1978-04-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgency. In view of the announcement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) that the government is borrowing 1.5 billion marks through the Deutschbank-the third large borrowing or credit arrangement in two months, for a total of $5 billion-along with rumours that further borrowing will be required to maintain the Canadian dollar at its current rate, and in view of the fact that this extraordinary borrowing is mortgaging the next generation of Canadians to such an extent that they may not be able to carry the financial load, bearing in mind that government debt already costs $6.5 billion annually, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Finance request the governor of the Bank of Canada to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs immediately to inform hon. members what the financial situation is and how many more loans will be needed this fiscal year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Quebec National Assembly, including the Liberal party, have agreed that the federal government should reimburse Quebec for its selective sales tax cuts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the House direct the government to accept the advice of the National Assembly and reimburse the province of Quebec for its selective sales tax cuts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the body of evidence which has now been placed before the McDonald commission with respect to criminal activity by the RCMP, in view of the limited mandate given to the commission, one which contains no specific reference to recommendations for the laying of charges, and in view of the delay which may take place before the report of the commission is received, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the Solicitor General amend the terms of reference of the royal commission to provide that a specific mandate be provided to the commission as follows: "The commission shall make recommendations to the appropriate law enforcement officials of charges to be laid forthwith when prima facie evidence of violations of the Criminal Code comes before them."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 28, 1978


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering that certain psychic disturbances characterized by irritability, shyness, tremors, coarse, jerky movements of the lips, tongue and extremities and, finally, gross inco-ordination, can sometimes be caused by mercury poisoning, considering also that a federal-provincial study on pollution levels in the Ottawa River, not yet released but known to exist, is reported to reveal high levels of phosphorous and mercury, both seriously hazardous to health, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis):
That this House implores the minister for the environment, who admitted last April 19 in the House that he was aware of this particular report, to table the report forthwith so that residents on both sides of the river can understand the risks to their health and, in so doing, gather strong public support for all levels of government to intensify their efforts toward remedial action with better control to de-pollute the Ottawa River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of the Standing Order, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (U12)


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of a conflict between licensed cable operators in the province of Saskatchewan and the owner of the cable hardware, namely, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, with respect to a ruling of the CRTC concerning the use of channels by a co-operative network in the province of Saskatchewan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That this House direct the Minister of Communications to make a statement on motions at the earliest moment with respect to the position taken by the government, and particularly by the minister, with respect to this very important matter to the people of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VACANCIES
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that two vacancies have occurred in the representation, namely, F. Hugh Poulin, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Ottawa Centre, and John Gilbert, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Broadview, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of new writs of election for the said electoral districts.


TRIBUTES TO LT. COL. DAVID V. CURRIE, V.C., ON RETIREMENT AS SERGEANT-AT-ARMS
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will have noticed that today, as has been the case on almost every day that the House has been in session since January of 1960, the mace was carried into the chamber by a very distinguished Canadian, Lieutenant-Colonel David V. Currie, holder of the Victoria Cross, and the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The presence of a good many members of the security staff, over which the Colonel presides, in the corridors as he carried the mace today perhaps was an indication that this is a very special moment, because it is the last day on which the Colonel will fulfil that function. I have to take some responsibility for the fact that it may even have been an irregularity, due to the fact that the order in council appointing his successor has already been signed, and therefore he may be in here against the rules which he has been around to enforce for these 18 years. However, that is a responsibility which I will be glad to accept.
The responsibilities of the Speaker, at least those which are visible to the public, are well known. What is not well known is the range of responsibilities which touch the administration of the facilities which exist for members of the House of Commons, and that includes five buildings, two of which are under extensive renovation and all of which have to be provided with maintenance staff, security, all kinds of catering, restaurant facilities, and a whole range of services for which the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons bears full and total responsibility. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that any member of this House of Commons who has had the opportunity to travel to other legislative buildings around the world is able to return here and say that we rightfully take a very special pride in the first-class appearance and condition of these facilities which serve us in our work here in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 28, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: During the four years I have had the honour to serve as the Speaker, I can faithfully relate to hon. members that the dedication of the Colonel has been one which has gone far beyond the normal hours of work of anyone occupying any kind of post around these premises. He is here early in the morning and stays late at night. He is here on weekends, and he is always here when special events are on. He has served this House with such great devotion and dedication that I know all hon. members will want to join with me at this moment in saying to him, and to his good wife, that the rest and retirement to which he now proceeds are richly deserved, and all of the work he has done will make him one who will be fondly recalled and remembered by all hon. members of this House.
He is a distinguished Canadian, a distinguished soldier and a holder of the Victoria Cross before coming to this House. In this House he has served with the same kind of distinction with which he served his country prior to becoming the Sergeant-at-Arms, and I know all of us wish him a happy retirement and rest. Bon voyage; a job well done; and congratulations, Colonel, on behalf of all of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, your words have so well expressed our feelings this morning that it might seem unnecessary to add a single additional comment. However, this is one of the rare occasions in the House of Commons when the House can be in total agreement, even in the absence of all-party consultation. That total agreement, of course, is one brought about by our desire to express gratitude and good wishes to Lt. Colonel Currie.
I believe that words on this occasion can hardly do justice to the contribution that Colonel Currie has made to our country and to the House of Commons. Your Honour has already referred to his gallantry in time of war when he was awarded the Victoria Cross, held by very few persons. Indeed, in that select company Lt. Colonel Currie would be regarded as one of the most distinguished. He has carried into the House of Commons during his years of service that same dedication to duty and patience which was his hallmark during his service career.
I am sure that in all the years he has served us we have tried his patience and his endurance, but despite all these provocations he has maintained his fairness, his authority and his good humour. Accordingly, it is easy for me to express to him our admiration and respect on behalf of all those on this side of the House, and to add our good wishes to Mrs. Currie and to himself for many future years of happiness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be associated with my colleague, the government House leader, in this tribute to Lt. Colonel Currie today, not
David V. Currie
only as House leader for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition but in a very personal way. I hope that Lt. Colonel Currie has not forgotten that when he first came to Ottawa in 1960, he came to a very young lawyer, who has the floor of the House of Commons today, for advice on the purchase of his first house. It was on that occasion that I first met Lt. Colonel Currie. I have always admired his choice and judgment ever since.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He helped me, sir, when I moved into this House in 1972. I appreciated his kindness then, and his kindness to me and to all of my colleagues ever since.
In the citation recommending Lt. Colonel Currie's Victoria Cross, these words appear about him; that he showed "gallant conduct and contempt for danger." I can think of no greater attributes for a Sergeant-at-Arms in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: More than that, sir, it says that he "set a magnificent example to all ranks under his command". He has set an example to those who serve under him, to those of us who have had the privilege and honour of serving with him, of devotion to duty and adherence to principles. All of us in this House of Commons are sad to see him go.
I should like to join with my friend, the hon. government House leader, in paying a special tribute to Mrs. Currie. It was a happy occasion for members of parliament, during the course of their duties and their sojourn in this building, to meet Mrs. Currie, who is a kind, affable, warm and generous woman, second to none. I pay a very special tribute to her.
On behalf of my leader and my colleagues in the House of Commons, I hope the years of retirement for Lt. Colonel Currie are long and fruitful, that he enjoys the good health and the time to do the things which a very busy and distinguished career heretofore made impossible. He goes to the fruits of his retirement with our blessings and our thanks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join with Your Honour, and with the two House leaders who have spoken already, in this moment of tribute to our friend, Lt. Colonel David Currie. I do so on behalf of my leader and all members of the New Democratic Party.
I do so, as well, in a very personal way because of the privilege I have had these many years of being associated with him. In that connection, may I underline what has been said already about the fairness and the impartiality of his administration, which indeed carried with it a great many responsibilities. Certainly, Lt. Colonel Currie has performed the visible aspects of his office with distinction. He has been a part of this

April 28, 1978
David V. Currie
institution in a way that we shall long remember. But we are also conscious of the fairness and the impartiality with which he has dealt with the many requests we have made of him over the years.
Also, I join with the others in paying tribute to the gracious presence of Mrs. Currie. We have enjoyed very much having both of them with us in this building.
We are happy that Your Honour asked the House to take this time today to express our thanks to a distinguished servant of the House of Commons. Your Honour presented a problem when you suggested, because the relevant order in council has already been signed, that he is not properly here; but since the Sergeant-at-Arms is the only person who can eject someone from this place, I guess we have no option but to say we are glad he is still with us.
There is one other custom which is frequently followed in this place, namely, when comments are made by way of tribute to one in this place, that person can respond. It is unfortunate today that our rules do not permit a response from our Sergeant-at-Arms who is retiring. Perhaps that is just as well for the rest of us. He might have some things to say out of his 18 years of experience that are better put in his memoirs than on the record of Hansard.
On behalf of my party, I am happy to pay this tribute to Lt. Colonel David Currie. We are honouring him, but I should like to take the liberty of asking him to do something for me before he leaves the chamber today. One of my valued possessions is a book entitled, "Valiant Men-Canada's Victoria Cross and George Cross Winners", edited by John Swettenham. Before he leaves the chamber today, I should be very happy if Lt. Colonel Currie would autograph the page on which appears his picture and the citation related to his being awarded the Victoria Cross on August 18, 1944.
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, we, of the Social Credit Part of Canada, are quite pleased to join with other parties in extending our congratulations and thanks to Lt. Colonel Currie who has reached the age of retirement, and we are assured that he will know how to fill his retirement years as he did so well when he acted here, in the House of Commons, as Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. Speaker, I think that our party is doubly indebted to Lt. Colonel Currie, because members of our party have always sat closest to him, either to the left or to the right. I do not know whether it was because of our affection for him or if he was the one who attracted us to this side of the House, but we were pleased with it because we felt truly protected in the House. I feel duty bound to mention his sincere devotion towards us. When we first came here in 1962, since everything was new for us, we needed much guidance and it took a great deal of patience on the part of the Lt. Colonel. But we were fortunate enough to deal with such a diplomat-indeed I term him a

diplomat-a conscientious and honest diplomat and, Mr. Speaker, a fair and honest man is hard to find nowadays. He knew how to deal with problems quietly and promptly. We can say of Lt. Colonel Currie that he did well what he had to do. I think it is the finest tribute one can pay to him. I wish him and his wife a long and happy retirement.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the years roll by. My memory goes back to the occasion when Colonel Currie first took his position as Sergeant-at-Arms. Of all the recommendations I made during my period of office, none gave me greater pleasure than the recommendation that he should be the Sergeant-at-Arms. Great in peace, great in war, and great in the hearts of the members of this institution through the years!
There is nothing one can add to what has already been said, except a personal word to Mrs. Currie and the Colonel. May happiness and sweet content be yours for years to come. Colonel, you have earned a rest after having presided over this institution, in so far as the administration of the law is concerned, for so many years. God bless you both and keep you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The question period will conclude at 12.15.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It deals with the overview of the North American auto industry just completed and released by the treasury department in Ontario.
As the government has had these figures for several days, my question to the Minister of Finance centres on the revelation in the report that if Canadians had their fair share of employment in relation to retail sales in this country respecting the auto industry, we would have 25,000 more Canadians employed in that industry than we have at the present time: we would have 120,000 employed in the industry instead of 95,000 at the present time. Would the minister indicate if he agrees with that observation set out in the Ontario report and, if so, what is the government going to do to correct this imbalance?
April 28, 1978


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the occasion to read the report presented by the Ontario administration. On some scores it is a subject of disagreement. But I would like to inform the House of Commons that since we signed the auto pact some years ago, the situation in the auto industry has improved fantastically in Canada. We have more than doubled the number of jobs and activities in that industry compared to the situation before the auto pact. Of course, the auto pact is not a perfect instrument and the government is always working to improve it. This is what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is attempting to do at this time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Finance. It is revealed in the report that if Canada had its fair share of North American investment as far as the auto industry is concerned, we would have an additional $866 million invested in Canada. Would the minister indicate if any discussions have taken place with the large automotive manufacturers in this country with a view to, first, determining whether they are giving us a fair share of the investment and consequently jobs and, second, if not, why are they not giving Canada a fair share of jobs and investment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report. The report has been made public. Nor do I know whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has had occasion to read it. I would like to say that the auto pact has been extremely good for Canada, although it is not a perfect instrument. The hon. member should know the type of criticism that the auto pact is receiving day in and day out in the United States: the people there are saying that it has been too good for Canada.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Minister of Finance has indicated that the auto pact is extremely good to Canadians. The report from Ontario indicates that if we had our fair share of research and development in the auto industry, we would have 2,500 people employed in research and development in that industry alone, compared to virtually nobody at the present time.
Bearing in mind that $203 million, on average, in the last three years has flowed into the United States for research and development because we do not have people employed in that field, would the minister indicate whether he is aware of this fact? If so, what is his department doing to correct this imbalance?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of this imbalance and one of our major concerns is the fact that the auto pact did not make provision for significant research and development in Canada in this industry. I know my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, is negotiating with at least one of the major
Oral Questions
companies to establish a significant research and development facility in Canada.
To follow through on an additional point, it is my understanding that we enjoy in the automobile manufacturing industry, over-all, roughly 11.3 per cent of the employment and Canada represents approximately 8.8 per cent of the North American automobile market.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not accurate.


J. Judd Buchanan: Hon. members opposite keep saying it is not accurate, but I am told that the figures are, in fact, accurate.


CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-CANADA'S DEFICIT IN AUTO PARTS MANUFACTURE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the conclusions of the Ontario treasury and economic affairs department which state that Canada is not getting its fair share of the benefits of the auto pact. In my riding of Parry Sound, for example, many people are out of work, which reflects the human problems behind the mounting deficit in auto parts.
In view of the fact that investment in Canadian auto parts capacity is stagnant in this country, while it continues to increase in the United States, will the minister tell the House why this government allowed the $3.2 billion deficit in auto parts to develop and why it has done nothing to correct the situation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add much to the point made by the hon. member. I have just informed the House that we are working constantly on this problem. I remember that some ten years ago, when we decided to set up an auto pact, the number of jobs in relation to the market in Canada was approximately 5 per cent or 6 per cent. We have doubled that percentage in the last ten years and increased substantially the number of jobs in proportion to the Canadian share of the North American market.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not true.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You can always divide statistics here and there. I have said the auto pact is not perfect; however, it is a big improvement over the situation in that industry ten years ago. We are always working very hard to improve it.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, will the government assure the House that at the tariff negotiations at Geneva the auto pact will be treated as a package with other tariff measures, and there will be no signing of the GATT agreement without negotiation aimed at reaching a fair auto pact? Will he also assure the House that the standard tariff of 15 per cent which the automotive sector report said was vital to the health of the industry will remain in place?

April 28, 1978
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the auto pact is an agreement negotiated between Canada and the United States; it is not a subject for bilateral discussion at Geneva because the GATT negotiations are of a multilateral nature.


COST OF MAINTAINING FLOATING DOLLAR
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance concerning the recent announcement by his government that it intends to continue the insane policy of borrowing to prop up the Canadian dollar. Considering that the government has either borrowed or has on standby credit some $4 billion and is negotiating for another $1 billion, would the Minister of Finance confirm that the daily charges for the Canadian taxpayer, in terms of interest rates, for this monumental loan amount to approximately $750,000?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is false. I have replied to this question before. We are borrowing that money from abroad, which means that we do not have to borrow internally in Canada. Borrowing in either the United States or Canada involves interest rates. When we have American dollars in our reserves, if we lose those reserves the Canadian dollar balance-sheet increases and we do not have to borrow an equivalent amount in the Canadian market.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would answer the question. Will he tell us how much in interest charges it is costing the Canadian taxpayer by borrowing? I say it is approximately $750,000 a day down the drain. I would like the minister to correct that figure if it is wrong.
Dealing in terms of job creation, considering that President Carter of the United States has maintained a floating dollar which has been a major instrument during the past 12 months leading to a situation in which the number of unemployed there has been reduced by one million, while the number of unemployed in Canada increased by 100,000, would the Minister of Finance tell the House why he has not opted for the policy pursued in the United States, that is, not to prop up the dollar but to increase export sales to benefit from the result of a lower dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not on very solid ground. We used to be stronger than the American dollar, but in the past 18 months we have been approximately 12 points lower than their dollar. We floated our dollar and at the present time we are lower by 12 points. We are floating the Canadian dollar, but we are intervening in the market to ensure that it floats in a rational way. We have used this instrument to supplement the flow of capital into Canada that was lacking in the last three months.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance is the only one who could maintain a sinking dollar and a floating dollar simultaneously: that is some achievement. Notwithstanding the $750,000 per day he

is pouring down the drain in interest charges, has he read, or have his officials passed on to him a report prepared by the government of Ontario which points out that for each increase in the interest rate of 1 per cent, there is a negative impact on the economy-and we need stimulus in order to create jobs- of about $1 billion? If so, will he take action to stop any further increase in interest rates which the banks have indicated they are going to pursue?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we raised the interest rate of the Bank of Canada by 1 per cent last month and in fact most interest rates have not followed suit. For instance, Mr. Speaker, the interest rate on mortgages has gone up by one quarter of a point only whereas the interest rate of the Bank of Canada has increased by one point. Why? Because there is so much disposable savings in Canada at the present time that the various institutions compete against each other and therefore have not dared to boost their interest rates by as much as the Bank of Canada did, which is very good for the economy. As I see it, the hon. member's suggestion is not valid because the higher Bank of Canada rates have not been followed by a proportional rise in the interest rates of other institutions in Canada.


VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-EFFECT OF GERMAN BORROWING
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance for clarification. Did I understand the minister to say that the borrowing was made in Germany, that if it had not been it would have been made in Canada, and that the borrowing in Germany has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the Canadian dollar on the exchange market?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that we are borrowing in foreign markets in order to increase the amount of United States dollars in Canadian reserves. When, through speculation or otherwise, we lose some reserves, the United States money is transformed into Canadian money. We are not losing, we are just transforming United States dollars, through the exchange market, into Canadian dollars. Our cash balance increases by that much, and as our cash balance is higher we are not forced to borrow as much in the Canadian market.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have that explanation, but it is exactly opposite to what the minister said in answer to the first question. I ask the minister why the government does not borrow from the International Monetary Fund, where the borrowing rate is 30 points cheaper than it is in the commercial market?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we borrow from the International Monetary Fund only when we have exhausted our credit
April 28, 1978

and it is now obvious that Canada's credit is very good not only in the United States but also on the European markets.


NEW OFFER OF QUEBEC CONCERNING SALES TAX
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Following the last letter which the federal Minister of Finance addressed to his Quebec counterpart, a copy of which I have before me and for which I am deeply grateful, could the minister advise the House whether there have been any new developments in this conflict? Has the proposal he has made been received with either enthusiasm or reserve by the province of Quebec, and are there other possible solutions to this conflict which I consider very serious, considering the current state of the Canadian economy?
Hod. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance): It is like this, Mr. Speaker. In order to meet the particular situation which had resulted from Mr. Parizeau's unilateral proposals, I have modified my own proposal after consultations with my counterparts from the other provinces who had made commitments based on my proposal. I have changed mine and offered Mr. Parizeau to reduce the sales tax by 2 per cent on other items sold in Quebec and to assume the full costs. I am quite surprised that Mr. Parizeau should want to deprive Quebec taxpayers and consumers of this opportunity. I dare hope that when the election campaign is over sometime this year, Mr. Parizeau will realize that causing Quebec to lose this money will serve no purpose and that we will be able to compromise.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
As things do not seem to be improving, would the Minister of Finance be willing to remedy the situation by some other means, since the sales tax cut is intended to make more money available to consumers? Is the Minister of Finance willing to intervene in that field under federal jurisdiction, and let the provinces exercise their own jurisdiction, by reducing taxes at the manufacturing level which comes under federal jurisdiction? Thus the same objective would be attained, the same advantages would be given to all Canadian consumers and no one would quarrel. Is the minister willing to consider that proposal?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when my budget was being prepared, I did consider the possibility of reducing the federal sales tax, and had I not thought I could reach an agreement with most of the provinces, I should have opted for that possibility. The reason why I did not is that the federal sales tax is levied at the manufacturing level and I could not be sure that the tax cut at that level would have been passed on to the consumer while the provincial sales tax is paid after prices are set, and all Canadian economists, chambers of commerce and several other bodies advocated a provincial sales tax cut. That
Oral Questions
is why I offered to help them. Of course, if during the next five or six months, Mr. Parizeau maintains his stand, we may look into the alternative proposed by the hon. member, but then, if I resort to that, benefits will accrue not only to Quebec but to all the rest of Canada. In the circumstances, one must bear in mind that if Mr. Parizeau wants to deprive Quebec of $185 million, a solution must be found that is acceptable to the federal government and the finance ministers of the other provinces.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL CONSIDER QUEBEC'S SALES TAX PROPOSALS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday, I shall ask the following question as a good federalist, not as a separatist. The hon. member who has already asked a question saw yesterday that the unanimous vote includes the good Liberals in the Quebec National Assembly. Considering the unanimous vote to support Mr. Parizeau's proposal and given that in the manufacturing industries in Canada 30,000 out of the 36,000 jobs lost were in the province of Quebec, in a traditional sector such as the textile industry, is the minister seriously considering Mr. Parizeau's proposal without calling us separatists?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already made some observations on this subject. If Mr. Parizeau wants to help the footwear and textile industries through his budget, which is what we have been doing for several months when we imposed quotas on imports, I think he is free to do so. If Mr. Parizeau now wants to cut the sales tax on children's clothing, a tax which he imposed last year, when everyone was saying it was a foolish step, if he wants to correct his errors, we should not have to foot the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I think that no other province had ever put a sales tax on children's clothing. So, if Mr. Parizeau wants to remove it in his budget, it is his own responsibility. As far as I am concerned, I made a proposal which was accepted by all the other ministers of finance. As the federal government, we made a number of proposals to the nine other provinces, and now Mr. Parizeau comes after the fact, just like a hockey player who jumps on the ice after the others have gone to the dressing room, and tries to score. I think it is rather ridiculous.


OBJECTION TO USE OF &quot;SEPARATIST&quot; IN CONNECTION WITH QUEBEC SALES TAX PROPOSALS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: I have a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that in a recent memorandum the Minister of Finance informed his colleagues that he considers Quebec's proposal a separatist measure; in view of the unanimous vote given last night at the National Assembly and in

April 28, 1978
Oral Questions
view of the unanimous support given to the Quebec proposal by the minister's cousins, that is the Liberal members of Quebec, would the Minister of Finance have the honesty to withdraw the word "separatist", to answer all Quebecers- since all parties unanimously reject that word of the Minister of Finance-and to be fair, if only out of respect for his own province?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, during three weeks we have had discussions with the other ministers of finance of Canada-


Roch La Salle: Yes or no?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and we have made proposals-


Roch La Salle: It is a betrayal of the interests of Quebec. If I were you, I would feel embarrassed. It is a conspiracy.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: And during three weeks we have in good faith put forward proposals to the nine other ministers of finance. We have made commitments. Mr. Parizeau has decided he wanted something completely different. He can put what he wants in his budget. As for me, I say the Canadian government is prepared to pay the $185 million if the Quebec government agrees to reduce by 2 per cent, without any cost to the Quebec treasury, the sales tax on other items in Quebec. Thus Quebec consumers would benefit from our measures as do all other consumers in the rest of Canada.


Roch La Salle: I would be ashamed.


Mr. Ouellet:: Tell us what Mr. Levesque promised you, Mr. LaSalle!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. There being widespread objection across Canada to Idi Amin being present at the Commonwealth Games, will the Deputy Prime Minister advise whether, in view of his diabolical, murderous conduct, he has been informed he would not be a welcome visitor to Canada during those games?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there has been any direct communication with Idi Amin on this particular point. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already expressed the view that he would not be particularly welcome in Canada. However, as the

right hon. member knows, Idi Amin has made it a point to escalate his interest in these events, saying he will attend in order to gather international publicity, so probably the most constructive thing we can all do is to forget about him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There has been too much forgotten about him already. I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he brought to the attention of Idi Amin, either officially or diplomatically, the fact that he will not be welcome in Canada, with his record which shocks the conscience of all people who believe in democracy?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, that question was physically directed at me. I do not have responsibility for matters concerning the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will take notice of the question.


An hon. Member:: Turn it over to the McDonald commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised at the answer of the Deputy Prime Minister when he said the Secretary of State for External Affairs had answered this problem. I now ask him this question: Will he convince the Government of Canada to let Idi Amin know he is not wanted here, as he was told in respect of the prime ministers' conference in London last year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already commented on this particular point along the lines of the answer I gave. I believe the right hon. member suggested that we ought to make it clear that we do not welcome him to these games. I think I have already made that clear.


John George Diefenbaker: I don't think so; there is too much pussyfooting here.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. He informed us yesterday that presumably the 24 monthly reports covering the two-year period during which the present Minister of Supply and Services was solicitor general were destroyed. Can he explain today how a document of this nature, a report prepared exclusively for the Solicitor General, covering very important activities by a unit for which he is responsible, could be destroyed as a matter of routine procedure?
April 28, 1978

Second, how can such destruction take place without either a certificate of destruction or some record of destruction that would be immediately available to the Solicitor General?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows I replied to a question on the order paper relating to the destruction of records within the RCMP. I advised the House at that time there is no statutory requirement to keep any records of the destruction. I explained quite extensively the process that was followed in the destruction of these documents.


William Herbert Jarvis: To say the least, it is alarming that, regardless of the statutory requirement, any solicitor general would not want to know when records of such a vital nature are destroyed. Yesterday the Solicitor General said the directives were fairly explicit that this type of report be destroyed after three years, but the reports for 1973, 1974 and part of 1975 were not destroyed because of the establishment of the McDonald commission.
I point out as a matter of arithmetic that the McDonald commission was established in mid-1977. Therefore, we have at least 18 of these monthly reports which miraculously are available subsequent to the tenure of the present Minister of Supply and Services which must have been retained in contradiction of these fairly explicit directives. Why can we get the documents for 1973 and half of 1974 but we cannot get the documents which predate those?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the documents themselves are the subject of destruction, as the hon. member has said. The McDonald inquiry was not formed until 1977. Indeed, there was an explicit order issued by my predecessor that no further documents should be destroyed which could be material to the McDonald inquiry. That order was followed. If the hon. member has any knowledge of large administrations, he will know that sometimes explicit directives are not followed explicitly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: Is the Solicitor General telling us that his immediate predecessor found out about this destruction and ordered it to stop with the 1973 reports? If I understood him correctly, he said that a counter order to the explicit directive was issued by his predecessor. Will he tell the House now whether his predecessor found out about the 1971 and 1972 destruction? If so, when did he find it out, and as a result of finding it out did he order such destruction to stop?


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, Mr. Speaker, I believe the order was a more general one, not directed to any specific event but just to ensure that all evidence was made available. Questions were asked of my predecessor in this House relating to destruction policies by, I believe, the hon. member for New Westminster. At that time, the then solicitor general indicated that he had issued an order that no further document be destroyed notwithstanding the directives contained within the administration itself.
Oral Questions


EXTRAPARLIAMENTARY OPPOSITION LISTS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Since it was the practice in the crucial 24-month extraparliamentary period for which these surveillance reports are missing to compile lists called extraparliamentary opposition lists, can the minister tell us the connection between the extraparliamentary opposition lists and the surveillance reports? Also, are these lists still with the security analysis group, in his office at this time, or have they been destroyed? Further, were the people who were innocent and named in those lists notified and offered redress?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has directed a very involved and complex question to me: there was an indication that somehow the extraparliamentary opposition lists were connected with these documents. I want to assure the hon. member that there is no connection.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister: it is a return to questions on the Canada-U.S. auto agreement and why the government has failed to ensure that we get a proper proportion of jobs from it. The minister, in replying, said the Americans probably think it is too good for Canada. That is very likely true, given the fact that we have not been doing very much bargaining, and bearing in mind the government's defeatist attitude.
In order to ascertain government policy, I should like to put this question to the Deputy Prime Minister: Is there an alternative plan within the government to develop a national automobile industry if we do not get our fair share of jobs from the Canada-U.S. auto agreement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. gentleman's question is hypothetical, but I understand its implications. I gather he is recommending that we do away with the idea of a North American market for Canadian production and employment. That seems to me to be a somewhat unusual proposal.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be excused if I do not make recommendations to the government, since ministers do not seem to pick them up. The Deputy Prime Minister paid attention to only part of what I was saying. The fact that at present the government has no alternative to the auto agreement simply means that the Americans can thumb their noses at this country because we have no bargaining position. I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister whether we are prepared to go on our own with a national auto industry should we fail to get our fair share of jobs out of the auto agreement.

April 28, 1978
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe the Minister of Finance and others have stated in the House on more than one occasion that Canada has benefited greatly from this auto pact. Obviously there are problems which must be overcome, but to suggest that the pact be junked in favour of a Canadian domestic automobile market is, to my mind, somewhat preposterous.


Max Saltsman: I think the most preposterous suggestion is the one we have just heard, because Americans listening to it will simply refuse to pay any attention to improving our position. I asked the minister, and I hope he will reply, this question: Does the government have an alternative program so that we will not be at the mercy of the U.S. under this agreement and so they cannot do as they please with us?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already attempted to answer that question twice, and I do not think I would do any better if I were to make a third effort.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that it has now been twelve days since the minister announced in the House the decision to provide potato growers with stabilization payments, and in view of the fact also that the terms and the amounts of such interim payments have not yet been determined, can the minister advise the House this morning when a final decision will be made, since potato growers, especially in the maritimes, are protesting the fact that this decision is being delayed?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope very soon.


REVENUE CANADA
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister answering for the Minister of National Revenue who now rests in the other place.


An hon. Member:: May he rest in peace.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It concerns the circular sent out by Revenue Canada to all charitable organizations warning them that if they involve themselves in so-called political activities

such as writing letters to MPs or to editors, their status as charitable organizations, and hence their tax exemptions, may be cancelled.
Since in the minds of many Canadians this is in direct violation of the right of individuals and groups to take an active interest in issues of important political significance, will the government immediately withdraw these ridiculous guidelines and bring in an amendment to the Income Tax Act which would do away with these outdated regulations? I am sure the minister will recall that this matter was first raised by the hon. member for St. John's East-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not the Acting Minister of National Revenue.


An hon. Member:: Who is?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can tell the hon. member, however, that the circular or guideline to which she has referred is presently under consideration. I cannot give her any assurance that it will be withdrawn, but I can tell her that it is being looked at.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Will the minister give the House the assurance that an amendment to the Income Tax Act will be brought in to do away with these outdated regulations? Further, will he explain why at this time it was felt necessary, in light of the work done by the churches and charitable organizations in this country in addressing themselves to matters of social significance, to remind them that the making of written or oral representations "to all or mostly all members of parliament or ministers of the Crown as part of a campaign to influence intended or specific legislation is a political activity and as such cannot be properly carried on by a charity that wishes to maintain registered status"? What kind of interference with freedom of speech is that, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot give the hon. member an assurance that we will introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act with respect to this matter within a short period. If the House is in session for an extended period, it may be possible to do so. I will look at the portion of the guidelines to which the hon. member has referred and try to provide an explanation of why it was thought necessary to communicate this advice to the churches.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. According to recent reports, there is at present uncontrolled harvesting of fish stocks on the southeastern and southern edges of the Grand Bank just beyond the 200-mile limit, reports confirmed on Thursday of this week by officials of the Department of External Affairs.
April 28, 1978

Is the minister aware of this situation? Which countries are exceeding their quotas in this area where the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries still establishes quotas, and what steps does he intend to take to ensure that foreigners do not continue their uncontrolled harvesting while Canadians are required to adhere to strict quota regulations?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: There are reports that violations are taking place in the ICNAF area outside 200 miles. This question will, of course, be raised at the meeting of ICNAF which is to take place, if my memory is correct, in June. It is obvious that the regime outside 200 miles is in a state of flux until a new organization replaces ICNAF. This constitutes a difficulty. In fact, it argues rather strongly against those who believe that Canada's interests can be protected by closing the fence around waters within the 200-mile limit. In fact, we have vital interests outside that area. We are negotiating internationally. Indeed, a session of NAFO, which will be the successor to ICNAF, will be held in Ottawa for two days next week.
The situation to which the hon. member has referred may be just a pressure tactic on the part of some nations, designed to secure more liberal concessions, but we have made it clear that continued protection of Canadian interests outside will mean co-operation by Canada with respect to access inside. If there is a regime of disorder outside, we cannot then condone entrance into the Canadian zone to those who hurt our interests.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The fishermen from Digby who appeared before the fisheries committee last week complained bitterly about quota regulations, and the provincial fisheries minister in Nova Scotia stated publicly on April 26 that the federal minister had failed to honour his pledge to consult and cooperate with his department and local fishermen.
In the light of the arbitrary, restrictive and discriminating regulations which have recently been applied against Nova Scotia fishermen, regulations which do not conserve fish stocks, I ask the minister whether he intends to implement the promise made at the recent first ministers' conference and consult all provincial ministers and fishermen before implementing regulations. If he does this, hopefully he will gain some information which will help him resolve the offshore problem which presently troubles all Canadians.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises another very important issue, which is the access to Georges Bank by the scallop fleet which traditionally has not fished there. The allegation that there were no consultations really does not hold water. In fact, I met with the group in Nova Scotia many months ago. My officials met repeatedly in an effort to find a solution to a very simple conflict, which is the conflict of the interest of one group which is totally dependent on the Georges Bank scallop fishery and the interest of another group which has access to other
Oral Questions
types of licences. It is obvious that these are management problems.
As for the complaint of the minister from Nova Scotia, I really must say that we cannot have negotiations with fishermen's groups, with processing groups and with provincial governments and then try to synchronize all of these every time we have to make a management decision. It is obvious that in the case of the management of the stocks the federal government, which is responsible-and, by the way, which has to carry the can when there is a disaster-will continue to assume that responsibility, even if it means that at times provincial ministers are not satisfied.


CANADA MANPOWER
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration: it relates to advertisements appearing in the Daily Telegraph in London, England, placed by Bell Northern Research. Bell Northern Research is advertising for people to come to work in Canada where the main laboratories are situated in the green belt of Ottawa.
In view of the fact that this company is advertising outside Canada for employees, were these positions made available to Canadians? Were they cleared by Canada Manpower, especially in view of the fact that the electronics industry has been very hard hit: there is high unemployment in that industry. I wonder how the minister justifies the clearance of advertising jobs abroad when this industry has a very high unemployment rate.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pointed out that the advertisement was placed by the company. It was not placed by the government. We have made it quite clear to all industries and, as a matter of fact, to all governments that we have a "Canada first" policy and that if there are Canadians capable of doing a particular job, no one will be given either a work visa or a permit to come into the country to take that job.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that job openings in advertisements such as the one in the Daily Telegraph have not been cleared by Canada Manpower, and that if people in the United Kingdom apply for these jobs they will not necessarily be cleared by Canada Manpower? Has that not taken place previously?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the specific instance to which the hon. member refers, but in the ordinary course of events companies in this country are well aware of the fact that we have high unemployment, that we have a "Canada first" policy and that if they intend to bring people into the country they must be people with skills which are needed and which cannot be found in Canadians. If jobs can

April 28, 1978
Oral Questions
be filled by Canadians, foreign workers will not be given work visas or permits to come into the country.


FISHERIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and is supplementary to the question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore. Given the fact that by international treaty we already have mineral rights to the continental shelf, and that the continental shelf- and hence the Grand Banks-exceeds the 200-mile limit by certainly over 300 miles in places, is the minister prepared to use the substantial clout he has by virtue of his licensing authority within the 200-mile limit and the port facilities which we are now prepared to make available to foreign fleets to enforce quotas on our continental shelf? Failing this, is the government prepared to consider imposing the same jurisdiction on our continental shelf that we now have on the 200-mile limit?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am not an international lawyer but I think that the two issues, the question of mineral rights and the question of living resources, are quite separate. It is obvious-I think this is recognized by serious fishing countries-that there should be a regime of international co-operation in which stocks which move in and out of the 200-mile zone are managed as a unit and not fought over as they move in or out of the zone.
That would be a preferable system, and there is broad acceptance of the principle that Canada has a special interest outside the 200-mile zone. This is reflected in some bilateral agreements we have with at least five nations which have traditionally fished off Canadian shores. There is one difficulty: the European Economic Community finds it difficult to agree with that clause, but that will be the subject of further negotiation. I will certainly tie permits to access to the Canadian zone to behaviour outside the Canadian zone, because I think that is one of the strongest cards we have to play.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are two outstanding questions of privilege. One was raised by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) yesterday, and I indicated I would hear argument today. However, before doing that, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has given me notice of a question of privilege and also indicated that he may want to reserve argument to another day.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I just returned from my riding last evening, so this is the first opportunity I have had to raise in this House what I believe to be a serious matter. In my opinion this matter involves an attempt to intimidate a member and to inflict pecuniary loss on a member through the use of the judicial process.
It involves a dispute which Mr. Whitaker, the president of the Vancouver local of CUPW, believes he has with me as a result of statements I made on May 5, 1977, before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. There was an interview subsequent to those statements on May 6. On April 17 of this year I received a statement of claim from the solicitors for CUPW. I have been in my riding for almost a week. The writ was issued back in July of 1977, on the original statement made in May of 1977.
I have discussed this with research personnel here, and I am told that the matter is serious enough to deserve serious research on the part of the research branch of the Library of Parliament. Therefore, I seek Your Honour's permission to guard my question of privilege by raising the matter after it has been properly researched, on Monday or Tuesday of next week.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given notice, and requests time to research the matter before delivering argument. I see no problem.


MR. STANFIELD-SURVEILLANCE OF CANDIDATES SEEKING PUBLIC OFFICE
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion introduced yesterday in this House by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) on a question of privilege.
I have given serious attention to the hon. member's concerns because, in my view, they express the feelings of hon. members on all sides of the House not only as they relate to privileges of members but also as they relate to the cherished democratic process which brings them here. In a democratic society such as ours, where freedom prevails and where freedom is dependent upon the electoral process, we should not suffer from any interference which would either enhance or hamper the efforts of candidates seeking office.
Following the publication of the article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, April 26, some hon. members of this House may have been led to believe that there could be surveillance of candidates, which might be construed as interference, or that the RCMP may have been involved in surveillance activities in the past and again more recently, contrary to guidelines issued by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1975, and contrary to assurances given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to the effect that no member of this House has been the subject
April 28, 1978

of surveillance by the security service of the RCMP since 1968.
I wish today to deal with those concerns and dispel any doubts that privileges of hon. members of this House may have been infringed.
Immediately upon reading the article on Wednesday I convened a meeting attended by senior members of the security service. The allegations referred to in the article were raised, and the existence of the documents confirmed. I then read very carefully their contents and had the opportunity to get acquainted with and discuss at some length the process outlined in those documents.
During Wednesday's question period, and again during the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Halifax, I referred to those documents as being related to national security and indicated that they referred to procedures which were the subject of review by the McDonald commission.
I would now like to deal with the first issue raised in the hon. member's motion. Contrary to what the motion states, I did not refuse to provide information with respect to surveillance of candidates by security forces. I merely pointed out repeatedly the sensitive nature of the documents and their review undertaken by the McDonald commission.
I am pleased to review the procedure followed by security forces as it relates to candidates during an election.
When the names of candidates seeking office become available to the security service, a name check is conducted against a list of persons known to belong to subversive groups or involved in subversive activities. If and when a candidate is positively identified as falling into that category, the fact of his candidacy is duly noted, and the security service continues to be legitimately interested in his or her activities. The security service has no interest in the other candidates, and the fact that their candidacy is brought to the attention of the security forces does not result in the initiation of any inquiry and surveillance of those candidates.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I can reiterate to this House that no person who has been a member of this House since 1968 has been the subject of surveillance by the security service. As I indicated earlier to the House, and to the hon. member for Halifax on Wednesday, and in this instance refer the House to page 4888 of Hansard, this assurance had been given previously by the Prime Minister and by my predecessor.
As to the second issue raised in the motion, I never contended that the "McDonald commission was the only vehicle to investigate a question affecting the privileges of all members of the House of Commons." I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that no member of this House would advance that proposition.
I repeatedly stressed in previous statements to the House that the procedures contained in the operational manuals were the subject of review by the McDonald commission, and that, being relevant to security service operations, were not discussed openly in the House. Throughout my answers, and in
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
reply to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Halifax, I always referred to the procedures as being reviewed or under study by the McDonald commission, and again I never gave an indication that none of them could be discussed in this House.
I think that all members of this House realize the necessity of the existence of a security force. I am sure that the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) was stating the position of all members of this House when, in a letter to my predecessor on August 12, 1977, he raised that particular issue, and I quote:
In a free society, it is foolish to argue that no security forces are required. Both our own history and that of the modern world in general have revealed the existence of small groups committed to the use of violence in pursuing their objectives. No serious democrat can ignore this reality. Security forces have then a democratic mandate to monitor such groups as a means of ensuring civil order.
The mandate of the security service is one which is in accordance with the objectives seeking to protect our democratic institutions in this country. No candidate is the subject of surveillance because he adheres to a legitimate political party. But members must realize that if anyone in this country is acting contrary to the interests of our nation by advocating undemocratic means or violent means to attain their goals, those people then become legitimate targets of our security forces.
And this is where, Mr. Speaker, every member of this House, and every citizen of this country sharing our belief in our democratic system, must understand and realize the importance of countering activities which, under the cover of legitimate organizations, seek to undermine the basis of that very system.
I believe that the Prime Minister in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition last October stated very clearly the position of this government and the role of the RCMP when he said:
No person in Canada is immune from observation, surveillance or detection, if it is determined that such person has been or is engaged in activities that are defined in the Official Secrets Act as being subversive.
I am certain that members of this House share the concern of the government in ensuring that the political process not be interfered with by known subversive elements intent on weakening or even destroying our national democratic institutions. The political parties represented in this House will not stand for such an infiltration.
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no question of privilege.
Mir. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot): Mr. Speaker, first of all I believe that the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) has cleared up one aspect which formed the subject matter of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). If I understand the Solicitor General correctly, he has now confirmed that questions in this general area may quite properly be put in this House from time to time. That was one aspect of the concern of the hon. member for Halifax.
Secondly, the Solicitor General has confirmed the existence of documentary material generally called, I believe, an opera-

April 28, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
tions manual, or whatever title it might have, that would contain the procedures under which our security service would operate in terms of political candidates and their supporters. I would maintain that the existence of the manual may raise a question of privilege, sir. I believe the Solicitor General said quite clearly that there is no question of privilege because of the way the procedures have been implemented. I am not quite sure I am prepared to accept that, nor would I believe that many members would be quite prepared to accept that.
We have a situation where a person nominated for political office is checked against a subversive list. I do not know what lists are subversive. In this House we have heard for many months now about the EPO list. Is that a subversive list, sir? I do not know. My name may be on it, and other names may appear on it. It could be that the name of a candidate to be nominated tonight in any one of our ridings may be on that so-called extraparliamentary opposition list. In my opinion that would give rise to a question of privilege.
While the Solicitor General did not confirm the accuracy of the entire Globe and Mail story, neither did he deny it. For example, I notice in that story that a contributor who gives more than $10 to a particular candidate may be the subject matter of a report in the implementation of the procedures in this manual. I think that would affect my privileges. If a number of my potential supporters, who are prepared to contribute to my campaign a sum in excess of $10, might be subject to surveillance simply because their contribution was over that specific amount, I believe my rights and privileges would be affected. These contributors might choose to support me in ways other than monetary donations and similarly become the subject matter of surveillance under these manuals.
I am happy to hear from the Solicitor General the manner in which he believes a manual is being implemented. However, I would suggest that the mere existence of a manual, which is quite properly before the McDonald commission but in no way abrogates the rights of the highest court in the land, has to give rise, in my opinion, to the dangers that can flow from two things; the existence of the manual and the fact that its procedures are being implemented by cross-checking against certain lists of which I know absolutely nothing.
As a potential member of parliament from any one of the more than 280 ridings in the next election, I would feel very strongly that in this particular case this should form the subject matter of a serious question of privilege and be referred to that group of our creation which is charged with the responsibility for investigating such matters.
The fact that no member of parliament has been the subject of surveillance since 1968 is of precious little comfort. I am happy that is so, but it provides me with no comfort for the future. If a candidate for the 1978 or 1979 election potentially is subject to surveillance because of this manual, that provides me with little comfort. If he is the subject of surveillance

because he is a candidate and not because he has been involved in subversive activities-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


William Herbert Jarvis: The Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) can indicate no; but if a nominated person in my riding happens to be on the EPO list, for example, according to what was said by the Solicitor General, he can be subject to surveillance. That affects the rights and privileges of members, as well as of potential members. I am not sure there should be a distinction, because the ballot boxes determine that, and not the House of Commons.
While I welcome much of what was said by the Solicitor General, and his apparent willingness to acknowledge the right of hon. members to ask questions in this area, I disagree with him when he denies that this is the proper subject matter of a question of privilege.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we heard a good many words from the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) this morning. Of course some of them are reassuring, but we are not reassured as to the basic issue.
The question raised by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) deals with the fact that privileges of parliament may have been breached, because certain members of parliament are to be subjected to surveillance by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We realize that being a candidate or a member of the House does not grant absolute exemption from normal security inquiries. What we are talking about here is someone who, by reason of his candidacy, is considered to be subject to surveillance. We are told the only persons concerned in this matter are those who are on a list of subversives.
The word "subversive" is so broad that it might include a wide variety of individuals. We do not know which of us is regarded by the police as being subversive for some reason or other. We do not know which of the candidates in the forthcoming election will be regarded as subversive. So, we are left with the proposition that a list can be used for the purpose of selecting members of parliament to be put under special surveillance. This is not because they were suspected of some wrongdoing long before they became candidates or members, and thus are subjected to surveillance, but simply because of the fact they were nominated, and thus are subject to potential surveillance by the police. That is an infringement of the rights of hon. members.
I forgot to bring with me the report of a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday. The report appeared in the newspaper this morning. He defined the list of those who could be subjected to surveillance, which definition was far more broad than that of the Solicitor General. The definition of the Solicitor General is very loose. I do not know of anything which could be considered looser than the use of the word "subversive". For example, in the State of New York, under the American constitution the word "subversive" has been found to be unconstitutional because of its vagueness
April 28, 1978

and the impossibility of giving any particular meaning to it. What we are told envisages an investigation which may well breach the privileges of members of the House.
I hope I correctly understood that the minister withdrew his suggestion which indicated that because some of the matters involved in this were being considered by the McDonald commission, the privileges of this House may well be curtailed. I understood him to withdraw that suggestion. Thus, obviously it is not worth my time, nor the time of the House, to enlarge upon it. However, I want to repeat what I said the other day. This House is supreme. Perhaps it is some sort of perversion that a person cannot be tried twice on the same matter; but because subject matter is being looked into by a commission there is no reason for the rights or privileges of members to be curtailed in any way.
I am not clear as to how far the minister withdrew his suggestion. I think he indicated that it was not a consideration. He referred to this subject being a security matter once again. I warn the minister and the House against taking a blanket like the word "security" and casting it over entire subject matters. In the name of security, crimes have been committed and many rights have been denied to people. The use of the word "security" as an alibi for wrongful deprivation of rights is all too common.
If a member of this House is accused of some subversive activity, he is not subject to immunity; but because his name happens to be on a list he should not be subject to surveillance. We know how accurate these lists are and the lack of gifts certain police officers have in their selection of people who are regarded as being subversive. In fact we have been told that everyone in the province of Quebec who is a separatist is also a subversive. I do not have to agree with separatists, but the idea that the entire province of Quebec and a large number of the people in that province are subversive is absurd. Therefore, I maintain the question of privilege put forward by the hon. member for Halifax is proper.
I hope Your Honour will consider the matter and that it will be referred to committee. There is nothing which infringes the privilege of members more gravely than this. Simply because a person ventures to run for office does not mean he should be subjected to surveillance, which otherwise he would be free of, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a certain amount of misunderstanding as to the procedure which is alleged to be the basis of this question of privilege. I hope I can assist in clearing up some of that misunderstanding. Before doing so I should like to refer to the motion before us submitted by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield).
If the allegations in the motion were found to be accurate, and I submit they are not, I do not see how the motion itself could become the basis for a question of privilege. What the
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
motion does is make allegations against the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) that he has refused to provide certain information and has taken a certain view in respect of the McDonald commission and what is its role. Even if the allegations were correct, I do not believe the motion itself is a basis for privilege. It could be a grievance against the minister registered by the hon. member for Halifax.
However, even within the motion there are a number of factual errors. For example, it is assumed there is surveillance by the security forces of political candidates. Of course that is not the case. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), in the course of his remarks, returned again and again to the notion that merely because a person was a candidate for political office he was then a fit subject for surveillance by the RCMP or by the security force. Of course that is not correct.
It ought to be put clearly on the record that we are not dealing with a procedure that has been commenced recently. I am advised that this particular procedure, which is the subject of these discussions, goes back to the mid 1940's, and that it may extend earlier than that. Certainly it was not commenced in 1971, which is the alleged date of the manual. It extends back to the mid 1940's and includes the regime of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his predecessor, of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and of several prime ministers earlier than that. It is very difficult to suggest, on the basis of history, that the privileges of the members of parliament have been infringed upon in any way as a result of this particular procedure.
There is a feeling constantly being put forward in the House of Commons that because we are members of parliament we have special privileges, and that special privileges are sought for members of parliament on such a broad front. I was elected to this House of Commons not to extend privilege but to do as much as I could to narrow the scope of privilege, and I take a rather dim view of the suggestions that have been made, not only in this case, that members of parliament have certain privileges which are not available to other citizens of the land.
I want to make the point very clear that privilege is a very narrow concept when it is applied to members of parliament, and we ought to be rather prudent and economical in attempting to draw to ourselves certain privileges which are not accorded to other citizens and are not necessary to us in order to discharge our duties as members of the House of Commons.
If this particular procedure has been in operation, as is my information, since the mid 1940's, it is difficult for any hon. member to suggest that his performance as a member of parliament has in any way been infringed.
What the Solicitor General has said is that the names of political candidates are cross-checked against existing information within the security service. There is not an investigation of candidates, there is not surveillance of candidates, and there is not a reporting upon of candidates as has been suggested in the press and in the House.
Names of candidates are checked against security information within the files of the security service. It is another matter

April 28, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
to debate what is security, but we are not debating that today. The names are checked against existing information within the files, and if a particular name is correlated to existing information then that particular candidate could be of further security interest to the security service, and that is all.
Surely it is the mandate of the security service to direct its efforts against subversion and subversive activity in Canada conducted by any person against Canada. That mandate reflects the provisions of the law of the land contained in the Official Secrets Act and other federal statutes such as the Criminal Code.
Any argument that the security service ought to be fettered simply because an individual is a candidate for public office or, indeed, if he becomes elected to the House of Commons, would certainly be contrary to the spirit of the letter of the law and, I believe, to the wishes of the Canadian people.
It is assumed in all the arguments that any particular individual who might become a subject of interest to the security service because of information already existing in the files of the security service has provoked a reaction or provoked a response that might require further interest on the part of the security service. To suggest that candidates or members of parliament are the object of surveillance, investigation, or reporting upon during a campaign is wrong. It is only when a particular name has a correlative body of information within the security files that any further interest is exhibited. That is as I understand it.
The fact that the interpretation has been quite strict and narrow is, it seems to me, clearly demonstrated by the assurance that has been given by the Prime Minister that no member of parliament has been the subject of surveillance by the security service during his period as prime minister. It seems to me in this particular case it is impossible to draw exaggerated conclusions from a practice that has existed for a long time and which, in its application, has not resulted in surveillance by the security service of any member of parliament during the last ten years.
I am not going beyond that because what I have said is not to suggest that surveillance has taken place earlier, but the assurance has been given that it has not taken place during the leadership of the present Prime Minister. We are talking about a varied procedure, as I have described, which comes into play only when a name provokes a response based on existing security information, or if there is an association with subversive activity. I do not believe that this can be concluded as being a breach of the privileges of any member of parliament, or the breach of the privileges of any citizen of the land who would be subjected to precisely the same kind of interest.


William Herbert Jarvis: That is not right, that is the point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members may say that candidates for elective office should not be treated in this way at all, and I can agree with that. That can be argued both ways, and I think that on the grounds of privilege it is very difficult to

argue that this particular procedure, which has been in effect since 1945 and which has not resulted in the surveillance of any member of parliament, on the assurance of the Prime Minister, in the last ten years, could be construed as a breach of the privileges of the members of parliament. I am not implying, by using the ten year period, that it has not occurred earlier. I am using the ten year period because it is based on the statement that has already been made by the Prime Minister of Canada. I hope that we are not drawing unwarranted, exaggerated conclusions from this particular procedure that has operated in the way that I have described. I have attempted to describe the situation faithfully based on conversations I have had with the Prime Minister and others who are involved in this particular problem.


Mr. Speaker:: I see that four other hon. members have indicated their desire to contribute to this discussion. Obviously, it will have to be continued after the lunch hour adjournment.
There is a matter to which I would like those who are intending to participate in the debate to direct their attention. What the hon. members are concerned about, and what they ought to be concerned about, is whether in fact some regime or procedure exists which may call into surveillance a candidate for office to the House of Commons, or in fact a member of the House of Commons. That is the concern that is at the core of the question and, certainly, the members who have spoken already have expressed their concern about that.
The difficulty that I want to bring to the attention of members at this time is that we are now arguing this point under a motion which has got two procedural difficulties and which, in fact, prevents us really from arguing the basic question. I have permitted hon. members to argue up to this point, and I indicate that I will let other hon. members participate-the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). There may be others as the discussion carries on.
Before one o'clock, perhaps we may be able to solve the problem that the present motion raises. There are two matters: first, the refusal of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) to provide information, and secondly, the contention advanced by the Solicitor General that the McDonald commission is the proper vehicle for this. Regardless of the arguments one way or another as to the merits of both matters, the Solicitor General has in fact denied those statements. He has said that he has provided information and, furthermore, that he has never contended that the McDonald commission is the only vehicle for this. He has said that today, and whether that can be totally accepted or not is not the point. It merely brings it into dispute.
Therefore, in a very fundamental, procedural way, what we are talking about is a matter that is in dispute and that has never formed the subject matter of a question of privilege. We have never taken a dispute or a disagreement between members of this House and transferred it to a committee to
April 28, 1978

determine who is right and who is wrong. Thus, we are labouring at least under that procedural difficulty, and possibly others. The hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) may be right when lie says that, even if these allegations were true, they might be a grievance and not a question of privilege.
For the moment, let us agree that we are labouring under difficulties which seem to be insurmountable in the procedural sense, and, even if it did constitute privilege, it has now been denied by the Solicitor General which, therefore, makes it a matter of dispute and not of privilege.
The difficulty for the Chair is that that procedural problem does not set aside the basic problem that rests at the core of this matter, which may now come to light, or it may not, I do not know. However, the contributions that have been made now indicate that there may be some regime in existence which may be offensive to members and which they may want to put in the form of some motion. I refer, not to the actions of the Solicitor General, but to the existence of some regime, if it is in fact an offensive one, that has been disclosed today in argument.
I am considering that those members who may want to participate would be better served in their position if the contributions to the debate today could be reflected upon. Of course I would set aside the outstanding motion on procedural grounds, because I have to do that on the basis of what I have just put forward. Then hon. members who are concerned with this problem will have the opportunity to examine the contributions that have been made and to determine if, in their opinion, there is at the core of this the existence of some regime. This in turn might form the substance of another motion which could be renewed and introduced on Monday.
However, I am perfectly prepared, in fairness, to hear all the hon. members before trying to decide on this particular question of privilege which, in any case, would be without prejudice to the introduction of another motion on the basis of these arguments. In any event, we ought to deal with this basic procedural problem, and I am in the hands of the members who I have already indicated are prepared to participate. Perhaps I could have some indication as to how we should proceed.


Walter David Baker: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that we basically deal with these things from a procedural ground. That is not a criticism, but merely a comment. I could give you argument as to why, when the motion was put by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), it was relevant on the day it was put from the point of view of the question period of that day. However, that is something I feel I should not engage either you, sir, or the House in at this point.
It is important that we examine the statements made today in light of what has been said by you, sir, on procedural grounds so that the matter will not be lost and we can deal with the merits of it. The merits certainly are not those put forward by my friend, the government House leader, that any
Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs
member of parliament, least of all the member for Halifax, was trying to garner unto himself as a member a matter of special privilege that ought not to be vested in anyone else in the community. The fact of the matter is, and my friend overlooked it or skated around it, that with respect to political candidates there is a special manual.
The question that arises in my mind, and I am sure in the minds of a lot of people, is whether there is a special manual for lawyers, bankers, priests and others. The question is just what is the procedure, and not that a security procedure exists. Having said that, sir-and if you could take your eyes from the clock for a moment-would it be appropriate, since the hon. member for Halifax is not here, if we did stand this matter over until Monday so that he could consider what was said? He could also consider your observations with respect to the motion, and then we could deal with the matter on Monday in a way that would be procedurally correct. With respect, that would be my suggestion to you.


Mr. Speaker:: The only other step that I had in mind would be to set aside this particular motion on procedural grounds, without prejudice to the right of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), or for that matter to any other member, to reintroduce a motion on the same subject. I do not have to take that step now, however, but I wanted to indicate my thinking on it.
There is a procedural difficulty with this particular motion, but there still is at the core of the matter the possibility of a regime which may be odious to members of the House of Commons and which might form the subject of another question of privilege entirely. Therefore I shall suspend further discussion on this particular motion until Monday afternoon at three o'clock, at which time there may be an indication, after study, that some other motion might be introduced or some other indication that might be helpful to the House in these deliberations. This matter is therefore suspended.
Before leaving the chamber I wonder if we might not attempt to tidy up the routine proceedings in order that we may go to orders of the day at two o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Trudel.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
4978
[Stage Direction]
April 28, 1978
Order Paper Questions

Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table three copies, in both official languages, of the Economic Review prepared by the Department of Finance and dated April, 1978.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: for leave to introduce Bill C-50, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 1,417.
f Text]


PRIVATE PENSION PLANS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons are receiving pensions from private pension plans, such pensions being based on employment in Canada, and what is the average pension per month received by such persons?
2.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part 1, how many (a) are having their pensions escalated annually at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) are having their pensions escalated annually at a lesser rate (c) receive no annual escalation of their pensions?
3.	How many persons are contributing to or are enrolled in private pension plans based on their employment in Canada?
4.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part 3, how many are in plans which provide (a) after retirement, for an annual escalation of their pensions at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) after retirement, for an annual escalation at a lesser rate (c) for no escalation, after retirement, of their pensions?
5.	How many persons in Canada are receiving retirement benefits from annuities, insurance plans, retirement savings plans, or other schemes apart from employment-related pension plans, and what is the average amount per month received by such persons from such plans?
6.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part 5, how many (a) are having such benefits escalated annually at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) are having their benefits escalated annually at a lesser rate (c) receive no annual escalation of their benefits?
7.	How many persons in Canada are enrolled in retirement plans of all types other than employment-related pension plans?

8.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part 7, how many are enrolled in plans which will provide, after the payment of benefits commences, for (a) an annual escalation equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) an annual escalation at a lesser rate (c) no escalation?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: 1. In the taxation year 1975 benefits from private pension plans in Canada were received by 690,500 beneficiaries. The average benefit for the year was $2,607.
3.	Participation in private pension plans in Canada stood at 3.9 million workers at the beginning of 1976.
4.	(a) 754,517 members were in plans that provided for the annual escalation of pensions after retirement at a rate equal to the Consumer Price Index, (b) 281,343 members were in plans that provided for the annual escalation of pensions after retirement at a lesser rate, (c) 2,866,638 members were in plans that provided no escalation of pensions after retirement.
In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8: There are no departmental programs to capture this information either by analysis of documentation filed for registration purposes or through filing of special information returns.


Yvon Pinard: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Bud Cullen for Mr. Andras, seconded by Mr. Ouellet, moved that Bill C-10, to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
April 28, 1978
Mr. Campbell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the consent of the House to revert to presenting reports of standing and special committees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent to revert to presentation of reports?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before reverting to orders of the day and putting the question to the House for third reading on Bill C-10, I draw the attention of hon. members to a discrepancy that appears in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. The English version indicates that the motion in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) on Bill C-10 was negatived. In the French version it is indicated that it was adopted. I wish to inform hon. members that a correction will be made and it will be indicated in both versions that the motion was negatived.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen (for Mr. Andras) that Bill C-10, to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be back in Ottawa, having arrived back last night to find Bill C-10 before the House. I am sorry I missed the opportunity to debate it on second reading but I am grateful to be here to make a few comments on third reading.
Financial Administration Act
In my capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Pulbic Accounts I would take this opportunity to pay tribute to the members who have served so well and worked so hard this session on that committee. We have been deeply involved in the subject of the establishment of a comptroller general as well as in finding ways to improve the financial control and management systems throughout the departments, agencies, and Crown corporations of the government.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to the members on the Public Accounts Committee from the government side. I hesitate to single out any particular member, but in the work we have been doing these last few months, involving an average of four meetings a week, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre), the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), and I have all worked long and hard on the second report of the committee on Crown corporations, which we tabled two weeks ago. For members on the government side, particularly, this is a low profile committee which works hard at fundamental subject matter, trying to build a new and stronger foundation, under the operation, control, and management of our federal resource. I am grateful to these members as well as to my colleagues on this side of the House for the hard work they have put into the carrying ont of their responsibilities.
I would also like to pay tribute to the Auditor General, Mr. J. J. Macdonell, who has presented the House with three fundamental reports which have led to improving the structure, the financial management control system and the degree of accountability. He has acted in a manner which will relieve the Public Accounts Committee from having to deal with matters which repeat year after year in the Auditor General's report. As a result of Mr. Macdonell's approach to his responsibilities, and he is an officer of parliament reporting to parliament through the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, a sound foundation is being laid for the departments, agencies, and Crown corporations of the federal government, and I believe the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is functioning in a manner whereby proper review and accountability are now being noticed throughout these various aspects of the federal government.
In considering Bill C-10 to amend the Financial Administration Act, an act primarily to appoint a comptroller general, it is important to note that the growth of government has probably been too fast and has been ahead of any infrastructure offering the type of control and accountability that we, as members, should demand on behalf of our constituents.
The tireless efforts of the Auditor General through the Standing Committee on Public Accounts have brought a realization that a chief financial officer is indeed needed at the Treasury Board level. Having worked on this subject matter for some time now, I can see the sense of the chief financial officer, the comptroller general, reporting through the Treasury Board to the House, though some of my colleagues may disagree with me. He is the one responsible for putting in place within our agencies, departments, and Crown corporations,
4980

April 28, 1978
Financial Administration Act
mechanisms which will demand a better performance in the management of our tax resource.
The Auditor General is always dealing in a post-audit capacity, and the Public Accounts Committee is always dealing after the fact. Now we have a man who can start to structure and put in place very capable people. Although I have not met Mr. Rogers I look forward to doing so. Comments I have already heard about the gentleman are very well worded indeed and it would appear that this thirtieth parliament will at least have taken an effective approach to financial management controls and utilization of the tax resource. It will be up to the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in the future, along with the Auditor General, to make sure that this new office functions properly. I am sure it will come under review on at least an annual basis.
The duties, responsibilities, and relationships of the comptroller general are well known. They are on public record in several places, and for the purposes of this speech I can refer to the statement of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), made in this House on April 25, 1977. Again, in the 1977 Auditor General's report, on page eight, the Auditor General highlighted the duties of this new officer, and I would like to put them on the record again at this time. I am quoting from paragraph 2.7 of the 1977 Report of the Auditor General as follows:
In general terms, the comptroller general will be responsible to the Treasury Board for the quality and integrity of the financial control systems and administrative policies and practices in use throughout the federal public service. The greater part of the responsibilities of this new office will comprise those which were assigned to the Financial Administration Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat, on its creation in March 1976. There will be a special "functional" relationship between the comptroller general and the chief financial administrators of departments, agencies and corporations, thus enabling the Comptroller to provide necessary guidance, while maintaining the principle of decentralized management adopted as a result of the Glassco Commission's recommendations ...
By this action, this appointment, which will entail a major restructuring of the Treasury Board Secretariat, we reiterate our determination to maintain the highest possible standards of control through the creation of an office that could best be described as the "chief financial administrator of the Federal Public Service".
These duties and responsibilities are also outlined in the report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates of March 16, 1978, issue No. 7 at pages 14 and 15. I will not burden the listening ability of my hon. colleagues, but I suggest that the responsibilities of the comptroller general as outlined there are very important. There are about 20 of them in all, and it would probably take too much time to put them all on the record here in this House.
I think it is important that we do not lose sight of the fundamental recommendations of the Auditor General. One of those recommendations is that we should establish the office of comptroller general, which we are doing with Bill C-10. It would be advisable to select carefully a truly outstanding individual as the first comptroller general. I understand that Mr. Rogers has come to us and is prepared to take this position. He comes to us from a very high and successful

position in the private world. I would like to pay tribute to that man for placing the public interest and his own sense of responsibility ahead of material gain which he could perhaps have continued to enjoy in the private sector.
I pay personal tribute to him for coming into the federal system and accepting this high and important office. He will be pioneering the role of delivering to the people of Canada a new standard of accountability and a new and more effective utilization of resources. I think it is very important that he not only audit and put into place control mechanisms for financial accountability but also, as part and parcel of that internal audit system, that he go back and view the original objectives which brought about the original appropriations. In too many cases we have found that departments, agencies, and some Crown corporations have gone far beyond the parameters which were originally intended. Mr. Rogers, the new comptroller general, certainly has a challenge ahead of him and, judging by what I hear, he is certainly the man who can lead us out of the wilderness and into a more disciplined way of life and standard of performance.
I would not like to lose sight of the major task which will confront this office, and that is to regain control of the public purse. I believe a few people have quoted from reports of the Auditor General which pointed out that public expenditures are out of control, so with this appointment we have a chance to regain control of public expenditures before the fact rather than after the fact. We will have a chance to control the growth of government expenditures to the extent that the Canadian taxpayer will get value for his tax dollar in terms of economy, improved efficiency, and effectiveness of government programs.
That leads us to another very fundamental concept which the Auditor General would like to see, particularly through the office of the comptroller general, and that is the value for money concept which has been so lacking in the past performance of this government, its departments, agencies, and Crown corporations.
Another objective is to improve greatly the present state of financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of government which, according to the Auditor General in his 1975 report, is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness. Another objective is to improve greatly the present weak state of financial management and control in Crown corporations by providing the necessary co-ordination and guidance which, according to the Auditor General in his 1976 report, are virtually non-existent.
I am basically not in favour of putting the comptroller general into a straitjacket at this time. I can understand the anxiety of my hon. colleagues on this side of the House who say they do not trust the government on the basis of past performance. They have tried to tie this new office down within some parameters which are recognizeable and which can be defined, but I submit that in the references I have given, and particularly in the record of proceedings of the Standing Commmittee on Public Accounts regarding responsibilities of the comptroller general, the government and the
April 28, 1978

Treasury Board have made it clear as to what these responsibilities will be. The Auditor General has urged that this new office be created to watch the situation, and there are some very knowledgeable people on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts who will be watching with astute interest and who will be very anxious to see what is happening. If this new office fails, it will be our fault for not following through with a continuous watch on procedures and on improvements. I question whether we should tie the new comptroller general into a strait-jacket. He comes to us well recommended and with a reputation for great ability at organization.
I suggest that the new comptroller general be given a period of time to review procedures and the concerns which are on record, and to meet with the Auditor General, the President of the Treasury Board, and the various officers of the Treasury Board. I can see coming out of that a pattern of gradual organization which will last well into the future. If that does not happen, then we in this House must again make demands through the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Let us not forget the important distinction between the responsibilities of the comptroller general and those of the Auditor General. I remind hon. members that the comptroller general, as the most senior financial officer of the government, must be responsible for the introduction and implementation of sound financial systems and the correction of defective systems, and can be accountable to parliament for the financial policies of the Treasury Board and for their successful implementation. The Auditor General, on the other hand, as an officer of parliament, must be responsible to the House of Commons for the annual statutory review of the accounts of Canada and for the identification of financial mismanagement, inefficiency, waste and so forth in government departments, agencies and Crown corporations owned or controlled by the government, including the office of the comptroller general.
The duties of the Auditor General are well established. The function of the Public Accounts Committee of reviewing the progress of departments, agencies, and Crown corporations and their financial management and control systems is also established. That review process is well in place and working. The committee calls before it only those departments, agencies, and Crown corporations which are not making a truly genuine effort to put sound accounting and financial management and control systems into place. The challenge ahead for the committee and for the comptroller general is to implement value for money concepts for which I think every taxpayer in Canada would be very grateful.
Let us not forget the importance of the role of the Public Accounts Committee. It has been an underestimated, low profile committee. However, I believe its day has come. I urge more hon. members to get involved with that committee because that committee is an avenue by which we can start to understand the fundamental structure under the Government of Canada, its performance, and its weak points. Those things are exposed to the committee. The interesting thing about the Public Accounts Committee is that it has moved into areas of fundamental structure. The last two reports of that committee,
Financial Administration Act
if read in detail and with attention by members, would show the substance of the work that has taken place. It is interesting to note that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is becoming well staffed with research capabilities. The research officer who has been assigned to the committee has done yeoman's service. I believe he is entitled to our thanks.
In addition to that we have a person with a Master of Business Administration degree, as well as lawyers and chartered accountants from outside the government who are available to us for consulting purposes. I believe the quality of the report and the work which is being tabled in this House are directly due to the ability of parliament to start structuring a committee which has such a fundamental importance to this House.
The committee's desire to see the system of financial accountability to parliament by Treasury Board, departments, agencies, and Crown corporations has been strengthened, as I have just outlined. That is fundamental to the work of the comptroller general and the ongoing work of the Auditor General. The government House leader has now allowed permanent reference of the report of the Auditor General and the Accounts of Canada, which means that committee is one of the first to get off the mark in any session of parliament. The committee will be responsible for the review of the performance of the office of comptroller general and his progress in strengthening the financial management and control practices within this government.
I explained to the House that the committee is starting to take on a structure of importance which perhaps has not been generally recognized by members at large before. I believe the new office of comptroller general is the dawning of a new era in financial management in government. It behooves all of us to give it full encouragement and to make it work.
The tabling of the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts dealt at length with the problems that exist within Crown corporations. The growth of Crown corporations is an example of the degree to which the operations of the government went out of control. Actually in terms of legislation, there are only 41 legitimate Crown corporations. And yet, in the proceedings leading up to our second report, we asked Treasury Board what was the total number of Crown corporations, and it could not tell us. It took several weeks before a total inventory was available, and it finally netted 384 or 386.
We must look again at the condition of legislation, the lack of accountability and lack of control which exist in the present legislation pertaining to Crown corporations. I would also urge members who are seriously concerned in this whole matter of control and accountability to read that report, and perhaps read also the first report on Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. There is much substance in there which will be of ongoing value as we move toward a more stable and more structured condition of management, accountability, and use of resources

April 28, 1978
Financial Administration Act
in the federal government, its agencies, departments and Crown corporations.
I will not take time to remark on areas of abuse, Mr. Speaker. However, I see there is enough time to put into the record what the responsibilities of the comptroller general will be. I would like to point out that the comptroller general would be responsible for the Treasury Board's interest in the following items: first of all, respecting financial officers. One of the weaknesses which we found in our work in public accounts was the lack in many departments of persons with the capability of basic bookkeeping or financial control.
As I understand it under the comptroller general's responsibility he will put in place people who are capable of conducting financial audits and people capable of conducting audits toward objectives throughout departments and agencies. He will also ensure that internal audit procedures support the Treasury Board Secretariat's audit for compliance. He will ensure that financial systems are compatible and support procedures recommended by the Treasury Board are designed to provide for the measurement of program effectiveness. He will design and implement guidance with respect to systems of financial reporting, financial management, and financial control to provide assurance that public moneys and assets are expended with probity, economy and efficiency, and that public moneys and assets are under effective custody and control. There will be an assessment of the adequacy of such systems in departments and agencies.
The comptroller general will report to the President of the Treasury Board on the adequacy of departmental and agency systems and procedures for effectiveness evaluation. These are all pioneering efforts which are long overdue.
The comptroller general will report to the President of the Treasury Board on the adequacy of departmental and agency systems and procedures for measuring efficiency. He will be preparing and signing the public accounts and certain other financial statements of Canada. Accounting principles and practices for the accounts of Canada will come under his jurisdiction. I would hope that he will make an extra effort respecting the form of estimates so that they will be a better instrument for the use of parliamentarians, whereby parliament can control the expenditure and use of funds from the Blue Book all the way through to the accounts of Canada. This will take the place of the very complicated system which exists today, with its shortfalls as far as members of parliament are concerned who are not highly skilled professionals and trained in the cash flow accounting structure of the federal civil service.
I hope that he will make recommendations on the form of the estimates so that they will comply and tie right into the accounts of Canada. The comptroller general will be responsible for a review and approval of all accounting systems and procedures supporting the financial information and statements included in the public accounts. The comptroller general will appear before parliamentary committees on matters of expenditure control and financial reporting. He will recommend how capital budgets might be changed to improve

expenditure control and financial reporting. He will be responsible for the preparation of briefing material and recommendations for the minister on all memoranda to cabinet having to do with the responsibilities of the office of the comptroller general.
The comptroller general will have a functional relationship with chief financial officers of the departments, agencies, and corporations, providing them with functional guidance in this area of responsibility. There will be provision for assistance to departments, agencies, and corporations in the design and development or improvement of financial management, control, and reporting systems. The comptroller general will provide liaison between the President of the Treasury Board and Auditor General, including the coordination of the response to the Auditor General's annual report. He will be ensuring that effective and prompt remedial action is taken by departments and agencies on matters raised in audit observations, and on recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee.
The comptroller general will be responsible for the development, maintenance, and evaluation of detailed policies and guidelines on the internal financial and operational audit function of the government; the evaluation of the scope and quality of this internal financial and operational audit in departments and agencies, as well as the provision of advice and leadership to the internal financial and operational audit community of the government.
Lastly, he will oversee the provision of a central advisory service to departments and agencies concerning financial administration policies, principles, and standards of the government, and the provision of authoritative interpretations of legislation, regulations, and policies related to financial administration. The provision of advice to the Treasury Board secretariat on financial administration aspects of issues submitted to the Treasury Board for consideration will come within his responsibilities.
Bill C-10 is another milestone in the progress of the Parliament of Canada. The appointment and selection of a comptroller general is something I endorse personally, and I am grateful to see it in place. Many of the shortcomings of the rapid expansion of the federal service will commence to come under control, and a standard of performance which all of us can be proud of will come about in the future.
The combination of the office of comptroller general as an officer of the Treasury Board, the office of the Auditor General as an officer of parliament, along with a strengthened and more fundamentally structured Standing Committee on Public Accounts, augurs well for the future performance of the Public Service. On the basis of what I have seen, a new standard in the use of and respect for our tax resources is upon us. I compliment those who have worked on bringing this bill about. I feel privileged to have had an opportunity to offer a few comments on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 28, 1978


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few moments to participate in third reading stage of Bill C-10. The hon. member who preceded me is filling an honoured tradition in this House which was inaugurated first by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), that is, the election of an opposition member to chair the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. That tradition has served the House and the people of Canada well.
The first chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts was the hon. member for Mount Royal, Mr. A. G. L. McNaughton, who subsequently became the Speaker of the House. He distinguished himself as the first chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I think of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who now serves in that honoured position well and with distinction. I think of his immediate predecessor, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), who equally filled the role in the best traditions established by the House. Also I think of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and of a former distinguished member of the House, Mr. Alf Hales, both of whom served the House well as chairmen of that Standing Committee.
I am pleased to see the right hon. member for Prince Albert has just entered the chamber. As I indicated, it was under his administration that the practice of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts being chaired by a member of the opposition was first started. I am pleased to indicate that practice continues today, and continues to serve the Parliament of Canada and Canadians well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The purpose of Bill C-10 is to establish the office of comptroller general. In making reference to the Standing Committee Public Accounts on third reading, I do so to emphasize the importance of this committee. The hon. member for Capilano referred to the participation of hon. members on all sides of the House in that committee. This committee works hard, and usually has a low profile. Its work receives publicity only when it reports to the House in connection with the report of the Auditor General. It is the only Standing Committee of the House which normally operates on a year-round basis.
If that committee is to continue to function and serve the House and Canada, especially when the office of comptroller general has been established, it is important for the government to give consideration to providing it with adequate support staff in order for the committee to be truly independent of the government. Although I have not served on the committee, I have been present for some of its hearings. At the present time the only support it receives, apart from the committees branch which serves all standing committees of the House, is from the Department of the Auditor General. That is a rather awkward situation in that it could pose a conflict of interest.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is not true.
Financial Administration Act


James Aloysius McGrath: I am attempting to make the argument that it is essential for that committee to be provided with support staff by the government, if its role is to be carried out effectively and well. The hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) was the chairman of a special standing committee on food prices. Because he is nodding, I am sure he agrees with that fact. I hope the government gets around to doing that.
Regretfully during third reading of this bill, and during part of the report stage yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board, who is the responsible minister, was not present in the House. Perhaps that minister had important official duties elsewhere, but he should have participated because it is one of his important functions as a minister carrying out his duties. Notwithstanding what may be considered as the role of a minister in the House, it shows a certain arrogance and contempt on the part of the President of the Treasury Board that he would not be present to pilot this bill through the House, as well as listen to the excellent suggestions made by all hon. members during the course of this debate. It says a lot for the attitude of this government to parliament; in fact it says it all, in my opinion.
I see the Minister of Employment and Immigration sitting opposite. He represents the government, but he cannot possibly represent the special interests of the President of the Treasury Board in connection with this bill. Only the President of the Treasury Board can do that. It is his responsibility to be present in the House today for third reading of this bill. For him to be elsewhere displays nothing but contempt for the House and its members. The absence of the President of the Treasury Board today exemplifies the attitude of this government toward parliament.

We have in fact only one effective functioning standing committee of this House today, in my view, and that is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It is the only committee, or one of a few, the exceptions being the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and, to a lesser degree, the committee on finance, that has retained any degree of collegiality in terms of tenure of service of members of the committee. The rest of the standing committees of this House are nothing short of a farce. It is a sort of passing parade; members come and members go, and government members come in merely to vote and move out again, not even knowing for what they have voted. That spectacle goes on day after day, especially in connection with the examination of the estimates.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I have listened to the hon. member and I agree-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest that perhaps the hon. member should indicate whether he will accept a question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to entertain a question from the hon. member when I finish my speech. I

April 28, 1978
Financial Administration Act
know he will want to make a contribution to this debate, as he always does.
I was referring to the role of standing committees, the lack of collegiality and the attitude of the government toward these standing committees. Nowhere is this more apparent than in respect of our examination of estimates. What an absolute farce that is, Mr. Speaker.
We refer the estimates of the Government of Canada, some $45 billion of public expenditure, to the standing committees where they are supposed to receive examination by members of this House, yet there is not one of those standing committees which functions with a quorum. Indeed, my friend, the hon. member for South Shore informs me that the Standing Committee on Fisheries yesterday could not even meet because it could not get enough members there to hear evidence.
When I say it could not get enough members to hear evidence I have in mind another illegal practice that has crept into this House whereby standing committees function without a quorum. We have adopted the practice whereby standing committees of the House can hear evidence if five members are present, including members of the two major parties. Committees sit with five members present and hear evidence, but they cannot do anything such as passing motions, moving amendments, or raising points of order.
Yesterday when the Standing Committee on Fisheries was to meet to examine the estimates of the fisheries service of the Department of the Environment it could not continue because it could not get even five members present. Under the rules adopted by this government in 1968, through the invocation of closure these standing committees are deemed to have reported the estimates back to the House by midnight as of the end of May. There is not a year that goes by when there is not at least one, sometimes two, and often three, departments of government which never even have this cursory examination of their estimates under this inadequate committee system. Even those departments that do go through the motions of appearing before standing committees with their estimates know that all they have to do is hang in there, because their estimates will be passed in any event and there is nothing the committee members can do about it.
This is why I believe, as I have already indicated, that for the new office of comptroller general to be effective there must be a fundamental change in the rules of this House, and a fundamental change in the committee structure and the procedure for examining estimates, as well as a change in the form of the estimates, as our amendment that was voted down would indicate. Unless there is this basic and fundamental change in the committee structure and in the form of the estimates, and in how the estimates are examined and reported back to the House, the comptroller general will find himself with the same degree of frustration the Auditor General has year after year when he reports to the Public Accounts Committee that spending is out of control and he can do nothing about it.
It has to be repeated again and again and again that this House has lost control of public spending and the government

is no longer accountable to parliament for this spending. There is no accountability and there is no control. We in this House have lost the ancient and traditional parliamentary privilege of withholding supply.
These changes to the rules were invoked by closure. The former auditor general, and this has to be said again and again until the message gets through, identified the change in the rules of this House in 1968 with the take-off in government spending. Let us just look at what has happened. When we lost the committee of supply in this House in respect of estimates and the right to control them, government expenditure took off to the point that today, ten years later, the projected deficit of government equals almost the total budget of the government ten years ago. That is what has happened to us here. We have to restore parliamentary control and government accountability-
My friend, for whom I have the greatest esteem, looks at me and laughs, and he is one of the guilty ones. If there were this degree of control and accountability, I submit that the Minister of Employment and Immigration would not have taken $1 million of public funds and given it to one of the government's friends in the advertising business to launch a nation-wide advertising campaign pointing out abuses of the unemployment insurance program. This is $1 million that has been wasted via the government pork barrel. He could have achieved the same result with practically no cost to the government by merely inserting in each envelope to each unemployment insurance recipient a little card pointing out the regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the consequences of circumventing those regulations, and the penalities for fraud. That would have been much simpler. With this government's penchant for spending public funds we had to have a $1 million advertising account, which was not only a waste of money but was also an insult to the vast majority of unemployment insurance recipients who do not cheat.
That attitude prevails throughout the government structure, and that is why it is a matter of some considerable regret that the President of the Treasury Board did not even think it worth his while to be present in the House today for third reading of this bill for which he is responsible.
We have to change the rules of this House. If we do not, the people of Canada will lose what little regard they have left for this institution. It has been said that the advent of television in the House would make this institution more relevant. I was one who felt that way, but I am now coming to the view that television in this House is showing this place up for the irrelevancy it has become under this government, and that is a matter of some regret.
The government has nothing to fear from a strong opposition. Good opposition makes good government. You cannot have good opposition if you are going to tie the hands of the opposition and refuse them the right to hold the government accountable for the expenditures of public funds.
April 28, 1978

I admit that it was not possible to continue with the committee of supply where estimates would be brought into this House and each member would have the right to address his grievance and hold up the estimates. That system had to change because our country was becoming more complex, and that was the argument that favoured having estimates referred to committees. However, there has to be some means of reinforcing the committee structure so that departments of government, ministers and their public servants will know that when they go before those committees with their estimates they will not only have to explain those estimates but they will have to be accountable for the expenditures of the previous year. If they do not adequately explain their estimates and if they cannot account for the expenditures of the previous year they should be aware they could be penalized by the House.
Unless you have that discipline then the structure falls down and will not work. I hope that with the passage of this bill and with the establishment of the post of comptroller general in the next parliament we will get around to addressing this problem. As a matter of fact, I know we will because the next Parliament of Canada will be led by a Progressive Conservative government, and our leader has committed himself to making parliament more relevant and to restructuring the committees of the House, giving them a support staff and an ongoing investigative role.
That is the problem that we as a House addressed ourselves to in the last session when we referred this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. We in that committee came up with a consensus in a number of areas, including a restructuring of the committee system. For example, we proposed the expenditures committee which would function parallel to the Public Accounts Committee on an ongoing basis and would be able to call any department at any given time to examine any aspect of that department's expenditures throughout the year. That is a reform that is long overdue and whose time has come. I am very proud to be able to say to this House that these reforms will in fact be put into effect in the next parliament of Canada because there will be a change of government in this country.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) accept a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Would the hon. member for St. John's East accept a question from the parliamentary secretary to the House leader?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Financial Administration Act


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member and I should like to know whether the three reports prepared by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization were supposed to be submitted to the respective caucus of each party. Moreover, could he confirm to the House whether his party caucus did in fact ratify these three reports, because his party has never indicated its concurrence in these reports. We on this side would have liked to ratify them, too, a lot sooner, because we have long been in favour of a complete reform of the House procedures. I can assure the hon. member that this type of reform is quite acceptable to the government side.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am very pleased to respond to the question of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, an hon. gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect. However, he poses the question out of ignorance. I say that in sorrow because he was not the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader during the last session of parliament, although I do believe he was a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Yvon Pinard: I was.


James Aloysius McGrath: He served well. The report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, containing the three packages that the hon. member refers to, did not get back into this House because of the stubbornness, the intransigence and the bullishness of his colleague, the government House leader. He refused to go along with the concessions that we made as an opposition because he felt the government would have to give too much. For our part, we were prepared to make compromises. As my colleague the House leader for the opposition indicates, we were prepared to make concessions and go a long way. The government was not prepared to do so because it did not at that particular time fit in with the House strategy of the government House leader, and regretfully the committee's work was allowed to die with the session.


Yvon Pinard: Will you answer my question, please?


James Aloysius McGrath: I have already answered the question, Mr. Speaker. I told the hon. member that there was a consensus in my party that we were prepared to make concessions, and that government was not prepared to accept because they felt they were giving too much.


Yvon Pinard: You did not let us know.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Ottawa West on a point of order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I would like to ask a question of the hon. member. I endeavoured to ask one in the course of his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Would the hon. member for St. John's East permit a question from the hon. member for Ottawa West?
4986

April 28, 1978
Financial Administration Act


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I must say I am flattered at the interest in my speech by the members opposite.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The members on this side are always interested in following the events of the House. I listened to the hon. member's complaints about the committee system, and he seems to have a most unfortunate record in those committees in which he participated. He singled out the Public Accounts Committee, and I want to pay my tribute to the way in which the chairman of that committee, who is present here, has conducted that committee.
I would like to ask the hon. member for St. John's East: Is not a very significant factor in the way a committee functions the degree of partisanship shown by the members who participate in it?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunately the case. Of course, you cannot have committees functioning in an objective, non-partisan way when they are presided over by partisan chairmen. We had evidence of that when the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) behaved in a most partisan way last week when we were examining the estimates of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, including a vote for CMHC, and he refused to allow members of the opposition the right to direct questions to the president of CMHC. It is that kind of partisan conduct that has killed any degree of objectivity.
The other point that has hurt committees badly is the rule whereby the whips can change the membership on committees without so much as a by-your-leave. There was a time when, in order to change membership in committees, you had to come to this House with a resolution. Today, if the whip finds any member of the committee getting out of hand-and it happens on both sides of the House-all he has to do is notify the Clerk that so-and-so is no longer a member of the committee. In fact, there are even times when the member involved is not given the courtesy of being notified. All these things combined are helping to destroy the committee system in this House.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The members have a responsibility as well as the chairman.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) on a point of order.


Claude-André Lachance: Would the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) allow a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think we should get back to the business at hand. This is not a question period nor are we in committee of the whole.


Mr. MacFariane:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. The hon. member referred to the whips replacing members. I would like to remind him that during my term as whip this has not
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
occurred, although a member of the opposite side once referred to me as the whip when I was deputy whip.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I would just remind the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain that that is not a point of order and therefore he is not recognized on a point of order.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: I would simply like to understand the situation. Was there not unanimous consent of the House to allow the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) to ask his question of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who showed willingness to reply, since he will probably never have the opportunity to reply to questions in the House in future years. Could the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont ask him a very relevant question about his speech if there is unanimous consent, as seems to be the case, Mr. Speaker?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to because the hon. member is going to need all the practice he can get.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point. If there is time and the time of the hon. member for St. John's East has not expired, the question can be put, if there is consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members, and especially the hon. member for New Westminster, for their patience.
[ Translation]
Since I will probably not see him on this side of the House in the future, I would like to ask the hon. member whether, in view of his comments about the reform of this House, which we both agree is extremely important, he can promise on behalf of his party to accept the recommendations contained in the three reports of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and whether he will co-operate with the government when it introduces amendments to the Standing Orders of the House?
April 28, 1978


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for my House leader but he is able to speak for himself. I can certainly say, however, that we can make such a commitment-if the hon. member can make the same commitment on behalf of the government House leader.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much of the time of the House this afternoon. As I understand this particular bill, the comptroller does not have responsibility to parliament or the House of Commons but has responsibility to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). If there is one significant change we must make in this place it is to ensure that parliament regains control over the spending of government.
Most of us who come here have had experience on school boards or municipal councils. I do not think that any municipal comptroller or school board trustee need feel inferior to a member of parliament. We all know the job they do at the local level in controlling or examining spending on behalf of the ratepayers or taxpayers of their community. A good deal of the time of locally elected officials is spent on the examination of spending. We have all had the experience, I am sure, of deciding whether to put shingles or some other kind of roof on the bicycle shed!
It is a scandal that members of parliament have so little clout when it comes to examining the massive amounts of public spending. Some of that spending cannot be objected to but there are no facilities or techniques to control it.
I listened with interest to previous speakers who had some suggestions about what could be done. I rise to make one principal suggestion only, Mr. Speaker.
One of the difficulties about our responsibilities as members of parliament, I suppose, is that a lot of us want the press to know what we are doing. Working on committees to control expenditures is not as attractive as attending question period in the House and taking one shot at an interesting subject with a full press gallery listening in. This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, you will notice there is not a great attendance in the press gallery; there are two members present and that is 100 per cent more than is usual on a Friday afternoon. I suppose we cannot kick the press around too much here.
Question period in the House is where all the attention is focussed and that is fine, but the work in committees to control expenditures is where the press should be. It is time they started to take responsibility and do that kind of work. Members of parliament have to do it.
I suggest there should not be a question period Mr. Speaker. For a period of three or four weeks we should spend our time exclusively examining expenditures. Every member of the House should be dedicated to examining the estimates in his particular area and putting questions that deal with the cost of running government. Three weeks would probably be enough to accomplish this.
Financial Administration Act
I should like to give credit to the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), Mr. Speaker. We had some discussions and this is a compromise position. We have talked about changing the rules in this place so that a member of parliament will have some influence.
Another point that bothers me is that in committee sometimes witnesses seem to have been coached to read their statements slowly and we run out of time. Our experience has been that witnesses are actually coming forward determined to take the full time of the committee so that questions cannot be asked. A member who does not happen to get in on the first round of questions can be totally frustrated.
Once in a while perhaps we should deal with a question that is not of great national import, not something that every press reporter will scribble about-perhaps the fact that there are 25 more people working on a project than is necessary, or an instance of waste somewhere in the public service. We must change the way our committees operate in any case.
We should also think about changing the rule that allows estimates to be approved automatically after a certain date. The time between when estimates are submitted and they are deemed to be approved should be extended. We should perhaps even suspend sittings of the House for a period and devote all our attention to examining government expenditures. In that way responsibility for that vital and important question would be returned to members of parliament.
Along with many other members, Mr. Speaker, I am increasingly concerned that parliament is becoming irrelevant. Government spending is not examined by the opposition in an appropriate fashion. That is not the fault of the opposition but rather of the rules we have fallen victim to over the years. We need to have a clear examination of the prime functions of a member of parliament and certainly one of them is to exercise some control over the spending of government.
This bill falls short of providing anything which would be of assistance to members in the political role constituents have assigned to us and which we are unable to carry out as a result of our failure to amend our own rules.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too long. I believe it important, however, that it be put clearly on the record what is happening in regard to the examination of supply.
I appreciated the comments of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). He related to the House the frustration that I think every member has faced in committee. The public expects us to examine the estimates and see what happens to their tax dollars which are "in trust" dollars. The government has responsibility for its expenditures but we are here to ensure they use that money scrupulously and as carefully as possible.
The situation is such with the committee system at the present time that it does not even give lip service to the scrutiny of estimates. How many of us have been at the
80038-26Vi

April 28, 1978
Financial Administration Act
committee well prepared and ready to proceed and then been only allowed ten minutes? By the time you ask a question and get the answer, you have only introduced the subject. The chairman then goes on to the next member of parliament.
On the other side of the coin, other members of the committee sit there hour after hour waiting to get in their ten minutes' worth. How many of us have been prepared at the committee and were not even able to ask a question in that session? When there is a specific branch of the department before us, we might not have an opportunity to again ask a question of that branch during the course of that year. All we can hope for is that supplementary estimates, more spending, come before us so that we will have a chance at that point. It has become a farce. That is why I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for New Westminster. At least he got up to bat and got the estimates before his committee.
What are we to do in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration when they have not even called the ball game? Those estimates came down in February and March. We have $4 billion in unemployment insurance and one million people unemployed, yet we have not examined the estimates, not even in the perfunctory manner described by other members.
We have not looked at the Department of Employment and Immigration. I see the minister smiling. If I were the minister, I would smile too for not having to be held accountable in public. However, if you ask the minister, I am sure he would agree that better government comes from scrupulous study of estimates. I am sure he would have a better department and feel more confident if those estimates were reviewed by the committee.
We have not looked at the Department of Labour estimates. Even if we get them now, at the end of May, if we sit that long, they will be deemed to be passed, even though we have not yet started on them.
Just to show how partisan those committees can become, in the time we had the estimates referred to the committee and never studied them, we studied Bill C-8 in detail. When we were through with Bill C-8, committees were not called. We then got Bill C-45 which took away the right to strike during the time of an election campaign. It was top priority legislation. We sat again to examine Bill C-45. I say quite openly the issue got somewhat heated as to when we were going to get the estimates. That is the only chance I have had as a member of this House to say to the chairman of that committee, "Look, sir, when will you give us a chance to examine the estimates?" Bill C-45 has gone through the committee, this House and the other place.
Where are the estimates now? We have a block system. The Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration is locked into the block system. There are times when we should be sitting, but the chairman chooses not to call the committee. This week I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 asking this House to direct the chairman of the standing committee that we examine the estimates. Should it be necessary for a member of this House to rise in his place two
[Mr. Epp.l
months after the estimates have come down and one month before passage of time will pass them and plead with the Speaker for an opportunity to look at the estimates? That in essence was what I was doing.
Later on a point of order I asked the Speaker to intervene and look at the situation in order that we might deal with the estimates. I was very gratified by his comments. He seemed to be as astounded as the rest of us. He stated that one of the primary functions of a member of parliament is to look at estimates. I have looked at the schedule of committee meetings up to next Tuesday, May 2, but they are still not scheduled. To my knowledge, a steering committee has not been called. Maybe because of my tirade today we will get some committee hearings next week, I do not know. The point is that even if we do, we will only have three weeks to look at millions of dollars of estimates. I am sure no member of the government can say to us that is good government. I suggest, with respect, to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) that he had better get out of his seat fast, get to the chairman of that standing committee and tell him he wants his estimates before that committee.
It does not end there. I called the chairman two weeks ago to ask when the estimates will come before the committee. I was told that he was out of his office and in his constituency. I do not criticize that; we all go to our constituencies or on trips. I was informed that the deputy chairman was in charge. 1 knew the deputy chairman was out of the country for a legitimate reason.
I get up to speak today in absolute frustration. Although I support the concept of a comptroller general, there are much more fundamental issues that have to come before this House. Do the government actually want their estimates examined? I have come to the conclusion they do not. They at least gave the hon. member for New Westminster three strikes. They did not even call me into the batter's box. I say to the minister with all the sincerity I can muster that it is this kind of activity which raises in the minds of the Canadian taxpayers deep cynicism, which they feel not only for the government but for every elected official.


Mr. Young:: Get on with the bill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Young) says I should get on with the bill. It is through this very bill that we are trying to bring into this public forum some methodology from the ground up to examine estimates properly, to have public money spent in as valid a way as possible. If the hon. member thinks I am not debating the bill, I say to him the very heart of the bill is how we get spending under control. And he has the audacity to tell me to get to the bill.


Roger Carl Young: I said if you were sincere you would get on with it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: All I can interpret from the hon. member is that the complaint I have now made a number of times in a number of forums is not valid. We are told "Pass the bill. Don't ask
April 28, 1978

about estimates; don't raise that." The hon. member will not muzzle me about overspending. He can say what he wants but I will continue to show to the Canadian people the sums that this government is spending.
While these fundamental issues have to be looked at, there must also be some mechanism whereby the estimates are referred to committee. The chairmen of these committees cannot stall day after day, week after week, month after month, and not call the committee. That is the best defence. We have seen the other defences. I suppose it is good politics but the minister just turns up his collar and lets the arrows fly and hopes that May 31 will come and his estimates will be passed automatically. Under this procedure we do not have the right to criticize.
I hope the government takes our representations very seriously. It is absolutely necessary that we get a branch such as this which can exercise much more careful supervision over the daily expenditures of the government. The government is overspending this year by an amount which is more than was spent in the first budget under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). That first budget totalled $10.9 billion. Today, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) says the over-expenditure will be in the neighbourhood of $11.5 billion. To put it in another way, the government intends to overspend on an average at the rate of about $1 billion a month more than its revenues produce.
I should like to read a comment by one expert. This statement was made on October 20, 1975: "You can never spend more than you have, otherwise there is needless inflation." Do you know who that expert was, Mr. Speaker? It was the present Prime Minister. Yet he will be overspending this year by more than $ 11 billion.
In the first hundred years of this country's existence our forefathers put it together, built railroads, opened the West, went through a depression and two world wars. The deficit in 1968 was in the area of $32 billion. Ten years later this government had created a deficit larger than had been accumulated by our forefathers in the first hundred years. It was larger than it was at the end of the first hundred years of our history.
When is this going to stop? I pray that the comptroller general and the Auditor General will have sufficient clout to bring government spending to heel. I know one thing: members of parliament and the committee system are not able to do so. I should like to quote another expert. This is the statement he made on May 6, 1974:
This budget represents my determination to deal with inflation. It recognizes the need for all governments responsible to parliament, including this one, to restrict spending.
Do you know who that expert was, Mr. Speaker? He went to his reward as a corporate lawyer in Toronto. I am referring to the Hon. John Turner. There have been other experts in this House and I should like to quote from one of them:
Financial Administration Act
Our goals are clear. Our first objective must be to maintain the underlying trend to lower inflation.
That was said on March 31, 1977, by another person who went to his just reward in Toronto as a corporate lawyer.


An hon. Member:: Not old Thumper?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Old Thumper himself, the former minister of finance. Government spokesmen have paid a great deal of lip service to the idea of restraining spending, cutting deficits, having scrupulous regard for the public purse. I am taking their words at face value. Then what happens? They do not want the estimates examined in committee. I think a medal should be struck for the minister who comes up each year with the best idea for the expenditure of public funds. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is here-I am sure he will get a chuckle out of this one. Does he know that under the Young Canada Works program the Canadian taxpayer spent $15,407 on a project "to survey graveyards old and new"?


Walter David Baker: There is a new one over there.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: How can we expect people to have any confidence in the democratic process when they see these wild expenditures day after day in areas where no return can be expected? It has been estimated that it takes two dollars or three dollars of income to produce one dollar of tax revenue. Consider the volume of production in which the Canadian economy must engage to enable this kind of money to be siphoned out.
I might go on to refer to a celebrated case involving the Canada Council. Everyone familiar with the subject has heard about the Bill Bassett affair. He, along with the publishers, received funds in excess of $100,000 to publish poetry which I am sure the average Canadian would call pornographic. I wrote to the minister, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), and received the nicest letter from him in return. It said, in effect: We cannot get involved in censoring this kind of thing; we do not want to become involved in censorship. Mr. Speaker, is the Canadian taxpayer obliged to continue funding this kind of stuff, stuff I would not want to read into the record, stuff that no decent newspaper would publish? Yet when I raised this matter with the Secretary of State, pointing out that the Canadian taxpayer was insulted, not only by the material but by the fact that he was financing it, I was given the bland answer that the department could not become involved in censorship.
It is high time this government controlled its expenditures. Because if it does not, the democratic process will suffer very dramatically. This legacy of spending has now become a legacy of debt. I have already mentioned the amount of the increase in the national debt. By the government's own figures, 14 cents out of every dollar of tax revenue is spent to service the national debt. That is not to pay off the debt, just to service it.

April 28, 1978
Financial Administration Act
I think it is important for this House to realize what can happen. Manitoba Hydro has given excellent service to the province of Manitoba. Manitobans have paid some of the lowest hydro-electric rates in the country for hydro generated from the Winnipeg River. In the last years of the former administration, however, Lake Winnipeg was regulated. Russian turbines were put in at the northern end of Lake Winnipeg, but those turbines are not producing electricity. There have been the Nelson River diversion and the Churchill River diversion. All those programs in themselves might have been valid, but today of every dollar Manitoba Hydro takes from Manitoba taxpayers 50 cents is spent on debt. The comparative advantage we had is gone.
I say to this government that the way it is spending and overspending, the legacy of debt we have in Manitoba Hydro will be the legacy of debt which will accrue to every Canadian. We will never repay that debt, but the generations who will follow us will.
With regard to the estimates, I suggest that the federal government seriously examine a method used in Manitoba, not because Manitoba is my home province or because this method was developed by the former NDP administration and the Conservative House leader of the day, but because the system is quite simple. Under the system X number of hours are provided for the examination of supply in the legislature. The opposition has the right to call whatever department it wants to call. The opposition has the right to hold ministers in their seats answering questions for as long as it wishes. When the total number of hours are used, that is it. So it is up to the opposition to bring public attention to spending in the legislature, because that is where the public attention is directed. It is not directed to committees, as is the case here in Ottawa.
In response to public pressure the opposition in Manitoba has the ability to hold ministers accountable. If they choose to start with agriculture, for example, and spend all the hours on agriculture, obviously the estimates of the other ministers do not come before the legislature. However, by that time the opposition should have analyzed clearly which departments it would like to scrutinize publicly, and that is the method used.
At times the legislature agrees not to see the clock at the end of the day and to go beyond the appointed hour. That might be of some advantage here. Under the system I am describing the government has an opportunity to know how much time will be spent. I think governments have to know that. We cannot go on here forever, but I think the government should be able to respond in a positive way. Under this system the opposition is able to apply public pressure and to hold a minister and his government responsible. I say to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), as I said earlier, that I think we would have better government and I think ministers would be more confident in their roles if they knew that their estimates had been scrutinized and passed after a meaningful debate.
I welcome the appointment of the comptroller general. I just hope that we will not stop there but that we will go much further in the examination of estimates and that parliament

once again will be able to do the job it is called upon to do. The democratic process can demand nothing less.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned me in the course of his remarks. It is true that I did throw a quip across the aisle while he was speaking, and I want to clarify for his benefit that I said that if he was sincere about wanting to get on with control procedures in order to control government spending, and if he was sincere in wanting to see an improvement in the watchdog role of parliament, he and his colleagues would get on with the bill, pass it and install the comptroller general in office.
It is true that time and money is wasted in this institution, as in any institution. Time is wasted by repetitious speeches when some hon. members are ready to go on with other measures, particularly when they have been given an indication that certain other matters might be proceeded with, as was the case a day ago. It was indicated to us that we would be through with this measure and go on with some other measures. I want to point out that I have been waiting here with notes to deal with Bill S-8 and Bill C-42 since yesterday. As a result of some indications I cancelled three very serious appointments in my riding today, one of which had to do with a model parliament. When some 400 or 500 interested students at a local high school look next week in Hansard for the remarks I told them I undoubtedly would be making today on those two other measures, they will not find them. I want to point out that my remarks will not be there because we have been delayed by a series of repetitious speeches today on this bill, which I thought we would get on with.
Improvements could be made, and that is why we have this bill. We want the comptroller general not one day, one hour or one minute later than necessary, and if opposition members want to continue delaying this measure by making speeches, that will be upon their shoulders.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Apparently the hon. member does not realize that the comptroller general has been appointed and has been in his office for three weeks. He is doing his job, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with this point.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that, whether the man has been appointed or not, he needs legal authority through this bill to do his job, and I repeat, not one day, one hour or one moment later than necessary.
If there is a delay and if the cause of it is repetitious speeches, that will not be on the shoulders of hon. members on this side of the House. The public will be quite aware through television where that responsibility lies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great respect and great interest to my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Young), who advanced a complaint which is, I suppose, the
April 28, 1978

complaint of all hon. members. From time to time their duties in this House of Commons do take them away from other functions which are also their duties in their constituencies and in other parts of the country. That is one of the difficulties of this life. I am happy to see the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) in the House today. Both he and I have a particularly acute problem in that regard sometimes, and sometimes greater difficulty explaining than perhaps does a member who comes from southwestern Ontario or from some other part of Canada. It is a difficulty hon. members face from time to time, particularly when the government brings forward important legislation.
I do not think there is any topic which ought to engage the attention of the House in any more direct way than a procedure which involves the control of the expenditure of money, because that is the whole reason, I suppose, that we are here. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said on many occasions that he regards the prime function of members of parliament as that of watchdogs on parliamentary expenditures. After all, it is in the hands of the cabinet that the initiating authority lies, and parliament disposes of or deals with the initiatives that are dealt with and which are brought forward by the government. That is the essence of our system.
Therefore, when the government brings forward a bill which is as significant as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has said it is, then I think that no member of parliament, whether he or she be a member of the government or a member of the opposition, ought to quarrel with the debate on that bill on the basis that he or she must be somewhere else. Basically members of parliament are elected to serve in this place. They are elected to serve on committees and they are elected to consider the expenditures of government regardless on which side of the House they sit. This is the essence of our procedures.
It is interesting that on third reading this debate has focussed a great deal of attention on a subject matter which the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) has directed his attention to over the years. I see he is in the House. He and I have discussed this matter in this Chamber and we have dealt with it in committees. We have accomplished through committees the two objectives that seem to be always running in conflict, namely, the necessity in the hands of the government to advance legislation at a reasonably rapid rate, on the one hand, and the necessity for members of parliament to be able to examine expenditures, programs, et cetera, of government on the other. This is in an effort to see whether we receive benefit for the money spent or allocated by parliament or whether the objectives of the program are sound or ought to be changed. I say to my friend from Scarborough East that I have admired the way he has pursued this objective. Notwithstanding the fact that he sits on the government side, I think he recognizes the necessities of this matter.
Financial Administration Act
The hon. member for Ottawa West was extremely generous to the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) today and last night regarding his chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, the hon. member for Capilano has followed in the best traditions of the chairmanship of that committee. This chairmanship was given to a member of the opposition so that the public will know that we approach government spending and its appropriateness in a serious and non-partisan manner. For that same reason the vice-chairman of that committee is a member of the government side, namely the hon. member for Ottawa West. He too has conducted himself in the best traditions of that committee.
I mention also the Procedure and Organization Committee whose chairman is from the government side, at least up until his resignation yesterday. I am referring, of course, to the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, formerly the member for Eglinton, who always approached his work on that committee in a non-partisan way. The vice-chairman, who is equally interested in the functions of this House, is the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), a former Speaker of this House of Commons.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) serves on that committee. It is interesting to know when that committee met, it operated in a relatively non-partisan way. On the one hand it advanced the government's views in getting legislation through. Whereas the opposition's job is to preserve the rights of parliament and to examine what the government does. That is our job and one of the reasons why we are here.
That is why it is important that we consider this structure most carefully. The structure of the comptroller general is not a method by which the government is interfered with in any way or by which parliament's rights or duties are interfered with. This duty to examine is actually a method by which parliament will be helped. It is the hope that there will be less spillage and less wastage in the promotion of government programs with this kind of person in office.
I listened last night with great care to the hon. member for Ottawa West when he spoke on the amendment which stood in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). He and I have a basic disagreement. This disagreement is not with respect to the function of the comptroller general but basically with respect to the question whether he ought to have a certain kind of legislative assistance by setting out in the law his terms of reference. The member for Ottawa West said it would be better if he were free of those kinds of legislative tools, free to operate in his own way as he saw the job developing. He said that the Auditor General who occupied a particular place ought to have his powers spelled out because his function is different.
I differ with him. I do not believe there is any reason why the comptroller general would be in conflict or at odds with the Auditor General if the Auditor General is given certain terms of reference by statute. But that is a difference of opinion about operation. There is basically no difference of opinion

April 28, 1978
Official Languages Act
with respect to the importance of the Auditor General and the comptroller general.
Evidence of interest on all sides of the House with respect to the job of parliament in the twentieth century has been shown in this debate by the fact that the tools of parliament are inadequate as part of the function of Treasury Board, the comptroller general, the Auditor General, and ultimately parliament in the supervision of government expenditures.


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


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I call it four o'clock?


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There may be some agreement now that everything to be said has been said on Bill C-10 and the office of the comptroller general. If you followed the debate, Mr. Speaker, everyone has emphasized how important this office is. Maybe there is now unanimous agreement and we can pass third reading. Perhaps we can make it official.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite pleased to do that if I could say to my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lefebvre), that I have completed what I wanted to say with respect to the matter. However, I understand there may be other members who might wish to say something on the matter. I must say to him in order to allay any fears he may have that I do not anticipate that the bill will be long before this House.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, in other words there is no agreement to having third reading today.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked that very much and I would have had no objection to the matter going to third reading today except that I just began what I wanted to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 gather we do not have unanimous consent. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane) moved: that Bill C-202, to amend the Official Languages Act, be read the second time
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).1
and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which I have the honour to introduce jointly today with my colleague the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) deals with the unity of the country or, in other words, with the inequality between both founding groups of this country. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, while most people agree to raise their voices in favour of a united country, when time comes to try to find the means to ensure that unity those same voices weaken, not to say that they express conflicting opinions. Let us recall the incident which occurred a year or two ago in Vancouver when one of the 12 TV channels was to become French-speaking and the strong protests which were raised by the Anglophone majority in the British Columbia metropolis.
I wondered then what group felt less inclined to defend the country. How sincere are we if on one hand we speak in favour of Canadian unity when on the other hand we are not ready to make the necessary sacrifices? How sincere are the people of Essex in Ontario where the members of the school board are no more separatists than the present Quebec government when they refuse to accede to the request of an important Francophone group? In my opinion, it is quite easy to speak in favour of Canadian unity, justice, virtue and motherhood, but the important point is to translate those words into convincing action.
To my mind, it is not just by talking about national unity that we are going to solve the problem but only when the English majority will accept measures which will give equal opportunities to both groups. I remember the famous statement made by the leader of the official opposition in 1930 when the then Liberal government introduced legislation to have bank notes and Canadian currency printed in both official languages. At the time the leader of the official opposition made the following comment which appeared in the report of the B and B Commission: I am against that legislation because it would jeopardize the harmony which has always existed between the two founding people. Where is harmony, Mr. Speaker, when one is afraid of recognizing the rights of Francophones? Surely we remember the famous speech which the deputy minister of federal-provincial relations, Mr. Gordon Robertson, delivered not long ago when he made a review of all injustices against Francophones in each one of the Canadian provinces. He concluded by saying that, in essence, the history of Canada has been one of meanness of mind and heart.
And that is why I suggest that we could progress enormously in the pursuit of this objective on which we have all set our hearts, namely the preservation of the Canadian unity, if as a first step we adopted a number of measures which come under the jurisdiction of our parliament and which would improve the position of our French Canadian compatriots within our
April 28, 1978

area of jurisdiction in a way that would assure a fair balance between our two groups.
The purpose of the bill which I have the honour to introduce today, together with the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), is precisely to determine a series of measures which would translate into reality the abstract principle set forth in section 2 of the Official Languages Act to the effect that French and English should have equal status in all institutions of the Government of Canada. This principle having been unanimously adopted by all parties represented in the House eight years ago, I feel the time has finally come for us to take concrete steps to give life to this principle, failing which it will exist only in principle and as a theoretical abstraction. Bill C-202, to amend the Official Languages Act, contains therefore about ten concrete proposals which we should like the House to adopt. The purpose of the first one is this: the federal government should recognize its responsibility to maintain the demographic equilibrium of this country, or as we say in clause 1.1(1 )(c), and I quote:
to support the attainment of such demographic goals in respect of the size, rate of growth, structure and geographic distribution of the Canadian population, as tend to support and promote the principle of equality between the two official languages and linguistic groups,
For too long, Mr. Speaker, our immigration policy has disregarded this aspect.
We all know that when Canada was founded there was a blissful balance between the two linguistic communities and that, particularly because of a declining birth rate since the early fifties, the proportion of the French-speaking population in Canada has been going down. It is obvious that this trend has a considerable impact, not only on the political scene of all provinces and particularly of the province of Quebec, but also on the issue of national unity.
Our second proposal is that there should be an equitable balance between both language groups as regards their participation in the institutions, programs and initiatives of the Parliament and Government of Canada.
I could obviously give a lot of examples of this. My only comment will be that the Department of the Environment is spending only 4 per cent of its expenditures in the province of Quebec. As for the National Research Council, out of an approximate number of 560 scientists in Canada, barely 27, if my figures are correct, have French as their first language. I think that, nine years after the Official Languages Act was passed, it is time to recognize the principle that there be a French approach, aspect and dimension in our various programs.
Third, we would like the French language to become an autonomous drafting language. What happens, Mr. Speaker, is that statutes are drafted in English then, of course, translated into French. All those in this House who are lawyers know that the French versions reflect neither the spirit of the language nor French law, and in future, under the principle
Official Languages Act
that the law reflects the ways and customs of a people, legislation should always be drafted and passed in both official languages at the same time.
Fourth, as we say in clause 8(2), we would like both French and English to be the languages of work of the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada, and that the departments have the duty to ensure the observance of an equitable balance in the number of positions reserved by them for Anglophones and for Francophones.
You probably remember that in 1969 we tried to limit the scope of the legislation to the relations between the public and the institutions of the federal government. But it is time that this other dimension, the dimension of the working language within federal institutions, reflected the principle of equality that we have entrenched in the Official Languages Act.
Fifth, we would like that the collective agreements entered into by the government with various public service employees' unions and various agencies not run counter to the law. At present, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to speed up the recruitment of Francophones at the intermediate management level, precisely because of the collective agreements. And I also remind you that a few years ago, parliament was asked to ratify by a resolution an agreement already reached with this private group. I do not think that parliament should follow the lead of any private group, but on the contrary, it should serve the best interests of our country.
In clause 11(1), we suggest that this act, unless otherwise specified, be paramount to any other act.
I must confess that as a French speaker and a member of parliament I felt deeply insulted as I attended the hearings of the highest court in Quebec, the Court of Appeals, and heard the counsel for Air Canada argue that the Official Languages Act was only a pretence of an act, which could be dismissed as unenforceable wishful thinking, which had been adopted with the full knowledge it was unenforceable legislation. In my opinion, that was an insult not only to French-speaking Canadians but especially to the authority of this parliament.
On the other hand, it is a sad comment that the annual reports by the Commissioner of Official Languages have been pigeonholed in the various departments where they are gathering dust. In his last report Mr. Keith Spicer who was then about to resign his post, drew up a list of the various departments where disregard of this law had been worsening year after year since he wrote his first report. So we propose an extension to section 33 to the effect that government departments which, without legitimate excuse fail to comply with a ruling by the Commissioner be deemed to have committed an offence punishable not only with a fine but also imprisonment, just as would be the case for non-compliance with other federal laws.

April 28, 1978
Official Languages Act
I think it is time we put an end to this tired joke whereby year after year the departments do not even bother to read the recommendations of this officer of parliament.
There are two measures which I adamantly defend, namely that people who can complain of non-compliance with the act will always be able to refer these cases to the courts but they must first of all lodge their complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages. There is also a measure inspired by the equal opportunity act of the U.S. whereby the federal gover-ment, not only in its own institutions but also through the various fiscal and budgetary measures it adopts as regards its suppliers and so on would require that they also do their share and take on themselves part of the national unity burden.
Mr. Speaker, it is always a problem, a test of sincerity. Personally, I have heard enough talk on national unity, I would like to hear of concrete measures from all concerned, of how much they are willing to pay to play their part in this great project to preserve the unity of our country. It has been my experience that everyone is in favour of virtue, but becomes hesitant and even evasive when the time comes to test the public's sincerity.
There is the Public Service Alliance which refuses a project as essential as that of sharing the wealth of the country between both sides of the river, between Ottawa and Hull; in their press release they gave about twenty reasons for refusing to travel three extra miles to work in a French atmosphere such as that which exists in Hull. I tell myself that if people in the national capital are not more generous, there is great cause to be pessimistic. So, Mr. Speaker, what this bill is getting at is that what is important, above all, is concrete action.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: freedom and know how fragile it is, usually exercise great care in intervening in matters of culture even when they cannot avoid intervening in matters of language.
I believe that parliament should intervene in the language situation. Despite the lip service we have paid to it, French is not on an equal level with English. I abhor the fact that some people are refused jobs only because of their lack of English and the fact that they are French-speaking Canadians. They had a part in founding this country. By the same token, however-and here again I refer to the employment of women in the public service as an example-they do not want tokenism. They do not want somebody accepted just because he speaks French, but rather because he speaks French and he is worth his hire.
That is all that should really be said on the subject, but unfortunately it does not apply in every case. The government realizes that more has to be done along the lines of official languages. However, more than languages, what is needed is a very clear guideline for the people of Canada, particularly those whose mother tongue is neither English nor French, to assure them that we are not asking everybody to be bilingual but merely to respect both official languages. We could even drop the word "bilingual" and refer to "linguistic requirements", perhaps.
More harm has been done on this subject of discrimination, and to unity through misconception-for example, the fear of people in western Canada that they are going to have to speak French. This is not true; nobody is imposing French on them. I agree wholeheartedly with the portion of the bill that refers to the fact that provincial governments could and should do a tremendous amount more than what they are presently doing on this question of linguistic rights. In my own city of Toronto I recently saw a notice in seven different languages, one of which was English, but none of which was French. That is appalling and, worse still, that notice appeared in a school. Why can we not instil in our children the need to learn French, not the necessity, and the enrichment of knowing another language?
Keith Spicer not too long ago pointed out that English and French are the two most widely used languages in the world. You can go any place knowing both of them and somehow make your way. It is not as if it were a language like Swedish, for instance, which is concentrated in one small part of the globe. These are two international languages, yet we as Canadians are hesitant about learning both of them. I do not know why we have this shortsightedness, especially when it concerns children. However, the answer is not to stuff it down their throats as we have been accused of doing. I do believe the provinces should give guidance by influencing the thinking of the school boards and the thinking of its citizens.
Why can French not become an official language in Ontario? We are told that perhaps there is a political reason and people may rebel. I cannot think why. In Ottawa we see "Stop" and "Arret" on the same road sign, but in Toronto we just see "Stop". Why is that Mr. Speaker?
Official Languages Act
I think what is missing in this country is tolerance, understanding and compassion. Very often a feeling of fair play is also missing. When we can be big enough to understand what other people want, meaning our brothers and sisters in this country, and when we lean toward them and give them their fair share, perhaps then we will overcome the terrible difficulties we face now.
There is a price to pay, Mr. Speaker, and most of us are willing to pay it, but we want to know exactly what that price is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks with respect to Bill C-202, I wonder if I could ask other members of the House and yourself, sir, to join me in making welcome that gentleman whose presence in the gallery is extremely appropriate to a discussion of linguistic rights in Canada. I refer to Mr. Max Yalden, who is seated in the visitors' gallery. Whether his view of the complexity of the linguistic problems of our country will be improved by following this debate I do not know, but it is my intention-I almost say with the permission of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane)-to stray a little into the field of constitutional reform.
Perhaps for different reasons but with rather similar principles, I have grown exhausted over the years with the lack of movement on the matter of linguistic rights and educational linguistic rights in Canada.
As I said, I want to take some issue with the hon. member for Matane with respect to his Bill C-202-not with his purpose, which I think is admirable, and not with the effects of the bill, but rather with the mechanism that he has chosen. That is because I would prefer a mechanism that has more impact and would have longer lasting effects on Canadians. I refer to the patriation and amendment of the British North America Act as the constitution of Canada.
I think that is a long overdue event. I suggest that a long last the time has come to patriate the British North America Act, to revise it, to amend it and to provide therein a bill of rights which will guarantee the citizens of Canada, of any nationality or origin, the right to be unilingual in either of the two official languages, and the right to educate their children to be bilingual so that those children will be able to learn both official languages of Canada.
The Official Languages Act provides, in essence, that citizens of Canada should be able to address themselves to the federal institutions of Canada in the official language of their choice, whether that be English or French. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it simply provides to Canadians the right to be unilingual.
If we go back to the reports of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which began its hearings about ten years ago, we find it was the hope of that commission, which is reflected in the wording of the Official Languages

April 28, 1978
Official Languages Act
Act, that provincial governments would follow the example of the federal government in ensuring that services would be available in French in situations where the numbers of citizens requiring such services warrant it. Provision was made in section 15 of the Official Languages Act for consultation to take place with the governments of the provinces as part of the process of determining where bilingual districts might best be established.
The philosophy of the royal commission in regard to the role of the provinces and their treatment of the minorities was indicated in the first formal report the commission issued, that is in Book I. The commission had this to say:
The principle of equality implies respect for the idea of minority status, both in the country as a whole and in each of the regions. In the provinces or smaller administrative entities both Anglophones and Francophones live in some cases as a majority and in some cases as a minority. Since the English-speaking population is larger across the country its members are less often in the minority; but they are the minority in some areas, especially in Quebec. Francophones are usually in the minority outside Quebec. In either case, however, the principle of equality requires that the minority receive generous treatment.
I think that last sentence, Mr. Speaker, is the key to what the attitude of the provinces should be. They should establish the principle of equality whereby the minority is given fair treatment.
In essence, the Official Languages Act insists that it is the right of any Canadian to be and to remain unilingual. The act, in fact, reflects the situation in our country: about 60 per cent of the French Canadians resident in Quebec are unilingual French and the vast majority of citizens resident in other provinces are unilingual English.
Despite this treatment of unilingualism as an individual civil right of Canadians, and despite the fact that members of the Conservative party voted for the Official Languages Act, the fact remains that many Canadians in western Canada have been led to believe that the act "forces French down their throats". Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I hold the members of the Progressive Conservative party responsible for this misunderstanding of the Official Languages Act.
Since it appears highly likely that there will be a general election in the near future, I would go further and challenge members of that party to finally face their political responsibilities to all the people of this country and to cease once and for all the blockage or misrepresentation of the legitimate aspirations of both French-speaking Canadians and Englishspeaking Canadians with respect to their opportunity to use, to work in and to learn the language of their preference.
Hon. members will be familiar with the rather infamous Bill 101 passed by the Parti Quebecois government in the province of Quebec, a bill whose basis is, in the words of Dr. Camille Laurin, its author and the Quebec minister of cultural development, "ethnocentric". The effect of the bill or law is to deny French Canadians the right to choose the language of education of their choice for their children. 1 want to come back to that later, Mr. Speaker.
This is a matter upon which much debate has taken place, namely whether or not, in effect, there is such danger to the French language that in order to protect that language it is
(Mr. Blakcr.J
now necessary, as has been done in Bill 101, to reduce the civil rights of French-speaking Quebeckers by limiting their choice of language in education.
I take the view, Mr. Speaker, that every citizen of Canada and every landed immigrant should be able to choose the language in which his children should be educated, no matter where in Canada he may be resident, and based only upon the existence of a reasonable number of other people of similar intention so that there is an adequate number of children in that area to warrant an education in that language of choice.
To put the same proposition in a different manner, Mr. Speaker, it is my view that this parliament ought to ensure these rights as civil rights of Canadians by enshrining them in the BNA Act and including them in a bill of rights incorporated in that act so that they are a part of the constitution of Canada.
I take the view that one of the fundamental functions of the federal government is the just protection and encouragement of minorities of every type throughout the whole of Canada. That has been clearly stated again and again by the Liberal Party of Canada and was repeated recently by delegates to the national Liberal party convention in Ottawa. It has also been said by the leader of the Liberal party, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
There is, then, a very clear philosophical distinction between the position taken on these matters by the Parti Quebecois government in Quebec and the Liberal Party of Canada. It is we at the federal level who seek freedom of choice. It is we who seek a nationwide opportunity for parents of any language to educate their children in their language of choice. And it is we who seek to expand the options of every Canadian and to encourage Canadians to take this choice as a personal civil right. By contrast, the official opposition, the Conservative party, seems to have a perpetual schizophrenia on this matter. They say and vote one thing in this House and they say and do the utterly contradictory thing in their home ridings and elsewhere in the country.
In my area of Quebec one of the strongest demands of citizens is that those who are English-speaking at home wish their children to acquire the other official language, French, at school. Like people all over Europe, we believe that the acquisition of a second, and indeed third or fourth, language is a matter of pride and delight, not a distasteful obligation but a wonderful opportunity.
Francophones and non-Francophones alike in Quebec grow weary of the theories of ethnocentricity, of the deliberate distortion of facts and reality in the name of the protection of some linguistic rights. It is perfectly clear that in the area of Montreal there has been a loss of capital investment, lost job opportunities, jobs and businesses of all sorts, not because of friction between English and French, but because of the irrational and arbitrary discrimination practised by the government of that province.
April 28, 1978

I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is perfectly consistent and reasonable, if a society concludes that its language and culture are endangered, to take through democratic means such legal steps as may be necessary in order to protect that language and culture, and to do all of that without-I repeat, Mr. Speaker, without-creating an attitude of distrust and distress.
It may well be the decision that Francophone Quebeckers want to make, to deny themselves by some expression of opinion-an election, a referendum or whatever-of this freedom of choice. I see no reason whatever why such an option cannot be guaranteed in our constitution so that, in changing times and views, French-speaking Quebeckers voluntarily and deliberately reduce or curtail these linguistic rights. However, I contend that every Canadian and, as I said earlier, every landed immigrant ought to have enshrined in our constitution the right to be unilingual and the right to be bilingual.
The hon. member for Matane will find no cause for difference of opinion with me over his Bill C-202 where it attempts to put aside injustices as he and I perceive them. We agree. He proposes, however, significant changes in federal institutions in order to achieve these changes, whereas I point out that after a hundred years the provinces still cannot seem to provide assurances of certain civil rights in the field of education. I call them civil rights because I believe that a changing, growing and maturing Canada needs to see such matters as the linguistic education of our children as civil rights to be enjoyed from sea to sea, not restricted to local and regional jurisdictions.
For that reason, I urge members on this side to give consideration to the desirability of such constitutional patria-tion and amendments. In so doing, I am simply saying what many other members of the Liberal party have said.
As to hon. members of the Conservative party, I suggest that once and for all-perhaps this election will be an excellent opportunity to start-Progressive Conservative members finally tell Canadians with one voice, in one statement for the whole country, not ten statements by candidates in ten different provinces, just where the party stands on an amended constitution for Canada.
As for those on this side, we stand for the principle of the protection of minority rights throughout Canada, for the provision of opportunity for equal status and equal opportunity for both official languages, not only at the federal level but at the level of all government and everywhere in Canada.
I listened to the Progressive Conservative candidate in my constituency a couple of nights ago when he supported the Parti Quebecois stand on the federal budget and the sales tax. He stood arm in arm with Mr. Parizeau, the Quebec minister of Finance. Today we are discussing minority rights in the House of Commons. I see two members of the Conservative party here, neither of whom have said a word about minority rights in so far as Canada is concerned.
I complete my reference to Bill C-202 by congratulating the hon. member for Matane on an excellent piece of legislation. I do not know whether or not it will go to the committee. The
Official Languages Act
only difference between the view he has proposed and the view I propose is that, in his case, he would see minority rights placed into legislation. In mine, I would see minority rights enshrined in our constitution. I thank the House for listening.

Mir. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I shall be quite brief. First, I should like to say to my colleagues of the Progressive Conservative party who are present- [English]
I should like to say to the hon. member for the Conservative party who is present in the chamber that I do not share the view of my colleague from Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) that members of the Conservative party do not share the views and objectives of the Official Languages Act. It might be that some individual members differ in their opinion, but the vast majority of them expressed through their vote their support for the objectives of the Official Languages Act. I believe the same is true of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).

Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to remind the House, and particularly my colleague the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) as well as my colleague the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker), that the great majority, if not all the clauses of Bill C-202, express concerns that have already been voiced by the Official Languages Commissioner in his 6th annual report and also in the 7th which was tabled last March. As concerns the comments of the hon. member for York South, may I simply point out to her that the introductory clause of Bill C-202 that seems to worry her is exactly the same as title IV, section 38 of the constitutional provisions tabled in this House by the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) on April 1976. Those constitutional provisions had been sent to all provincial premiers and were to serve as the basis for discussions about the revision on which every province and the federal government had agreed. So, those are not exceptional provisions in relation to the commitment made by the federal government to establish a cultural policy for each and every Canadian.
As for the other clauses of the bill, they only echo the comments made by Mr. Keith Spicer in 1977 on pages 15 and 18 of his 6th report and the recommendations included in the 7th report of the Official Languages Commissioner published in March 1978, particularly on pages 21 to 24. They are aimed at clarifying three things: on the one hand, the fact that the introductory clause of section 2 of the Official Languages Act that says that English and French both have equal status, rights and privileges, is not just a pious statement, but a legal and binding obligation in relation to every agency, department and Crown corporation concerned. They also aim at clarifying the role of the courts as far as the implementation of the Official Languages Act is concerned. This commitment only reaffirms the government's intentions, as expressed in the

April 28, 1978
Official Languages Act
Speech from the Throne in October last year, to define the linguistic rights of public servants and the duties of the departments, agencies and Crown corporations, and to determine the role of the courts in the administration of the Act. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill should receive the support of all parties in this Elouse and be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts for a closer examination of those objectives.

Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, the opportunity the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) has given us to expose the various views and difficulties that we have has been most helpful and fruitful. I judge from the fact there have been no speakers from the other side that there is substantially complete approval by the opposition parties with at least the subject matter, if not the actual fact, of this particular bill.
Because there are no other voices, I judge there is totality of agreement on the other side and that this bill should be adopted and sent to committee. Elowever, in order that the opportunity might remain for all members to have the opportunity to express any further concerns they might have either with the specifics or with the subject matter-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The hon. member has pointed out that members of the opposition have not participated in this debate. The reason I have not participated is because I do not want this bill talked out. If it is talked out it will be the Liberal members who talk it out and not the members on this side. I support the principle of this bill 100 per cent. I do not intend to participate further. I want to see the bill proceed.


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


Mr. Daudlin:: I thank the hon. member for adding that, Mr. Speaker. If he would have waited another second or two, he would not have had such great concern. I was about to suggest that if the appropriate administrative acts can be taken, the subject matter of this bill could be referred to the committee. I suggest we take that step before five o'clock so that the subject matter, not the bill, will be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I would need a motion to that effect.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move:
That Bill C-202 be withdrawn and that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the standing committee of the House which is considering the radio and television estimates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Does the House agree with the proposed amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: By unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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.
Claude-André Lachance: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) on a point of order.


Claude-André Lachance: Since we have concluded the order of business for today, I suggest that we call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the House agree to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hour provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.54 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 1, 1978