossings such as are presently in place.
For a further example of the waste that concerns me I turn to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is a small matter, some might say, but we uncovered an appropriation for a million dollars to enable the Indian arts and crafts fund to begin to buy and put together a collection of Indian art and offer some work and social services to the Indian bands. It is bad enough that the department should go $400,000 beyond the appropriation. It is serious enough that no discipline should have been exercised other than moving to another job the officer who was responsible so that he could not continue to overspend appropriations which had been voted. But when I find that money voted for a social service within the Indian communities has been used to purchase $44,000 worth of stamped out metal from a works in Vancouver, and that most of it has ended up as junk which cannot be sold, I am incensed.
How can any of us believe that the expenditure of this $44,000 ever benefited any Indian band or any Indian artist? Who has enough influence with the government to obtain a $44,000 order for stamped out Indian artifacts which are not even genuine? This is the kind of waste and incompetence which sets up a fury in my mind and which I want to stop before I cease to be a member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I could give many further examples but I will use the example of the Ehettasaht Co-op. The Department of Indian Affairs rushed in and in a period of eight months went through some $5.5 million, leaving behind an unbelievable tale of waste and woe in the private sector. And then the organization went bankrupt. Where is the planning, the heart, the sensitivity to the use of public funds when it comes to examples like this? There were two or three similar cases in Alberta.
This is the type of misuse of the tax resource which will cause the system to become unstuck. We cannot allow it to continue at its present level. Within the Department of Indian Affairs we have seen rip-off after rip-off, innocent disaster after innocent disaster. In trying to give Indian bands independence, allowing them to spend sums of money more or less unsupervised, the department has left them without any training or ability to account for the funds granted to them. We are not doing these bands a favour by leaving them alone in this situation, part of the spill-over of carelessness in utilizing tax revenue.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation troubles me. Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act reads as follows:
Government Waste
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be owned and controlled by Canadians to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political and social fabric of Canada.
In the last decade this Crown corporation has cost us more than $2.5 billion. In this past year of restraint the number of employees increased from 11,293 to 12,222, and spending increased by $55 million compared with the previous year. When one recalls the words of section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, can one honestly say that the corporation is fulfilling the purposes for which it was brought into being?


An hon. Member:: No!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I cannot. I think the corporation has failed and that somehow or other we must strengthen the act so as to bring it under control, or else sell it to the private sector with a stronger broadcasting act in order to serve the people of Canada better.
I should like to turn for a few minutes to the bilingualism program which has been voted more than one billion dollars since the inception of the program. Has this program served the country well? Has it given us a sense of community from coast to coast? Has it produced a generation of young people coming out of our school system with a basic knowledge of a second language? The answers to these questions are obvious. It has not. When one reflects on what could have been done through the last decade with wise application of this resource in view of such an important national need, one can only cry with anguish.
Our Post Office will cost some $568 million in 1978 over and above revenues received. When we compare this to the $700 million cost for the postal system in the United States which serves ten times our population, again one has to question the competence of the management of the Canadian Post Office. Anarchy exists in our Post Office. Bad management and incompetence are facts of life which must be corrected.
In the last 15 years federal government spending has risen from $7 billion to $45 billion. In this period taxes have increased 239 per cent and personal incomes 142 per cent. I believe that we are very close to taxpayer resistance in Canada, and is it any wonder? During the last three years of restraint operating costs have risen 56 per cent, and total federal spending is up 45 per cent.
Last year the Unemployment Insurance Commission cost us $4.4 billion, and the 1979 main estimates show that the commission will need a further $5.3 billion next year.
In my opinion all of this is a negative weight on the taxpaying work force of the country. In 1978 the prediction for inflation, according to the Conference Board, is 7.4 per cent. According to the Bank of Montreal it is 8 per cent. The Bank of Canada says 7.8 per cent, yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) says 7 per cent. The present rate is 9 per cent, and even if the consumer price index did not increase at all between May and December of this year, we will still have a

June 14, 1978
Government Waste
rate of inflation well over that stated by the Minister of Finance. We are into an area of consumer price index increases as a result of our 90-cent dollar, and there are serious consequences for national consumer purchasing power. I would like to remind the House of that now famous quote, which is as follows:
I am confident we have got a grip on the problem and . .. will wrestle inflation to the ground. We are going to bring inflation under control-that I pledge to you.


Mr. Alexander:: Who said that?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on May 27, 1974. Here is another famous quote:
You can never spend more than you have; otherwise you have endless inflation.
The Prime Minister was reported to have said that in the October 20, 1975 Maclean's magazine.
The fact is that the government is able to pay for only 80 per cent of what it is spending today and we are not told what value we are receiving for that spending. One has to be watchful of the true direction and destination of this ship of state with this present Prime Minister on the bridge. As a direct result of this waste, incompetence and inflation we have a national nightmare for some 933,000 Canadians who today cannot find work in a nation with unbelievable wealth in its resources and potential wealth in its people. No single factor has caused more anxiety nor brought more shame to this country than the figure of one million jobless last winter. We did not experience an unemployment rate below 8 per cent in the first five months of 1978, yet eleven years ago the jobless figure was 3.8 per cent. Today it is 8.6 per cent. We stand to lose all that this country once stood for. The glue will yield if we do not act responsibly.
Believe me, hon. members opposite are so close to the malaise that they cannot see the facts. Waste exists not just in the management of government but also out in the private sector. The waste in the private sector is caused by a taxation system which encourages waste and gives incentive to waste, and I think that this is one of the major challenges any federal government has ahead of it in bringing about a taxation system which will tax cost, not profit, which is the incentive which makes the system work.
Credit must go where credit is due. The present government is the most wasteful in Canadian history. It has established an unmatchable standard of incompetence which has led to today's higher inflation and record high unemployment.


Mr. Lefebvre:: You don't believe that.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I certainly do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Our balance of payments is also an indication of the failure toward which we are headed. Last year we had a deficit of $4.2 billion in our balance of payments. Even though we had a surplus in raw material and farm products, we incurred a deficit of $7.5 billion mainly in the service sector and, I want to stress this, in interests and dividends on the $50 billion borrowed abroad. We also had a $1.6 billion deficit in tourism. We recorded an unbelievable deficit of $11 billion with respect to manufactured goods.
Mr. Speaker, the premier of Ontario recently estimated that by balancing our current payment account with respect to finished products, we could generate some 170,000 additional jobs. Our economy is really suffering from a chronic illness. Our productivity and our competitive position is faltering. Many of our industries are threatened, namely textiles, shipyards, auto parts, television sets and other electronic equipment. No other province suffers as much as Quebec where 24 per cent of the labour force works in the manufacturing sector. Even though these industries are protected by tariffs, the fact remains that 36,000 Quebeckers have been laid off last year in the soft sectors which are the textile, clothing, footwear and furniture industries. The government of Quebec did take certain steps to help these sectors and among other things it has abolished the sales tax on these products. Yet the federal government has naturally hampered its efforts by refusing to grant the government of Quebec a fiscal transfer which would have enabled it to be on the same footing as the other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, because of the different priorities in each region, it is inconceivable to try and impose uniform solutions throughout the country. These solutions come late, much too late unfortunately, from a government which has run out of imagination.
We are not concerned about prevention or cure and, if we are we do not prescribe the proper medication-unless it is the drugstores that do not fill the correct prescriptions.
We have just been given a document entitled "A Time for Action". When I consider the economic situation I think it is not only time for action but time for a fast action. Of course, we are offered several answers but they come really late. For instance, the project announced by DREE to invest in touristic developments in the Gaspe Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence comes after years and years of representations and supplications. The Gaspe Peninsula is undoubtedly tourism-oriented, but that is nothing new, Mr. Speaker, yet only today do we decide to develop that industry. And we need to develop it if we want to balance our payment deficit in that sector.
As I was born in the Gaspe Peninsula where I lived for many years, I know much about fishing. It is an important sector of the economy of my region and this is why, Mr. Speaker, I participate with interest in the fisheries committee. I even have the opportunity to make interventions in the House like my colleagues from Newfoundland and the Maritimes to
Government Waste
ask for improvements in maritime fisheries even if it does not always please my colleague for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) who would rather have me keep silent. But I am too much concerned by the development of eastern Quebec to keep silent. With the advent of the 200-mile limit, the government suddenly realized that there is a fishing industry in Canada. So much so that after the demise of the fisheries department we shall see the birth of a new one called the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We had the opportunity to discuss the lack of foresight of the government in that sector during the presentation of an opposition motion by my colleague for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).
And what about the mining sector. There have been lay-offs at Falconbridge and Inco in Sudbury. And in Gaspe there has been the closure of Madeleine Mines in Ste. Anne des Monts and the slowing down of production in Murdochville. However, little if not nothing has been done to encourage our mining industry. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a small digression. A Liberal government had to be defeated and a PQ government elected before shelved projects like the salt mines in the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and limestone deposits in Madeleine and Port Daniel in Gaspe could be dusted off and revived.
To conclude, I suggest that we can no longer continue to ignore the weak sectors of our economy and the poorer regions. The Canadian problem is one of regional disparity. As long as we do not make any effort to develop our country more equally I am afraid that social pressures will increase and that our economic problems will only perpetrate the division process.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been provided with an opportunity to participate in this debate. At the outset, I should like to indicate that I concur in the motion before the House accusing this government of being the most wasteful in Canadian history.
I	do not want to deal specifically with the projects which exemplify government wastefulness, as the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has so aptly done. I want to deal specifically with the area of unemployment. The government has been wasteful in handling the economy, to such an extent that at the present time there are over 900,000 people unemployed in Canada. That is a waste and drain in human terms as well as in economic terms.
Recently the treasury of the province of Ontario indicated that one out of every three graduates from now until the 1980s can hope to obtain employment. That should not ease the minds of all hon. members.
We have heard a lot about the number of man-days lost due to strikes and lockouts. The figures for 1978 released by the Department of Labour show that 278,200 man-days were lost in the month of February. I agree that is a lot of lost man-days; but for every man-day lost due to industrial disputes, whether lockouts or strikes, there are 30.5 man-days lost

June 14, 1978
Government Waste
due to unemployment. I calculated for the month of February, with 278,200 man-days lost due to lockouts and strikes, and extrapolating the man-days lost because of unemployment, that 9,730,000 man-days were lost due to unemployment. That is lost productivity to the nation as a whole. The estimated yearly financial loss to Canada amounts to $12 billion in income and output, or about $520 for every Canadian, man, woman and child. Unemployment affects both the working people and the victims of unemployment.
Another piece of interesting information came from some calculations done by the Canadian Labour Congress. Since 1974 unemployment has cost every Canadian family $11,000. Last year alone unemployment insurance payouts amounted to over $4 billion. What was the productivity in respect of that $4 billion? There was no productivity at all. This government should be ashamed of itself for showing in its estimates that unemployment insurance payouts are $4 billion, with not one iota of productivity to show for that $4 billion. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, people can sit on their asses and collect unemployment insurance with not one stitch of productivity to show for it. It is a shameful record that this government stands in its place trying to defend this this afternoon. It is projected that unemployment insurance this fiscal year will exceed $5 billion. That is a shameful record.
I cannot understand for the life of me the kind of decisionmaking and unplanned approach of which this government is guilty. I recently attended a committee meeting studying the bill dealing with the Export Development Corporation. We found consistently that government agencies were prepared to finance unemployment in this country. They used taxpayers dollars to create competitive industries abroad, not necessarily in third world countries but in countries such as the United States, when in fact they will not spend that sort of money in Canada to modernize those aspects of the economy that need modernization in order that they can be productive and compete for the sale of our products abroad.
We had a perfect example of that in respect of the layoffs by Inco and Falconbridge in the Sudbury Basin. We urged this government that in place of allowing these workers to go on unemployment insurance it ought to stockpile nickel, because it is more important for the workers to be productive and the value would be in the nickel produced. We felt this was better than allowing the companies to put 2,000 or 3,000 workers on unemployment insurance, and certainly better than getting into the whole process of transporting workers from the Sudbury Basin to Alberta, or wherever, at more cost to the taxpayers. We suggested, not only for the welfare of the worker in terms of his productivity but also in terms of his standard of living, that it was much better for a worker to be productive, working and receiving a pay cheque than being unemployed and receiving an unemployment insurance cheque. This party has consistently urged that approach on the government.

The government must involve itself in creating full employment in this country. We cannot afford to carry on, as we are at present, without a policy of full employment. We require a commitment to full employment rather than a policy of riding on the backs of the workers with 8.6 per cent unemployment, amounting to over 900,000 people unemployed.
The warning came in September of 1977. This is not something new to this government; it received warning in 1977. The warning went out to all industrial nations of the world. It went out from the chief of the International Monetary Fund, managing director Johannes Witteveen. He said that a continuation of anti-inflation programs would keep unemployment at record levels and slow economic growth to recession levels. He went on to say that it was the international responsibility of nations to pursue markedly higher rates of economic expansion if we are to get out of our current economic slump.
The effects of the government's anti-inflation program on the economy have been quite spectacular. As a matter of fact, writing for the Toronto Globe and Mail an economist, Arthur Donner, estimated that in the period from 1974 to the end of 1976 the Canadian economy lost $25 billion in real growth and 600,000 man-years of employment. This was a result of the government's anti-inflation program. If restraint continues, by the end of 1978, he estimates, we will have lost $49 billion worth of production and 1.3 million man-years of employment, and all this for a marginal effect on the inflation rate.
That prediction is coming true. The latest statistics on our productivity were published in the Globe and Mail this morning in the business section. It was pointed out there that the Canadian manufacturing sector of the economy operated at 82.7 per cent of capacity .n the first quarter, down from 88.3 per cent in the fourth quarter, the lowest level since the 82.5 per cent in the 1975 fourth quarter.
Obviously mismanagement of the economy has resulted in the cutback of our productivity as a nation, and that cutback in productivity manifests itself in the 900,000 people unemployed at the present time. The government knows well, and its own statistics department has given the figures, that even being very generous there are about 45,000 available jobs at any given time and 900,000 persons looking for employment in this country.
Time and again we have seen this government look for scapegoats. We have seen ads by the Unemployment Insurance Commission moving the blame away from the government. This government never accepts responsibility for mismanagement of the economy. It finds a scapegoat and diverts the attention of the Canadian public. The UIC has spent in excess of $1 million for advertisements suggesting very surreptitiously that there are people on unemployment insurance who have their hands in our pockets. Following that, it spent another $100,000 or $200,000 on a survey intended to show, in effect, that its advertising program was satisfying a large sector of the Canadian public. If that in itself is not a waste of taxpayers' money, I do not know what is.
June 14, 1978

This government refuses to move or interfere directly in the economy in a way that would establish full employment as a policy for this nation. For example, I have mentioned the capacity at which the Canadian economy is operating; at the present time it is 82.7 per cent. What did we see in the third last budget? We saw the government stimulating the corporate sector to the tune of $1.1 billion. That was a stimulation directed toward expansion. That $1.1 billion has been paid out, but where are the employment opportunities? Why do we expand an operation that is not operating at full capacity? Where is the logic in that? It seems to me that what the government has to do is stimulate consumption, especially among low income Canadians in order that they can improve their standard of living, and that money should have been pent for that purpose. It seems to me that that would have stimulated the productive capacity of the nation.
That lack of productivity indicates that we are not building enough houses in the nation. It is fairly obvious that the government is not providing the services which are essential to a modern economy. For example, there is the case of transportation where the government should have spent money directly to create employment in the service sector.
There are needs in our communities across the country. There are parts of my riding which still have one well in the centre of the town, and everybody goes down with a bucket to get water for the day's usage. There are still those communities that have outhouses in my riding, and this is 1978. This is not a Third World country, it is Canada. Some 42 per cent of the urban housing in my riding is still substandard. The government is still not building the kind of accommodation that bespeaks an industrially developed nation.
There was a PCB spill by the CPR that leaked into the water table, and the community has been unable to afford a water system so that the residents could be assured that they would not be drinking the polluted water. There are some facilities and services which are needed, and there are municipalities which have set their priorities, but because of a lack of capital they are unable to move forward with those particular programs. All of those programs are labour intensive, but what does the government do? It spends hundreds of millions of dollars on one-shot approaches such as Canada Works and Young Canada Works. These programs are Fine so far as they go, but they do not get at the problem of unemployment in the nation.
The government has a responsibility to make sure that there is work for every Canadian who wants to work. It is their responsibility so to arrange the economy, so to manage the economy that it does produce the jobs. I consistently hear that the post-war baby boom has created this great surge of unemployment. Listening to the government, one would think that there is no registration of births, that suddenly all of these young people who are now coming into the work force suddenly appeared as though they were springing out of the ground, from dragon's teeth. The way the government talks, one would
Government Waste
assume that births are not registered in this country and that we are not able to project the number of young people who will be coming into the work force down the line and, therefore, so arrange the economy. This government does not plan. There is no economic planning by this government.
I mentioned the situation of the Export Development Corporation. Here we have the EDC lending large multinational corporations long-term loan money to develop their overseas operations in direct competition with the operations they have in Canada.
While they are trading off the jobs in the mining sector in the long term for short term, high technology jobs, we have the government funding DREE. What is DREE trying to do? DREE is trying to attract industry to go into areas like mine. It is obvious that one is nullifying the other. If an industry receives an order from Inco in Guatemala to build whatever it is they are going to build, then, obviously, they expand the plant in southern Ontario. They are not going to build a plant in northern Ontario to produce that stuff. So, in effect, you have the one nullifying the other. There is no cohesive or meshed plan with respect to how to go about creating employment and how the EDC and the DREE program relate to each other. What is the interface of those two programs?
These branches of government are completely in isolation. The president of the EDC rubs his grubby little hands and says, "We made $18 million last year, we are here to make a profit." That is not good enough for the people, for example, who work in the mining sector, the pulp and paper industry or in the steel industry. They see that, in effect, Canada through its Crown corporation, the Export Development Corporation, is putting them out of business and contributing to their unemployment.
It seems to me that the workers who come through my riding office are not in the least bit interested in the $155 unemployment insurance cheque they get every week. They are interested in a pay cheque because in a pay cheque there is human dignity. This way they can keep their families without having to depend on the state or on the bureaucracy which keeps growing and growing.
As a matter of fact, I do not know why the government thinks it has to use its departments to fight the unemployment situation alone. The unemployment insurance office in Sudbury had to hire 11 people last week to deal with the increase in unemployment insurance cases. I do not know where the sense is in that at all.
The workers who go through the unemployment office and who are now unemployed are mostly the young, because they are the first ones to go there. But they are more interested in having a job; they are not interested in the unemployment insurance program. Yet the government runs its advertising program to suggest, very surreptitiously, that anyone who is collecting unemployment insurance is somehow or other ripping off the system. Anyone who is unfortunate enough to be caught in the unemployment insurance fiasco somehow or other gets the feeling he is stealing from the government or stealing from those who are working. It is a very inhuman

June 14, 1978
Government Waste
system, and I repeat to the minister and the government that they must stop the waste and the high unemployment that we have in the country. The government has to involve itself directly through municipalities and public programs in creating employment in those periods in the economy when certain forces beyond our control affect unemployment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I interrupt the hon. member at this time to inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. Alan G. Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate this afternoon I would like to refer to one or two of the points raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) wherein he refers to an article he was reading in today's edition of the Globe and Mail. I think he was using some of those extracts to indicate what he considers to be real problems in the Canadian economy, lack of activity in the private sector, inadequate government direction, et cetera.
I would like to draw to his attention-I am not sure that we were reading the same article, presumably not-a front page article in this same Globe and Mail wherein there was very positive indication of some very substantial progress that seems to have occurred in the Canadian economy in the first five months of this year. This article was referring to reports that jobs are being created at the present time at a historically rapid rate. It refers particularly to the first five months of 1978, primarily in the manufacturing, transportation, communication, retail and wholesale areas. There is reference to 180,000 jobs having been created in the Canadian economy in the period January 1 to May 31, 1978. That 180,000 job figure would give an annual rate, if it was to continue at the present pace, of some 434,000 jobs per year. If that rate is achieved for the balance of 1978, it would be the highest rate since 1973.
In fact, 180,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker, created in the first five months is equivalent to the total number of jobs created during all of 1977. If that is not progress, Mr. Speaker, if that is not some indication of the kind of leadership that is being shown by this government, the kind of things that are happening in the Canadian economy at the present time, then I am not sure what sort of positive signs the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is seeking.
Mr. Speaker, I think these figures are interesting enough that I would like to mention a few more of them from the same paper that the member for Nickel Belt was quoting. There has been an increase in the labour force-the highest ever-in the same five-month period of 525,000 people, whereas the increase was 308,000 for all of 1977. This, of course, is where the problem comes in, Mr. Speaker. Our labour force continues to grow at a rate higher than the Canadian economy is able to absorb. Nevertheless, the record figures on both sides, I think, are important to state because it is some indication of the extreme degree of activity that is going on.
At the present time, 57.1 per cent of the population of Canada is employed, which is up from 56.5 per cent as of last

December; 71.8 per cent of all men are employed and 42.8 per cent of all women. These increases, Mr. Speaker-and again I emphasize this-came from the private sector. This refers back to the motion we have before us today, by the member for Capilano (Mr. Huntingdon) regarding what he claims is the incompetence of the government in its handling of expenditures, and, presumably, of the economy. Yet we are told that the employment ratios in this country today are at the highest point they have ever been, and this is occurring mainly in the private sector.
Noted economists have stated that there is indeed strength in the Canadian economy at the present time. As I said in a speech in this House recently, that kind of news is not the kind of news that the official opposition in this country wants to see. It is not the kind of news that the unofficial opposition, the NDP, wants to see. But it is positive news, Mr. Speaker. It is important to state over and over again that while there are problems in the Canadian economy, problems that are being addressed by this government, there exist also very significant indicators of strength, and I think it is important that those go on the record. In fact, one prestigious investment firm, Wood Gundy and Company, because of recent news on the economic front, Mr. Speaker, is already revising its forecasts of job creation for 1978.
Coming back to the motion, Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano, on public accounts committees over recent years and I think we have both been conscious of concerns that the Auditor General has brought before the public accounts committee. In some cases Crown corporations, agencies or even departments of government, have perhaps adopted too enthusiastically the kind of direction that emanated from the Glassco commission of many years ago that encouraged less central controls and more expenditure initiatives at the departmental level. That gave the government some problems and, Mr. Speaker, as over-all expenditure levels of the government have increased, these problems have obviously become of a more acute nature.
The important thing to note is that the President of the Treasury Board, (Mr. Andras) and the government have faced these problems and have done two very important things in the last two years. The position of Comptroller General of Canada has now been firmly established. The first incumbent is now on board as of April 1, and I think this development is something my colleague the hon. member for Capilano, myself and others on the public accounts committee and other members in this House welcome enthusiastically.
In addition, the government has appointed the Lambert commission to look into all aspects of government expenditures and financial control. When the member for Capilano refers to incompetence, surely that must indicate that in his mind the government is doing nothing about these kinds of things. I think the record clearly shows that some very concrete and positive steps have been taken on every issue that the Auditor General has placed before this House of Commons and before the public accounts committee. That, Mr. Speaker, in my mind, is the kind of responsiveness that the Canadian public
June 14, 1978

want to see in their federal government, and it is the kind of responsiveness that this government has indeed shown over and over again.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that when the member opposite formulated his motion he made it so encompassing that one could probably discuss everything from sour cherry production in Ontario to energy conservation, all within the context of government competence. I would like to refer to one or two of the points that perhaps are included in his indication of incompetence, such as growth in the public service.
There is, Mr. Speaker, an allegation of waste in this area, and there is an allegation of irresponsibility on the part of the government. Yet, the man-year growth in the public service and the program of performance measurement that is now under way is something with which I think all members in this House should become more familiar, particularly the member for Capilano who I know is intensely interested in what is happening with the public purse.
The administration committed itself to restricting growth in the public service at the same time as it announced its program of fiscal restraint. It should come as no surprise when I say that the program has met with the same kind of success as the fiscal program has achieved.
The main estimates that the President of the Treasury Board introduced in February marked the second consecutive year that growth in the public service was held to six-tenths of one per cent. 1 mention those figures, Mr. Speaker, as against the figures I quoted a little earlier, to show the dramatic increase that is occurring in the labour force in the number of people working in this country. In the public service, the federal public service, the growth has been held to six-tenths of one per cent, which is a little over half of one per cent.
To record such a marginal increase, Mr. Speaker, it means that 18 departments had their man-year allocation reduced and 18 were permitted no increase. Thirty-six departments and agencies, generally service-oriented agencies such as the RCMP, the Post Office and national defence, were allowed more man-years to cope with specific problems confronting them.
Whenever we talk about cutting back government expenditures or not increasing government expenditures where new services are needed, some very basic questions come up. For instance, I see the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) in the House this afternoon. He has to decide which new homes in which cities are to be denied mail service in order to cut man-years. Should certain areas of the RCMP be cut and should the military be held in check? These are questions the administration has to wrestle with in order to maintain this near zero expansion of the public service in a country which is growing and developing.
In the same year as we have held manpower growth down to six-tenths of one per cent, the labour force in Canada increased by 2.5 per cent in 1977-78 and is projected to grow by a very significant amount. As I indicated earlier, no increases have been permitted for the year in the number of
Government Waste
senior personnel man-years for four consecutive years. That is an area that has come under attack from hon. members opposite at different times.
If further evidence is needed to demonstrate the responsibility of government, let me turn to the administration of some programs. The government has acted to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations through the measurement of program performance. There has been considerable progress in this area since the experimental projects of the early 1970s. Departments now are required to have adequate and reliable means for measuring all programs in place by 1980.
Since government operations do not have readily identifiable indicators, such as profit or return on investment-the simple indicator that the private sector always has-many different kinds of indicators have been developed in the federal system. They use example indicators that relate results achieved to resources used and to planned results. They describe the service aspects of performance and focus on production-type measures. All of these help managers develop systems to assist them in assessing how well their programs are running.
This approach to program management is operating so well that it is fast becoming a tool on which decisions can be based and is an integral part of the management process. The monitoring of this process enables departments to evaluate whether changes or improvements can be made in the method by which a program is delivered; whether programs have outlived their usefulness and can be eliminated; or, whether priorities have shifted, making it more or less important.
Members of this House were given a copy of a report on "Performance Measurement" last fall. In light of this motion I commend this report to the hon. member for Capilano and to his colleagues on that side of the House. It denies, in practical working environment evidence, the allegations that prompted this debate today.
I might just mention in closing that the kinds of things we are saying and the effectiveness of government cutbacks are being recognized in various publications and articles, and by such writers as Dian Cohen who is never hesitant in criticizing the government on those aspects of the management of the economy where she considers the government is doing a poor job. In a recent article in a leading business publication headed "Ottawa Trying", Dian Cohen did indeed make reference to the fact that this time the government seems to be really talking business in its efforts to maintain a control over spending. That is one example. There are others by leading writers of the day.
When the hon. member for Capilano recommends we rework the whole tax system, as he did, and move to taxes based on costs, he has to understand what it would do to companies which are starting out in business that have losses for a number of years. This is getting into a system where profits are no longer taxed but where expenditures are taxed.


An hon. Member:: Make them efficient.

June 14, 1978
Government Waste


Alan Gray Martin: Well, some companies in the development stage cannot turn a profit for a good number of years. We prefer doing positive things to stimulate capital investment in the small and medium business area-


An hon. Member:: That is junk.


Alan Gray Martin: Programs have been announced recently by the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) and by the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Buchanan) in the R and D area. These are some of the things that have been done recently. To turn around now and follow the suggestion of the spokesman for the official opposition that we completely junk the existing tax system, which not long ago went through a very trying and lengthy examination before a royal commission, and move to a new and untested system that is only theoretical at this point, is less than a responsible suggestion to the Canadian people.
There are many other statistics that can be quoted to indicate the positive things that are happening in Canada at the present time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: People are smartening up.


Alan Gray Martin: I want to say that it seems to be in the immediate interests of the official opposition to become, one and all, prophets of doom and gloom. I am little surprised at the hon. member for Capilano because I know his business background. I am sure there are not many businessmen in his own riding who would support this kind of doom and gloom approach.


An hon. Member:: Why do you think I am here?


Alan Gray Martin: These businessmen are looking at what their plans will be for the next several years. This kind of talk does not behoove an official opposition party that somewhere in its fondest imagination assumes one day it might form the government of this country. As I say, it is nothing but a fond hope and probably stretches very far into the future. Canadians are simply not going to buy this type of negative attitude. They will not buy the approach that says "Look, I am being told I am far worse off than I think I am". That is the kind of approach the official opposition is pushing across this country at the present time. I think this is less than responsible at a time when there are real problems in the Canadian economy, problems which can be tackled and are being tackled in a positive way and not in the negative way the member for Capilano and others on the opposition side have been approaching the question today.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, every time we have one of these motions I listen to the parliamentary secretary and he gives the usual government pitch. If things were so great, why did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not go to the people? Why did he not go and get another mandate? I will tell you why. It is because the people are finally catching up to this incompetent group.


Mrs. Holt:: He has a mandate. Why does he have to go and get one?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The government do not like these motions because it gives the opposition an opportunity to tell the Canadian people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


An hon. Member:: Soap opera.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I watched and listened to the parliamentary secretary and he was deceptive, he was less than honest and he was not complete. He was selling the same old garbage about how great this government is and will be. Since he said something about behooving, I say I do not think it behooves a party to destroy a country. That is what this government has done over the last ten years as far as I am concerned. Certainly we have real problems in this country. The most important thing I can say about this is that this government has created most of them. The government does not tell us anything like that.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) on placing this motion before the House, a motion which the parliamentary secretary did not read. This is typical of parliamentary secretaries. They get a little speech that some bureaucrat prepared for them and they do not know what they are talking about. Let me read the motion so we can all understand what it is we are talking about. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the present government is the most wasteful in Canadian history and has established an unmatchable standard of incompetence, leading to today's high inflation and record high unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Very well done.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Congratulations to the hon. member for Capilano. That statement is a fact, sir. This government epitomizes incompetence, indifference and arrogance at their worst. The Liberal record is the most disastrous thing that has happened to this country in a decade.
The part I like in terms of the record is the advent of television. Before television this government was able to bamboozle and flim-flam the people. I say to the people there is no need to read the papers; just turn on the television set. The government's incompetence, indecision, bungling and ineptness, as well as the flim-flam that forms the whole history of this particular administration, and in particular its front bench, can be seen via television.
I notice that the President of the Treasury board (Mr. Andras) has a book on his table. He is probably going to blast away at poor Ed Murphy. Thank goodness we have him. He is president of CJOR Radio. He prepared a book entitled "A Legacy of Spending". If I was rich enough I would buy this book and send it to every voter in the country, because it gives a history of waste. I want to read a few statements from this book-


An hon. Member:: What is the foreword?
June 14, 1978


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In the foreword, brochure or pamphlet it just spells out Liberal incompetence and waste-


An hon. Member:: Smear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member calls it a smear. It is documented by quotes from newspapers, statements from Hansard and replies to questions on the order paper. And he calls it a smear! No wonder the government does not want anyone to read this book. Let me just read the foreword. I do not even know who wrote it. It is some chap by the name of Lindsay B. Semple. It reads:
There have been many instances throughout history where there emerged a ruling elite with enormous control over the material resources and products of their subjects. One of two things normally occurred-either they continued to grow until they impoverished the producers in the nation state and of course themselves, or they were thrown out by revolution.
In Canada there has emerged a monstrous bureaucracy and state spending mechanism. As this resume clearly demonstrates it has exploded in recent years. It is uncontrolled and uncontrollable. The implications for the future of this country and you are awesome.
Ed Murphy should be highly commended for documenting this national tragedy. Read this resume carefully, copy it, and pass it on to your neighbours. It could be the beginning of a new awareness and perhaps even a movement to halt the insidious disease that infects this great nation. Lindsay B. Semple, M.A. (Econ.)
I do not know who he is, but he is certainly telling it as it is. Let me read another quotation. This is why the Liberals do not want anybody to read "A Legacy of Spending." I know the President of the Treasury Board has a copy. Here is a quote that really focuses attention on where the problem is:
"There is only one place where inflation is made in Canada and that is Ottawa. The unions don't make inflation for a very simple reason; the unions do not own a printing press on which they can turn out those multi-coloured pieces of paper called money. The reason you have inflation is because the government has been printing too much and spending too much." Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics, CBC Radio, Feb. 20, 1977.
Let me read another quote. This is the way the government operates. I quote from page 5:
As the spending becomes larger and larger every year, less and less disclosure exists.
I do not want to single out the President of the Treasury Board. Sometimes I wonder why all the cover-up. Why not tell the people the truth? We had a little get together here in terms of over-classification. If it had not been for the opposition, the Canadian people would not know there are a number of public servants over-classified because of this government's ineptness. As a result, we are losing some $19 million per year. That is only as a result of a study in the Ottawa-Hull area. Would we ever have known about that? No. We have to get these things flushed out somehow. Thank goodness there are people prepared to put their jobs on the line and pass a little brown envelope under somebody's door so that we know what is going on and can tell the Canadian people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The record breaking feats of this government are nerve shattering and unbelievable. I want to put something on the
Government Waste
record in terms of incompetency. I look at the smiling face of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Martin). There is another dead issue. They have not done anything. They did not start to think about the small businessman until we pushed them into it.
What about the 89 cent dollar? Did you ever see such indecision, not knowing what to do, until now we have a dollar which has been totally destroyed? This has led to a position where our imports have been adversely affected as well as confidence in this country. That is part of this government's record in terms of a "great feat."
What about government spending? Ten years ago it was $10 billion. Today it is $50 billion. Talk about restraint! What is going on in this country? Why the flim-flam? Why the dishonesty? By feeding inflation we have a deficit of $11 billion. We spend more than we take in. That is another part of this government's great record.
What about the one million unemployed? That is another great record for this government, breaking the one million mark in terms of unemployment. That is something which will go down in history.
Talking about records, what about this government's tremendous record in fragmenting the country? As a result of Bill C-56, some will get cheques and others will get deductions or tax cuts. It is blackmailing the provinces. Has anyone here ever seen the likes of it?
What about the all-time record of selfishness? Make the worker take 6 per cent in terms of a pay increase while this government sits idly by and watches inflation reach 9 per cent. The yearly total will be about 11 per cent. In October, 1978 this government said it would be 4 per cent. What kind of dishonesty are we experiencing here?
What about another all-time record in deceit? If we attack or question this government in terms of its policies vis-a-vis the province of Quebec, what do they call us? We are either a separatist or we are helping the separatist cause. In other words, this government believes it is God, that you dare not attack it; you are wrong if you do and you are helping the separatist cause. What a lot of nonsense. I wish I could swear like the Prime Minister!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Did you see him try to defend the indefensible here this afternoon? I will not get involved in that. However, I watched television the other night and I am still trying to figure out what he said.


Thomas Lefebvre: He said "bunk".


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear another parliamentary secretary. I do not want to get involved in that. I was involved in "fuddle-dud-dle" and I saw what he said in that regard. What about the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), slandering the opposition?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Smearing.


Thomas Lefebvre: What are you doing?
6420

June 14, 1978
Government Waste


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am telling people the truth.


Thomas Lefebvre: That's a lot of bunk.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That minister stood there and deliberately slandered and smeared the opposition. It was less than nice. He said we were going across the country lying. Boy, you can always tell when this government is in trouble!
What about another record in terms of unforgettable feats, a record in arrogance? I want to pick out two or three statements made by the Prime Minister of this country, a man who is supposed to show some compassion to one million unemployed. He says it is not up to the government to find jobs. Am I telling a lie in that regard? I do not hear as much as a mumble from across the way. They know the hon. member for Hamilton West tells the truth. The people of Canada want the truth. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister or one of his ministers, it does not matter which one because they are all in the same group-


Mr. Philbrook:: You are wrong.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear "Dr. Philpott".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order please. Will the hon. member please address another member of the House of Commons by his constituency and not by his name.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook), who will not be here after the next election. The Prime Minister knows that and that is why he is delaying.
Countless hundreds of thousands of our youth are looking for direction and leadership from this government. What do they get? This is another sad day. I see the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) hiding her head in shame. Do you know what the Prime Minister said? He said: "If you want a job, go out of the country."


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I only have three or four minutes left. If the hon. member can't stand the heat, let her get out of the kitchen.


Simma Holt: The hon. member has suggested that I, as a member of this House, feel ashamed or am hiding my head. My head is upright. I am proud of what the government is doing. The hon. member has absolutely no right to suggest that I am hiding my head in shame.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My time is running on. All I know is that the conclusion is clear and undisputed. The Liberals, particularly those in government, are no longer looked upon as being best able to unify this country, the most competent or best able to deal with the economy. Those things are now myths.


Thomas Lefebvre: Who said that?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just went over the record. Do you think the Canadian people are stupid? Do you think they do not
know what the score is? Talk about unity! We have disunity. We have a separatist government. The Prime Minister was less than honest when he said that separatism is dead. Do you have national unity today? We do not. I do not want to say the government would lie to the Canadian people because I might get into trouble. However, that is no longer the party which can unify this country.
What about competence? Heaven knows, this is the most incompetent administration this country has ever seen.
As for the economy, I have given the House seven or eight cases to show that the government has destroyed any credibility it might have possessed. Today, ministers opposite are being questioned as never before. With every week that passes more and more people believe that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have proven themselves totally incapable of running the country. Take a look at those responsible for economic and financial affairs over there on that side. I will leave out the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs because he is not quite "somebody" yet. There is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). We know who he is. How about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner)?


An hon. Member:: A very able parliamentarian.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: How about the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand)?


Frank A. Philbrook: A great fellow.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: How about the Minister of National Revenue?


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There you have a key as to what is going on in this country. I will leave the President of the Treasury Board out of it for a moment. There is something about him that I find attractive for the time being.


Mr. Andras:: Be careful!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If that is the kind of competence they can show over there, the situation can only get worse. As a matter of fact, there is not enough talent there to enable the Prime Minister to make a switch, even; the ship is sinking and they are all going. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) is going. The former minister of finance has gone. Mitchell Sharp has gone. A few have gone to the Senate. What about those who are left? Mr. Speaker, could you take any member of that group over there behind the President of the Treasury Board and put them on the front bench? There is no one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Look at today's headlines. Items like this make the Canadian people wonder where the country is going. Here is one item: "Highest Food Price Jump in 25 Years".

June 14, 1978

Here is another: "May Living Costs hit New Three-Year Record". Yet all the time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and his friends are telling us things are great. Does he not read the newspapers? How these parliamentary secretaries ever got appointed I shall never understand. It must be the result of influence or good looks or regional considerations; it cannot be for brains, with all due respect.
Do they not recall the Prime Minister, back in 1975, introducing his great controls program and saying, along with the minister of finance at that time, that by 1978, in October, inflation would be running at 4 per cent? What went wrong? Was it blind stupidity or incompetence, or both? The Canadian people want to know because they are now facing inflation running at 9 per cent and all the economic indicators show we are heading for even more trouble.
People do not want to hear any more bland assurance from parliamentary secretaries that everything is all right. Hon. members opposite say: "Put us back in power. We understand; we will work these things out". Mr. Speaker, the record of the party opposite is one of complete disaster. They have almost succeeded in destroying this country.
Members opposite may describe what I am saying as "doom and gloom", but the people understand my sentiments. I am speaking today so as to be of some assistance to the Liberal backbenchers who appear to live in another world. I do not think they listen to their constituents at all. On second thoughts, I believe they are beginning to do so because they are asking the Prime Minister now why he did not go to the people-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was just getting started, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Knight Andras: Well, Mr. Speaker, after reading the motion before us and listening to the comments made so far I can only say I am appalled by the extravagance, the bias, the naivete and the lack of balance in both the motion itself and in the remarks of most of the hon. members who have taken part in this debate.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander)-my good friend on a personal basis-has been in his usual good voice. Two or three years ago I was tempted to describe his comments as bombast and rhetoric. We have had a double dose today in a speech which contained very little substance, very little by way of constructive suggestions.
The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) told us that when he came here from the business world he got the impression that this institution was an "Alice in Wonderland" creation. The hon. member for Hamilton West made a similar comment. After listening to the observations of members opposite I have to say they are living in a dream world. They have no sense of proportion.
Of course Canada is experiencing economic problems. Of course there are ways by which the efficiency of government
Government Waste
can be improved, as is the case in every country. But their performance would be more credible if only occasionally they would acknowledge that we do not live upon an isolated island totally detached from the rest of the world. We do not. We are a leading trading nation; one in four of our jobs depends on our ability to export. But those exports are influenced by economic conditions throughout the world and we cannot escape that fact. Hon. members opposite would have far more credibility if they admitted, just on occasion, that there were other factors affecting our economy. Because if they ever became really responsible, instead of being merely critical-a state of affairs which I personally believe would be disastrous-they would have to take these things into account.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) talked, for instance, about the Export Development Corporation. He talked about the export of jobs. Mr. Speaker, that corporation exists in order to assist Canadians to produce goods and sell them abroad. The goods being sold are Canadian goods and it is Canadian jobs which are associated with their production. Does the hon. member suggest we can stand idly back from the kind of competition which goes on around the world and let other people handle these opportunities? I can assure him it would be somebody else's goods which would be sold and other people whose jobs would be involved. He should recognize that the corporation is serving a good purpose and performing a good function.
I wish to concentrate in my speech today on more specific points relating to my responsibility in the portfolio I hold and into the allegations of waste made so bluntly and extravagantly in the motion. Where have members opposite been in the last several months? Where were they when I introduced the main estimates which showed that for the third consecutive year a restraint program unparalleled in recent history had been undertaken?
Where were they when a few days later I placed in the hands of every member, whether they read it or not, a document called "The Impact of Administrative Restraint" which talked about a saving of $100 million annually by administrative action alone?
Where is there recognition that the office of Comptroller General has been created? Where is there recognition that the Auditor General Act has been passed and that it enhances his powers and gives him powers which I think are second to none for that kind of parliamentary officer anywhere in the world? I say again that I am appalled, in the light of that record, that hon. members opposite would bring forward such an ill-conceived and irresponsible motion as the one which is being debated today. It is ill-conceived and irresponsible because it lacks substance. I have to say that it is long on politics but devoid of substance.
Let me review the record of this government since we announced our restraint program. Hon. members will recall that we announced that the growth of spending over time would not be permitted to exceed the growth in the gross national product. We tried to balance that comment. That
80045-39%

June 14, 1978
Government Waste
comment was a candid acknowledgement that expenditures had been rising too quickly in the past under all governments in this country and, frankly, nearly all the governments of the western world.
It was a candid acknowledgement that something had to be done, that government spending could not go on rising at the rate it had been and that it had to be checked or else the economic well-being of the country would be jeopardized. Never before had a Canadian government made such a commitment in advance to such a policy, and while the commitment was dramatic, I can tell the House now that it is my view that the results have been even more dramatic. We have been setting targets consistently which have been below gross national product growth forecasts. We have been holding spending below those targets.
I will not claim that it has been easy. Some important proposals have had to go down the drain. Some very ambitious projects had to be scaled down from their first presentations. In the first year I recall that more than $1 billion had to be trimmed from departmental forecasts shortly before the estimates were tabled.
Without going into all the details I hope the House will allow me to delve briefly into the past and to highlight the spending estimates for this year. In 1976-77, which was the first full fiscal year under the restraint program, we held spending to more than $1 billion below our target. That gave us a 10.2 per cent increase over the previous year, while the current dollar g.n.p. for that same period grew by about 13.4 per cent.
The 1977-78 fiscal year, which just ended March 31, was even tougher. When main estimates were tabled a year ago, I announced that total spending would be $45,120 billion. It was subsequently reduced. First, we reduced the publicly stated target by $670 million to make room for the tax cuts announced in the March, 1977 budget.
Following that we faced some unforeseen and rather extraordinary requirements for economic spending and for transfer payments to the provinces. For example, we decided we needed another $200 million for various job creation programs. We had to find another $440 million for cash payments to the provinces because the income tax points we transferred to them the previous fall under the agreement covering hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education did not produce as much revenue as had been expected. So we had to find another $440 million and stay within these reduced ceilings.
We did, despite those pressures, keep the lid on, and I was really quite pleased to be able to inform the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), in the preparation of his April 10 budget, that we now expected total spending for fiscal year 1977-78 to be at least $200 million below the final target we had set; in other words, about $44,250 billion. That was a full $870 million less that the target set when I tabled the main estimates in February of 1977.

Coming to fiscal year 1978-79, in February I tabled the main estimates, as hon. members will recall. They included a statement of a maximum total spending target of $48.8 billion, which was an increase of about 9.8 per cent over the 1977-78 expenditure forecast, which was then $44.45 billion. So for the third consecutive year we are well within the forecast growth of the gross national product.
That was the figure I tabled in February, but here again history is repeating itself. In conversation with the Minister of Finance in trying to make as much room as possible in terms of the deficit for the tax cuts he announced on April 10, we further reduced our spending plans by another $350 million. So the 1978-79 growth pattern will be within about 9.5 per cent over the previous year, not the 9.8 per cent predicted in the main estimates.
I think the figures speak for themselves. In 1974-75, the mid-seventies, that responsive and expensive period of minority government, spending increased 28.3 per cent over the previous year. In 1975-76 it dropped to 18.4 per cent. It went down to 10.2 per cent in 1976-77 and, taking into account the one-time only changes in our budgetary system, to about 10 per cent in 1977-78, and we have a forecast percentage increase this year of 9.5 per cent.
I do not think that is a litany of incompentence and wastefulness. What that sounds like to me is a record of financial management which is responsible and responsive because we have slowed down the rate of government spending. We have brought it into line with the growth of the economy, and we are trying to do that without going in the other direction and undermining the economic development and requirements of this nation.
1 was interested in a comment by the C.D. Howe Research institute in its "Policy Review and Outlook" for 1978, published by that responsible and respected organization. Judith Maxwell said that it was evident that the country had made a good deal of progress in eliminating the excesses which were so alarming on previous occasions, particularly back in the 1972, 1973, 1974 period.


Mr. Andre:: Was that a Liberal government then?


Robert Knight Andras: She was referring to all governments of all political stripes in this country.


Harvie Andre: It was a Liberal government, though, was it?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, with Conservative governments in Ontario and some other places, unfortunately, and governments of other flavours in other provinces of this country.
Judith Maxwell also said that on fiscal policy governments have moved a long way toward controlling the rate of growth in their spending, and that restraint has occurred at all levels of government. However, I want to put a balance into this. She wrote also-and I agree, in spite of the fact that my own inclination would be to want to see our expenditures going down even more rapidly than they are-that it is also important to keep in mind that constraints on government spending,
June 14, 1978

as necessary as they may be in the long run, act as a constraint on economic recovery and, given the balance of the economy in 1977, governments must try to find a balance between their desires to get their finances in order and their responsibility to stabilize economic activity.
While members of the official opposition particularly want to decry the rate of reduction in government spending and boast about $2 billion tax cuts and that sort of thing, the fact is that ours is a responsible approach to ratcheting down and getting our spending in better order; but perhaps it does not have the dramatic and assumed political appeal of the Draconian measures I have heard suggested. Those suggested measures have never been backed up by indications as to how those changes will be accomplished. In any event, the rate of growth in government spending has been slowed down.
Perhaps the telling argument to that effect was the show put on by honorable members opposite during consideration of the main estimates in February. At that time, the spokesman for the official opposition accused me of being and continuing to be a spendthrift. He indicated that no progress has been made. Yet the spokesman for the New Democratic Party took the opposite view and suggested that we were being far too niggardly and should continue to increase our spending.
I have a rather comforting feeling that perhaps we are on the right course. If either one had agreed, I am afraid I would have been somewhat nervous, returned to the drawing board and rechecked my thinking. I do not want to argue political philosophy in this debate. I am attempting to assemble some of the facts in order to demonstrate, in my view, the questionable value of the motion before us.
I have put the following question before the House during similar debates in consideration of main estimates and budget debates in the past: What really prevents us from making greater inroads in the growth of government spending? I have indicated that I would like to see the growth rate drop even faster than it has so far, with one caution or proviso which I illustrated by quoting the C. D. Howe Research Institute.
One of the major reasons, of course, is the statutory obligations and commitments approved by the House to share in the financing of provincial activities and many, many other programs mainly of a social nature. The increases in such programs are unquestionably built in and difficult to control. Approximately 60 per cent of the budgetary estimates for 1978-79 fall into this category.
Reductions in these statutory programs, or even cuts in their rates of growth, are made much more difficult by the fact that the majority of them involve transfers to individuals or to other levels of government. I am referring to old age security payments, fiscal transfers to the provinces, family allowances, the Canada Assistance Plan, unemployment insurance, postsecondary education, medicare and extended health care.
These few programs to which I have referred account for approximately 40 per cent of the budgetary estimates for this year. When one adds to the statutory 60 per cent of estimates
Government Waste
requirements for other contractual programs or formula payments, such as those for CMHC housing programs where we have agreements with the provinces, occupational and manpower training, fiscal transfers to the territories, veterans' pensions and allowances, and many more, there is obviously not much room left to cut back on government spending without very deep and sober thought.
To put it another way, approximately $10 billion of the $48.8 billion target for 1978-79 will be transferred to the provinces. Another $10 billion plus will go to individual Canadians. These payments supplement the incomes of millions of Canadians-senior citizens, growing families, workers temporarily unemployed, people undergoing new training, native people and veterans. In an economic fashion, these payments are used largely for shelter, food, clothing and other basic necessities.
Major reallocations of resources have been taking place constantly in order to accommodate increases in statutory programs. They have been taking place during every fiscal year without our limit on total spending being exceeded. While the final accounts are not available for 1977-78, I am confident spending will be held to approximately $44,250 million, which is $870 million below the ceiling I announced before that fiscal year began. That was accomplished in the face of some very large, unforeseeable demands of almost $1 billion for programs such as job creation and payments to the provinces. Without the increases in the payments to individuals and to the provinces, many of which programs are indexed, our rate of increase in spending would have been less than 3 per cent this year.
I would have liked to have the time to deal with some of the other comments made during the course of this debate, particularly those which apply to my portfolio. I enhance the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Martin) and his references to the control on public service man-year growth. I would have liked to elaborate more on the administrative restraint program which is ongoing. Not only does that program save over $100 million a year now, but it is reducing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but his allotted time has expired.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I should like to correct something which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) said. He said, when the estimates came down last March, that I accused him of being a spendthrift. I should like to correct that statement. I do not think he is a spendthrift. I am convinced his government is a spendthrift. I accused him of peddling flim-flam in terms of explaining government spending patterns. If one requires any other evidence of flim-flam on the part of this minister, he only has to read his speech of today. Again his speech was full of inexcusable flim-flam.
The minister is President of the Treasury Board. That organization has three areas of responsibility. One is to manage government spending-the estimates-examine the

June 14, 1978
Government Waste
budgets of various departments, approve such budgets, estimate government spending annually, and supervise government departments to ensure that they are effective and efficient. The second is the responsibility for the public service. The third is the management of the public service bilingual program.
Dealing with the first responsibility, let us look at how well it has been fulfilled by the Treasury Board. Turning to the 1976 report of the Auditor General on managing government spending, the Auditor General said the following:
I am deeply concerned that parliament-and indeed the government-has lost or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse.
In terms of that aspect of its mandate, the Auditor General, who is not a party hack for the Progressive Conservative or New Democratic parties, but is an officer of parliament, said that the Treasury Board had failed in that regard. How does the Treasury Board look after the public service? Through the proverbial brown envelope route and as a result of an audit, we have found out that approximately 16 per cent of public service positions are misclassified. That means of any seven public servants performing the same task, six are classified properly and the seventh is classified too high. In other words, the seventh is being paid more than the other six for doing the same job.
Is this going to build up the morale of those six doing the same job as the seventh but getting paid less? Is it going to soothe the Canadian public which has to pay more than it ought for the services of that seventh individual? If you use that example to measure the success of Treasury Board in fulfilling its responsibilities in terms of the public service, it has failed miserably.
Surely no one in this country has the gall to claim the bilingual program has been administered properly when examples of abuse, misuse and mismanagement in that program are too legion to enumerate. In all three areas of responsibility the Treasury Board has failed miserably.
The present minister has not been in that position for long and cannot be expected to carry the entire blame. Those who preceded him are now in even higher positions of authority. We can understand why the Treasury Board has been so poorly run when we look at the records of the previous ministers. For example, a previous minister of the Treasury Board is now Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). When we consider what he is doing with his responsibilities in that area we can clearly understand why the Treasury Board is in such poor shape.
The minister opened his remarks today by saying it is time we faced up to the facts. He said that we do not live on an island, and admitted we had some problems. It was very gracious of him today to admit that we have problems. I guess his admission that he is trying to do something about cutting back on spending is an admission of the accuracy of the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). If he did not tacitly agree that there was tremendous waste and incompetence in the way things were being
[Mr. Andre.)
handled, he would not be engaged in this program about which he has been bragging. In this way he has as much as admitted failure in terms of the incompetency of that program.
The minister indicated we are on the right path now. He said that this government is on the path toward fiscal responsibility. He said the government is going to bring spending under control. He mentioned some figures which I will get to in a minute, because they were really nothing more than flimflam.
Not long ago, on April 13, 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on national television that we would be on the way to financial disaster if nothing were done to bring spending under control, that spending vast sums on welfare, education and other programs while allowing inflation to continue would merely place hundreds of thousands of Canadians on a treadmill they could not escape.
The Prime Minister then dedicated himself to fiscal responsibility and to bringing government spending under control. That was in 1969. Since then spending has increased by 240 per cent. Why in the world would any sound Canadian believe this minister today when he says things will be different as a result of some new program? We had the clear example of the Prime Minister dedicating himself on national television to restraint, and we all know what happened as a result of that dedication. The fact of the matter is that no one should trust what that Prime Minister or that government has to say. There is an old expression that when a con man catches you once, that is his fault; but if he catches you twice, it is your own fault. I do not think the people of Canada will be fooled twice by this less than honest government.
The minister is proud of the fact that he has controlled expenditures by keeping growth to less than 10 per cent. I believe he referred to 9.8 per cent, or possibly even 9.5 per cent, and he was patting himself on the back. How did he do that? The implication was that he accomplished this by being very frugal and by cutting out waste and the misappropriate spending of money.
The fact of the matter is that the way he did this was by disguising spending. Until the estimates were placed before us last year, Crown corporation loans formed part of government spending. They recognized that when the EDC made a loan as an agent of Her Majesty it was exactly the same as the government making a loan, and it was included in the estimates. All loans by EDC or any other Crown corporation, such as CMHC, were included. Such loans are excluded from the estimates this year.
When you take from the estimates $1 billion in Crown corporation loans, it looks as though government spending is $1 billion less. If that is not flim-flam, what is it? I suggest it is pure, unadulterated flim-flam, and certainly it is being less than honest with the Canadian people.
The minister had the gall to stand in the House and pat himself on the back, so much so that his arm must be sore claiming he has been effective in cutting back. But what he really has done is to disguise and hide spending from the
June 14, 1978

people of Canada. That really is intolerable and I do not think the people of Canada will be fooled by it.
That is not the only way large expenditures were disguised. This government pushed $1 billion in spending on the provinces which had formerly been shown in the estimates. Again that makes it look as though the government has reduced the level of expenditure by $1 billion. By subtracting loan payments from expenditures you engage in flim-flam. All you are doing is disguising the spending which actually occurs.
Let me give another classic example of this procedure. Whenever a Crown corporation runs up a tremendous debt, this government turns it into equity. All of a sudden the debt disappears, as do the interest payments associated with the debt. All of a sudden by magic the Canadian public no longer has the obligation to pay the interest on the debt, because the debt through transfer has been turned into equity. That is a marvellous scheme, but it is nothing more than flim-flam. This is the type of thing that medicine show snake oil salesmen use, and the public will not fall for it again.
The other thing I want to take the minister to task for is his statement that the government has appointed a Comptroller General with unlimited powers to police government spending. His words were unfounded because the Comptroller General has in fact no such powers. He occupies the position of a deputy minister and no more. We hope and pray his efforts will be effective; do not get us wrong in terms of motivation. However, the claim that, through creation of the position of another deputy minister, the government will cure all the problems is simply inaccurate.
It would take more than 20 minutes, more than 40 minutes, more than a week and more than a month, to list and describe just a few of the examples of waste and extravagance on the part of this government. Let me talk about one additional example in view of the presence in the House today of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne).
I am prompted to speak of this example because of a memo that came over my desk a couple of weeks back in which the Postmaster General had the colossal gall to say that Canadians could post a letter more cheaply than the citizens of any other country in the world. He had the colossal gall to propose that complete fabrication, and it is a complete fabrication. He completely and conveniently dismissed the fact that the Post Office is operating with a deficit this year of S571 million.


An hon. Member:: Where is the mail cheaper?


Harvie Andre: If the parliamentary secretary will allow me to explain, he will then understand. The Postmaster General completely neglected to include in this calculation the Post Office deficit of $571 million this year. You and I, Mr. Speaker, have to pay for that deficit, and the fact that we do not have to pay for it by buying stamps valued at more than 14 cents for a first class letter does not mean we do not pay for it. Of course we pay for this deficit. The fact of the matter is that in a family of four, that expenditure amounts to the mailing of 700 letters a year. In other words, we are being charged for
Government Waste
700 letters a year that we do not mail to cover the deficit of the Post Office, that superbly run organization.
The Post Office in the last decade, the Liberal decade under this present administration, has increased the amount of mail it carries by 18 per cent. It has gone from some five billion to six billion pieces of mail each year. In that same time postal employees have increased by 43 per cent, from 46,000 to 66,000. In other words, every employee in the Post Office now handles 60 per cent of the mail that he handled ten years ago. This is what automation has brought us, that great new introduction of this government. That automation has, in fact reduced the productivity of every postal worker by 40 per cent, plus it has given us collectively a bill of $571 million to cover its losses.
I wish to cite one other example at this point, and that is with regard to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I mention it because of this hassle with Petro-Canada, and because I had to go back and look at the debates on Petro-Canada. The then minister of energy, mines and resources, Donald Macdonald, stood up in the House and said that Petro-Canada will be a marvel and will bring in all kinds of energy, and that Crown corporations in energy do very well.
Well, Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada is an outstanding example of how effective a Crown corporation can be in improving Canada's energy situation. It was just two or three months later that the people of Canada found out that Atomic Energy had lost something like $300 million in Argentina, that we had given untold millions to Shaul Eisenberg and who knows how much to Korea and Japan. We found out that that organization could build reactors and give them away. They have cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars, and there is plenty of evidence that in fact some of that money may not only have been wasted but used in a corrupt manner. As I indicated, I could go on and on, but thanks to Mr. Ed Murphy a lot more people know about the waste of this government.
It is important to realize the consequences of all this waste upon this country, and this is something that we as responsible parliamentarians have to be concerned about. An example is "Proposition 13" in California which was voted on by the taxpayers a couple of weeks ago. That could not happen here because we do not have as democratic a system, but there was a message there. Anybody in this House who deludes himself or herself into thinking that Canadians do not share some of the same views as those California taxpayers is not being of service to this country or their constituents. The fact is there is a growing resentment in this country toward taxes and taxation, not just in terms of the level, but because of how much the public see wasted and how much incompetence they see.
I had an accountant tell me the other day that he has clients asking him to do things in terms of claiming tax deductions for which, if he had suggested them ten years ago, they would have fired him. He gave this by way of an example. Ten years ago there was a willingness on the part of people to pay taxes. They felt obliged to pay as responsible citizens, that they were

June 14, 1978
Government Waste
fortunate to be part of this country and to be able to pay their share. They certainly did not resist it. Although I do not think anybody voluntarily pays, they did not resist or resent it. This is not true today, for there is great resentment and concern about the misspending of the government.
Another thing that happens, and which is equally important, is a general discrediting of government and parliament. There is a feeling among the public that the government cannot be trusted. The public feel that they have been lied to too often in the past. The result of this is that we as parliamentarians get painted by the same brush. There is a cynicism with regard to parliament and government. There is the feeling of them and us, an adversary mood of parliament versus the people. It is not government of the people for the people. We are going back to the old days of when the state was a tyrant and the people were its subjects, and that feeling is increasing in this country.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a very serious situation because if it is not arrested and turned around we will have a much less democratic country than you and I, and I am sure anybody in this House, plan for. Cutting that waste is important in terms of the funds and dollars involved, but I think it is even more important in terms of the confidence of the people. When governments waste, spill and misuse public funds, they bring upon themselves the discredit of the people and as a result weaken our society and the democratic fabric of our nation.
I know there are others who wish to speak. I could go on for hours on this subject, but I will sit down and allow some time for the remaining speakers.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, it seems obvious from reading that motion and listening to hon. members of the official opposition that nobody on the other side of this House took the trouble of reading the last report of the Auditor General of Canada. For their information I feel I have to bring to their attention what everyone has known for several months. On page 9 of his report of March 31, 1977, the Auditor General writes:
Other positive, constructive and important actions by the government since the tabling of my 1976 report, some of which will be referred to in subsequent paragraphs of this part and all of which have significant impact on financial control, include:
the announcement on December 16, 1976, by the President of the Treasury Board of new government policy and guidelines concerning the commercial practices of Crown corporations;
the enactment by Parliament of the new Auditor General Act and its proclamation by the Governor General effective August 1, 1977; the granting by Parliament on the advice of the government of a significant increase in resources to the Audit Office through main estimates for 1976-77; and
the release on August 18, 1977, by the President of Privy Council of a paper setting out Government Proposals on the Control, Direction and Accountability of Crown Corporations.

Still on page 9, paragraph 2.10 says, and I quote:
Taken together, these actions by the government and Parliament comprise, in the phraseology I used in my 1976 report, "strong, appropriate and effective measures" to achieve ultimately a satisfactory system of financial management and control within the federal government and the restoration to Parliament of an appropriate degree of control over the public purse.
Those are the words, Mr. Speaker, of a very competent person, namely the Auditor General of Canada.
I should like to come back now to some of the claims made by the opposition. Where do they want to start in achieving these greater economies? Will they start with payments to individuals which went up by $926 million this year, or with payments to pensioners, the unemployed, young families, or will they attack all three groups? I forgot the veterans, which is a small group. Perhaps they want to start their savings there.
If this hits too close to their constituents, maybe they would like to take on the provinces since 46 per cent of the increase in our spending this year resulted from increased transfer payments. Before they do that I should remind them that equalization payments for 1978-79 alone account for 26 per cent of the total revenue for Newfoundland, 29 per cent for Prince Edward Island, 27 per cent for Nova Scotia, 24 per cent for New Brunswick, 10 per cent for Quebec, 13 per cent for Manitoba and slightly more than 2 per cent for Saskatchewan. That is one of the questions that has not been answered today.
In his speech the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) pointed out that this government made further advances in the reduction of waste and the improvement of control. One of the most obvious measures that the opposition does not mention very often is the legislation which created the position of Comptroller General. When the appointment was made the Auditor General said that he was more than pleased, and in reply to questions in the public accounts committee on several occasions he indicated his approval. No one on the other side has mentioned that.
Aside from the legislative changes there is also progress in the field of financial administration, some of which I would now like to detail. On November 8, 1977, Treasury Board issued a circular to revise the policy on grants and contributions. Principal features included revised definitions of a "grant" and a "contribution" and clarification of the requirements for Treasury Board approval of terms and conditions for all payments of contributions.
A significant change, restricting advance payments to three months, will prevent long-term financing of projects at an interest cost to the federal government. It will discourage the payment of contributions without progress reports and without an accounting for the amount claimed by the recipient.
All departments and agencies are reviewing their grants and contribution programs against the new policy, and where they do not meet the requirements will seek approval of revised terms and conditions from the Treasury Board.
June 14, 1978

The financial administration branch has also completed a review of cash control procedures in departments and agencies resulting in a new policy directive. The directive provided for proper physical security of cash, an adequate division of duties, periodic verification of advances, and the manner in which funds will be transferred from one responsible officer to another. All departments and agencies were required to report on the manner in which this policy was implemented.
A policy directive has also been issued to govern the use of departmental credit cards. The general policy is that credit cards will not be issued to employees. Recognizing that certain departments have a need for such cards, they may be issued on the written authorization of the deputy head who is not permitted to delegate this authority. Conditions of use and payment must be agreed to by the employee. Monitoring of credit cards accounts takes place monthly by a departmental financial officer.
At present the financial administration branch is doing a study of practices and alternatives for the deposit and transfer of public money. The study includes various methods in use by other organizations in Canada and abroad. The objective of the project is to develop a policy, and a method for the deposit and transfer of public money which will reduce the amount of money in transit at any point in time and improve internal control over funds deposited and transferred. A major revision to the guide on financial administration issued in 1973 is also under way.
We are also developing a policy on interdepartmental charging to classify the types of interdepartmental services provided, various methods of charging for such services and the conditions to be considered in deciding whether or not these methods should be applied.
To ensure accuracy and timeliness of financial reports, the branch is completing the development of a policy and related system to ensure that payables at the end of a fiscal year are
Government Waste
reported in the accounts of Canada. This policy will give effect to the implementation of recommendation 24 of the report on the study of the accounts of Canada.
The branch is also preparing a draft of a concise guide to the estimates and public accounts, which was requested by the Standing Committee on Public accounts.
Another group within the financial policy development division is responsible for the development of policy and standards for financial systems employed by departments and the approval of departmental systems proposals to ensure that they meet established policy and standards. Work of the group includes completion of a study to determine the most appropriate methods of achieving timely and accurate financial reports for government departments and agencies. A policy on departmental financial reporting systems and related standards has been drafted, and several studies are currently being done on specific proposals for improving the departmental financial reporting system of the Department of Supply and Services.
For several years the Public Service Commission has been offering an accelerated series of courses in professional accounting and other related subjects necessary for accreditation by one of the professional accounting bodies.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that this motion provided an opportunity for the President of the Treasury Board, the parliamentary secretary and myself to reply to these unfounded charges made by the opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 15, 1978