1978-03-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity dealing with the fact that nearly two years ago I made public a list of 20 Soviet embassy staff employees in Ottawa, 17 of whom have been either expelled, asked not to return to Canada or replaced.
I now have a new list of 14 so-called diplomats, made available to me by the same obviously reliable sources, who are believed to be directly involved with KGB and GRU activities in Canada. I have made this list available to both the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). For the sake of national security, about which we are all concerned and, I believe, on behalf of members of the security forces of the RCMP, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to review the status of all so-called Soviet diplomats who are directly connected with KGB or GRU espionage activities in Canada, enforce a comprehensive screening process on all new replacements entering Canada from the Soviet Union, and eliminate all further domestic travel permits for any Soviet personnel until all such matters have been cleared to the satisfaction of the RCMP.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
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 the
Mummers Troupe of St. John's, Newfoundland, are to open their production "They Club Seals, Don't They?" at the National Arts Centre on Monday, March 13, with a reception after to be given by the management of the National Arts Centre for the troupe and guests, in view of the fact that the Mummers Troupe have arranged for three dozen flippers sent from Newfoundland to be cooked by the gracious wife of the member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) and then consumed at the reception by Newfoundlanders and other gourmets, and in view of the fact that the National Arts Centre has now advised the Mummers that they will not serve the flippers, thereby causing a crisis in that without the flippers there will be no Mummers at the reception, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this House direct the National Arts Centre to reverse their anti-flipper decision caused by inherent effete mainland, dilettante attitudes and prejudices and to serve the flippers without any further culinary tyranny, so that they fulfil their mandate to be open to all of the people of Canada no matter what their tastes or habits, with an apology to be given by the NAC to the flipper lovers of Canada.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the actions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) in initiating proceedings against the Ottawa offices of CTV and Global Television, and in view of the very real risk to freedom of speech and expression in this action, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House endorses the position taken by the Ottawa Newspaper Guild in condemning the actions of this government and the RCMP in the harassing of journalists in the raiding of the Ottawa offices of CTV and Global Television to commandeer unused news material, thereby seriously interfering in the newsgathering and editing process. This cannot be tolerated in a free society.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 10, 1978


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion relating to a very important matter.
Considering that the dairy industry is the base of agriculture, more particularly so in the province of Quebec, and considering also that the increase in the prices of dairy products is likely to reduce consumption and therefore, dairy production quotas, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House recommend that a 5-cent discount on each litre of fluid milk be granted to consumers to stimulate consumption and improve the fate of producers as was done in 1972, a measure that gave excellent results.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of that motion can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the alarm generated when media are subjected to police raids designed to get at confidential sources, and in view particularly of a recent case concerning Pacific Press v. The Queen (37 Canadian Criminal Cases, page 487) which indicates that unless sufficient information is made available to the justice before whom the warrant is applied for, or unless there has been a refusal or a reasonable opportunity has been denied police to get the required information, the warrant of search is illegal and will be quashed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That the Attorney General of Canada immediately investigate all of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of any warrant pursuant to an alleged breach of the Official Secrets Act by the member for Leeds and report to the House as to the adequacy of the basis for the issuance of such warrants.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. It arises from a rather astonishing report that the Economic Council of Canada is going to serve as the monitoring agency after the expiry of the AIB. It is astonishing, because the chairman of the council has already said she does not want that responsibility or opportunity.
Does the government intend to introduce legislation, and when will that be, changing the role and responsibilities of the Economic Council so it can carry out that function, particularly given the fact that the statute establishing the Economic Council does not provide any power to the council other than to use published information, published statistics, giving it absolutely no right to collect information other than that which is already published and available through Statistics Canada? When may we expect to see the new legislation, and what will be its basic thrust?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not in a position to comment very substantially on that problem. An announcement will be made when all the details have been finalized. The proposal of the Economic Council of Canada playing that role was a suggestion made to the government by the premiers. We have looked at it and discussed it with the chairman of the Economic Council. When a final decision has been reached between the government and the council, an announcement will be made.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, do I understand from the answer of the Minister of Finance that the decision has not been reached to use the Economic Council as a monitoring agency after the AIB expires on April 15? Given the fact that the House will rise soon-which leaves very little time for the government to introduce the legislation required-can the minister enlarge on the situation, considering the fact that the provinces are very concerned about interference with their jurisdiction, and if the council is used as the monitoring agency it will have no authority over decisions reflecting the responsibilities of the provinces, particularly with regard to labour relations?
March 10, 1978


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have said many times, of course, that after getting out of controls we do not want to have another AIB. It will be the role of the Economic Council, in such case, to look into prices and wages and to make comments or recommendations, with absolutely no power to roll back in any way, shape or form or to in any way go into the market place. As far as the decision is concerned, we said to the premiers at the first ministers' meeting that we would make the proposal to the Economic Council of Canada. We have made that proposal to the council, but a final decision has not been reached: that is why I am not in a position to elaborate today.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that there is no representative of labour on the Economic Council of Canada at the present time, will the government appoint the Economic Council of Canada as the monitoring agency after the expiry of the AIB, even though it does not have on it a labour representative?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we will give a definite answer on this matter after a decision has been made. Naturally, we hope that the Canadian labour representatives will return to their seats at the Economic Council of Canada. This constitutes a means of consultation between the different sectors of our society, labour, government and business, and we hope that they return to their seats. On this subject, I think Mr. Morris said that they were studying the matter, but it is up to them to decide. They decided to leave, we did not ask them to do so; that decision was taken by the Canadian Labour Congress and not by government.
[DOT] din)


CONSULTATION WITH CLC ON MONITORING AGENCY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that without the co-operation of labour, the post-control situation obviously cannot succeed, and given the fact that labour is not represented on the Economic Council of Canada, I ask the minister whether the government consulted the Canadian Labour Congress prior to designating the Economic Council of Canada as the successor of the Anti-Inflation Board.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On many occasions we have discussed post-control policy with the CLC. A few weeks ago, before the first ministers' meeting, we had two meetings to discuss the kind of body we should have. At that time we were talking of a monitoring agency, and following the premiers' conference we had the view of the CLC about that agency. This is a new proposition which has come from the provinces, and we are awaiting finalization of the decision by the Economic Council of Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is the minister telling the House that there was no consultation with the Canadian Labour Congress after
Oral Questions
the decision had been made at the first ministers' conference to appoint the ECC as the successor of the AIB? Is that the position the government has taken? If so, given the fact that there is no labour representation on the Economic Council of Canada, can the minister tell the House how we can expect anything from this agency in the area of voluntary restraints, without labour consultation or representation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have had several opportunities to consult with labour and we try to do so as often as possible. They themselves opted for leaving the Economic Council of Canada, that was not our decision, they can return anytime, and it is our hope that they do so as soon as possible. But it is up to them to decide, as we cannot force them to sit at the Economic Council of Canada. I want to reiterate that on several occasions I and more often my colleague the Minister of Labour have consulted the Canadian Labour Congress and other labour organizations in Canada on the topic of post-control policy.


James Aloysius McGrath: This is quite an extraordinary situation when we consider the fact that in order for the post-control period to have any chance of success, there must be full labour input and co-operation. Given the fact that the controls will be coming off approximately one month from today, or at least in the middle of April, is it the intention of the government to call in the leadership of the CLC to get their co-operation in the post-control area, and to ask the CLC if they will now go back to the ECC? Does the government intend to do that and, if so, when?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not only do we intend doing that; we have done it.


Miss MacDonald:: When?


Mr. Clark:: With what effect?


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Can my friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, confirm the press report that at least four of the government's JetStar aircraft are being used this weekend, at the expense of the taxpayers, to fly most of the members of the cabinet around the prairie provinces in what is clearly blatant election campaigning?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How can the minister justify this expenditure of public funds, in view of the fact

March 10, 1978
Oral Questions
that the government is preaching restraint and in view of the Prime Minister's insistence that there are no free lunches?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the number of airplanes which will be taking ministers to the western provinces. I intend to go later today to both Alberta and Saskatchewan, and I will not be electioneering.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your duty is here.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thought the hon. member would realize that we are not in an election campaign. My principal activities will be to hear the views of various groups, including people in Alberta who are interested in pipeline matters, and representatives of the Indians of Saskatchewan. My activities will all be related to my duties as a member of the government, and not as a candidate in an election, which has not yet been called.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does my friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, regard the appearance of the Prime Minister at a $125-a-plate Liberal fund-raising dinner in Winnipeg, at which four cabinet ministers voiced high praise for the Prime Minister and heaped scorn on his chief rival, the Leader of the Opposition, a proper expenditure of government funds? Will the Deputy Prime Minister refer this matter to the Auditor General for an opinion as to whether this is a proper use of government funds?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure which matter the hon. member wishes to have referred to the Auditor General. Perhaps it is the praise that the ministers have given to the Prime Minister. It is not surprising that members of this government should praise our leader in view of the comments which have been made about him, for example, by the VicePresident of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If that is what the hon. member wants referred to the Auditor General, I will consider it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that what I want referred to the Auditor General is the matter of the money which is being paid out of the federal treasury this weekend for the expenses of this trip for 20 or more cabinet ministers in western Canada. I want to know whether the other expenses of these ministers on this election campaign trip-hotel, meals and other expenses; not just the cost of the airplanes-are being charged to the taxpayers of Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth pointing out to the hon. member that this is not the first time the cabinet has travelled throughout the country to receive briefs and representations from various groups. I repeat to the hon.

member that this is not electioneering. This is clearly in accordance with a practice which was in effect years before the prospect of any election, so I do not think the hon. member's question is very appropriate.

[ Translation]


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: We must carry on, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the rumours of an impending election campaign. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the decision by the Bank of Canada to increase its interest rate which was announced yesterday and which the other banks are likely to imitate, could the minister explain to the House how this rise in interest rate or money costs will improve the economic circumstances of our country, encourage contractors to build more, or is it not in fact going to be a source of considerable difficulties? I should like the minister to clarify this.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will only read the press release which was issued at the time the governor of the Bank of Canada announced this decision, he will find the reasons behind this decision. We do not believe that the increase of half of one per cent in the interest rate will greatly affect economic decisions in Canada, and it is part of the monetary policy of this government which makes it possible for the Canadian dollar to float in a rational fashion. Moreover, because a gap has always existed between the Canadian and American interest rates, it will make investing in Canada more attractive to foreign capital.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
The minister just said that we have a floating dollar, and I would also add a very floating policy since not long ago he and his immediate predecessor announced with great pleasure that lower interest rates in Canada would be an essential factor for stimulating the economy. Either one thing or the other: the government is free to direct its monetary policy through the Bank of Canada or we are completely dependent on our neighbours to the south. If we really depend on them, I understand the attitude of the minister but I would like to ask him this: could we hope that some day we will have a monetary policy in Canada which will be truly geared to our economic possibilities and the vastness of our natural resources so that all Canadians might participate in the development and the prosperity of our country?
March 10, 1978

Oral Questions POST OFFICE


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish we were completely independent, and we are to the extent that 16 or 18 months ago, I think, there was a four point difference between short term interest rates in Canada and in the United States. A few weeks ago the difference dropped to half a point, which means that our monetary policy is very independent from theirs. It remains however, Mr. Speaker, that currencies are interdependent; you only have to read the comments coming from Europe where they are complaining about the situation of the American dollar to see that pressure is made on the U.S. government and that even the German mark, the French franc and the Swiss franc themselves are completely independent of the movements of the American dollar. It is natural in the present world, because of trade between countries, and particularly for Canada, which is the country with the highest exchange rate per capita in comparison with other countries. Of course, we should be realistic and note that we have to follow world movements in this area just as in so many others.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I hope he has had a chance to reconsider his unacceptable and indefensible position yesterday of refusing to answer questions under the thin guise that it might affect national security, whereas the question related not to the contents of a classified document but to government policy in connection with the distribution of the document.
Therefore, I ask the Solicitor General, under whose authority did IAC-the Intelligence Advisory Committee-distribute or permit to be distributed 58 copies of the document entitled "Canadian Related Activities of the Russian Intelligence Service"?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I have not revised my position.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, and I preface it by saying it relates to no specific document of any kind. The Solicitor General is represented on the IAC by a senior official of his department, as are other ministers. Can the IAC, as a matter of government policy, distribute any classified material relating to national security without the personal approval of the Solicitor General?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, that is a question for which I cannot provide a reply to the hon. gentleman today. 1 will review the procedures and advise him accordingly.


SUGGESTION LEGISLATION BE AMENDED TO LEGALIZE PROPOSED RATE INCREASES
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. On February 14 I asked him a question concerning the illegality of the contemplated postal rate increases and he promised to reply. He was new on the job at that time and was not familiar with the facts. Now that he has been in office for several weeks, and before there is a further change in postmasters general, could the hon. gentleman tell the House if he is aware of the statements of his predecessors indicating that increasing postal rates by a procedure other than amending the Post Office Act is illegal, and what action is he taking on the matter?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris should know that I answered that question at the wittily-called late show, giving the reasons why the rates were increased and explaining under what legislation we proceeded to do so. It is under section 13 of the Financial Administration Act, I believe. We also had legal opinions from the Department of Justice stating that it was quite legal and everything seemed in order. At the same time, this will allow us to reduce the present deficit of the Post Office from some $600 million to some $500 million.
I think that it is worthwhile for taxpayers.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of his immediate predecessor, who is now Solicitor General and is an expert on legal and illegal affairs, to the effect that it would be necessary to amend the Post Office Act in order to regularize this procedure, would the hon. gentleman inform the House why we can open the Post Office Act to legalize mail opening, and not open the Post Office Act to legalize rate increases?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, we do not have to legalize the Post Office increase. It is, as I have just said, legalized the way we are doing it. So why open the Post Office Act to legalize it?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. gentleman aware that some of the major users of the Post Office service are about to take the issue to court? Is he not aware, also, that this would further complicate a very confused postal situation at the present time?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this group of people who wish to contest the increase. It has not been done yet. We have our own legal advisers, and we are not too worried about this action.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just like the uranium cartel.

March 10, 1978
Oral Questions


DISCUSSIONS WITH PUBLISHERS PRIOR TO DECISION TO INCREASE RATES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question would normally be for the Secretary of State, but he is not here today. Perhaps it should be directed to either the Postmaster General or to the minister responsible for matters concerning the Secretary of State. In view of the comment made a moment ago by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris as to possible legal action to declare invalid the proposed rate increases, and the very great concern expressed by the Canadian Periodical Publishers Association with respect to the deleterious impact of these further increases-there was the 25 per cent increase of last year, and now a 25 per cent increase as of April 1-can the minister indicate if any consultations took place with this important body, or with periodical publishers generally on whether they would be able to withstand this further increase? Since there was an order in council, there was no public discussion. If there was consultation, what was the result?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I specifically asked the question which has just been put to me by the deputy minister of the Post Office Department, Mr. Corkery, who told me that he had meetings with the Canadian Periodical Publishers Association and that apparently everything was to be done in accordance with our decision. I do not understand why that increase is now being challenged.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will consult again with his deputy minister. I hope he will also consult his colleague, the Secretary of State. I think the Secretary of State will indicate that serious problems are being created for the periodicals industry in this country. In view of the fact that the periodical publishers have stated clearly that they had no advance warning, in spite of the fact that at the time of the last increase they were promised sufficient warning, in terms of any contemplated increases, can the minister indicate why there is this contradiction? It appears that as far as the publishers are concerned, there has been no effective forewarning or consultation.
[ Translation]


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I think there must be some confusion somewhere, not only on the government side but also in the opposition because we have delayed the application of the increase for at least six months. When we met the representatives of the publishers association we told them that we were giving them a six-month delay so that they could make the necessary arrangements to cope with the increase.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there was previously a six-month delay because of the very real problems created for the publishing industry, would the minister agree to display that same spirit of assistance with

a view to the April 1 increase, so there can be effective consultation with the industry and disastrous measures will not be taken which would, in effect, end the circulation of a number of important Canadian publications?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, according to the information I have from my department, consultations have already taken place. I do not think there is any necessity for further consultation on that matter.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the majority of the cabinet, and in view of the reluctance of the Solicitor General to answer any questions, I would like to put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It relates to my motion which exposed 14 additional members of the Soviet embassy who are, in fact, involved in KGB and GRU espionage activities in Canada, activities which may be very harmful to our national security.
I would, therefore, ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would explain to this House his government's policy with respect to known KGB or GRU operatives in Canada who continue to pose, under false pretences, as representatives of the Soviet Union's embassy staff.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the policy is fairly well understood. Action in the case of persons engaged in questionable or unacceptable practices is usually taken on the advice of the RCM Police. In some cases where such activity is suspected but evidence is not conclusive, no more action than a warning may be justified. Where the activities are clearly a threat to national security or are in violation of the Criminal Code, the evidence is based upon advice received from the RCMP. I believe each case has to be examined on its merits. The hon. member ought to be reassured by the action taken recently when 11 Soviet nationals were asked to leave the country.


SCREENING OF SOVIET OFFICIALS IN CANADA
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I keep saying that that action was just the tip of the iceberg. My supplementary question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether new screening procedures have been initiated in respect of Soviet embassy staff replacements, and why does the government insist on continuing to issue hundreds of special travel permits to these deceitful individuals-they are deceitful, because they are posing as diplomats-which obviously frustrates the activities of our national security forces.
March 10, 1978


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the practice of issuing such travel permits is considered in light of the security requirements of the country. I am satisfied that no such permits would be issued-


An hon. Member:: A thousand a year!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -if the travel was in any way a threat to the security of the country.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Bearing in mind that this House had a very useful and thorough debate yesterday on proposed amendments to public service pensions, and in spite of this we find in today's press statements such as that in the Montreal Gazette, "Ottawa Out by $6 billion on Pensions", can the minister repeat his assurance to this House that such is not the case? Could he reassure public servants across Canada that indeed the public service superannuation fund will be fully actuarially sound and will not cost the taxpayers of Canada any money?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to examine all those stories, but the one or two I have looked at are rather disappointing, to say the least, particularly in light of the mood expressed in the House by all parties. First of all, the suggestion that the fund is actuarially unsound is based on certain assumptions by the actuaries which I thought were thoroughly explored yesterday. There are very pessimistic assumptions about the extension of interest rates versus inflation rates, versus salary increases, versus demographic ages of retirement for 50 years in the future.
Indeed, on that assumption they came up with the view that there had to be front-end funding of $5.6 billion on the indexed portion of the account. But that is an actuarial theory, an assumption. We have said from the beginning that this was to be a pay-as-you-go plan. What we are doing is to make doubly sure, by means of a three-year review, that there is no question at all down the road of any possible change which would ultimately be very detrimental to the pensioner or to the taxpayer. So I think the headlines are probably an illustration of lack of understanding of a very complex program.


An hon. Member:: You had better read them.


Robert Knight Andras: No, I should like opposition members, who were expressing their concern about "scare" headlines yesterday, to join me when I say this does not do the country or our pensioners any service whatsoever.


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


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO STABILIZE GOLD MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made in the House yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that there has been a great deal of co-operation among the provincial ministers of mines and the finance ministers, and now that the price of gold on the world market has reached a level which would permit the reopening of gold mines-I am thinking particularly of areas such as northern Ontario and northern Quebec where there is high unemployment-is it the intention of the minister to assist such a process by ensuring the stability of mining practices and providing a reasonable floor price to allow for an orderly marketing program?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have not received any specific request regarding such a possibility. There was agreement at the first ministers' conference to hold a special meeting to make sure there is acceptable co-ordination between federal and provincial policies in terms of taxes imposed upon the mining industry. I do not know when such a meeting would be held. It is the goal of the two levels of government to stabilize the position so that we may know the basis upon which to plan the development of the industry.


William Arnold Peters: Bearing in mind the fact that gold mining is a highly labour-intensive industry, and that it is located in areas which have traditionally been dependent upon it, does the minister intend to offer co-operation in the development of mining mill facilites, in conjunction with DREE, so that the use of DREE funds by mining companies employing existing mills would be possible? At the present time, this might not be provided for under the DREE program.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not know whether the legislation governing the DREE program permits the making of such grants to the mining industry. I look toward my colleague, the minister responsible, and he seems to be telling me the authority is not clear. We shall look into the matter. I think the hon. member is making a good point. In view of the price of gold at the present time, some of the gold mines might be reactivitated. It is a possibility.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. It is supplementary to the questions asked a few minutes ago by my hon. friend. Given the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress has no representatives on the Economic Council at the moment, and given the fact that for two years now it has been government policy to establish a multipartite, national forum which would include labour, and that a subdivision of that forum
3660

March 10, 1978
Oral Questions
would be a tripartite forum which would include business, government and labour, and given the fact there has been no indication of labour either agreeing with that policy or being prepared to participate in it, would the minister inform us whether it is still government policy to proceed, in line with the first point of the Minister of Labour's 14 points, with the establishment of this multipartite, national forum?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is very difficult to force anybody to join in a body like that, to take part in discussions. They decided they would not participate in the work of the Economic Council. We have put forward other propositions. We have met with them many times. They are reluctant to enter formally into such a body. In the course of two meetings with them, I said I was not seeking their concurrence but trying to communicate with them and explain the type of policies we were developing. Of course, they will always be welcome to come back into the Economic Council or other organizations, but they make their own decisions and we have to make ours.


John Allen Fraser: The minister talks about forcing the labour movement. That is not the question. Given the fact that there is no practical possibility of labour entering into either a multipartite or a tripartite, national forum, why does the government persist in asserting that this is government policy? It has been clear to everybody for a year or 18 months now that it will never come about.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is because we feel it is desirable to get the collaboration of the labour movement to achieve our policies. But if they do not want to come in formally, we shall keep the channels open in an informal way. In the meantime, we are going back into the marketplace; we have decided we need somebody to watch the development of prices and wages, and so on, to inform the public on inflation, and we have asked the Economic Council if they are willing to undertake that role. We have not yet received a final decision from the council, but when a decision is reached we will make it known to the House of Commons.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Environment. It has to do with the government's decision not to exercise the option of building a west coast tanker port in Kitimat and a pipeline to tie in with the TransMountain pipeline. In light of the fact that the National Energy Board has before it an application for such a pipeline and is still considering that option, can the minister inform the House whether the government intends to seek the advice of the board, or whether its decision as to that option is final?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: am not entirely sure of all the legalities involved here. The hon. member might more properly direct his question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources under whose jurisdiction the National Energy Board comes.


Frank Oberle: I would, instead, like to direct a further question to the Minister of State for the Environment. It concerns the Thompson inquiry which he has chosen not to reactivate in spite of the fact that this pipeline may still be built. Would the minister not agree that the inquiry should have been reactivated, if for no other reason than to study the even less attractive option of a tanker route down the west coast, to study the environmental and socioeconomic impact of the tankers which will carry the oil if they are not going into Kitimat?


Len Marchand: The hon. member and others may raise all kinds of arguments relating to the decision which was made, but if I were the Kitimat oil company, or any other oil company, I would think twice before proceeding with an application because the government of Canada made a very clear decision on the question of west coast oil ports, reflecting our view that we do not see the need for a west coast oil port in the foreseeable future.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration: it relates to the International Youth Exchange Program which has brought young people from various parts of Europe to Canada on a temporary basis to engage and participate in the agricultural activities of the prairie provinces. The federal government has seen fit to cut back on this particular program.
In view of the fact that the province of Alberta has decided to opt out of this program and to participate in one of its own, called the Alberta Agricultural Host Family Exchange Program, I wonder if the minister could explain to the House the status of those negotiations. Could he explain the reason for the delay, and could he estimate the number of people who will have the opportunity to come to Alberta? As there is some urgency about this matter, I hope the minister will take into consideration the fact that many host families are depending upon these individuals to come from European countries.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question yesterday. I might say the matter was also raised by my colleagues, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for Battleford-Kinders-ley. As a result of the hon. member's representations and those of my colleagues, I met with my deputy minister to discuss this situation. Because of the high unemployment, we decided that
March 10, 1978

the movement should continue but the number should be cut back. The feeling, however, of the host associations was that this decision had been made too late and they had already made many arrangements for students. On that basis, we have decided to go back to the same quotas as we had last year.
The hon. member's figures were 320 for Alberta, 100 for Saskatchewan 100 for Manitoba and 50 for British Columbia. This program is supposed to have a certain degree of reciprocity, which we have not had in the past but which we hope to encourage next year. We will be endeavouring this year to set some quotas for next year so that we cannot be challenged for making decisions too late. But given the level of high unemployment, particularly among youth, it seemed to us that we should have a slight cutback in the number. We are going to put them back to last year's quotas, however, given the representations of the hon. member and my two colleagues.


INDUSTRY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is out west being booed, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Since the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce assumed his portfolio, the record of the Foreign Investment Review Board has been that 97 per cent of all appplications for new investment or for takeovers in Canada by foreign concerns have been approved. The record before that was a 90 per cent approval rate.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why a proposal by Golden Eagle Canada Limited, of Montreal, a subsidiary of Ultramar, who have operated for many years in Canada, was refused, that is, for permission to acquire control of Metro Fuel Company Limited and other Metro companies of Moncton, New Brunswick, which are businesses engaged in the wholesale and retail distribution of gasoline, heating oils and diesel fuel? Why did that proposal, out of the many hundreds approved in recent months, fail to get the approval of the cabinet?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that in each case there is determination as to whether the action would contribute significantly to the benefit of Canada. In this particular case, it obviously did not meet the test. However, I do not have the details. I will undertake to get these details for the hon. member.


John Carnell Crosbie: When the Foreign Investment Review agency approved this as meeting the test, and the minister brought it to cabinet approving it as meeting the test of significant benefit to Canada, why was it rejected by the cabinet? Was there political interference in the process? Were there representations from certain powerful groups in New Bruns-
Oral Questions
wick which had something to do with this? It met the test, according to the board and the minister, but the cabinet turned it down. Why was that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the details of this particular case. I will undertake to get them for the hon. member.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Can he indicate whether he or his department have any plans to lift the freeze presently on the postal carriers' situation, so that all Canadians in these growing areas can be treated equally?
[ Translation]


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, that policy of budgetary and employment restrictions in the Post Office was adopted about two years ago. To my mind, we should try first of all to have peace among the Post Office employees to find out how best that department could function. Then, I would certainly be in favour of looking at all the sectors in which Canadians are complaining they are not getting the services given elsewhere. But for the time being, it is a matter of budgetary restrictions and the policy of the government is to avoid spending too much.


Peter Elzinga: Can the Postmaster General tell the House whether he or his department are studying alternatives to the regular mail carrier service, and whether they plan to bring forward any alternatives in the near future?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, for the time being, I believe there is no way of delivering mail other than by mailmen, through blocks of mail boxes installed at certain points in certain areas, or again by general delivery in rural areas. I would much prefer being able to announce to all Canadians that within coming months door to door delivery will be extended but, as I have just said, because of budgetary restrictions, we cannot change the situation.


FINANCE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister considering the advisability of including incentives for renew-
80033-19'/2

March 10, 1978
Oral Questions
able energy systems in homes so that such facilities can be put in place this summer for the following winter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will take the representation of the hon. member under consideration.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In view of the meeting today between the minister's officials and those of Telesat to determine whether the American company, Hughes Aircraft, or the Canadian Company, Spar Aerospace, will be awarded the contract for the new Anik C satellite, will the minister assure the House that the decision will be based on the long-term interests of developing Canadian expertise in the space industry and creating Canadian jobs?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the reason the law provides for the minister to approve the contract, in order to assure himself or herself that the Canadian content and the quality of that Canadian content in the contracts let to certain companies is satisfactory to the government. "Satisfactory to the government" means precisely this, that there will be sufficient benefits within that contract to allow Canadian industrial capacity in the field of space of progress.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the fact that Hughes Aircraft is arguing that its contract bid will be cheaper and will preserve existing jobs in its subsidiaries in Canada, but the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, as well as Industry, Trade and Commerce, hold the view that in the long term it is important that the Canadian company get the contract, will the minister assure the House that the well-being of the Canadian scientific and research sector will take precedence over Telesat's insistence that it continue to do business with Hughes?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, Telesat does not insist that it do business with Hughes or any other company. Telesat has called for bids on the next satellite. They have tried to determine which of those bids serves the best interests of Canadian industry. Of course, price is a consideration. I do not think the hon. member would want us to pay an excessive price for a satellite if we could get it cheaper. However, price is not the only consideration. We want to ensure that Canadian industry participates in the design and engineering of these satellites so that it will have a meaningful role to play in the space industry.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which might help clear away some of the mystery he has created today about the post-controls policy. The minister said he has consulted the Economic Council of Canada to see whether they would take on that job. I have been advised by the vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress that there has been no approach by this government to them regarding their involvement in post-controls monitoring or their re-entry into the Economic Council of Canada, which seems to be an absurd situation.
I understand the minister to say they have approached the Economic Council but the Economic Council has not replied. That monitoring is to start 36 days from today. Will the minister tell the House of Commons what other options are being considered by the government in case the Economic Council says no, as its director indicated she would want to do.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to deal with this problem many times, both in committee and in the House of Commons. We were proposing a monitoring agency. After discussion with the premiers, we made a proposal to the Economic Council of Canada. We hope to be able to report a final decision within a matter of days and will be glad to advise the Leader of the Opposition and the House of that decision. I will be glad to advise the hon. Leader of the Opposition in the House. There may be a negative decision, but we have said there will be a monitoring agency, and we hope the Economic Council of Canada will accept that role.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, even if the Economic Council of Canada does accept that role, what will happen 36 days before this activity takes effect? The minister admits he does not know. We have to amend the Economic Council of Canada legislation in order to give it power to gather information. Can the minister tell the House of Commons what legislation is being prepared now, either to amend the statute concerning the Economic Council of Canada or legislation creating a new agency? Is legislation now being drafted by the Department of Justice and, if so, will the minister tell us today the nature of that legislation?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to be a little patient for a few days; he will then get his answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we cannot show too much patience with a government that is failing on the economic front to do its duty to bring in a budget and is failing in all sorts of other economic activities. The thing that concerns us so much is that the Postmaster General today indicated that the government may very well be contemplating proceeding with a postal
March 10, 1978

increase which may very well be against the law. We may have a situation where the Government of Canada proposes to proceed with a monitoring agency that is against the law.
I simply want some assurance from the minister that there are plans in place recognizing that this agency has to take effect within 36 days, that we can count on the fact there will be some kind of monitoring agency operating on April 16, and that it will be an agency sanctioned by law. Will the minister tell us whether there is consideration now in the Department of Justice of an amendment to the Economic Council of Canada legislation, or any other kind of legislation, that will ensure there will be some kind of agency sanctioned by law, so that this government will not again be breaking the law in its actions after the controls period?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader of the Official Opposition is not aware of the many alternatives to this problem. It is quite evident that the hon. member is getting excited for nothing. I just said that next week he will have his answer.


POINT OF ORDER
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order which is related to a question asked a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). May I say that although I have not mentioned it to them I feel sure the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) will support me in this point of order. Perhaps I can put my point of order in the form of a question.
Is there not some way that we in this House can make a humble request to the media to report accurately what goes on in this chamber, and if they fail to do so is there not some way we can make a humble request to the media to correct the mistakes they have made?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am in the position that already the telephone calls are coming to my office, and I expect to have 100 or 200 letters within the next few days arising out of misreporting of what went on in the House here yesterday.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) made a clear statement about the indexing of pensions, which established the fact that, although bookeeping changes are being made, the retired public servants who are on pension have no need to fear that their indexing is going to be cut or discontinued. Yet the media last night and this morning reported that maybe there will be indexing some years and other years there will not. The report was that in some cases it will be cut in half. All of this, as the President of the Treasury Board said
Pensions
today, arises from a failure to understand the situation. I think we all understood it here yesterday. The minister's statement was clear. My friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West, even though he had some criticism to make, recognized that indexing was being confirmed.
I emphasized the point, and pleaded yesterday with the press not to indulge in scare headlines. Everyone who took part agreed. All of those who took part yesterday in statements or in questions clearly understood. Now we have this misreporting which, as I say, has already started the phone calls to my office from distressed retired public servants in Ottawa, and the letters will come during the next few days.
When a question about this matter was asked earlier there were one or two jibes from this side as to whether we are going to raid the press or control the press, and the answer is no. All I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is this: is there not some way this House can appeal to the press and radio to report proceedings here correctly and, if they fail to do so, to correct those mistakes? Perhaps by raising this point of order I am making that appeal. I hope it has the support of my friends whom I have named. They and others are putting their hands up. They all want to support it. I think I could almost make a question of privilege of it because of the time it will take in the next few days answering telephone calls and letters to correct this very serious mistake. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board could also support me in this point of order.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that we may have lost one of the components of the audience to which we are addressing our comments. I want to go on record as totally supporting the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and hopefully this will be supported by the other parties in the House. In reading some of those headlines, and some of the front endings of those articles purporting to be news reports, I could not see any similarity between what went on in this House yesterday-not only what was stated, but what was implied by the attitudes portrayed by members of all parties in this House yesterday-and the so-called news reporting, which was not editorial reporting but was supposed to be factual.
This is an important matter. There are two constituents of this issue; the taxpayer who wants to be assured that the decisions are wise, and the pensioners who are depending for the future on certain understandings they have had. I think that many people have studied this matter for many, many weeks, and to choose out of the Tomenson-Alexander report, or anything that was said in this House yesterday, the worst possible scenario, and then even extend it beyond the possibility of practical implementation as to what is intended, is something that really should, in my view, be corrected voluntarily by the media who are dealing with these matters.
I could almost go on and say that other situations have developed of that nature, but I do hope they will listen this time, and I hope that this plea will be joined by other members of other parties.

March 10, 1978
Pensions


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to speak very long in respect of this very important matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has expressed the sentiments I would like to express and that my party endorses. I think it is expected of us as parliamentarians to be responsible. Surely we can at least ask the press, when they are reporting, to be responsible likewise. The point was raised yesterday in respect of what amounts to be a very sensitive issue which deals with the rights of pensioners and those involved with the public purse. It was my understanding that the minister understood this particular problem and made a very frank and open statement to the effect there will be indexing, but in the future we will have to make sure that it is actuarialy sound. This is the point which was made, but for the press to go further than that and exaggerate, I can only suggest that is wrong, with the hope that they will take due note of the comments we have made regarding this as well as other matters which are continually being reported from this House.
I think the public expects honesty, and gentlemanly and womanly comment in respect of reporting. They are looking for the truth, and if we have to be responsible, and I do not plead with the press, I would ask that they take due notice of what has happened at this particular time on this point of order and be responsible as well.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the representations made by other hon. members, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).
I was particularly shocked when a local report carried by the CBC Ottawa station CBOT last night glaringly misrepresented the facts, which had the effect of leading my constituents in Ottawa West to believe there would be no indexing of pensions in the next two or three years. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The distortion was the most glaring distortion in my period of service in parliament, and I can only say that it has brought a flood of calls to my constituency office, to my own office here, and to my home, based on a total misrepresentation of the statement of the President of the Treasury Board during the debate which took place in the House. 1 do not know what else I can say. I just hope that there is some means by which this serious distortion of events can be corrected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. members who have contributed to this point have certainly expressed their views very clearly. They are on the record. Obviously if the same members of the media who were paying attention of some sort yesterday are paying attentin today, they can hardly help but get the message. There is no formal action the Chair can take, but I do not see that any would be required in order to send the message as forcibly and clearly such a short distance away.
[Mr. Andras.l
MR. LEBLANC (WESTMORLAND-KENT)-national arts CENTRE-RECEPTION FOR MUMMERS TROUPE OF ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not trying to correct a story in the media but to prevent one. Earlier today, in a motion under Standing Order 43, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) indicated that the National Arts Centre had refused to serve flippers, which I am looking forward to tasting for the first time. This story came to me from the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) yesterday afternoon. I checked with the National Arts Centre authorities and I understand there was some misunderstanding. They thought they were providing the food. Anyway, there is no difficulty now, and the director of the NAC will be very happy to accommodate the mummers and their guests.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-424, to amend the Official Secrets Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this is a reincarnation, with some changes, of a bill I introduced in the last session attempting to lend respectability to the Official Secrets Act and proceedings taken under it. It provides simply for a definition of national security as being matters clearly contrary to the public interest. It restricts the operations of the act to cases of espionage, security, and subversion, and eliminates all the miscellaneous domestic matters and provides an affirmative defence in certain circumstances for actions taken bona fide and in the genuine public interest. These will be constituted as defences under the provisions of the legislation.


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

Len Marchand: for leave to introduce Bill C-29, to amend the Farm Credit Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
March 10, 1978

Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 492, 885, 903, 942, 1,077, 1,155 and 1,322.


Mr. Nystrom: Has Cargill Grain Company Limited, or any of its subsidiaries, received grants, loans or other forms of financial assistance under any Federal programme and, if so, what are all the details?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Pursuant to the Livestock Feed Assistance Act under which payments have been made to companies to cover feed freight assistance, a total of $8,351.61 was paid during the crop year 1976-77 to Cargill Grain Canada Ltd. and its subsidiary, Cargill Nutrina Feeds Ltd. on movements of feed grain from the prairie provinces to British Columbia.
Pursuant to the Agricultural Stabilization Act under which payments have been made to companies under the 1974 Beef Quality Program for beef animals graded Canada A-l and Canada A-2, the following payments were made to Cargill Grain Canada Ltd. under this program: $5,722.10 Cargill Grain Canada Ltd., Raymond, Alberta. $2,281.90 Cargill Grain Canada Ltd., Strathmore, Alberta. $56.25 Cargill Grain Canada Ltd., Strathmore, Alberta. $4,845.75 Cargill Grain Canada Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba. $2,749.00 Cargill Grain Canada Ltd., Lloydminster, Alberta.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	(a) How many passengers used Mirabel Airport in (i) 1976 (ii) 1977 to date (b) what is the capacity of the terminal, in passengers, per year?
2.	What are the yearly projections for passengers using (a) Mirabel Airport (b) Dorval Airport for the years 1978 to 1985?
3.	What profit or loss was realized in the operations of Mirabel Airport in (a) 1976 (b) 1977 to date?
4.	Does the government intend to follow the original plan for Mirabel and build a second terminal in the 1980's and, if so, what is the estimated cost of the terminal?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. (a) (i) The
number of passengers* who used Mirabel airport in 1976 were: Revenue Passengers: Enplaned, 691,474; Deplaned, 736,182; Total E/D, 1,427,656; Arriving, 1,370,603; Departing, 1,325,501; Total A/D 2,696,104. (ii) The number of passengers* who used Mirabel during the first quarter of 1977 were: Revenue Passengers: Enplaned, 188,321; Deplaned, 202,890; Total E/D, 391,211; Arriving, 317,784; Departing, 303,105; Total A/D, 620,889.
* The number of revenue passengers included in these totals represent those travelling on mainline unit toll services and
Order Paper Questions
international air charter services. Arriving and departing Figures include transiting passengers who may not use terminal facilities. Information not yet available for the remainder of 1977. (b) The capacity of the terminal operating under 1976 standards and sector mix is 6,000,000 total passengers.
2.	(a)(b)
Passenger Forecasts-Montreal Area Total Enplaned/Deplaned Passengers (thousands)
Year	Dorval	Mirabel	Total1978	6,563	1,746	8,3091979	7,018	1,871	8,8891980	7,502	2,010	9,5121981	7,993	2,149	10,1421982	8,516	2,301	10,8171983	9,074	2,466	11,5401984	9,669	2,651	12,3201985	10,306	2,851	13,157
Note: These forecasts assume initial traffic assignment and passenger behaviour is maintained. 1976 annual statistics were the basis for the forecast split between the two airports. Facilities are assumed to be available at each airport to accommodate the demand.
Passenger Forecasts-Montreal Area Total Arriving/Departing Passengers (thousands)
Year	Dorval	Mirabel	Total1978	6,820	3,270	10,0901979	7,290	3,470	10,7601980	7,800	3,690	11,4901981	8,310	3,900	12,2101982	8,850	4,130	12,9801983	9,430	4,370	13,8001984	10,050	4,640	14,6901985	10,710	4,920	15,630
Note: These forecasts assume initial traffic assignment and passenger behaviour is maintained. 1976 annual statistics were the basis for this forecast split. Facilities are assumed to be available at each airport to accommodate the demand.
3.	Mirabel Airport losses for 1975-76 were $18,382,431 (4 months); 1976-77 were $49,820,719. No figures are available for 1977-78 to date.
4.	While optimizing the use of existing facilities at Mirabel, decisions in respect of Dorval and Toronto (Malton) traffic may occasion additional facilities at Mirabel in the 1980's.


Mr. Patterson: 1.	What was the total cost of building and equipping the National Arts Centre in Ottawa and what amount was paid from federal funds?
2.	What are the various sources of funding of the National Arts Centre and what amount was received annually from each source for the years 1972 to 1977?
3.	By province, what amount was spent annually on the Arts, by the federal government, for the years 1972 to 1977?

March 10, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Department of Public Works, the Secretary of State and the National Arts Centre as follows: 1. Expenditures of $46,413,550 for building and equipping the National Arts Centre were incurred. The total
amount was funded through the Department of Public Works/ Working Capital Advance and recovered from the Secretary of State.
2.
Sources of Funding of N.A.C. For Years 1972 to 1977
1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76	1976-77Parliamentary appropriations Recovery of costs from the Department	3,720,000	4,603,800	5,757,050	6,892,000	8,476,000of External Affairs	-	73,224	72,618	-	-Municipal and other grants	178,890	392,003	118,350	129,300	175,0003,898,890	5,069,027	5,948,018	7,021,300	8,651,000Province	1972-73	1973-74	Fiscal Years 1974-75 1975-76	1976-77	1977-78	TotalBritish Columbia	51,717	6,500	35,000	974,444	1,112,944	802,445	2,983,050Alberta	66,543	38,174	24,200	538,850	500,000	500,000	1,667,767Saskatchewan	51,717	6,500	24,200	21,773	6,527	65,200	175,917Manitoba	51,717	6,500	2,500	-	26,000	150,000	236,717Ontario	811,717	693,345	562,500	892,700	1,412,640	1,497,860	5,870,762Quebec	351,717	26,500	375,500	191,900	-	351,000	1,296,617New Brunswick	51,717	6,500	2,500	-	-	-	60,717Nova Scotia	51,717	6,500	2,500	60,000	-	85,000	205,717Prince Edward Island	1,841,717	466,500	627,500	870,000	800,000	1,350,000	5,955,717Newfoundland	51,717	6,500	2,500	557,500	600,000	600,000	1,818,2173,381,996	1,263,519	1,658,900	4,107,167	4,458,111	5,401,505	20,271,198


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigate the misleading advertising of imported beef labelled as Canadian beef and, if so, how many charges were laid and how many convictions were gained and what sentences were imposed?
2.	(a) Has imported beef flooded Canadian markets and has this created serious hardships for Canadian beef producers (b) has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Department of Agriculture considered strengthening the laws regarding marketing of imported beef by requiring all beef sold in Canada to be labelled as to percentage of content according to country of origin and (i) if so, on what date will new regulations be put into effect (ii) if not, for what reason?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Agriculture Canada and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada as follows: 1. Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada has done some limited investigation regarding the advertising of imported beef labelled as Canadian beef. No misleading advertising was found and consequently no charges were laid.
2.	(a) Beef imports through 1977 have been under import quota and controlled through the Export and Import Permit Act. Canadian beef producers have had serious hardships over the past three years as have beef producers in other countries. However, this relates to excessively high levels of cattle marketings as cattlemen have taken steps to reduce their beef herds. Imports have not been a major influence in 1977. Beef

imports have been under quota and concerning live cattle trade, to mid-December this year, Canada had exported about 217,000 head of slaughter cattle, and 94,000 head of feeder cattle while importing only about 9,800 head of slaughter cattle, (b) No; (i) N/A; (ii) Agriculture Canada's objective under its meat inspection program is to ensure wholesome meat products and compliance with product and labelling standards. The Meat Inspection Regulations made pursuant to the Canada Meat Inspection Act presently requires a statement "Product of (country of origin)" immediately below the product description for all imported meat products. Labelling as to the percentage of content of imported meat products is not within the scope of the Meat Inspection Act. Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada has not considered requiring beef imported and sold in Canada to be identified as to the percentage of content according to its country of origin. The reason this is not a consideration is the cost of such a requirement. Increased cost to the packer would most certainly be reflected by an increase in cost to the consumer.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture studied the implications for agricultural research of the Treasury Board directive entitled "Policy and Guidelines in Contracting Out the Government's Requirements in Science and Technology" and, if so, did the Department arrive at the conclusion that the directive would result in a reduction of the funds available for agricultural research?
2.	If the directive has not yet been approved as government policy, will the Department seek from Treasury Board an exemption in the case of agricultural
March 10, 1978

research in view of the vital importance of such research to the competitive position of Canadian farmers on the international market?
3.	If the directive is now government policy, does the Minister of Agriculture intend to take steps not only to fill the gap but also to recognize the need to increase both the level and quality of agricultural research and (a) if so, what are such steps (b) if not, for what reason?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes. The Department of Agriculture has studied the Policy and Guidelines on Science and Technology within the department and with other departments to assess the implications. There will be no reduction in funds available for agricultural research as a result of the policy. Pay funds would be redirected into funds available for appropriate contracts.
2.	The directive is government policy. Action to seek exemption will depend on Treasury Board's reaction to the department's plan for Science and Technology.
3.	The department has an intensive annual program review of its research activities at which time priorities, performance effectiveness, and gaps are identified and assessed.


Mr. Marshall: Have discussions taken place with the Province of Newfoundland as to the application of the new feed grain storage programmes announced by the Department of Agriculture on October 17, 1977 and, if so, what proposals were made by the Province for an allocation of the 28 million dollar funding?


Eugene Whelan: The new feed grain storage programs of the federal government were briefly explained by the chairman of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, among other topics discussed, at a meeting with representatives of the Newfoundland government, feed industry and livestock and poultry producers in St. John's on November 7, 1977. No formal proposals have been made by the Newfoundland government, nor were there requirements for formal consultation, on the allocation of funds for storage, feed mill and elevator programs to be administered by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and Agriculture Canada. The programs will be available to Newfoundland interests on the same terms as in other provinces where they apply.


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	How many copies of Foreign Investment Review are printed by the Foreign Investment Review Agency for each quarterly edition of the magazine?
2.	What is the budgeted cost of publishing, including editorial production, printing and distribution, of the magazine during the 1977-78 fiscal year?
3.	What classifications do individuals and groups now receiving the magazine fall into?
4.	What is the specific mandate given to the two present editors of the magazine in the production of editorial copy?
5.	What is the nature of authorizations that must be received from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or any of his officials outside of the Foreign Investment Review Agency for editorial copy prior to its publication in the magazine?
Order Paper Questions
6.	What proposals have been made to expand the distribution, size, editorial scope or production quality of the magazine during the present fiscal year or in subsequent fiscal years?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1.
Printing run
English Copies
French Copies
Autumn 1977 (1st issue)	12,000
Winter 1977/78	15,000
Spring 1978 (planned)	15,000
4.000
4.000
4.000
2.	Total budgeted cost for fiscal year 1977/78, including relevant staff cost, is $112,190.00. Of this amount, close to $5,000 represents non-recurring costs for initial design, preparation of mailing list, etc. and $2,000 represents payment to outside authors for material to be published in fiscal year 1978/79.
3.	The magazine is distributed primarily to potential investors (major industrial corporations) and to their advisors (banks, investment dealers, lawyers, consultants); to chambers of commerce and trade associations; and to federal and provincial offices abroad. It is also distributed to members of parliament, the Parliamentary Press Gallery, and business publications in Canada and abroad; to libraries and universities in Canada and to private citizens on request. Approximately two-thirds of the distribution is outside Canada and one-third within Canada. A significant proportion of the copies are sent to provincial governments, at their request, for distribution by them. In the case of the province of Quebec, for example, apart from copies sent individually to government officials, 900 copies requested are sent in bulk to the provincial government for distribution. Somewhat smaller, but significant, numbers are sent to most other provincial governments.
4.	Since the purpose of the magazine is to provide foreign investors with information on the legislative and investment environment and on what Canada expects from foreign investors, the mandate of the two editors is to participate, under direction, in suggesting, writing, procuring and editing articles and other material appropriate to the magazine's purpose. The editors receive considerable guidance in this role from senior officers of the agency and from an interdepartmental steering committee as noted below.
5.	The planned contents of the magazine are subject to review by an interdepartmental steering committee of senior officials designated by the deputy ministers or equivalent of the Departments of Finance, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Energy, Mines and Resources, External Affairs, Environment, and the office of Federal-Provincial Relations. All articles and other material published in the magazine are, prior to publication, scrutinized and approved by the appropriate department. Articles dealing with the Foreign Investment Review Act and its administration are subject to the approval of the commissioner. General supervision of the publication of the magazine is provided by the Director, Research and Analysis Branch of the agency.
3668

March 10, 1978
Financial Administration Act
6.	While a number of proposals have been made and considered-for example, to publish in additional languages or to add additional kinds of information-there are no current plans to expand the distribution, size, or editorial content of the magazine, except that it was from the beginning and still is the intention to involve provincial governments to a greater extent in the preparation of material, as its format and general content become established.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 363 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Howie: What progress is being made with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs presented to the House July 7, 1976 in its report on child abuse and neglect?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from, Thursday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Buchanan (for the President of the Treasury Board) that Bill C-10, to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-10 which has been referred to as the comptroller general's bill. I was very interested in some of the statements that have been made by government speakers. In fact when the parliamentary secretary made the introductory statement in place of the minister, he mentioned that there had been considerable debate and urged us to speed up the passage of this bill because of the importance of establishing the office of comptroller general and finding someone who would take that position. We are getting used to this particular type of introduction because in so many cases, after many months of hesitation and delay, the government moves in with a bill and
[Mr. Horner.)
then tells us it wants it pushed through immediately because it is an extremely important matter.
I wish somehow ministers would be constrained to look at the situation and decide whether or not they themselves might not be responsible for the delays, because in many cases it is a matter of priorities in government business and a matter of strategy to try to get the matter through without the opposition catching on and having an opportunity to debate it to any degree. I am happy today at the opportunity to take part in this debate.
It was about three years ago, when speaking in the House on a government tax bill, that I said the government was spending money like the proverbial bunch of drunken sailors. Of course I made the appropriate apologies to the sailors at that time. As I recall, I was referring to the way in which this administration was mishandling public funds, and I gave examples of how the Trudeau administration was engaged in a mad spending spree at the expense of the taxpayers of the nation.
Last year, the Auditor General of Canada stated that this government had lost, or was close to losing, effective control of the public purse. One of his major recommendations was that the government appoint a comptroller general. In a few moments I want to deal with this specific proposal, but before getting to that I want to make a few comments on the reasons for our Auditor General's concern about the spending habits of this government.
If we were to get to the heart of the problem, we could see that the main reason for the disastrous state of our nation's economy is in the philosophy of the individuals in charge. I would submit that whatever ethics the Liberal party had had in the past, whatever standards or principles guided the conduct of members of that party previously, they have long since been abandoned by the government, and political morality and personal ethics have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
The answer to every problem for this government, it seems to me, is to spend. The philosophy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is that the resources of our citizens are inexhaustible, that big government is an end in itself, that big is good, bureaucratic is better, and bungling is best.
One of the best analyses of the Prime Minister's philosophy I have come across is found in the book by Philip Bom entitled, "Trudeau's Canada-Truth and Consequences". The author of the book gives a concise cogent analysis of the Prime Minister, and I urge all government supporters to take note they cannot pass this analysis off as hate literature or the babblings of a right wing radical. It appears that this is a scholarly analysis and, what is more, I believe that basically it is the truth.
The author states that:
Trudeau has not blindly applied Marxist principles-
Meaning that he has applied them, but not blindly.
-or slavishly followed Maoist strategy and tactics ...
March 10, 1978

Meaning that he has applied these, but perhaps not slavishly. The author goes on:
... has integrated and applied his radical and critical theory in an original and concrete manner to the historical circumstances (the French fact) and political situation (federalism and the length of Liberal party in power in Ottawa) in Canada. If he were ever to submit himself to the iron discipline imposed by an authoritarian party he would, according to his own criteria, lack intellectual integrity.
However, says the writer, and I hope that hon. members opposite will understand this:
... he has no moral right-either human or political-to hide his radicalism behind a Liberal philosophy party and parliament-empty them of their traditional meaning-destroy their direction, and in the process deceive the people . . .
So when I stated a few moments ago that the Liberal party had sacrificed its principles and ethics-at least the government has-I was not alone in making that statement.
What are some of the examples of this dangerous mix of Marxist philosophy and politics of confrontation at which this Prime Minister is so good? The first thing which must be done is to bring about inflation. Lenin pointed out that nothing disorganizes like inflation. "In order to destroy bourgeois society, you must debauch its money". The Trudeau plan to encourage inflation has succeeded admirably. The spending habits of the government have brought about a situation in which middle class small businessmen, the backbone of the so-called bourgeois society, are in danger of being destroyed completely. 1 must submit that that is precisely what is being accomplished under the direction of the Prime Minister.
They are taxed at every turn. They are required to fill out endless expensive government forms. They are in competition with big business in the market place, and in general they are being slowly strangled by the government and the Prime Minister, who has no use for personal initiative, the work ethic or free enterprise. In February of 1970, in the midst of the first great inflation crisis brought on by this administration, the Prime Minister stated, "We have no alternative; we must end inflation". Unfortunately, as is so often the case, that statement was merely window dressing. It was uttered in 1970 when government spending for the year was $13.6 billion. By 1974 that figure had more than doubled, to $31.3 billion.
This year we have been presented with estimated government expenditures of $48.5 billion. That works out to an almost 500 per cent increase in the ten years that the Prime Minister has been in office. What is more, the most recent memorable statement of the Prime Minister regarding inflation, the now infamous remark that "we have wrestled inflation to the ground", was uttered in the same year that government spending increased by 28 per cent. That was a real wrestling match!
The Prime Minister blames everyone but himself and the government. He has blamed external forces and said that all the nations of the free world are facing the same problems. He has stated that these are situations that cannot be combatted on the domestic front, and so there have been times when he has said that we have to await certain international changes and changes in the United States before we can effectively deal with the problem of inflation. When the Prime Minister
Financial Administration Act
got tired of using that excuse he said that Canadians were to blame and that they were spending too much money. He said that they would have to tighten their belts, exercise restraint, and realize that they cannot have as much as they had in the past. So the Prime Minister went from external forces to the Canadian people, but in no case did he say that the government was responsible because of its free spending philosophy and because of its uncontrolled expenditures. That was beside the point.
I would say that all the talk about restraint and what the government is doing to exercise restraint and control its expenditures is just that, talk. There has been nothing realistic or concrete taking place because, no matter what figures we look at, we find that the spending continues and, of course, the government and particularly the Prime Minister are basically responsible for this situation.
What has happened to the Canadian dollar? We have heard quite a lot recently about how our dollar has been exploited on international money markets, and I think it is disgraceful for the government to sit back and blame Canadians for being too soft or too fat and unproductive. The fact is that the government has destroyed the confidence of the international community in Canada's economy. It has destroyed the confidence of Canadians. Its unfair tax system has discouraged Canadians from investing in their own country and has forced both Canadian and American risk capital to other, more reliable economies in the world market place.
So now we have "Trudough", a peculiar 88-cents dollar which makes the so-called "Diefendollar" of the 1960's, which the Liberals used to talk about, look like a bargain by comparison. In terms of purchasing power our dollar at the last tabulation was worth less than 60 cents in terms of 1970 purchasing power. When Lenin talked about debauching money, he did not know what a willing servant he would have as head of the Canadian government throughout most of the 1970's.
I should like now to turn to some of the more specific areas of government spending to which the Canadian people are raising strenuous objections. During this last decade of free wheeling spending, a decade which can be likened to the biblical parable about the prodigal son spending his money on riotous living, Canadians have not seen even one major social program put in place. What they have seen is another matter. They have seen the unemployment insurance fund bulge from $700 million to $4.5 billion. They have seen the federal Public Service grow from 246,000 people to over 325,000. In spite of the fact that the Prime Minister and spokesmen for the government said there would be a freeze on Public Service hiring, we see an increase of this kind.
The bilingualism program which cost some $70 million in 1970 has mushroomed to a whopping $503 million for 197879. In addition, in order to pay bonuses to public servants who have been trained at public expense to become bilingual-and they have not become bilingual-it will cost Canadian taxpayers $35.7 million in 1978-79.
80033-20%

March 10, 1978
Financial Administration Act
Fourth, the CBC, an institution which at times has been one of the foremost purveyors of anti-social, anti-family, amoral philosophy, has, since 1970, been subsidized to the tune of $2.4 billion. Its subsidy from the Canadian public purse has risen from the 1969-70 level of $166 million to the 1977-78 level of $467 million. While acknowledging the fine quality of some of its programs, this institution has been contributing to the undermining of the moral fibre of this nation by its insensitivity to the ethical values and personal integrity that have made our nation great.
Protests have been raised, letters have been written, speeches have been made, but we find little action has been taken to correct the inadequacies and failings of this organization. Canadians ask why they should support this organization to such an extent when it seems at times it is undermining the very values and principles that have been the mainstay of our society.
Fifth, Canadians have seen the cost of operation of the Prime Minister's office skyrocket from about $500,000 when he took office to $2.5 million in 1977-78. In ten years the increase is over 250 per cent. I do not think the Prime Minister can claim that his office is functioning better than in the past. They have been moving into a lot of areas where they have no business, and there has been a duplication of services or agencies. I do not believe this exorbitant increase has produced any improvement in governing the nation.
Sixth, Canadians have been outraged to see the huge deficits incurred by this administration, the deficit in 1978-79 being in the area of $10 billion. That is about $2 billion more than the total expenditures of the Pearson government, and about the same as the total expenditures of this government when the Prime Minister took office. Canada is now in the position of borrowing money to pay interest on money borrowed earlier. These interest charges cost Canadians about 14 cents out of every tax dollar spent by the federal government. With this kind of operation it is no wonder that the international money markets do not want to hold on to our dollars, but want more stable money. Small wonder, as a result, that our dollar has fallen to 88 cents in terms of U.S. currency.
Seventh, the Prime Minister now has a cabinet fully nine members larger than when he took over as Prime Minister. Again, the Prime Minister believes that big is good and that he can make up in size what he lacks in quality in his cabinet. That is just not true. Instead of having an incompetent cabinet of 24 members when he took over as Prime Minister, he now has an incompetent cabinet of 33 members. President Jimmy Carter of the United States, who has to run a country with a federal budgetary expenditure of about $432 billion, gets by with a cabinet of 14. The Prime Minister, by comparison, needs 33 cabinet ministers to handle a budgetary expenditure which we all agree is outrageous at $48 billion.
Earlier I referred to the Auditor General's statement to the effect that the government had lost or was close to losing effective control of the public purse. The Auditor General, J. J. Macdonell, also referred to the fact that, based on the study

of the systems of departments, agencies, and Crown corporations audited by himself, financial management and control in the government of Canada are, to use his words, "grossly inadequate." Mr. Macdonell went on to say in his report to parliament that this is likely to remain so until the government takes strong, appropriate, and effective measures to rectify what he termed a "critically serious" situation.
A part of the Auditor General's solution was to propose the establishment of a position that would be the chief financial office of the government, that of comptroller general of Canada. The Auditor General put quite a heavy emphasis on this position as a means by which Canadians could reclaim some measure of control of the public purse. I may say that this is absolutely necessary because control of the public purse by this parliament has been eroded by the government. The system of bringing estimates before a committee of the whole to be dealt with carefully and perused diligently, has gone. Now we just allocate a certain amount of days to discuss problems and issues, and then everything has to go through; billions of dollars of expenditure are approved in a few moments. I say that the Auditor General is right. We have to reclaim some measure of control in some way, and we hope it can be accomplished by the establishment of this office.
The rules do not permit me to get too specific at this point on the office of comptroller general, but I do want to reiterate a couple of important items that were referred to by the Auditor General in his report to parliament this year.
In many cases the particular office to which a person is appointed is only as good as that person, so needless to say it is extremely important that the right man be chosen as Canada's new comptroller general. I am not in a position to say whether the government's choice of Mr. Harry Rogers is adequate, but his credentials are impressive.
The following are the guidelines that were laid down by the Auditor General in his suggestion for the office of comptroller general: first, the person ought to have appropriate professional qualifications; second, he should have a proven record of outstanding competence and achievement at senior levels of responsibility; and, third, he should have extensive experience as a senior financial executive in a large organization in either the public or private sector. It appears, as we look at this, that the gentleman chosen by the government has the right background according to the Auditor General's criteria.
My understanding of the post being created by this bill is that it is one which will, in all likelihood, have no authority to control spending. I listened to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) when he was questioned on a television program about this particular matter. He made it abundantly clear that there was not to be any change in the allocation of funds. As reported at page 3588 of Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Lefebvre) made it abundantly clear as well that this officer would not have any real authority over the expenditure of funds when he said:
In light of the close functional relationship between the proposed position of comptroller general and the existing position of secretary of the Treasury Board,
March 10, 1978

I want to reiterate that the introduction of this new office will not in any way change the responsibility of the secretary of the Treasury Board in the field of resource allocation.
As explained in detail to the Public Accounts Committee last April 26, the secretary will retain responsibility for the direction of the resource allocation and the control processes of funds; and ensure that they will not be reallocated without due authority.
That does not leave very much authority for this man who was supposed to reclaim some control over the expenditures of the government, and for this reason I think Mr. Rogers will have a very difficult job indeed.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the address given by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin). He criticized the opposition for dealing in such detail with what he referred to as a very short bill. He suggested that Mr. Rogers needs the full support of this House in assuming such a difficult assignment. I agree 150 per cent with that statement. It is a difficult task because the finances of the government are in a horrible mess. It is a difficult task because, while preaching restraint, this government has embarked on a spending spree unparalleled in our history. It is a difficult task because of the waste and extravagance that are abounding on every hand. Information concerning this extravagance is being published from day to day in the various periodicals and newspapers across the country. It is a difficult task because of the uncertainty and the frustration that are strangling our economy at the present time. I agree that this is a difficult task and it will require the full support and co-operation of everyone in order that Mr. Rogers will be able to do the job assigned to him.
While we have confidence in Mr. Rogers and we believe that the comptroller general designate has the necessary qualifications, we do not trust this government to allow him to do the job which the Auditor General envisaged when he recommended the creation of this office. This action of the chairman of the Treasury Board is long overdue. It is too bad this post was not created earlier, and that the man appointed was not given certain prerogatives and responsibilities. Perhaps then we would not be in the mess in which we now find ourselves. In any event I wish Mr. Rogers well in his new job. I hope that he will be able to discourage this mad spending spree upon which this administration embarked when this Prime Minister took office ten years ago and which still continues.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House listened with interest to the most thought provoking and profound remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East-


Alexander Bell Patterson: West.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sorry. But to be sure I checked last Wednesday's Hansard and either there is a misprint in Hansard or the member has made an error, but I thought it was Fraser Valley East.
Financial Administration Act
The hon. member outlined in very precise chronological form some of the trends which have occurred under the Trudeau administration. There is no question that some of the points he raised provide some nourishing thought to Canadians. In his remarks he pointed out some of the root causes of the problems we face, the devaluation of the dollar; excessive spending; the continual deficit budgeting and poor management of our affairs. Over the last ten years only one balanced budget has been presented by this administration. The accumulation of these errors in judgment and incompetence in mismanaging the economic and financial affairs of this country has helped to put Canada in a very difficult situation in the international world. Our performance amongst the OECD countries has been less than satisfactory, and we certainly have a lot of improving to do.
I could not help thinking while the hon. member was speaking that it will not matter how many comptrollers general we appoint or how much more we give the Auditor General in terms of financial resources to do his job properly. The responsibility for resource allocation in this country is the responsibility of this government. I am convinced that this government will continue to waste, it will continue to practice its habits of extravagance, and it will continue to attempt to buy off the Canadian voter. It will continue to use the the office of the Prime Minister and the offices of respective cabinet ministers, indeed the government as a whole, to cling to power. We have an example of that today with the absence of so many members of the cabinet who are on an electioneering tour of western Canada. There is no question that this can be termed as electioneering at public expense.
When the public witnesses these kinds of things happening it adds to the growing lack of confidence which the public is placing in governments as a whole and in institutions of parliament. The fact that parliament has lost control and cannot effectively take action to curb these abuses which have occurred with increasing frequency is probably because we have had a government in power far too long. There is a growing cynicism in the minds of Canadians. They are not getting fair value for their dollar, those dollars which are being spent on their behalf by the government of the day. This cynicism and lack of confidence are not receding. I say to you, sir, they are growing.
We are dealing with a bill which will establish another level of bureaucracy. I support the principle. It is not, as I said earlier, an effective check for ensuring that our financial resources are allocated for the right purposes. This will be a check to ensure that the money which parliament has appropriated for the department in question will be spent in that area, and that area only. There should not be waste and extravagance after the allocation has taken place. We have seen an increase in the amount of financial resources going to the Auditor General's office, which I support and which is necessary. We will witness another large expenditure of money committed to the office of the comptroller general.
As I sat and listened to the hon. member I thought about some of the issues and the extravagance and lack of concern

March 10, 1978
Financial Administration Act
for any effective control mechanism. In the most non-political and non-partisan sense I feel that what we need in this country more than anything else is a change in government. That would flush out the system and probably put the country back on the right course.
I support the concept of the establishment of the post of comptroller general of Canada. In my remarks today I want to echo the concerns which have been placed on the record by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), and my good friend, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I am worried that this bill does not enshrine in legislative form the powers and duties of the new comptroller general.
The Auditor General, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, put on record in his 1976 report the terms of reference which he thought should apply to this office, and in April of 1977 the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) gave the government's approval in principle for the establishment of the post. So we may ask ourselves just why the government appears to be so worried when we ask that these powers be enshrined in legislative form?
When we look at the history of the idea we find that in November, 1976, the Auditor General submitted his annual report to parliament and, as other hon. members have pointed out, it was one of the most damning indictments of the government ever produced. On the same day, the President of the Treasury Board announced the establishment of a royal commission to look into various aspects of the report, particularly the question of accountability, and to bring forth recommendations. On November 24 the minister was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as saying the establishment of a comptroller general meant that constraints of a constitutional, political, and technical nature must be resolved. He expressed the view that the best means of achieving such a clarification was through a royal commission. He was saying, in effect, that the establishment of the office of comptroller general would be incompatible with the tradition of ministerial responsibility.
The Auditor General was taken aback by all this, and on November 29 he was quoted in the Financial Times as saying:
This really shook me up. The minister was misinformed. I have been fair and open. 1 gave them advance copies of sections of my report. Those people knew damn well that I did not recommend that the comptroller general report directly to parliament.
What Mr. Macdonell recommended was that a comptroller general be appointed at the deputy minister level, reporting to the President of the Treasury Board, who in turn would report to parliament. We have to ask ourselves just who was misinformed in this process. Who are these people of whom Mr. Macdonell spoke? This speculation, of course, gives rise in turn to a number of other questions.
In the days that followed November, 1976, we found out that there was an echelon of people-I would refer to them as the bureaucratic elite-who were quite concerned about the possible establishment of this post of comptroller general.

Perhaps I could quote from a Canadian press story which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on November 24. It reads as follows:
Senior public servants have mounted a major campaign to defend themselves from charges by Auditor General J. J. Macdonell that they have lost control over public spending.
The top bureaucrats, led by Privy Council Clerk Michael Pitfield, convinced Prime Minister Trudeau to set up a royal commission to a delay action on reforms recommended by the Auditor General, highly placed sources said Tuesday.
Some cabinet ministers fought the idea of a royal commission, arguing that it would be interpreted as a stalling tactic designed to block establishment of a powerful new financial overseer called the comptroller general.
But Mr. Pitfield, supported by Treasury Board secretary G. F. Osbaldeston, won out...
Mr. Macdonell confirmed privately that Mr. Pitfield led opposition to the appointment of a comptroller general.
The article goes on to describe how the bureaucratic elite orchestrated the government's response to the Auditor General's report in the days before it was presented. Last April, the government performed one of its famous flip-flops and announced that it had approved in principle the establishment of the post of comptroller general, apparently abandoning its earlier view that to do so would be a contradiction of the principle of ministerial responsibility. Looking at this bill, however, it seems that the government did not change its mind as completely as we had thought, because the precise duties of the comptroller general are not defined in the legislation. It appears to me the cabinet did not really have the fortitude to stand up to the bureaucrats after all.
The bill says the comptroller general should be deputy minister and, really, nothing else. After that, we have to use our imagination. In the absence of precise duties and responsibilities enshrined in legislative form the work of the comptroller general could very well be stymied by actions of the bureaucrats and of the vested interests to whom I have referred as the bureaucratic elite. He could very well be strangled by the likes of Mr. Pitfield and his colleagues, and since he reports to the House only through the government he would be powerless to let anyone know what is happening should these bureaucrats attempt to harass him or burden him.
I do not believe the attitudes which were taken after the Auditor General made his recommendation are any less strong today than they were then. I am not sure whether the comptroller general, now that the post has been created, will get the kind of co-operation which the job deserves. Of course, when I say this, I am assuming we shall continue to have a Liberal government in power after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I suppose my statement contains a presumption for which I stand to be corrected, because the way things are going the Liberals are losing their support in central Canada and are now being forced to fan out to the extremities of the country for reasons of a political nature.


An hon. Member:: The national interest.
March 10, 1978


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Someone says "the national interest". I well remember back in 1972 when the Liberal party had a majority of seats in only one province of this country. That, to my mind, does not indicate the kind of support from coast to coast which the party should have if it wants to govern effectively.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. When the House recessed at one o'clock the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) had the floor. He still has 24 minutes remaining of his allotted time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The man who has been selected to assume the role of Canada's first comptroller general, Harry Rogers, brings with him a very excellent reputation. I do not know the man personally, but on studying his background and his credentials it is quite obvious that the minister and the government have undertaken to select the most capable person available, with the appropriate professional qualifications and a proven record of outstanding competence and achievement. As other hon. members of the House have indicated, I too certainly want to wish him well in the undertaking of his deliberations because, as we have pointed out on this side of the House, he will need all the help he can get in trying to restore some order to the financial mismanagement of this government. This is particularly true when you consider this rather innocuous bill.
It has to be made clear once again that the appointment of a comptroller general will not in any way improve the resource allocation process, which is largely a political process. The government will continue to do what it has been doing, but the comptroller general will have the responsibility to ensure that the funds which have been allocated to the respective departments and programs are spent in an appropriate fashion, and that there is not any misappropriation or misspending of those funds after the allocation process has taken place.
I presume it will also be his responsibility to ensure that appropriate checks, balances and procedures are followed in this process. In many respects that process will complement the work of the Auditor General. If there is any misappropriation or questionable misappropriation of funds by the government, that will remain an issue to be debated in this chamber or in committee.
Financial Administration Act
This is another area in which exists a very major deficiency and weakness of the parliamentary process. There can be absolutely no question whatsoever about the suggestion that we do have a very serious problem of financial mismanagement and lack of financial control within the Government of Canada. It is important to reiterate that this did not happen overnight. It has been a continuing cancer that has developed over the years. The fact is that the government was reminded of this. The former Auditor General, Mr. Maxwell Henderson, pointed out in his reports to the House of Commons time and time again the abuses of this government, its contraventions of the Financial Administration Act, its misappropriation of funds, and the fact that value was not being received for the dollars spent.
The government did not heed that advice and looked upon Mr. Henderson as an enemy of the government. Because the government refused to heed his warnings we now find ourselves in a situation, referred to by the Auditor General in his 1976 report in very categorical terms, where the government and, indeed, parliament, have lost effective control of the public purse in Canada. This bullheadedness on the part of this government, and its easy-come easy-go philosophy, can best be indicated by the fact it is absolutely and inherently incompetent, looking upon the expenditures of funds in a manner that will enhance its own political opportunities rather than having regard for the over-all interests of Canada.
There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that spending has gotten out of control and that parliament has lost control. This government has lost control. Neither parliament nor the government has the desired wherewithall to check on the extravagances and wastes of many of those spending programs funded by the government. This is even worse when you have a government that, because of the change in our rules and our current mechanism, is not held accountable to parliament and thereby accountable to the taxpayers of Canada.
With this situation we will continue to have this kind of waste, misallocation of funds, and extravagance of which we have seen too much in the past. We will continue to have a government that is more determined to save itself politically than to impose sound financial management control measures on the public purse; a government whose primary objective is to remain in power at any or all expense to the taxpayer. Surely that kind of government is not in the best interests of the country or its taxpayers.
We have such a situation at this time going into an election year. We noticed the same situation in 1972 and during the period preceding the 1974 election. This is a government committed and dedicated to spending its way into power. It is buying your support and mine, Mr. Speaker, with our tax dollars.
All hon. members of this House are concerned that parliament is no longer an effective check or watchdog on the expenditure of public funds in this country. We have talked often about revising the form of estimates; we have talked often about ways and means of improving the way estimates are dealt with in committee; and we have talked about reform

March 10, 1978
Financial Administration Act
of the committee system so there can be a more effective examination and analysis of the spending programs of government. We have seen an increase in the frequency of the use of one dollar vote items, a use that I think is a definite abuse of the parliamentary system. Surely if we are to bring control of the expenditures back where it rightfully belongs, we must seriously come to grips with this situation.
I was taking part in an agricultural committee meeting the other day examining supplementary estimates. Incidentally, those estimates are deemed to have been passed sometime today whether or not we have considered them. If we have a day or two to consider the estimates that is fine, but if not they are deemed to have been passed. During that committee meeting of about an hour and a half I had the opportunity of questioning the minister for five minutes. I asked two questions, which probably consumed a minute or less of the time, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) probably used ten minutes to respond. I suggest this is a farce.
First of all, we do not have the kind of background information necessary to an explanation of the objective of the expenditure. More important, hon. members do not have an opportunity to ask for and obtain such an explanation. Unless that changes, parliament will continue to deteriorate.
The rules being what they are today, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) indicated, the opportunity for bringing the estimates to the House of Commons where a minister is put on the carpet, is held accountable, and must defend his spending program, while it exists in some sense, it is not sufficient to do the job effectively. So we as members of parliament are having the finger pointed at us because we are responsible for ensuring that the interests of the taxpayer are being protected, but we do not have the opportunity to protect them because of the mechanisms.
Unless there is a more effective way of policing the government's spending habits, we will continue to experience a decline in confidence in this institution, we will continue to see a growing proliferation of Crown corporations and agencies which do not have to come back to this institution for approval, we will see the government of the day become increasingly less responsible and therefore less accountable to the taxpayers of Canada, the electorate of Canada. Without those checks and balances in place, the door is open for this kind of waste, extravagance, and misappropriation of funds.
On the question of Crown corporations, just recently we have been asked to write off a debt for the CNR amounting to $808 million. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) suggested it was merely a little technical bill, a housekeeping matter which should not be the subject of much debate. We intend to debate that issue, we intend to call witnesses before the committee and to call the Auditor General to see what he thinks about writing off $808 million of taxpayers' money. Also every time we misuse the dollar items, we circumvent parliamentary authority, and this is wrong in terms of the responsibilities and traditions of parliament to provide for the

collection and distribution of funds and the responsibility of passing laws.
When I came to the House some ten years ago, total government expenditure was something in the order of $9 billion. Today it approaches some $49 billion, and by the time all the supplementary estimates are passed, it will be probably $50 billion.
Two things concern me very much, as I am sure they concern other hon. members and the people of Canada in particular. First, I am concerned about the magnitude, the massive amount of money that we are talking about, and second, I am concerned about the appropriation of these funds, the priorities and purposes for which the government has seen fit to allocate these sums of money. It seems to me that over the past ten years we have been on a spending spree. Perhaps I could describe it this way. We have been on a cultural, sociological, and linguistic binge, engaging in many political programs. We have engaged in the dramatic growth of government, but the priorities of strengthening the economic base of this country and creating an environment where the individual can become more enterprising and innovative have been cast aside.
A recent article in the Financial Times of June 27, 1977, indicates that 40 per cent of Canadian voters are now on the government payroll. That includes people who are working for the various Crown corporations, for the government, retired public servants, war pensioners, those who receive unemployment insurance benefits, old age pensioners, and so on. It has become a very significant issue.
We have failed in our ability to strengthen the economic infrastructure of this country and, as a result, have not inspired individual incentive. This has not served the best interest of national unity as well. I look at some of the programs on which we have spent money, for example, on Canada Council grants. This is why I am sure the government of the day has lost control, and I am sure it is not very proud of some of the programs funded under the Canada Council. One example is of $170,000 to study air breathing fish of the Amazon river, or $4,280 spent on a study to determine what people do with themselves when they have nothing to do, or $15,000 spent on an evaluation of interview techniques and data in the 1971 census of the Kingdom of Morocco. Many taxpayers are getting tired of that kind of foolishness.
As I said, in 1968 government expenditures amounted to $9 billion; today they are $50 billion. In 1968 we had a 4-cent postage stamp and the mail was delivered; today we are paying 14 cents for postage stamps and mail is not being delivered. It is those kinds of things that are irritating and bothersome to the Canadian people. As I said before, this has not served the best economic interests of this country, nor has it served the individual interests in society or the best interests of national unity. Remember it was in 1968 as well that the theme of the election campaign was national unity and the redressing of regional economic disparities. What have we today? Look at the money we have spent. The money has been misspent, and that is why many Canadians are irate and outright angry.
March 10, 1978

Look at what has happened to some of the basic industries like agriculture and the fishing industry. We all know the experiences of the livestock industry in the last few years. What has happened to the agricultural industry? In the last five years the net farm debt has increased from $4.3 billion to $8.5 billion. The Minister of Agriculture has said that farmers have never had it so good. If they have it good today, it is only because they have borrowed themselves into that position. What have we done to improve our capability in the area of processing agricultural and fishery products? We have done little or nothing, certainly not enough, and what we have appropriated for these important basic industries in Canada has been nothing more than promises.
The other day we had a debate in the House on the question of science and technology, research and development. There is no question in anybody's mind that the stability and strength of any economy are based upon the ability to research and develop new methods of technology. We have failed miserably in that regard. We all remember the election campaign of 1974 and the lofty promises made at that time. We remember those particularly with respect to transportation. We were told we would have a complete restructuring of the ports and harbours in this country; we were going to do away with all the freight rate inequities and anomalies, and we were going to engage in a very aggressive urban transportation program, which has since been scrapped.
The promise was that the total grain handling system from the granary to the ships and harbours would be revamped and new systems introduced. What do we have today? We have two dozen ships waiting in the port of Vancouver. We cannot move our grain. The cost of that failure is coming out of the pockets of producers, the farmers of Canada. It is costing millions of dollars, and the government is spending money on stupid trash like a study of air breathing fish in the Amazon River. There must be some dramatic changes in this country. The government has failed miserably to direct attention to the basic, gut issues of this country. The philosophical approach which it has used has certainly not augured well for the average Canadian citizen.
I could go on about transportation and economic development, particularly as it relates to western Canada, because there is much to be done. We do not need any more studies or hearings. The issues have all been very well thrashed out. The recommendations are very clear. The government says it agrees, but it does nothing. Of the 92 recommendations in the Hall report only six have been acted upon. It is no wonder that the Science Council of Canada had this to say about Canadian industrial prospects, and I quote from a document entitled "Uncertain Prospects" published by the Science Council of Canada, with regard to the Canadian manufacturing industry from 1971 to 1977:
Canadian industry is chronically and gravely ill. Indeed, the country, industrially, is rapidly falling behind other nations, and, by default, placing its hopes for the future on a resource sector, which, in its present form, is inadequate to the
Financial Administration Act
task of raising or even maintaining the standard of living which most Canadians take for granted.
Is it any wonder that we are given that damning indictment? The Canadian dollar is at its lowest value in 45 years. We have the highest rate of unemployment since the depression. Inflation is running at 9.5 per cent to 10 per cent. One can only conclude that this has to be the worst government we have had since Confederation. The excessive growth of government and the attitude of this particular government have affected the lives and welfare of all Canadians. They have stymied our attempts to occupy our rightful place in the industrialized world.
Mr. Speaker, I know you have allowed me latitude to talk about these matters, but we are dealing here with government expenditures and the manner in which money is being spent or misspent. Having recognized the fact that it is in serious trouble in terms of its ability to control and manage the financial affairs of this country, the government has finally heeded the advice of the Auditor General and introduced a bill which will create the position of comptroller general. However, there is much more to be done, and we should not be falsely led into the belief that this will be a cure-all.
We must look for example at means of establishing appropriate incentives for those engaged in the Public Service to operate efficiently. We have to look seriously at the senior echelon of the bureaucracy and make it more accountable for its actions. When we are talking about $48 billion to $50 billion of government expenditures in a year, that boils down to a little less than $200 million per constituency, and we must ask ourselves what our constituencies are getting for that amount of money. I think we have an excellent public service, but there must be instilled within the minds of public servants the importance of discharging their responsibilities with pride, excellence, and efficiency. I hope the comptroller general will address himself to that because efficiency is of paramount importance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the House, and I shall not abuse it. Perhaps the most important role of government is the allocation of human and financial resources in the most effective and equitable manner possible, having due regard to the national goals and the economic and regional realities of the time. This requires not only a competent public service but also a competent government and a competent mechanism in parliament wherein checks and balances can be firmly in place and effectively utilized.
We cannot expect our public servants to behave responsibly if the government of the day does not behave responsibly. If

March 10, 1978
Financial Administration Act
the government is not held accountable to parliament and thereby to the people of Canada, it is quite logical that public servants will not be held accountable either. That is precisely the dilemma we are in now. I hope that in the days and months ahead this matter will be taken more seriously. Like the Auditor General, I feel profoundly that public funds are in effect trust funds and must be treated accordingly. Financial controls and safeguards for trust funds in the public sector should be at least as effective, reliable, and strong as they are in the private sector. If we who share the responsibility for the control of the public purse do not take this seriously, we are somewhat derelict in our duty.
The appointment of a comptroller general is but one step toward achieving our goal. Far from being the total answer, it is a step in the right direction, but there must be a major shift in attitude, and that shift must begin with the government. We have much to do in this very important area, and unless we address ourselves to this problem and take remedial action soon, our system of government and public confidence in it will continue to wane and will continue to be in jeopardy. If we should continue that downhill slide, we would soon find that freedom and democracy as we know them would be increasingly undermined and perhaps destroyed.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much of the time of the House on this matter, but as a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and, as a matter of fact, as the chairman of the committee at the time when the first draft of this bill saw the light of day, I feel I should bore the House for a few moments by attempting to give my interpretation of the bill.
My attitude toward the bill has been forcefully and succinctly expressed by others-approval for it and disappointment with it. There is approval because obviously there has been waste and extravagance by this government. With the growth of government in the western world, and especially the growth in Canada at the municipal and provincial government levels, there is state involvement in many things that used to be considered the exclusive jurisdiction of the private individual or the private sector. This has led expenditures by the state to multiply alarmingly over the last few years.
When the Prime Minister took office the total expenditure of the federal government was about $9.5 billion. It is more than coincidental that for the fiscal year now ending, the federal government's deficit is also approximately $9.5 billion. I do not make that comment in a partisan way, but merely to indicate the swollen financial transactions of government in general.
I do not believe that provincial governments have increased their revenues and expenditures at the same rate as the federal government nor do I believe that municipal governments have done so. Members on both sides of the House have been worried that our accounting and control of government spending have not kept pace with the increase. For years the public accounts committee, a non-partisan all-party body, has spent

thousands of man-hours trying to rectify spending abuses of the government of the day. It has issued voluminous reports and there has been a general attempt to rectify some of the glaring omissions that exist in the supervision and control of the financial accounts of the federal government. In some cases our voice has been heard, but in many cases it has not. Sometimes we have had the ear of the public because of the financial scandals uncovered. These are not always uncovered by the committee but often by that watchdog of the public purse, the Auditor General.
It is the job of the Auditor General to ferret out and expose extravagance in the financial wasteland. It is the job of the public accounts committee to investigate the charges and report to the House on the veracity or otherwise of those charges. Since I came here in 1972 there have been very few occasions when serious charges made by the Auditor General have been investigated by the all-party, impartial public accounts committee and not found to be true. Sometimes they have been under emphasized and perhaps even underestimated, according to the work of successive public accounts committees.
The general theme running through the reports of the public accounts committee until two years ago was that some office, some body, some institution, agency or individual, should be inserted into the system to check expenditures before they are made. The Auditor General and the public accounts committee can only criticize and publicize after the event. What was required was not another watchdog but someone who could pre-audit, not post-audit-somebody with power to put the lid on proposed extravagances. Members of the public accounts committee came to the conclusion over the years that there should be a comptroller general, as there is in other parliaments and legislatures in the Commonwealth and in countries in the western world. There should be someone-an impartial but all powerful figure-to examine proposals before expenditures were made in order to avoid gross errors.
The matter came to a head in the report of the Auditor General to the House two years ago. As a result of valid criticisms, made both in the report of the public accounts committee and the report of the Auditor General, things started to stir on the government benches. Certain proposals were presented by the Auditor General to the then President of the Treasury Board and the present minister which resulted in the bill now before the House. If the bill goes through, we will have a comptroller general.
I know of no reason why the bill should not go through. From that point of view I am quite elated about the bill and its provisions but I am disappointed because it is a compromise. In a way it is a rather weak-kneed compromise. I do not want to use the word cowardly because the final negotiations resulted in a compromise by those of us who believed that we should have an individual to perform that type of pre-audit function. We are not so sure that we will get it, which is the problem at the moment.
March 10, 1978

As an ex-chairman of the public accounts committee my view is that the appointment of a comptroller general which is envisaged by this bill is better than no comptroller general at all. I make no secret of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that some of us are disappointed in that we do not know what the functions of this person and agency will be. We do not know what staff he will have; we do not know what his powers will be. We do not know whether we are being conned by a government, which has a great facility for public relations measures. Sometimes that is all it is, a public relations facade which is imposed upon the Canadian public. We are not skeptical by any means. I am glad that we will have a comptroller general. However, I wish this bill had some meat to it. We have the bones,-the skeleton is there.
We have a person who will be called a comptroller general. I hope he will have the power, authority and the function of a comptroller general as that office is understood throughout the western world and in some of the other Commonwealth democracies. In other countries that person is an independent person. In some cases that person reports, as does the Auditor General, directly to the legislature or to the parliament- directly to the House of Commons. The comptroller general in Canada will not do that.
In some of the other jurisdictions the comptroller general is an all-powerful individual. If he knows that something is clearly going wrong he has the power to stop it. As far as we know the Canadian comptroller general will not have that power. In other jurisdictions the comptroller general has a skilled and extensive staff of investigators and auditors. As far as we know this comptroller general will not have that type of staff or facility available to him. But certainly half a loaf is better than none.
I would have suspected that this government has had enough of financial scandals. For their political survival it is about time that our political masters on the other side of the House realize the growing awareness Canadians have that this government is unwise in many of its spending practices and that the control and supervision of these expenditures have reached an almost scandalous stage.
I am sure every member of this House receives at least two calls per day from constituents and sometimes three or more, not per week, not per month but per day. They may complain about something else which involves large expenditures of taxpayers' money by this government or that an expenditure has not been properly explained or is being improperly carried out. Just this morning I had complaints concerning two brand new offices which have been set up without my knowledge in my riding. I had to read about them in the newspaper. These offices are under the aegis of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, a CCC office, which is a conservation control office of some type or another. One office was set up in the town of Bowmanville and another office was set up in Cobourg, both in my constituency.
Both of these are new offices and new functions under the FLIP program. Each office has a budget for the next couple of months of $49,000. The genuine concern of my constituents
Financial Administration Act
when they phoned me was stated in terms such as, "What in heaven's name is this that is now coming along and is spending this money?" I will be frank that until I read about this matter in the newspaper I had never even heard of it. I had to get busy and do some research.
The FLIP program, and I am not trying to be flippant about it but that is what it is called, the FLIP program is supposed to be another one of these ad hoc make-work programs over the next few months. The Government of Canada is spending $150 million of your dollars and my dollars on this type of program. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources alone is spending about $50 million of that. A letter which I received from the minister obviously indicates neither he nor his department know the extent of the offices or the amount of money being spent in the riding. Maybe the program will be a good one. But I am skeptical and I have my doubts. We should have someone other than empire builders that exist in the bureaucracy in this country to take a good hard look at this matter, not necessarily from the point of view of the merits or demerits of the program, but to plan ahead how money should be spent.
Once the government has made a decision to go ahead with a plan, the actual method and procedure of hiring people and the spending of the money should be explained first. Canadians would then know whether their money was being genuinely spent on their behalf. We have no such guarantee. I am continually skeptical about what is happening here and I believe my constituents are too. It has been proven time and time again that there is too much waste, too much extravagance, and too much expense. Their money is being thrown around.
For the political survival of the government it seems to me that it would want an independent, powerful individual or institution interposed into the spending procedures of this government who could report to this House. In the long run it would make for better government. It would provide an assurance to the people that plans to spend their money are more wisely devised. It would help members of parliament to be re-elected. I do not think Canadians are that cynical that they do not reward good government. But they will throw their representatives out when there is bad government. A measure of that type would be a good move toward good government, but we simply do not have it.
I welcome the bill. I welcome the office. I welcome the individual. He will certainly have the full support of members on this side of the House in his efforts. No matter what those efforts are, and no matter what the results of those efforts are, it has got to be better than we have now. So we just have to support the concept. I only wish there were some teeth in the bill. I only wish there was some authority to it. I only wish there had been some meaning to it. Perhaps some day soon we shall form a government which will put those powers and that authority into statutory form.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak here on Friday afternoon. The members

March 10, 1978
Financial Administration Act
who do stay may be few in number but their calibre is very high indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: As far as numbers are concerned, it is very like speaking to a group of Liberal supporters in the Crowfoot riding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I was very surprised to hear my good friend from Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) struggle desperately to find some good features about this bill. Only an hon. gentleman with a character like that of my hon. friend who manages to think kind and considerate thoughts, even sometimes about the government, would be able to find some good in a piece of legislation of this kind for the purposes to which it was being assigned in the discussions held in the public accounts committee and the comments made by the previous and the present Auditors General. Mr. Speaker, it is junk. It is nothing.
I understand that the gentleman who is being appointed to this position is a man of a very high calibre. 1 am glad in many ways but in some ways I am sorry because of the heartaches and frustrations he will have to undergo in trying to fulfil his high responsibilities in the way the public apparently expects of him. Just the other day we had a further example of the government's attitude toward spending. You know, Mr. Speaker, as you watch the leaves drift along the creek, you see which way the current is flowing. Anyway, it now seems that a rag, tag and bobtail bunch from the Treasury benches opposite have gone out to western Canada to engage in what is very obviously a political campaign.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has certainly laid down the foundation for this opinion, and he is known as the conscience of parliament. It is certain that western Canada, along with Canada as a whole, is in desperate need of leadership. I do not need to recite a litany of the problems which face us; we read about them in every paper, we hear about them in every radio broadcast and on each telecast. Here we find ministers and others going out to western Canada on an obvious political mission, though the campaign has not yet commenced, using government aircraft. I think it is a shocking thing. If that is an indication of the government's attitude toward public spending then Heaven help the poor comptroller general.
Recently I was given one or two hints about the way in which the government, and not only the government but principal civil servants, think. I was at a forum the other day dealing with an issue in which I am greatly interested with a distinguished member of the other place, and when the speeches had been made, one of those present rose to ask a question. He was distinguished in appearance and no doubt he was quite sincere. I suppose what he said was in the nature of a statement rather than a question. He said: "Mr. Baldwin, on this question of information and what the government spends and what it does and how it operates, the trouble with this

country is that people like members of parliament and those who work in the media persist in challenging and questioning decisions made by the government and by the very distinguished and very wise and very efficient professional people who run the country. That is why we are in trouble today."
We are in trouble today, Mr. Speaker, precisely because decisions of the government are not effectively challenged. We should have had a comptroller general for years with the power and authority which we believe should be assigned to him. For years the Auditor General sought desperately to secure the authority he needed while ministers opposite went on spending and taxing, spending and taxing, until they drove the poor people of this country into a state of near desperation. That is an attitude which comes right from the top-it comes right from numero uno and goes all the way down.
I put that statement back to back against another statement made in the same place a few months ago when another gentleman, unknown to me but obviously from the public service, said: "Mr. Baldwin, I am very much in sympathy with your views, with your insistence that the government should try to curb expenditures and let the country know what it is doing and why. I want to tell you that in many cases spending programs of one kind or another are in force even before ministers know about them and most of the highly placed members of the public service think parliament is simply an impediment to the operation of this country."


Jeanne Sauvé: So long as we don't, that's okay.


Gerald William Baldwin: Don't be too sure of that. The principle of ministerial responsibility to which the hon. lady is possibly referring is dying. I doubt whether it exists for us any more. Today, ministers do not know one per cent of what goes on in their departments. They only know what their senior advisers think it is safe to tell them. They only act as advocates. They only present a departmental brief. They are allowed to appear before committees once in a while. They are allowed to go across the country and they are propped up with information and sent into the House of Commons occasionally to make a speech. This is the principle of ministerial irresponsibility upon which the government functions.


Jeanne Sauvé: I am shocked to hear you say that.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. lady says she is shocked but the smile she gives me indicates she is not really shocked. She probably believes me. I am going to give her credit because I have a great deal of respect for her. I think she wishes things were otherwise. I think she wishes she belonged to a government-it would have to be a Conservative government-which believes in the principle of ministerial responsibility.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might enlighten the hon. member. In the case of the hon. minister to whom he has just been directing his remarks, I can assure him that what he says is not the case. She does know, and makes a point of knowing, exactly what is going on in her department and reports are made to her
March 10, 1978

regularly and faithfully by the public servants the hon. member talks about.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will simply say that the hon. member's comment establishes the fact that those who are victims of the principle of ministerial irresponsibility have gone up in number by 100 per cent in the last two minutes.
I should like now to give the House some background with respect to the measure before us-it is all related to the reason for my believing this is not good legislation. Political parties, in particular the government party, have engaged in the last few years in a form of competition for votes which has caused the expectations of the public to escalate to a stage which has overloaded our economy.
No better proof of that-and this directly relates to this bill and what powers could and should exist-is all the great programs, spending and otherwise, of the last 20 or 25 years. In each and every case those programs were brought in accompanied by statements as to their estimated cost and their public benefit which was either outright deception, gross exaggeration or negligence.
Examine today the cost of those programs. They have been exceeded to such an extent that, like a power plant, our economy has become overloaded. I do not say anything of the value of the programs, but it may be that if their true cost had been indicated at the time, this House and the public of Canada might well have said that they were good programs and, despite the cost, we would accept them.
These programs have been augmented one after another. The result is that today, with the electorate having been persuaded they will benefit to a point the economy is incapable of attaining, they have never been told there are limits on the capacity of the government to control economic forces. Now it has become crystal clear that the aggregate of all the good things promised cannot be delivered without penalties: inflation, unemployment, deficit balance of payments and the sagging dollar. This explains the outrage, anger and cynicism which exists all over this country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted this at a very interesting event, known as the great Liberal party, which was held here. I attach the "great" to the party. The Prime Minister admitted there was a lack of confidence and attempted to talk it down. This government cannot talk it down. They are not the solution, they are the problem; there is no question about it.
I do not care what wise decisions are made, whether it be to bring in a comptroller general with proper powers or to bring in programs to deal with inflation and unemployment, the public will not accept them because they do not believe what this government has to say. That is the problem. If you do not trust the doctor, you will not take the medicine.
When you look at the tens of millions of individual decisions and thousands of corporate decisions which have to be made, you see they have to be made by people who will take steps to
Financial Administration Act
restore the economy. The economy will never be stimulated by a government of this kind with its record stretching behind it.
It will be stimulated and we will make progress when the public once more believes in the processes of democratic government and in the reforms and proposals the government will make. Thank heavens we are coming close to an interesting period in our history following which that will be the case.
One problem area has been the issue of over-spending. I was chairman of the public accounts committee 15 years ago and we went through the same difficulty then. However, it has now been compounded because we are into the $50 billion bracket. Therefore, the mistakes, tragic errors and misjudgment of spending are exaggerated to the point where they create crises of confidence and crises of expenditure. This government does not have either the credit or the funds to do the job that needs to be done because of the facts I have stated.
After looking at reports of the Auditor General over the past 15 or 16 years, and even earlier if necessary, how can the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) expect us to believe that a statute of this kind will be effective to bring this under some form of control? There is just one way to control it, and that is to restore to this place the power and the authority it needs to challenge and scrutinize government expenditures. That means there ought to be backbenchers with intestinal fortitude and backbenchers with backbone on the other side who will stand up for the same things in which we believe.
I hope that when they go back and seek to persuade their electors that they should be returned to this House they will be prepared to answer the very pertinent and central question which goes to the core of our difficulties, namely: Why did you sit idly by and allow this government to get away with what it did? I am not talking about incompetence and matters on the periphery but about the basic issue of this government believing that it can spend and tax as though saving had gone out of fashion. That is the problem we face. This legislation will not cure it. It could be an ancillary or auxiliary aid for something else.
1 have said this, members on this side have said it, our leader has said it and our previous leader has said it, and it has been part of our platform: Restore to this House the realistic right to challenge government. Make it come before us and our committees with full opportunity to challenge, scrutinize and examine, thus making them justify what they are doing. The right to govern is a trust. Like every trust there must be an accounting. There is no longer any accounting by government to this House for the expenditure of its funds.
Therefore, I am unhappy. I do not like this bill. I certainly will not vote for it. It could be all right if we knew what the powers would be and if it were accompanied by a real desire by the public of Canada to have restored to them, through this House, the right to make any government justify their expenditures, making them show what it has spent in the past and what it will spend in the future. That has been the purpose of parliament since the time of Simon de Montfort-the right of the public not to grant supply until all wrongs have been

March 10, 1978
Business of the House
rectified. That has been taken away. The granting of money now has become a charade and a farce. Give us that power and we will then look at this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Before recognizing the parliamentary secretary, I must advise hon. members that when he speaks he will close the debate on second reading.


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will only take a few minutes as I have already spoken in this debate. I listened to the speeches made on Bill C-10. By the number and the quality of the interventions by members of all parties, it is apparent there is agreement that we need the office of comptroller general of Canada. We may not agree on how this office should be set up or the methods and procedures that the person filling this office should follow. However, if this bill is adopted and sent to committee this afternoon, there will be further opportunity to debate these points. Hon. members will again be invited to state their points.
I trust the bill will receive speedy passage in committee and be returned to the House for third reading. The underlying principle is accepted by all members. This office has been needed for some time. We must now do everything possible to ensure that the person already appointed to the position is given the opportunity to get to work as soon as possible on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada.
Members of all parties have shown through their speeches that they are concerned about public spending. The government is showing its concern by the recent announcements of many changes being made in an attempt to bring under control more and more the spending of the Canadian government, especially so in bringing forward this bill.
I should like to thank hon. members who have participated in this debate, and do so on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and myself.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the next item of business and because, I believe, a change has been made in respect of the order of business for Monday, I wonder if the appropriate announcement could be made. In asking for that I hope my hon. friend,

the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, will not mind if I put the question to the Acting Prime Minister. I do that quite frankly, sir, so I can establish the fact that the reason things are so peaceful and orderly here this afternoon is that the Minister of Communications is the Acting Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we are obliged to have the Liberals in power it would be a lot better if she continued to be number one.


Some hon. Members:: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not!


Jeanne Sauvé: In reply to his question, we will consider Bill C-21 during the time left this afternoon. On Monday, if hon. members agree with me, we will proceed to Bill C-4 and Tuesday to Bill C-6, unless changes are made on Monday and that would be announced in the House.


TRANSFER OF OFFENDERS ACT
Jeanne Sauvé: That Bill C-21, to implement treaties on the transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, for a moment I thought perhaps you were overcome by the friendliness being exhibited between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), and that we would get Bill C-21 into committee without so much as a single speech. That would be marvellous and I would be agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We wouldn't want to miss your speech.


An hon. Member:: That left him speechless.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It's all right, it's Friday afternoon.
March 10, 1978


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, for five years I have been sitting in this Elouse on Friday afternoons and for the first time the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has paid me a compliment. I do not know what to say to him.
On behalf of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) may I present the second reading of Bill C-21, which I hope will commend itself to the members of all parties in this House.
Essentially it consists of the legislation that is necessary in order to implement treaties allowing persons under sentence to be returned to the country of which they are citizens. Such treaties have been entered into with the United States and with Mexico, and we hope that similar treaties can be concluded with other countries. The treaties with the United States and Mexico are not yet effective and are awaiting ratification. This ratification cannot take place until this legislation has been enacted, enabling effect to be given to the terms of the treaties.

To understand the nature of this bill, I think it is necessary to keep in mind the general tenor of a number of treaties which Canada has signed, as well as some of their provisions. First of all, this bill is not in any way concerned with the extradition or expulsion of foreign nationals. On the contrary, a person could not be sent back to his country of origin unless he requested his own transfer. Under this bill, no one could be transferred against his will. The purpose of these treaties is to make it possible for prisoners who so desire to return to their country of origin to serve their time or obtain parole in a cultural surrounding which is familiar to them and which may favour their social readaptation. Those who have been found guilty of a criminal offence should have the opportunity, whenever possible, to serve their sentence or be paroled in a country where they have relatives and friends and where they can seek assistance. Humanitarianism and good sense favour this option.

The treaties do not, however, provide for the automatic transfer of any offender merely because he has expressed his wish to be returned to his own country. The application is first considered by the country in which he has been convicted, and unless that country approves of his transfer the matter is at an end. If that country agrees that the transfer is appropriate, then the country that would receive the offender is approached and its views are sought. It is only with the concurrence of all three parties, namely, the offender, the state in which he was convicted, and the country of his destination, that any transfer will take place. Additionally, so far as Canada is concerned, we will not return a prisoner convicted abroad to a provincial institution, nor will we send a person from a Canadian provincial institution to another country, unless we first have the consent of the provincial authorities.

I used words which might give the impression that the bill deals exclusively with people serving a jail term. Let me specify that the treaties and the bill also relate to individuals
Transfer of Offenders
benefiting from parole in the country where they have been convicted and who wish to go back to their home country. It might be interesting to stress that the treaty on the international exchange of parolees is at the origin of the bill. During the Fifth United Nations Conference on Crime Prevention and the Treatment of Young Offenders held in Geneva in 1975, Canada raised the possibility of an international exchange of parolees. Other countries have welcomed our initiative and proposed that this arrangement be extended to persons under detention.

Turning now to the provisions of the bill being considered by the House, I should like to examine first the way in which it will apply to Canadians convicted abroad and being returned to Canada. The bill has been drafted on the basis that so far as possible the offender who comes back to this country should be treated in the same fashion as if his conviction and sentence had been those of a Canadian court.
Certain specific provisions have obviously been necessary in addition to this general concept. For example, the bill provides that there shall be no appeal against, or other review of, the conviction and sentence imposed by the foreign state. Such a provision is in conformity with Canada's undertaking to this effect as set out in the treaties.
In reality, this provision in the treaties and in the bill is based upon the practicalities of the situation as well as upon the desire of sovereign states that their judicial proceedings shall not be challenged in another country. Certainly it will not be practical for a Canadian transferred, for example, from Mexico, to have our courts adjudicate upon a contention by him that evidence was admitted that would not have been admissible in Canada. The complications inherent in this or any similar proceeding will at once be apparent.

One of the legislation's provisions deals with the place of imprisonment for a patriated Canadian offender. In that case, the regular rule prevails: when the initial sentence is for two years or more, and there is no parole involved, the offender will be detained in a penitentiary. When the sentence is for less than two years, he will be detained in a provincial prison subject as I said, to the province's consent before the transfer. Upon the arrival of the offender in the establishment, the authorities will have to decide on the time to be served. There are three considerations involved, each one being provided for in the legislation. First, how much time will he be credited with toward the completion of his sentence? Second, will he also be eligible to earn remission? And finally, when will he be eligible for parole?

The first of these considerations has been dealt with fairly simply by providing that, upon reception at the institution, the inmate is to be credited toward completion of his sentence with all time that stood to his credit in the foreign state at the time of his transfer. The documents supplied by the foreign state will set this out. This is believed to be the only equitable way

March 10, 1978
Transfer of Offenders
of proceeding, since the sentences imposed by the foreign court are presumably determined in part by the credits which accrue to the offender.
For example, in the United States legislation to implement these treaties, the offender returned to that country is to be given credit for all time in custody, including time in custody before conviction. This apparently reflects the practice obtaining in most of the individual states of the union. Accordingly, when a person has been sentenced in the United States, it is reasonable to assume that the length of sentence has been set by the judge on the grounds that such credit will be extended. It would not be proper to delete any portion of that credit if the person is transferred to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence.
The second factor, namely, the right to earned remission, has been provided for by making the offender eligible to earn remission at the same rate as a Canadian offender newly committed upon a sentence of imprisonment. In order to preserve a proper sanction against institutional misconduct, and to avoid any question as to the legality of forfeiting certain time credited by the foreign state, the bill makes remission and its equivalent credited on transfer subject to forfeiture as if the credits had been granted under Canadian law.
That brings me to the third factor, namely, eligibility for parole. This has posed some difficult problems. It has not been possible to prescribe exactly the date of eligibility for parole, but a general rule has been formulated which will take care of the vast majority of cases. This is to require the National Parole Board to determine, as nearly as it can, when the person would have been eligible for parole had the sentence been imposed in Canada. That will then be his eligibility date.
This does not, however, enable a date to be fixed for those Canadians who-in very rare instances-have been convicted abroad of murder and who wish to return to Canada. Had such an offence been committed here, the minimum period to be served before parole could even be considered would vary. For murderers governed by the latest legislation, eligibility for parole consideration would occur, if the murder were second degree murder, at from ten to 25 years, depending on the view the judge took on the case. If the murder were categorized as first degree, the period of initial ineligibility for parole would be 25 years. In either case, whether first or second degree murder, any inmate with more than 15 years of parole in eligibility would be able, after 15 years, to apply to a court to shorten such period.

Obviously, it is impossible to draw a perfect parallel. For example, a Canadian court could not examine thoroughly the case of an inmate whose offense is described in the files of a foreign court; it would also be impossible to know what decision a foreign court would have rendered had it studied the question of eligibility for parole. By way of compromise, the bill refuses to grant parole to murderers until they have served
(Mr. Blaker.]
ten years of their sentence. However, it provides for an exception when the documentation submitted by the foreign court establishes that if the crime had been committed in Canada, it would have rated as first degree murder. In such case, the duration of the ineligibility period for parole is extended to fifteen years. The inmate will be eligible for day parole and temporary leave without escort only when he is only three years away from eligibility to full parole, as is the case with Canadian convicted murderers.
In the case of persons convicted of murder abroad who are later transferred to Canada, there is one aspect of eligibility for parole that is a source of difficulty. It is the categorization of murders committed abroad between first or second degree murders. The legislation charges the Solicitor General with this function. An examination of the various possibilities has not yet allowed us to find a better solution. It does not appear that a Canadian court could properly solve the issue. Further, under that clause a minister may, through an administrative measure, require that an inmate spend five more years in prison before he may be granted parole. At the time of the transfer an inmate may receive early examination, but possibly a better way of resolving the issue might be put forward when the legislation is scrutinized in committee.

Before leaving the provisions that govern the treatment of offenders under sentence who are returned to Canada, I should say a few words about juvenile offenders. Any young person returned to Canada and sent to a provincial institution may be transferred to a suitable facility for juvenile delinquents, if he is within the juvenile age range at which young persons are considered to be juveniles in that province. He could not, however, be held in that juvenile institution beyond the date the foreign sentence would expire, unless of course further legal measures were taken, for example, under the provincial act for the protection of children.
Fet me now turn briefly to the provisions of the bill that relate to persons returning to Canada on parole or probation. They will be equated, so far as possible, to Canadians paroled or put on probation in Canada. If paroled, they will be subject to supervision and to sanctions for breach of parole conditions. Those on probation will, when necessary, be dealt with for a breach of the terms of the probation order, except that they will not be liable to a sentence for the original offence for which they were put on probation.
There must also be provision, of course, for foreign nationals who are to be transferred from Canadian institutions to their own country. The bill does not contain many clauses dealing with them, since all that is really necessary is to provide the authority for their release from incarceration and transfer, or their transfer while on parole or probation. After transfer has been effected, they will be dealt with in accordance with the law of the state to which they go.
March 10, 1978



I hope the bill goes through as fast as possible. The United States and Mexico, in addition to the treaty with Canada, have signed a treaty between themselves, and they already exchange prisoners. They can do the same with Canada when treaties are ratified. Most recent statistics show that 90 Canadians are doing prison terms in the United States and nine Canadians are doing time in Mexico. There are 102 Americans in provincial prisons in Canada and 172 in federal penitentiaries. One Mexican is doing time in Canada. The more the passing of the bill is delayed, the longer prisoners abroad will have to wait for repatriation. A number of them, together with their parents and friends here in Canada, no doubt are awaiting the outcome with the utmost interest. This is just the more understandable because, as has been recognized for a long time, penal sanctions are particularly brutal when suffered in a foreign land, and the effect is heavier than expected by the court.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 deals with the implementation of international treaties signed with the United States and Mexico wherein U.S. and Mexican nationals who have been charged, convicted and sentenced in Canada may, under certain circumstances, serve their sentence in their home country; and similarly, Canadians who have gone through the same unhappy experience in either the U.S. or Mexico may, presuming they comply with the provisions of the legislation and the treaty, serve their sentence in Canada.
May I assure the Elouse, first of all, that we in the official opposition want to give speedy passage to this bill, not only at the second reading stage but, more important, at the committee stage. We are in the rather awkward situation that the spending estimates have been referred to the committee and generally one does not interfere with the examination of those estimates to permit the examination of legislation such as this. May I suggest to the parliamentary secretary-I have not discussed this with my colleagues in the NDP or with any other member-that provision be made for special meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that we can come to grips with the legislation at the earliest possible date in order that it might come back to the House and be given eventual passage before the expected election.
I do not want to appear to be critical about this, but the treaty with the United States was signed over a year ago and the treaty with Mexico some three and a half months ago, although the agreement in principle with Mexico was arrived at last April. So I am not terribly impressed with the haste with which the government has dealt with this important piece of legislation.
Quite obviously, the reason for the legislation is our acceptance of the principle that a person who has been convicted might be better rehabilitated close to friends and relatives and in their natural home land. The other side of the situation is that we will be accepting foreign sentences.
Transfer of Offenders
Most members of parliament have had the experience from time to time of being contacted by constituents whose relatives, often sons or daughters, have been incarcerated in foreign jurisdictions or, at least, arrested before trial. We have all shared the agony of those particular families while their children might have been awaiting sentences or trials in situations which were not humane according to our views and traditions. I understand that this legislation cannot come to grips with that particular situation. I am not suggesting that it should or could; I merely point out that this legislation will not be the answer to all situations with which we as members of parliament are from time to time faced when we get frantic phone calls-and justifiably so-from parents or other relatives who have found that members of their families have been seized and imprisoned before their trials in foreign jurisdictions.
What we will become with this legislation is a penal agent for foreign jurisdictions and, as I see it, we have a conflict between our role as that penal agent for Mexico or the United States and certain rights which we enjoy here, many of which are embodied in our Bill of Rights. We will enforce under this legislation judgments arrived at by means which may be repugnant to us. It may be that a Canadian in Mexico or the United States has been deprived of counsel. He may have been convicted and sentenced without due process. He may be sentenced to serve a term which goes far beyond anything we would find acceptable, according to our traditions. That individual may have been deprived of one of our basic rights embodied in section 1 of the Bill of Rights; that is, the right of the individual to liberty. In Canada that right may not be deprived except under due process of law. A Canadian may very well be deprived of exactly that due process, and we will accept persons in Canada who have been subjected, possibly, to what we would consider an arbitrary judicial process which would be unacceptable to us. Under this bill we have no real choice.
I want to emphasize this because inevitably there will be a situation where a Canadian imprisoned in Mexico will make application, Mexico and Canada will agree and that national will be returned to his homeland, at which point we will hear that he has been deprived of counsel, that he has been convicted without what we consider due process and that he has been sentenced to a term which flies in the face of what we consider to be justice. There will be a great deal of pressure, in the political sense, upon us to try to mitigate those very unhappy circumstances.
I have no answer except to say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Blaker) that we are going to have to be very diligent in explaining to that national and perhaps to his family exactly the situation in which we find ourselves under this legislation. There are those of my colleagues in the House who have had very good and happy experiences with consular representatives and with representatives of our foreign service who have assisted in these serious situations where our constituents' relatives may have been

March 10, 1978
Transfer of Offenders
incarcerated. There are those who have found that some of those representatives have not met the level of expertise and compassion we have expected. I suggest to the House that under this legislation we are going to have to be particularly diligent in ensuring that Canadian nationals incarcerated in foreign jurisdictions to whom this law may be applicable are told without equivocation what the situation is and that the Bill of Rights may have to be offended. However, we have no choice.
I think it is terribly important that Canadian nationals who are convicted and sentenced elsewhere and who apply for the provisions of this bill to apply to them be assisted so that we do not reap the undeserved benefits of headlines and television spectaculars about people who have been subjected to all kinds of things which are completely repugnant to us but which nevertheless under this legislation we must accept.
In fairness to the parliamentary secretary, I think I should say that there may be amendments, most of them of a technical nature, at the committee stage. The Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), his parliamentary secretary and his department would do the committee a great favour-because I think they know of a number of these technical amendments-if they would draft some amendments at the earliest possible date and make them available for study at the very first meeting of the committee considering this legislation. The parliamentary secretary is making a gesture which I think means "I agree" or "Je suis d'accord".
One point I would like to make on behalf of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is that the worst and most desperate offenders wind up at Millhaven. Those who have nothing more to lose are put into the special handling unit. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is naturally concerned because Millhaven is continually in a state of a certain amount of unrest. There are those who may have some reservations about our ability to handle people in this special handling unit. I file this one caveat which the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands has put to me with sincere concern. She wonders how much more pressure will be put on that particular institution.
I hope that at the committee stage departmental officials will be able to provide us with some statistical information, not just with respect to United States and Mexican nationals incarcerated here who may choose to avail themselves of the provisions of this legislation, but also Canadians in those two jurisdictions. In addition, I would like to have some information which is as detailed as is reasonably possible on Canadians who have been imprisoned in other jurisdictions. I think immediately of Italy, and I think also of Italian nationals who may be incarcerated here in Canada. I think also of the United Kingdom.
In terms of numbers I am not sure which country has the greatest number of visitors here in Canada who have gone afoul of the law and vice versa, but I hope a certain amount of that kind of information can be made available to the committee so that the committee can urge upon the Solicitor General, if it is deemed wise, that a certain amount of urgency be

connected with coming to grips with treaties with certain other jurisdictions in addition to Mexico and the United States.
I would have liked to have taken a few more minutes on this legislation, but I am extremely anxious that we conclude it today. I am equally anxious that it gets into the committee, is studied diligently but expeditiously, and gets back into this House for passage. I look forward to hearing the remarks of the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I know he wants to address himself to the provisions of this bill before the time runs out.
In conclusion, we in the official opposition support this legislation. We have certain pertinent questions to put, and we will seek information in the committee. However, we urge that the matter be treated as a matter of some urgency by that committee, that the bill come back to the House and become law, so that it will not be lost in the ashes of the next election.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself generally with the remarks of the two previous speakers. It is very unfortunate that when a piece of good legislation-as I think this is-is introduced by the government, the press will likely take no notice of it just because there does not happen to be any great conflict.
I might go further than the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) and say that, in order to expedite its passage, we might give consideration to putting the bill through in committee of the whole rather than submitting it to the standing committee. I have examined the bill, as I know the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot has, and I have not come up with any amendments that would assist in effecting what the bill seeks to accomplish.
I am as nervous as the hon. member that we might have an election any day and that this useful piece of legislation might die on the order paper. If that should happen, there are people in prisons all over the world who will be severely affected.


An hon. Member:: Pass it now, then.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The House will have my co-operation if you want to move it into committee of the whole.
I want to deal, Mr. Speaker, with a couple of aspects of the bill. First, there is an assumption inherent in the remarks made today that Canadians abroad are generally mistreated if they violate the laws of the country they are in. I am tired of the tear-jerking stories in my local newspapers about British Columbians who go to Mexico and get into the drug trade and then complain about their mistreatment in Mexican jails.
I think most members will agree that members of parliament have a reasonably good record in protecting the rights of citizens, but when people visit a foreign country, surely they should obey the laws of that country. I am a little disturbed about the Canadian chauvinism that is constantly played up in the newspapers to the effect that a Canadian in a Mexican jail will be abused, but that in a Canadian jail everything is roses.
March 10, 1978

My friends on the parliamentary sub-committee who looked at pretty well every prison in Canada could warn those people who are living in Mexico that if they think they are coming back to a sort of heaven on earth in a Canadian maximum security prison, they have a surprise in store. We do not have anything to write home about in regard to our prison system and the way offenders are treated in our maximum security prisons.
In any event, we will receive applications from Canadian offenders abroad. I would like to see a more aggressive approach by the Department of External Affairs to expand the number of countries involved in the treaties. The schedule lists the United States and Mexico, and I am sure more countries are involved. It seems to me that the Department of External Affairs should take a message from the speed with which we are willing to pass this legislation and adopt it into the law and make sure that they have treaties with countries all over the world so that the exchanges can be effected.
I do not want to take a lot of the time of the House on this, Mr. Speaker. This party has no amendments to submit at this point and will co-operate in every way to achieve speedy passage of the bill so that offenders have a chance to have their families visit them in Canada. It seems to me that the major asset of the bill is that the chance of rehabilitation is perhaps a little better in Canada because of the family situation. If the bill goes to committee I hope we can expedite it there. I am sure the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot and I could agree on moving it through committee expeditiously.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, since it is almost four o'clock, I presume there is unanimous consent to proceed now with private members' business, and I would therefore request unanimous consent so we may move to notice of motion No. 5, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). I also call for unanimous consent to stand notice No. 4.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council recommend that we move to motion No. 5. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Food Aid


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of providing (a) international food aid at the annual level at least equal in nutritional value to the amount by which Canadians consume more than the world's average per capita protein diet (b) international agricultural development assistance at an annual level at least equal to the gross revenues accruing to Canada from the world arms trade and the vigorous advancement of these initiatives for adoption and implementation by the United Nations.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, much as I would appreciate seconding the hon. member's motion, I think the seconder is the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There will be a correction. The seconder of the motion is Mr. Roche.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this motion, which I assume is one of the more unique motions on the order paper for this session. It brings together the issue of food needs, domestic and global, as well as the growing concern of the world toward the problem of disarmament and the international arms trade.
I do not want to speak at great length this afternoon. First of all, I would not be permitted to under the rules; second, I think it is important that as many members as possible express their view on what I think is a linking of two of the critical issues that face us in the late 1970s. Members from all sides have heard a good deal about global famine and world food needs in the past few years. Our memories do not have to be very long to recall the important world food conference that took place in 1974, at a time of world preoccupation with famine and massive international food shortages.
The fact that we are raising this issue again seems more consistent with the long term concern for the world food issue than the present situation. I think it is best summed up in the September 1977 issue of The Economist in an article entitled "While the Wheat is High". If some hon. members have read that story or others like it over the past few months, they will realize that the food cycle has come around to the point where we now have overproduction, at least in terms of endanger-ment of the domestic markets of countries like our own that engage in fairly large sales of wheat abroad.
Obviously between 1972 and 1974 we were in the midst of a food crisis. Uprecedented declines in production reduced food stocks to perilously low levels and drew attention to underlying factors such as the removal of land from production in some developed countries and the growing food dependence of those countries least developed.
I recall this, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to realize that there has been a cyclical phenomenon here. For the past

March 10, 1978
Food Aid
20 or more years we have seen a kind of boom and bust psychology. From time to time the alarm signals would go up about the dangers of massive international food shortages. Undoubtedly in the early 1970s there were crop failures. There was a particular failure with respect to adequate feed grain requirements for the Soviet Union. The fact that the U.S.S.R. moved into the American market in 1972 in a major way, removing something like 12 million to 15 million tons of grain from the American market at such short notice caused the price to increase by some 300 per cent. Of course, it had a major impact both on the domestic consumer in developed countries as well as the developing countries themselves and their own purchasing power with respect to food aid requirements. That has often been referred to as "the great grain robbery" by the Soviet Union.
The long term situation, in spite of the major increases in production in the last year or so, does remain bleak. Current projections by the International Food Research Institute show that the food deficit in the least developed countries, as well as many developed countries, will continue to grow. By the last quarter of this century the deficit of the least developed countries will have reached proportions that neither food aid nor affordable imports will be able to satisfy, resulting in vastly increased starvation possibilities.
To avoid that particular situation it is important that we turn our attention to the possibility of action now. One of the most impressive things about this particular issue of The Economist is that while recognizing the rumours of famine and the fears of famine in the 1972 to 1974 period, now, some 34 months later, world food supply is in glut. While there is still a famine for those who are unable to get food, elsewhere there is a surplus supply. The danger they point to is the one best represented by the action of the United States President, Mr. Carter, who has already indicated that he wants a 20 per cent cut in acreage for 1978, and will probably ask for a 10 per cent cut in acreage under animal feed grains. As The Economist said, this policy is a pity. I agree with that. The article goes on to say:
One of the policies recommended at Rome could now be becoming a good one. It was for the building of a large international reserve of grain. During a supposed famine this planned withholding of supplies from the starving would have been crazy, but during a period of temporary world food surpluses it becomes plausible. The best decision would be not to cut American wheat acreage in 1978 but to distribute food stamps (which have worked surprisingly well in the United States) to the poor of the world. These food stamps should not be usable only for buying American (or other foreign) grain, but should also be reimbursable when they come into the hands of local farmers when they have sold grain, including rice, locally.
I will not go further into the details suggested by The Economist, except to mention that obviously the time is ripe for us to take some concrete action toward an effective international food bank and grain reserve system. Members will know that there has been intense and increased interest in this possibility over the past few months, but to date no satisfactory progress has in fact been achieved. I suppose the problem is really politics. The dangers to producing countries are so great that the political will has not been sufficient yet to mount an effective reserve program.
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l
Without that political will there exists the temptation for processors to press for a cartel. Fears of this arose in January of last year when the new U.S. secretary of agriculture, Robert Bergland, initiated talks with our own officials. Since then these discussions have extended to other producers and have begun to include importing nations through the International Wheat Council. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is not just a question of establishing a food reserve system. We have to look at our own situation in Canada and see whether in the spirit of economy and conservation we are making satisfactory arrangements for our own food needs.
The reason that this particular motion has been phrased in the way it has is to emphasize the growing imbalance in terms of the consumption of both the renewable and non-renewable resources of this planet. It is quite shocking that 20 per cent of the world's population should consume and exploit 75 per cent of the world's resources. As Madam Gandhi at one point remarked, the developed countries produce 90 per cent of the world's garbage. Worse than that is the statistics for those who are in the poorest group. Some 60 per cent of the world's population are using only 10 to 12 per cent of the earth's resources. This imbalance continues to grow.
We know in our own country that food is wasted every day and is being consumed in the most expensive way possible. If this motion does nothing else, hopefully it will remind us that our number one problem is being responsible with respect to the tremendous resources that are produced and are available in this country, while two-thirds of the world's population goes to bed hungry every night. Our problems are best described by a sign which I saw in a medical clinic in Regina a few months ago. I believe this was a public health clinic which offered a variety of services to the people of Regina. At the top of the list the most prominent health service provided at this particular clinic was a weight reducing program. That is the problem we face today in Canada. It is not the problem of having sufficient or adequate food on a day to day basis, but of having it in such an amount that it is counterproductive to our own good health.
Another issue I wish to raise is the problem of disarmament. In going from the problem of food supply to arms expenditures one has the sensation of living in a mad world. I mean mad quite literally. The technical term used to describe the defence standoff relationship today between the Soviet Union and the United States is known as "mutual assured destruction". The three initials of the word spell MAD. Mutual assured destruction means that there is the nuclear capability in both countries to destroy the globe many times over.
A couple of years ago the international development subcommittee of this House, in looking at recommendations for the upcoming conference on trade aid development, said this:
We are struck by the immensity of having to raise $5 billion for agricultural investment over the next several years until we recall that each year the world now spends about $300 billion in the purchase of weapons.
Actually that was understating it. Even at that time, according to the Peace Research Institute, in 1976 $334 billion was spent on military expenditures by the world community. This
March 10, 1978

amounted to about two-fifths of the gross domestic product of all developing countries and some 25 times the amount spent by all the member countries of the OECD on official development assistance. It is estimated that some 400,000 scientists and engineers are engaged in weapons related research and that this accounts for two-fifths of total world research and development expenditures. In short, it is reasonable to conclude that we devote more intellectual effort and money to the problem of how to kill each other than to any other subject. Presumably this is why we are called homo sapiens, or "sap" for short. It seems we live in a world that is rational in small things and absolutely mad in major issues.
The lion's share of this expenditure is still spent by the wealthier countries, in particular the two super powers. Between 1957 and 1976, 80 per cent of the $5.5 trillion spent on military expenditure came out of NATO and Warsaw countries; and two-thirds of that was spent by the United States and the Soviet Union. By comparison, during that period the developing countries spent only 7 per cent of the total. One of the more depressing aspects of increasing military expenditures is that whereas in 1957 their share was only 4 per cent in global terms, by 1977 military expenditures in developing countries had risen to 18 per cent. The rate of increase of military expenditures by developing countries over the past decade was 10 per cent annually compared to the world average of a 3 per cent increase. Some types of development have obviously caught fire and development spending has increasingly meant defence spending.
This militarization of our global community has been accomplished in no small part through the international arms trade. In 1976, 95 countries imported major weapons systems. The development countries, in another manifestation of dependency, accounted for 75 per cent of total imports. The major suppliers were the United States, the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom and France, with the two superpowers again away out in front.
Canada is not just a minor player in this game and we should resist the temptation to heap scorn on other countries which engage in it. Since 1961 we have sold over $3 billion worth of arms internationally. On an annual basis, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce we sell $300 million worth of arms, not to mention nuclear sales which are increasingly questionable in terms of their totally peaceful utilization. Canada ranks about eighth or ninth among all countries of the world in terms of continuing arms sales.
Given the absurdity of this situation and the terror it spawns, one might have anticipated a more lively debate in most western countries. In fact, the silence has been deafening. Except for certain small groups, disarmament has been, to use Alva Myrdal's description, a dead issue. It seems to me there are two main reasons for this. Until recently the public has pretty much accepted the official line that massive strategic and conventional armaments are essential to peace. At the same time, the fact that no great war has directly threatened
Food Aid
us seemed to render the system useful in providing us with a certain amount of protection. In the third world, the increasing arms expenditures express the tensions and instability of the countries concerned.
When we look at the situation in the developing countries we realize that in far too many of them the over-all degree of militarization is disturbing. Beset by difficulties and attracted by the apparent simplicity of militarism, one third world country after another has been taken over by the generals. Not surprisingly, one of the priorities of such governments is the expenditure of increasing sums of arms. I shall not put the figures on record this afternoon but I would recommend to hon. members the annual report "World Military and Social Expenditures" published each year by Ruth Leger Sivard which documents the case I have been making.
I have raised this motion because I hope the issue is coming to a crunch. Later this spring there is to be a special assembly of the United Nations to deal with the issue of disarmament. For the first time in the history of the United Nations a special assembly is to focus specifically on this issue. There have been a series of special UN sessions, for instance, on food, on water, on the law of the sea, on habitation, on the environment and so on. There have been two special sessions dealing with the international economic order.
It is interesting that dislocation of social priorities brought about by national arms expenditures has not so far been dealt with even though this has been seen as an increasingly urgent problem by the developing nations. Hon. members may recall that when the fifth conference of the heads of state of non-aligned countries met in Colombo in 1976 the communique stated:
The conference believes the arms race is inconsistent with the efforts aimed at achieving a new international economic order in view of the urgent need to divert the resources utilized for the acceleration of the arms race toward socio-economic development, particularly in the developing countries.
Undoubtedly both developed and developing countries alike realize, to quote the words of Alva Myrdal from an excellent book called The Game of Disarmament, that all countries are now "buying greater and greater insecurity at higher and higher cost".
Steps must be taken now to deal with the number one issue which is distracting us from the opportunity to feed ourselves and provide ourselves with real security and a peaceful relationship both internally and between nations. There is growing concern in the world about the trend of rising military expenditures, about the vast human and technological resources which are now desperately needed for economic and social development but which are being spent on arms. Hopefully at this upcoming session of the UN the international community will attempt to halt this trend and agree on approaches and measures designed to initiate a real process of disarmament, not a counterproductive one such as has been discussed from time to time over the last 20 years.
One of the more interesting motions to be discussed will be put forward by the Scandinavian countries; it relates to disarmament and development. It is my hope that our own govern-

March 10, 1978
Food Aid
ment, which is vitally concerned with these subjects, will, in addition to supporting the Scandinavian initiatives, make specific proposals of its own.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to the words of new volunteer groups in this country which are concerned with these issues, groups such as Project Ploughshare, an initiative of major Canadian churches, and the United Nations Association. They, too, in a recent pamphlet entitled A Time to Disarm recommend-and I whole-heartedly support this initiative- that the Canadian government in its statement should advocate a five-year program which would include financial support for public research into the problem of converting defence industries into civilian ones, the linking of development assistance policies with Canadian policies on disarmament, and collaboration with other countries embarking on studies linking disarmament with development. If we were to advocate a position of that kind we would contribute more substantially to the real needs of the world than is the case at present.
May I end by quoting Philip Noel-Baker, the 1959 Nobel Peace Laureate:
There is really only one major problem for mankind and that is to demilitarize the governments and societies of the world. We must release the resources wasted on what is now called defence, when there is no defence, in order to solve our other problems.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, projections of world food supply and demand into 1985 indicate that food distribution between developed and developing countries will not correspond to needs. Food gaps, existing when domestic production and food imports are less than a country's total demand, will be most severe in the lowest-income developing countries. By 1985 the gap could be as wide as 100 million tonnes, yet total food aid pledges on a world basis are, at present, limited to ten million tonnes. The gap will disappear only when there are large increases in food production in the developing countries, for which there is potential, as well as better population control. Even so, the developing countries would still require substantial input for many years, a situation which might present an intolerable strain on the balance of payments of many nations.
There will be a continuing need for concessional transfers of food from developed countries complementary to other multilateral or bilateral assistance to help the developing nations to grow most, if not all, of the food they require. In the 1960s a major food aid objective was the directing of grain surpluses into channels which would not affect commercial markets. Gradually the emphasis switched to the delivery of food aid to multilateral organizations such as the World Food Program. By the 1970s the objectives of food aid policy were humanitarian and developmental in nature. Indeed, since 1974 all Canadian food grains directed to food aid, both multilateral and bilateral, could have been disposed of through commercial channels.
Food aid is an important part of Canadian development assistance. In times of drought, flood, famine, civil strike and
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l
general food shortages, food aid is indispensible to the livelihood and survival of millions in developing countries.
In 1975, some 462 million people, half of these children under five, were starving, according to United Nations Food and Agriculture organizations estimates. Since 1970, Canadian food aid to the third world has risen by over 19 per cent every year, to approximately $240 million, or about one quarter of all Canadian International Development Agency disbursements for fiscal year 1976-77.
In 1976-77, bilateral country-to-country food aid accounted for about 63 per cent of the total food aid program. Most of this was in the form of grain or grain equivalent, but substantial amounts of milk powder, beans, rapeseed oil, fish, egg powder and beef are also provided. Almost 80 per cent of that went to four Asiatic countries, namely India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
During the same year, CIDA also provided $2 million in bilateral funds for international emergency relief assistance to 16 developing countries. The funds are given to the League of Red Cross Societies who offer medical and protective services, including food. When food is delivered to a developing country, Canada pays for the shipping costs. Most of the bilateral food aid is sold by the recipient government to its nationals. This is because the free distribution of food would disrupt internal production, creating a situation where food imports may be necessary indefinitely. The sale of food helps the recipient government generate funds for needed development projects.
Nearly 38 per cent or $89.1 million in food aid was offered multilaterally in 1976-77. Most of this went to the World Food Program. The remainder went to the UN Refugee and Works Agency and the United Nations Children's Fund. The World Food Program is the main focus of the UN's food aid activities, and it uses contributions from many national sources to organize projects that fall into three main categories: food for work projects, intended to help the recipient country improve its food production by offering food as a partial wage for workers engaged in development projects; vulnerable group feeding project, for children, nursing mothers, and the elderly; emergency relief projects, for victims of natural and civil disasters. For 1977-78, Canada pledged $150 million in food aid to the World Food Program, with an additional $50 million for 1978 should the need arise.
The food allocation, policy, and decision-making body of the World Food Program is the 30-member Committee of Food Aid Policies and Programs. Canada has been regularly elected as a member since the program's inception, and the newly elected Director General of the program is a Canadian.
In 1976-77, CIDA contributed over $35 million in matching grants to various Canadian and international non-governmental organizations. During that year, milk programs for the needy in third world countries were supported by six non-governmental organizations, including the Unitarian Service Committee, World Vision, Mennonite Central Committee,
March 10,1978

Canadian Lutheran World Relief, Cansave, and Food for the Hungry. CIDA contributed $500,000 in skim milk powder to these non-governmental organizations.
Following the 1974 World Food Conference that called for increased commitments to agricultural assistance and food aid by the donor nations, a federal-provincial program was set up to augment Canada's existing international efforts in this field. Under this program, donations may be made by provincial governments, Canadian non-governmental organizations, joint federal-provincial funding, private companies or individuals. The program is administered at CIDA. For example, during its first year of operation 600 tons of white beans were donated by a province for the relief of victims in the Sahel region of Africa, and 10,500 cases of baby food were donated to a children's hospital in Haiti by a major food processing firm.
The International Grains Arrangement was reached in 1967 and includes the Food Aid Convention. The Food Aid Convention aims to share more equitably the food aid burden among the developed International Grains Arrangement countries and to prevent food aid from interfering with normal commercial transactions. It is renewed annually and has a commitment of 4.2 million tonnes, of which Canada's share is 12 per cent.
The "Rome Pledge" covers the three fiscal years from 1975-76, and was undertaken at a time when Canada could sell all its food grains at top prices. It commits us to provide one million tonnes of food grains and $45 million worth of non-grain food, 20 per cent through multilateral channels. The ten million tonne international target has been reached, but there is less progress on the proposed forward planning of food aid. CIDA has been successful in placing its multilateral allocation, but since the Rome Pledge there has been a growing demand for non-grain foods due to unforeseen increases in the grain production of least developing countries, and CIDA has thus encountered difficulty in placing its bilateral cereal allocation. The Emergency Food Reserve has been established, to which Canada is committed to supply 10 per cent of a total 500,000 tonne food grain target. Money has been set aside in this year's budget to this end and, although no rules have been agreed upon, it is foreseen that there will be financial obligations in the future for replenishment.
With regard to the World Food Program, Canada has made a pledge for calendar year 1977 and 1978; the 1978 pledge is $50 million in grains, non-grain foods and cash. To the United Nations Refugees and Works Agency Canada has made a commitment of $2.5 million in food and $1.65 million in cash in 1978. Finally, there is Canada's statement to the June 1977 meeting of the World Food Council, committing itself to forward planning of food aid. Canada was also part of a consensus advising increased concessional aid, enlarging the proportion of grant basis food aid to least developing countries in serious economic difficulties, and the attainment of a minimum annual international food aid level of ten million tonnes of cereal in 1977-78.
One of the criticisms respecting CIDA and food aid programs is with regard to the benefit to Canadians in overall food production. During times of high unemployment, there
Food Aid
are many people who say to members of parliament that we should take care of our own house before going abroad to assist others. I am afraid we have not done a very good job of salesmanship. We must point out to average Canadians that in many cases we are assisting countries which have a per capita income of less that $300 per year. There are very few people in this country with such a low standard of living. However, that is the case in many least developing countries.
Those who criticize the government of Canada for assisting countries in perilous economic straits would do well to look at the earnings of people there. They will find they are much lower than those of Canadians. The people of Canada must with good conscience determine that it is of the ultimate benefit to Canada to provide a stability throughout the world, raising the standard of living of those who have deplorably low standards of living. There are economic benefits for Canada. If we cannot sell this with moral persuasion, perhaps we can discuss some of the benefits that can accrue to Canada.
Food aid is not large in relation to over-all Canadian food production, but the impact of moving grain and non-grain commodities can be significant to producers. Food aid also complements Canadian agricultural and fisheries stabilization programs. The two most direct benefits are reductions in excess commodities inventories, and value-added benefits which result from the use of excess capacity in food-processing industries. The indirect effects on employment, regional development, trade development, marketing and pricing, technology, energy use, foreign exchange and transport utilization are indeed difficult to measure, but nevertheless they have to be taken into account.
With the increasing emphasis on food aid and the interest shown by the public in the subject, CIDA has decided to concentrate its various activities in food aid on one Food Aid Responsibility Centre, which will be located in the multilateral branch.
At the national food strategy consultation which took place in February 1978, the Working Group on marketing and food aid came up with five recommendations relative to food aid. First, food aid should be an integral part of our national food strategy. Canada should place more emphasis on developing the indigenous food development capability of developing countries. Canada should play a greater role in emergency relief. Canada should also play a major role in food aid given to a country, taking into account its nutritional requirements; and finally, a domestic food aid program should be introduced into the strategy.
I commend the hon. member who brought this motion before the House. We have worked over a period of several years both in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence as well as at the seventh special session of the United Nations. I think he and I and many other members of this House would agree that if we are to play a significant role in the world dealing with food for the less developed countries of this globe, we must somehow make the urgency

March 10, 1978
Food Aid
known to those people who elect us to this Elouse of Commons. I think it would be fair to say that many people across this country have no comprehension of the hunger, starvation and depravity that exists throughout the world.
I was talking about self-interest earlier. Surely it is in the self-interest of Canada to have a stable world populated by stable people who have a decent chance of living and a decent amount of food to satisfy their hunger.
The opposite, of course, is equally true. If we have a globe populated by people who do not have the basic necessities of life-food, clothing and shelter-are they not ripe for revolution, and are they not ripe to be taken over by groups of people who may not have their interests at heart but may use them as ploys in international world politics? If we as Canadians look at the global situation, we must come to the conclusion that if at least we are not humanitarians we should look after our own self-interest. That self-interest is to assist by means of increasing the agricultural expectations of other countries; that is, to grow their own grain and raise their own food and, in the meantime, provide a bridge until they are self-sufficient. I refer to a bridge by way of CIDA through food plans.
I trust that Canada does have that role to play. If we have nothing else but self-interest at heart, we should think of the tremendous good will Canada as a nation is able to achieve as a bridging agent, without asking that we have any concessions in these countries. We do not want to station troops in these various countries. We have no self-interest as far as territorial ambition is concerned. We have a role to play as a neutral party interested in the development of these countries. I cannot give the exact quotation, but if we throw bread upon the water, I wonder what will come back. I wonder if in the self-interest of Canada we should perhaps look at this more seriously. We should sell this message across Canada so that public opinion, instead of being, "My God, what is the government doing again, giving grain to Bangladesh or somebody else?" will be: "Yes, it is in our self-interest", regardless whether we are humanitarians.
If we cannot sell this concept on a humanitarian basis, perhaps we should sell it on a self-interest basis. But we have to sell it because, as someone once said, it is about one minute to midnight and we do not have much time left. We do not have the luxury of debating whether this is a good or a bad program. That time has passed. The time for action is certainly here, and that is why I commend the hon. member for bringing this subject forward in the House.
Coming from British Columbia I know it is not an easy subject to broach. Unfortunately, a member of the media in Vancouver-and since I have freedom of speech in the House of Commons I will mention the name of Mr. Murphy of CJOR-has done everything in his power to hinder everything that has been done by CIDA. To go to Vancouver at this particular time and discuss CIDA is almost to have a lynch mob after you, because there are groups of people in Canada, such a CJOR's Mr. Ed Murphy, who have done everything possible to foment hatred-and I use the word "hatred" against Canadian aid programs, using the most least plausible

reason. If anything ever goes wrong, they tell you about that wrong in respect of these programs. Mr. Murphy has brought these wrongs to the attention of the people in that area.
That does not represent a balanced view because he is not giving the other side of the coin-the good these programs have done. All of us know it is difficult to operate these programs in areas where there is very little development. If things are going to go wrong, obviously they are going to go wrong in countries without transportation, where the communication is weak and where the infrastructure is not established. But that should not be a cause to decry these programs; rather it should be a plea to improve the situation in those countries, and it should be looked at in that context. We should not be emphasizing that something was late in being delivered and therefore something is wrong. If these countries had these systems in place I expect we would not be providing the aid to them in the first place.
I hope hon. members here will speak against the bigotry that does exist in certain parts of Canada. I suspect that only one argument is being heard. We are not hearing the good side of the story. It is important to the people of Canada that there be a balance and that the good side of these programs be brought out rather than negatived. I suspect, as a result of what has happened in the west, there are many people who do not appreciate the efforts made by CIDA and other non-governmental organizations. In the west we are now referred to as the bleeding hearts. If that is the case, so be it. It is my hope that there are more people in this country who will listen to their consciences rather than to the bigots of this country who will tell you that every dollar we spend to assist developing countries is being wasted and, therefore, must be stopped.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, even though this is a serious debate I hope I might be pardoned if I utter just a few words in a light vein. I should like to assure the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) that I am not one of those who ever frequents a weight reducing clinic.
Seriously, I want to commend the hon. member for Egmont for introducing this motion this afternoon. I want also to congratulate him on the excellent statement he made in opening the debate. Bearing in mind the profession that the hon. member and I share in common, I think I might say that he could well have made that statement as a sermon from any pulpit in any church in this country. If he had done that it would be expected of him to attach a text to the sermon. The text is a very obvious one, the words of which come ringing to us from across many centuries:
-they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
As I say, the challenge of those words comes across the centuries, and I doubt if any generation was ever confronted with that challenge more seriously than we are today. It is in that sense that I offer my warm congratulations to the hon.
March 10, 1978

member for combining these two serious problems; that of playing our part in meeting the food needs and the agricultural development needs of the world, and also playing our part in seeking effective disarmament. The statistics the hon. member gave this afternoon as to the amount we spend on research into how to kill each other as compared with what we spend on how to provide good health and a good life for all are shocking indeed.
I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson). Like him, I am impressed with what Canada is doing in the field, but I am also impressed with the great need to do a lot more; and I am sure that my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche), if he gets the floor, will have something to say about how much more we should be doing. I also realize, especially since the hon. member comes from a constituency near Vancouver where strange things happen over radio stations, that he feels the need to emphasize the self-interest aspect of aid programs, and I suppose there are some who can be sold the program only on that basis. But I hope that our motive in trying to do something about the needs of the world and the rights of people around the world is more altruistic.
I support the appeal in this motion because it is right and I hope we shall proceed further with it. As I have already said, I think the hon. member combines in this motion two very important subjects which face our generation. If I may quote again the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, it could be one minute to midnight. If we are going to survive as a race, as a society, as a world, we have to solve the problem that faces us, with two-thirds of the world's people going to bed hungry every night while the healthy and developed nations spend their resources on ways and means to blow the world to bits.
So I think this is a good motion and we are having a good discussion this afternoon. I hope that the government will pay attention to the views that are being expressed during this debate on both sides of the House.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) brought to the House a big concept and an important idea and has demonstrated that, as a politician and a public figure, he is consistent with the very fine traditions of Canadians who are concerned with what is happening to the less strong and sometimes less prepared members of the family of man on the planet on which we live. He has painted a rather vivid picture of what is happening throughout the world.
In terms of the madness in the arms race-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order, with the permission of the hon. member. Since the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) were both seeking Mr. Speaker's eye a moment ago, and since only 15 minutes are left, I wonder whether it would be fair to suggest to the hon. member for Davenport that the remaining time
Food Aid
should be split so that both hon. members would have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I offer this by way of a suggestion because I know that they both have something useful to contribute to the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is up to the hon. member for Davenport to decide if he wants to share his time.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the sharing of the time would affect the proceedings at five o'clock, and therefore I will put forward whatever thoughts I have without committing myself on the question of the sharing of the time, which evidently has a built in feature over which I would have no control on this side of the House. However, I appreciate the desire of the hon. member opposite to participate in this debate and I wish there were an easy answer to his request.
The motion before us today is an important one. It is good that the time of this parliament is taken up by the thought provoking opening statement of the hon. member for Egmont, and that we should devote time to this question, perhaps more frequently than we have so far. As I understand the motion, it raises two questions: First, how does the government provide food aid; and second, how does the government provide international agricultural development assistance? These are the two main components of the motion before us this afternoon.
The hon. member for Egmont in his motion provides a link between food help and the proteins consumed by Canadians. It is a rather intriguing connection and I have not come across such a concept before. I wonder whether such a link would provide the stimulus to increase food help which is being sought. Suppose that the consumption of protein by Canadians were to drop in years to come. We would achieve then, as a result of this guideline if it were to be adopted, an opposite effect.
Similarly, under part (b) of the motion, a link is established between international agricultural development assistance and the gross revenue accruing to Canada from the world's arms trade. If, as we all hope, the world's arms trade were to decline in the years to come, and therefore the gross revenue to Canada were to fall, then evidently such a guideline, if it were to be adopted, would result in less rather than more international agricultural development assistance, which I suspect is not the aim of this parliament nor of the government.
Therefore, I have some doubt whether these are the most effective guidelines that the government should adopt. In approaching this question of food aid and agricultural assistance, the following picture is painted, namely, that by the year 1985 a shortfall in world cereal production has been forecast to be as large as about 80 million to 100 million tons a year. In addition, this shortfall would seriously affect the developing countries which are short of foreign exchange and which would therefore find it difficult to acquire cereals on the world markets.
With a shortfall of this magnitude, food aid from surplus countries can only help the most seriously affected, and therefore it could be concluded that the solution lies in increasing indigenous production; that is, production within each nation.
3692

March 10, 1978
Food Aid
In the case of grains, of course, Canada meets this challenge by looking to the future and assisting various nations in local cereal production programs with the supply of potash and know-how.
Looking, first of all, at the supply of potash by Canada, we know that we have around half of the world's reserves of potash. Therefore Canada is in the fortunate position of being an international supplier of first rank. Canada makes potash available either on the basis of a grant to the poorest country, such as Bangladesh, or through the concession of loans, as in the case of India. In addition to potash, Canada makes small amounts of other fertilizers available. They are small in quantity but crucial in the component required for agricultural development.
India is the largest of the food deficit countries, and it receives a substantial share of our fertilizer assistance. As we all know, Canada has an agency which specializes in foreign assistance of this kind, the Canadian International Development Agency or L'Agence Canadienne de Developement International. As a nation we can take some credit for the enormous increases in cereal production India has been able to achieve in recent years. Last year India succeeded in producing an excess over consumption in cereals and is now in a position to stockpile. The contribution of Canadian potash to that success is recognized by India and its leaders.
In countries such as St. Vincent, CIDA has supplied fertilizers which have been sold to local producers, and the proceeds have been used to finance an agricultural credit project to permit still further agricultural improvement by the farmers and so to increase their productivity and their annual incomes.
Let us look for a moment at the other side of our efforts, namely, the provision of know-how to developing countries in need of assistance with regard to food. Here again, Canada can point with pride to a number of successes. For example, Tanzania asked for Canadian assistance in increasing wheat production some ten years ago, and there has been a team of Canadians working on this project ever since. Canadians have been simultaneously developing the technology required for an experimental station and assisting with its application on large wheat farms. With carefully selected varieties resistant to local rusts, with adequate weed control and moisture conservation in the dry season and with careful timing of seeding in relation to available moisture, the team has been successful in changing from a crop failure situation in the early years to bountiful harvests in the past two. Last year, 1977, the new farms using Canadian dry farming techniques and equipment supplied by Canada, with the assistance of a number of Canadian farmers, produced $2 million worth of additional wheat in Tanzania on land previously used simply for grazing.
By such efforts in Tanzania and fitting Canadian know-how to new situations we hope to be able to reduce slowly food aid shipments to Tanzania as local production makes them unnecessary, so that when the world's cereal shortage which is foreseen after 1985 occurs, Tanzania will be at least partially

protected by a vigorous local wheat production program. President Nyerere of Tanzania was so impressed with the achievements of the wheat team last year that he presented each of the farm staff with a bonus of 1,000 shillings. The Canadian advisers contributed theirs to the purchase of recreational equipment for the children on that 10,000 acre state farm.
Let us take, for example, sugar-cane, a crop regarding which we have little know-how. However, a Canadian invention to separate the rind from the inner pith, which contains most of the sugar, led us to finance studies in the Caribbean in which Canadians determined that sugar-cane could be the base for cattle feed. The result is that in Barbados a dairy herd has been fed sugar-cane, urea and rapeseed meal for more than three years, and milk production has actually increased over what it was when the cattle were fed grass.
Under the auspices of CIDA a demonstration of a feedlot for commercial beef production is under way in Trinidad, again using Canadian know-how to introduce a new industry, the beef feedlot, to the Caribbean. With this new use for sugar-cane a new industry which takes advantage of the tremendous tonnage of sugar-cane which can be produced in tropical climates is foreseen. This development, which is peculiarly Canadian, is being watched with interest in other parts of the world. It is now being applied in central America and in Mexico, and CIDA hopes it will find application in many other countries where sugar-cane can be grown. Fortunately, rape-seed meal has been found to be a very satisfactory part of the sugar-cane based ration and makes still another Canadian input for additional food production in developing countries.
In India, most of the success of the so-called green revolution, about which we have read and which is based upon new dwarf wheat and rice varieties, was located in irrigated areas or where rainfall was plentiful. India was concerned that there were not similar technologies and benefits available to the farmers who had no irrigation in the semi-arid and dry areas of that country. So India asked CIDA for assistance, and Canada had a team there which was knowledgeable about western Canadian dry farming techniques. That was helpful in the production of sorghum, millet, beans and other Indian crops. The dry farming techniques are very successful and can double production at the experimental station.
The present CIDA team in India is now working with Indian agronomists on how to adapt the new techniques, which require good weed control for moisture conservation and seeds placed in the soil at precise depths. Neither of these is easy to achieve with the primitive ox-drawn implements which are used in these dry areas. New equipment which suits India's needs and economic conditions needs to be developed in future years, and hopefully Canada will participate in that as well.
We have heard today about Canadian inputs, about fertilizers and about Canadian know-how. However, we realize that the problem of fitting Canadian know-how into developing countries' situations is not easily solved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.
March 10, 1978


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for sharing his time with other members of this House, which he said he would do. It is unbelievable what this man would do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, but in a different vein, I wonder if there could be unanimous agreement that Your Honour not see the clock for about ten minutes. There have been two speakers from the Liberal side but only one Conservative in this debate on a Conservative motion, and I think we would all like to give the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona about ten minutes.


Mr. Lachance:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) may be valid in principle, since this debate can be pursued later this session, I do not see why we could not wait until then if other hon. members want to take part in the debate.
Food Aid


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion that we not see the clock until ten after five. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the remarks made by the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), he mentioned that hon. members would have the opportunity to deal with this subject later. So, if we draw the logical conclusion from his remarks, he refuses to give his consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Since there is apparently not unanimous consent, the private members' hour is now over. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
80033-217/2

Monday, March 13, 1978