1979-03-26

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, last year some 350 women who were involved in catching and harvesting squid in Newfoundland were disqualified for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. There would appear to be a case of discrimination on the basis of sex, since the only two women who qualified for benefits have Christian names of Georgie and Francis. I would therefore move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, with the consent of the House:
That this House directs the Minister of Employment and Immigration to review all cases where unemployment insurance benefits have been denied to Newfoundland women engaged in commercial squid fishing, to ensure that women who catch and harvest squid are treated the same as their male counterparts for the purposes of qualifying for unemployment insurance.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on an important matter on this historic date for all mankind. I move, on behalf of Canada whose devotion to peace has been proven over and over, seconded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), the following:
That this House expresses its deep appreciation to President Carter, to the Prime Minister of Israel and to the President of Egypt at having been successful in producing a treaty which this House had hoped for as expressed in a resolution on March 7, and, furthermore, as the heads of these two countries have received the Nobel Peace Prize, and as each of them has spoken warmly of
President Carter's contribution, that an award of the Nobel Peace Prize to him would be welcomed not only by Canadians but by peace-loving people of all mankind.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words to associate the government and myself personally with this motion. The right hon. gentleman is, I am sure, expressing in very fine terms the feelings not only of the government and of the opposition parties but of all Canadians. This is one of the most important steps that has been taken in recent times in bringing peace to the Middle East.
I want to say that not only do we, as a government, associate ourselves with this motion, but that the government through me have already communicated with President Carter, President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin to indicate our support for this step and our admiration for the courage shown in these very difficult times. These steps are, indeed, very important.
I might add, Mr. Speaker-this might be of interest to the House-that Prime Minister Begin himself telephoned me a few hours ago, saying they had been engaged in very difficult negotiations for about an hour and a half yesterday and that one point remained to be resolved this morning. It was resolved successfully, upon which he immediately telephoned me to inform me of this step which would be taken. I thought I would add this personal bit of information to the welcome motion by the right hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to add the support of all members of my party across the country to what the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have said. All people in the world are indebted to the courage and imagination of the leaders of the three states concerned. The action they have taken will not only bring peace to the Middle East in the short run but, hopefully, will lay the foundation for a much more durable peace which will not only be of great benefit to the people within that region but, indeed, to everyone in the world.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, we must applaud the event which is now taking place in the United States, namely the signing of a peace treaty between two Middle East countries. This bodes well for the future in that part of the world. We must hope and wish that no future action will be taken to counter the tremendous efforts of these two countries and the United States to make this treaty a reality.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by Mr. Diefenbaker and seconded by Mr. Jamieson.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The House will, I am sure, want to observe that there could scarcely be a more fitting way to celebrate the thirty-ninth anniversary of the right hon. gentleman's election to parliament which is being celebrated today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the arrest by officers of the federal Department of Fisheries of several loggers working in the Queen Charlotte Islands on a project approved by the government of British Columbia and operating within the jurisdiction of the British Columbia department of forests. I ask leave to move, seconded by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the Minister of Fisheries to cease and desist from these arbitrary arrests of loggers working on government-approved projects; and, further, that the minister immediately enter into discussions with the government of British Columbia regarding any matters now in dispute, instead of harassing workmen who are merely carrying out the duties assigned to them by their employer.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 26, 1979



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister and, I am sure, many hon. members know, an important meeting of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, representing more than 165 women's groups across Canada, was held in Ottawa this past weekend. Central to their concerns at this meeting and over the past few months has been the deteriorating situation with respect to employment for women.
The Prime Minister, myself and others in this House had a discussion in January concerning the strong statement made by the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women with respect to the deliberate exclusion of women from the government's employment strategy, particularly the one announced last September by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There was a follow-up meeting of the six advisory councils later in January which endorsed Madame Rousseau's concern and accusation.
Can the Prime Minister indicate the steps he has taken to consult directly with the National Advisory Council or provincial bodies to come to grips with the specific problems which have been raised by Madame Rousseau and other members of the council which very much affect working women today?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to meet with representatives of the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, has also examined the representations which were made.
I would like to inform the hon. member that of the several hundred thousand jobs created last year, something over 60 per cent of them went to women. The record of the job creation program of the government and of the Canadian economy during the last year has been quite positive. More jobs were created for women than for men during the course of last year.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the Prime Minister did not answer, because he was so definite in refuting the comments made by Madame Rousseau. I am not sure whether the Prime Minister is well informed on this matter, but I would like to ask him specifically about the recent cutting back of the Outreach program, which affects many thousands of women across Canada. I refer him, also, to the impact of changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which affect women disproportionately compared with men.
What action has the Prime Minister taken in consultation with the Minister of Employment and Immigration with
March 26, 1979

regard to reviewing these decisions and reinstating-until there is a full statement-programs which are directly affected and which help women become more fully and equitably participants in the marketplace?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the hon. member does not want the minister responsible for the conduct of government policies with regard to the status of women to answer questions. I do not complain that his leader is not here to ask such important questions.
I can say that at all levels the insinuations of the hon. member are not correct. 1 can indicate, for instance, that at the level of order in council appointments we have doubled the number of women appointed over the last three or four years. As the minister just stated, jobs in the private sector are being created in greater numbers for women than for men. I think the accusations of the hon. member are not informed and are calculated only to demonstrate his own ignorance.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Prime Minister is so defensive on this question. I would like to direct a final supplementary to him. The papers presented by the Department of Finance last fall admitted that the first ministers' meeting predictions on the participation rate for women were very inaccurate with respect to the rate of the increase in participation. However, no new Figures, in terms of economic planning for the future, were put on the table.
Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he has examined those figures, whether he has asked for a new set of figures, and whether they will be published so that we will know what kind of over-all planning is being undertaken by the government with respect to the involvement of women in the government's long-term employment strategies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the figures quoted by the Minister of Justice were that 60 per cent of jobs go to women, as opposed to 40 per cent to men. It is, therefore, astonishing that the hon. member would not think that this is a satisfactory response.


CHANGES TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT AFFECTING WOMEN
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will direct my supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In a letter to the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women on February 14 last, the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated that a disproportionate number of women would be discriminated against under the 20-hour provision in the recent changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. This has caused women to appeal to the Human Rights Commission. Is it the intention of the government to review the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act specifically with these amendments in mind to ensure that the
Oral Questions
provisions of the act as it now stands are not discriminatory against women?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that the Human Rights Commission was set up by parliament under the policy of this government. We awaited support on this matter to see what action would be called for.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I commend to the Prime Minister the statement of the chairman of the Human Rights Commission when he appeared before a committee of the House in connection with this bill. If the Prime Minister reads that statement, he will know exactly what the views of the Human Rights Commission are.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue and ask if he can tell the House why 350 women involved in catching squid in N ewfoundland-


An hon. Member:: Squid?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, squid. The hon. gentleman would not know one if he saw one.


An hon. Member:: He's a squid himself.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the minister tell the House why 350 women involved in catching squid in Newfoundland were disqualified from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, notwithstanding the fact that men involved in the same kind of work had no problem in receiving benefits?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, as is frequently the case, the hon. member is in error. Three hundred and fifty women have not been disqualified. A number of cases are being examined in accordance with the law, by virtue of the remittance by the Minister of Employment and Immigration of the question to our department.
By the end of April we expect to have a final answer on this problem. This is not an easy question which can be resolved on an emotional basis; it is one on which we, as a department, have to follow the law and render our decision in accordance with the law. Each case is being analysed on its own merits and we will be giving a decision on each case. But I can assure the hon. member that it is not a discriminatory policy; it is a matter of our being obliged to follow such matters as whether the women in question were fishing on their husbands' boats, whether they were actually fishing, or whether the squid had been delivered to them on shore for drying.
All these are matters we are taking up. I met with the representatives of these women on Friday, and I can assure the hon. member that we are very sensitive to the problem and we will be making an equitable and fair decision.

March 26, 1979
Oral Questions HEALTH AND WELFARE


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON FUTURE OF MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. With reference to the dismantling of medicare in Ontario and in other provinces which is now under way in Canada, on Friday the Minister of National Health and Welfare said in the House:
If they cannot put their house in order when they are given the administration of medicare, I do not know how we can do it for them.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister, since these sentiments were again repeated by the minister yesterday afternoon on a television program, whether he could indicate to the House if she is now stating government policy on this fundamentally important matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, government policy is known not only to the hon. member but to everyone in this country. The government's policy is that this government brought in medicare. It brought it through parliament under Mr. Pearson's government and it was proclaimed under my government. It is a policy which makes Canada the leading country in the world in terms of medical support systems provided to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Our concern in this debate which is going on is particularly for the people who are most in need of medicare, the old people, the young people, the new family formations, those who have no great economic means to support themselves. The principles laid down by this government are directed specifically to protect these people.
As the hon. member knows, under the constitution we cannot legislate directly in that matter but we will support medicare to the tune, I think, of something like $5 billion this year. We do that conditionally upon the provinces applying the principles of universality, accessibility, and so on. This is a repetition of government policy. The hon. member asks what our policy is: that is our policy.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister was correct when he said it was the federal government which brought in the legislation. Of course, the Liberals promised it in 1919 but, as the Prime Minister knows, it was first brought in by the NDP in the province of Saskatchewan.
I should like to get at the important substance involved, at the crucial matter, considering that the minister indicated in the House on Friday and in the television interview program yesterday that the government was not prepared to take its responsibility and to ensure that the provinces live up to their commitment to enforce the accessibility and universality principles.
Since the Prime Minister told the House some two weeks ago last Friday that the refusal to live up to these principles

"would lead the federal government to operate sanctions of some kind", could he tell us what he has done in the meantime to live up to that commitment? Specifically, did he get in touch with Premier Davis of Ontario to give some force to the sanctions to which he referred in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is incorrect in quoting the minister as having said that she was not prepared to defend this system. I heard her in the House say exactly the contrary: she said that we were committed to this program, this policy, and that we would see to its application.
Since the question was raised in the country by some of our members and by some members of the hon. member's party, the minister has been asking her officials to look into the various instances where there might be some infringement of the various principles, the conditions under which federal funds are granted to the provinces. I have not had a report on that yet. I know the work is being done and I know it will be a matter of going to the provinces and saying that they must make sure these principles are adhered to; and here are some examples-if there are some-where the money the federal government is paying is not serving for the benefit of the people who are on medicare and need assistance. Then we will discuss a friendly and amicable solution with the provinces.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since section 26(2) of the Established Programs Financing Act gives the federal government specific authority, as the Prime Minister is well aware, to ensure that provinces live up to this commitment, and since the Prime Minister promised the House more than two weeks ago-and he used the term-that the federal government would use sanctions of some kind to ensure universal medicare remains the right of all Canadians, would he give us a specific commitment?
For example, if the province of Ontario has not established, within three months at the very latest, universal medicare, will the federal government do what the Prime Minister suggested two weeks ago and apply sanctions of some kind? In short, will he speak for Canada on this important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, you will recognize that the very form of the question is hypothetical: if the province of Ontario does not do certain things. I can tell the hon. member that the minister, her department and the government are concerned with this matter. Indeed, they are looking at possible infringements of the four principles under which federal participation is granted. But the hon. member knows and I know that we cannot legislate in this matter. We have to act in co-operation with the provinces.
I do not think the hon. member is serious when he is suggesting that the first sanction we rush into some two weeks after he has raised the question would be to cut off funds, not to the province of Ontario but to the people who are receiving medicare.


John Edward Broadbent: I did not say that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He must have some-
March 26, 1979


John Edward Broadbent: You mentioned sanctions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is asking me to take sanctions.


John Edward Broadbent: You said that you would take sanctions two weeks ago.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting a little excited. If Your Honour wants to recognize him, perhaps he will have a supplementary question.


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I will direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the price of beef went up 9 per cent in January and another 10.8 per cent last month, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House if he is considering short term measures to rectify this situation, since beef is an important part of the Canadian diet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member as well as all Canadians, I believe, know that the price of beef is subject to a cyclic variation that the government tries to temper through imports and exports, but these price variations are cyclic and current prices in fact compensate for the fact that a few years ago prices were extremely low and that therefore Canadian producers were not getting adequate income. Consumers who took advantage of that situation must now pay a little more so that beef producers can restore normal production which will ensure stable prices in the future.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. Because of current high beef prices, beef producers have of course increased their production. But since this beef will not get to market before two or three years, could the Prime Minister tell the House if he would favour hiking import quotas to give Canadian consumers access to beef at prices they can afford?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as quotas are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the government does not plan any change in policy. The hon. member will himself recognize that by opening our doors wide to imports we would harm Canadian producers because this would again lead to a drop in beef production with the result that, in a few years, Canadians would once more have to pay higher prices.
Oral Questions
We would rather put Canadian producers in a position to stabilize their income in future; we feel that this would lead, not to wide-ranging cycles, but to more stable prices both for producers and consumers.


Eudore Allard: I have a last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid the right hon. Prime Minister did not get my question quite right. I said that it was only a short-term solution, and that we could discontinue these imports as soon as supplies are back to normal in Canada. It would be just on a short-term basis, so that Canadians might obtain the necessary foodstuffs they need.
Could we not revert to the compensated discount system, as we did once in the case of milk, so that consumers might continue to eat normally in spite of the higher prices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did understand the hon. member's question, but I suggest he may not have understood my answer.
Producers have incurred considerable losses over the past few years. Some of them were even compelled on occasions to slaughter their stocks because they just could not get for them prices as high as their expenses. It is therefore normal that producers get incomes which are somewhat higher to compensate these past losses. And I can assure the hon. member that this is the way to make sure that both producers and consumers are more equitably treated in the future.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Based on NORAD information concerning Cosmos 315, has Canada officially notified the Secretary General of the United Nations and the launching authority, in this case the U.S.S.R., of the return of Cosmos 315 as we are required to do under Outerspace Treaty No. 6, article 5?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that I did not arrive in Ottawa until a few minutes before question period and do not have an up to date answer. My instinct would be to tell the hon. member that this has probably been done.
I am sure the hon. member is right in his statement about the requirement. However, this is not a nuclear object and there may be some distinction between the two. In any event, I will make inquiries and get the answer as soon as possible.
4482
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE

March 26, 1979


PAYMENT BY SOVIETS FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY DISINTEGRATION OF SATELLITE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence who has reason to know these treaties very well.
I would point out that because of Canadian failure to comply with the outerspace treaties, our claim for costs for last year's satellite crash was seriously impaired. In spite of our reduced rates for the U.S.S.R., they appear to be in no hurry to pay. Could the minister inform us whether the Soviets have indicated that they will accept our "over half-off for cash" invoice for last year's damage?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker I am, of course, not able to answer that, since it is being handled by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am not trying to pass the buck, but that is really where the responsibility lies.
The costs involved are costs which are incremental to our normal costs of operation. I think these negotiations are going on and I understand they will take some time. As to any similarity between the last incident involving Cosmos 954, and Cosmos 315, there is actually no connection whatsoever.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the increasing importance of offshore resources to Atlantic Canada, would the Prime Minister assure the House that it is government policy to retain Canada's legal rights over these resources, while maintaining a willingness to share generously with the provinces the management thereof and the royalties arising from those resources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the House was reminded by the hon. member the other day, we did sign an agreement a couple of years ago with the three maritime provinces indicating that the benefits of these resources would eventually accrue essentially to the provinces, but that the matter of ownership would not be decided at that time.
We felt that the honourable and efficient way of solving the problem was to say: Let us not get down to constitutional squabbles. Let us just make sure that the people of the maritimes benefit from these recources, and make sure the administration is carried out in a way that will be beneficial not only to the people of the maritimes but, indeed, to all Canadians.
That is our policy, it was our policy and it remains our policy. We discussed it again at the first ministers' conference in February, and I believe we are making some progress.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. What damages will the trans-Canada telephone system be claiming from the government for the cancellation of the COMNAT project last year, prompted by the Auditor General's investigation into this example of government ineptitude?
I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because the contract will be classified as a "non-consumed contract" by the Auditor General and probably the cost will never be made public. What information can the minister give the House on this matter?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, this contract had been entered into under considerations and increased use of telephone service within the government. After a number of months, it was realized that the flow of telephone service was not as extensive as forecast, but discussions between the parties to the contract have allowed us to annul the contract. I cannot give the amount which is involved, but it is minimal.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it may be minimal by the standards of this government, but I understand it is several millions of dollars. Does the minister intend to compensate the telephone companies for the damage they undoubtedly will be claiming, by allowing them to raise their rates the next time they appear before the CRTC?
I would like to ask the minister, as well when, after the waste of several years' time and the cancellation of this contract, this government will be getting on with the necessary business of providing a better government telephone network?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to what the comptroller in his report said about the contract. I think he will find there that all the operations have been examined to his satisfaction.
As for the telephone companies, my information is that they are not claiming any compensation.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in relation to the seven Jamaican women who were attempting to

March 26, 1979

have the Chief Commissioner for Human Rights investigate allegations of discrimination. I believe the Minister of Justice is aware of the recent decision that indicated the commissioner could, in fact, proceed with his investigation.
Is the minister aware of this decision and, in light of its importance, can he indicate to the House that he does not intend to place any further roadblocks in front of the commission and there will be no continued harassment of the chief commissioner in terms of his duties?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there has never been any harassment or anything of the sort vis-a-vis the commissioner or the Commission on Human Rights. A bill was proposed by this government, approved by parliament, and we set up the Human Rights Commission which has the full support of the government.
As to the specific case to which the hon. member refers, I suggest if he reads the text of the judgment he will find that it does not lead to the conclusion he has reached.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue: it is somewhat supplementary to a question raised by the hon. member for St. John's East.
In view of the fact that the women squid jiggers in Newfoundland which were mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's East are not in the situation of being wives working for husbands but are women squid jiggers doing exactly the same job as men squid jiggers, can the minister tell the House why it takes five months for his department to make a decision with respect to the work being done by these women when, in fact, the men squid jiggers merely have to fill out the forms to become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows absolutely nothing about the subject. He does not know a great deal about what is going on in the nickel industry in Nickel Belt, but when he starts getting into the subject of squid jigging and the problems that surround these women with regard to the taxation aspect of their enterprises, he is really out of business.
I suggest to him, as I stated earlier, that my department, at the request of the Department of Employment and Immigration, is studying each individual case on its own merits. I met with these ladies, we discussed the matter and the mood was amicable. The problem is somewhat complicated and I can assure the hon. member, as I did the hon. member for St. John's East, that we are treating each case equitably and fairly and a decision will be rendered at an early date.
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister is trying to put a nasty piece of business on the backs of the women squid jiggers, and in view of the fact that after his meeting with these women the mood was anything but amicable, can the minister stand in this House-and I am not asking him about nickel in Nickel Belt-and say that these women will no longer be handled in the discriminatory manner in which his officials have been handling them for the past five months?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, what can one say in answer to that foolish question? We are not treating these women in a discriminatory fashion. I have already said this. These matters are complicated by the fact that we must operate within the law: a concept which the hon. member may not bother to understand.
If for instance, the women are squid fishing with their husbands on their husbands' boats, then by law they are not eligible for benefits. If by chance the women are receiving squid on shore and are drying them as surplus to the requirements of the men squid jiggers then they are not entitled by law. Each case, as I have suggested, must be examined. The matter has nothing to do with discrimination. I can assure the hon. member, whether he cares to believe me or not, that these cases are all being handled with complete fairness.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Communications. In light of recent reports that the Maclean-Hunter Cable TV Company has applied to the CRTC for approval of a monthly subscriber rate increase from $6 to $6.50, and in view of the fact that the rationale offered in the reports submitted with the application was that the company's net return from revenue had slipped from 19.3 per cent in 1976 to 18 per cent in 1978-still a rather good investment level, by any standard-would the minister advise this House if she feels that a breaking of the $6 ceilling for cable rates could in any way be justified?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that these questions are thoroughly examined by CRTC and that the CRTC examines revenues of cable companies or broadcasters to establish the rates that should be charged for the service. I am in no position to make a statement as to whether or not an increase of 50 cents per month, or even $1 or $2, is justified. The CRTC alone looks after these matters.

March 26, 1979
Oral Questions SMALL BUSINESS


NUMBER OF BANKRUPTCIES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REDUCE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of State for Small Business. Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs' statistics show the bankruptcy rate in Canada to be still on the increase. The department reported 1,981 bankruptcies for the month of January, 1979, compared to 1,587 for January, 1978. This represents a shocking increase of 24.8 per cent in the bankruptcy rate.
Considering that a large number of these bankruptcies, are small businesses that are not only being stifled by excessive and costly government intervention but are the victims of the gloom and doom and economic uncertainty brought about by the bankrupt economic policies of the federal government, will the minister take serious note of this drastic economic development and assure Canadian small businesses that measures will be taken to stem the spiralling rate of bankruptcies?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the gloom and doom and unsubstantiated rubbish which emanates from the opposition is probably the major cause for the lack of morale among small businessmen. Until the hon. member and others are prepared to tell us how many corporate formations took place in the last five years, the fact that bankruptcies are rising-while regrettable, under difficult circumstances-really does not tell the whole story.
It is true that there were more bankruptcies in the last two years than any of us would like to see. It is also a fact that over the past four or five years a great many more businesses have been created than in any previous five-year period. It is in those first five years that any business faces its greatest difficulties.
I think the hon. member should simply express his regret about those bankruptcies and not attempt to colour his remarks with editorial opinions about gloom and doom. I suggest that it is the gloom and doom emanating from his side of the House that is causing a lot of our problems in this country.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minister that the gloom and doom is certainly very evident in the eyes of the Canadian public, and that this will be indicated when the next federal election is called.
The minister is aware, I am sure, that one of the serious problems is the fact that many of these small businesses are unable to secure financing at adequate rates. I know that the minister is very concerned about this, and I am wondering what he can do about getting money released under the Small Businesses Loans Act at special rates for these businessmen, because if they were able to get this money they would be able to stay afloat. I am wondering what the minister's position is on that proposal.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, thanks to modifications in the Small Businesses Loans Act, double the amount of loans were made in 1978 over 1977. The rate is increasing again this year and I expect that it will be double again by the end of 1979. The Federal Business Development Bank loaned over $600 million last year, which was well in excess of the money loaned the previous year.
I can assure the hon. member that the instruments of the government provided for small business in the way of loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Federal Business Development Bank Act are being taken up with great enthusiasm. There is a lot of optimism out there, contrary to the gloom and doom which the hon. member is trying to purvey.
* v *


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Environment). On Friday, the minister claimed that he did not want to put himself in the position of becoming the environment czar and having the responsibility for handling all pollution problems such as oil spills, threatened oil spills and similar occurrences threatening the environment.
Since care of the environment is the responsibility of his ministry, why does the minister want to shun that responsibility and pass it off to other ministers?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question very clearly last Friday. The hon. member knows what I said, that I did not want to be looked upon as the pollution czar in which, for example, I took over the regulatory functions for pollution control and environmental management of the Department of Transport, where I took over the environmental management of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources, or the regulatory environmental functions of the Ministry of Indian Affairs, and so on.
I made it very clear that I was happy enough as Minister of the Environment and being able to advise the various departments of government on the kinds of laws that they should pass which would be consistent with the environmental standards we would all like to see for this country. I do not think that I should be running every department of government.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that he does not believe that in matters of pollution and matters affecting the environment, he should not have an overriding authority in connection with other ministries? If he is going to leave it to them, how can we be assured that other ministries will fulfil the environmental responsibilities which are basically his?
March 26, 1979


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, by working with other government departments we give advice as to what we want by way of legislation. We do it that way. I think it is preferable to my taking over the whole regulatory function. For instance, the Department of Transport exercises control over aspects of pollution. In my opinion, it would be ridiculously cumbersome for me, as Minister of State for the Environment, to take over those kinds of powers. The regulatory functions relating to environmental matters, pollution control matters and transport should stay as they are.
I said I will make sure, as Minister of State for the Environment, that the kind of laws passed will be consistent with the objectives that we hold in the Department of the Environment.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


Mr. Paproski:: Is he here?


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Could the minister tell us whether an arbitrator has been appointed to review the AHOP situation in St. John's, to which the minister committed himself during debate in committee of the whole? I ask him, what steps have been taken to establish a permanent office at Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to handle the complaint of poor quality housing?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, following discussions in the House when Bill C-29 was introduced, a meeting was held between counsel for the people concerned and a representative from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. After this meeting, a formal answer is expected from counsel for the people concerned, and as soon as we receive this answer a decision will be taken as regards the appointment of an arbitrator.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am concerned about another situation, in the city of Penticton, B.C. It is a report-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: I have a further question on a quality problem which has occurred in Penticton, B.C., and is reported in the paper. Through lack of insulation, people have fallen through roofs and broken legs. These people were alarmed to find that the units were sold by a Central Mortgage and Housing
Oral Questions
Corporation inspector. I ask the minister whether or not it is still possible for a CMHC inspector to inspect buildings which he himself builds and sells?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have more details on this matter before making any comments. Obviously, the remarks of the hon. member seem rather strange to me. I do not want to comment on them before having a detailed knowledge of the matter. It is a frequent occurrence that hon. members from the other side of the House display only a part or an aspect of a case in order to make it look disgraceful, when actually there is often a very rational explanation about the matter.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue about Vancouver news report of last week which indicated that millions of dollars are being lost by Revenue Canada in a so-called "rent-a-relative" tax racket. It was reported that an investigation of 2,300 dependency claims in the Vancouver area has revealed that over half needed further checks and nearly 1,000 could not be verified, resulting in many disallowances and prosecutions.
Is the minister aware of this problem, and what action does he contemplate to solve it?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Yes, Mr. Speaker, regrettably we are aware and we have prosecuted a number of cases. I gather that in Vancouver, while the preliminary report shows claims for $364,000, $268,000 were proved false and as a result 10 to 12 persons have been prosecuted. I gather also that in other parts of the country some one-third of the claims have been shown to be false. We are alert to this problem and we are taking action wherever evidence is brought forward.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, has the minister considered consulting with his senior minister, the Minister of Finance, to see if the rules concerning dependency claims could be simplified so this problem will not occur all the time and will not force the minister into the role of an inquisitor?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I think the rules are equitable. They involve proof that the dependant is indeed a dependant. Once that has been established, the law provides for a deduction equal to that provided for a Canadian supporting a dependant. The difficulty arises because the dependant is in a foreign and distant place and whether the evidence is valid or not is more difficult to ascertain. I do not think the rules need to be changed. 1 think it is simply that our officers must

March 26, 1979
Oral Questions
remain alert to the possibility that some cases will be fraudulent.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Over a year ago, the minister signed an agreement for tourist development with the province of Quebec of which $8 million were to be given to the riding of Gaspe. In view of the importance of the tourist industry in the Gaspe Peninsula, and the fact that nothing has yet been done since that agreement was signed, would the minister be willing to take urgent steps so that those millions of dollars can be invested in the Gaspe riding in 1979 in order to fight unemployment and also have some tourist development?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, yes, we did sign that agreement almost a year ago and not much has been done in that first year. One of the reasons, I am told, is that the Quebec tourism, fish and game department had not included those amounts in their budgets nor planned to proceed with those plans during the current fiscal year. But it has been confirmed that for the new fiscal year which begins in a few days, those amounts have been taken into account, and we should now see more activity in that field; I hope this will happen and can assure the hon. member that we shall keep a close eye on the situation.


FUTURE OF CRDC IN DEPARTMENT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Could the minister give some logic and reasoning to the House for his decision to end the involvement by his department in the CRDC and disband an organization which is the voice of the rural people in this country.
[ Translation]


Marcel Lessard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give several reasons. First of all, I had to conform with the instructions of the cabinet advising us that the department commitments had to be reduced; we do not have 50 or so programs which can take cuts; we have only a few to which those budgetary cuts can apply. However, I must say that in the case of the Canadian Rural Development Council, in view of the work it has done, the many recommendations I have received and the many

reports I now have for study, consideration and implementation, it will certainly be kept busy for at least two years. We also kept the Atlantic Development Council and shall certainly have the opportunity in the next few years of setting up again, when the situation justifies it, a council to advise us again on the new policies that can be applied within the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. In closing, I can assure the hon. member that we had to resign ourselves to making that decision, but that it was no easy task.


FISHERIES
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Recognizing the fact that the area involved on the Queen Charlotte Islands is only about 40 acres out of a much larger tract of timber, could the minister indicate whether it is his department's intention to take the 15 loggers to court who are charged with violations under the minister's fisheries' regulations?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, because of a motion raised, I believe, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I will give some information.
Some time ago-I think it was in late January-the B.C. forest service and the fisheries department agreed that in an area on the Queen Charlottes, because of the type of slope, logging was a hazard for spawning grounds and that operations should cease. For some reason which I have yet to understand, the B.C. forestry service gave the go-ahead and we were not informed of their decision. However, when this decision was brought to our attention, we asked the company concerned to desist operations and to fell timber in another site. Our request was not complied with.
We tried to reach the B.C. deputy minister to discuss the issue. We attempted to do so on five or six occasions and we were unable to get an answer. Last week, I suggested a meeting at the highest level; I suggested that my deputy and myself, if necessary, go to B.C. to discuss this issue. The British Columbia government said that next Tuesday-that is, tomorrow-would be soon enough. Meanwhile, we have no alternative. There is a law that was passed unanimously by this House. The fish habitat must be protected, and we simply had to apply this law.
We do not want confrontation. We realize that water cannot be for the exclusive use of fish; that it is necessary to make some accommodation, and that is what we have done. I am afraid that in this case there was some unreasonableness, but 1 do not think it was on our side.
March 26, 1979


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The original publicity about the Affirmative Action program of the minister's department indicated that 23 staff-years would be allocated to this program. According to the minister responsible for the status of women in the speech he made in Montreal on Friday, that number is down to 20. In the minister's estimates, it seems to be down to five persons at head office and nine out in the regions.
Will the minister do what he can to beef up this program so that a real effort can be made by the government to persuade industry in the private sector to go along with the concept of Affirmative Action on behalf of women seeking employment?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was this department that took the initiative and established Affirmative Action with that specific idea in mind. Second, we have supported Canada Works projects where people have got together to do some polls, investigations, studies and make reports indicating the attitude of the employers in a particular region. I do not have the figures at my fingertips. I will certainly look at the hon. member's representation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish the minister would square this faith in his program with the cutback he is making in personnel. My supplementary question relates to the fact that frequently-and we had it again today-statistics are being quoted about the number of jobs being created. It is asserted, as was asserted today, that 60 per cent of those jobs are for women.
Is it not a fact that those jobs include cases where a housewife phones up for someone to do a day's house-cleaning and a whole lot of personal service jobs of that kind? In view of the fact that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I have a little difficulty relating this as a supplementary to his first question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The relationship is between Affirmative Action, which is to get jobs for women, and the need for the government do to something in order to achieve just that. Will the minister do what he can in his or in other departments to get these statistics put on a proper basis, so that we will know how many women are actually getting lasting and permanent jobs?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That, of course, is the objective of the department. I apologize to the House for being late today. I was meeting with the Canadian Railway Labour Association. I am sure some understanding will be afforded me for not being in the House earlier. I left there at twenty minutes to three and ran all the way.
Order Paper Questions BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning House business. I realize that an announcement was made on Thursday, but there is some uncertainty with regard to Bill C-32. Since today is an allotted day, is it the intention of the government to proceed with Bill C-32 tomorrow and go through committee of the whole stage clause by clause on that bill?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, when we discussed this question last week, I said that it was impossible for the government to secure unanimous consent to have the bill pass the House in all stages in one day, and that before deciding on or announcing any further steps I would have discussions with representatives of the parties, as had been suggested and indeed advocated by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). Before I make a move in that direction, I will be talking to representatives of all parties.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On the same point of order, what is the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: The House leader may want to address himself to tomorrow's business at some time later this day, but here again we are getting into the practice of asking the question following question period about what is today's business or tomorrow's business. That is something that has customarily been done once a week. I do not think we have to change that practice unless we have some direction from the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 572, 605, 1,095 and 1,151.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since April 30, 1975, how many speeches did the Minister of Agriculture have printed at public expense and distributed to various persons (a) to how many persons was each distributed (b) what was the approximate cost of each distribution (c) what is the total estimated cost to date of all distributions that have taken place?
2.	In how many cases were the speeches written by a person other than an employee of the Minister's Office and, in each case what was the (a) cost involved (b) date and the place the speech was delivered (c) total figure paid for all speeches written?

March 26, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Eugene Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	One hundred ninety (From April 30, 1975 to November 30, 1978)
(a)	an average of 2,630 people
(b)	$342.50 (excludes postage)
(c)	$65,075.
2.	In all cases, speeches were prepared by and through Agriculture Canada's Information Services.
(a)	(i) A speech writer was hired on contract between
April 30, 1975 and May 12, 1975, at a cost of $335 per week.
(ii)	A speech writer was hired on contract between July 12, 1976 and December 7, 1976, at a cost of $350 per week.
(iii)	At all other times, speeches were written by public servants employed in Information Services. The cost is estimated at $20,000 annually.
(b)	See list below.
(c)	The total cost in salaries and contract fees is approximately $70,520.
Minister's Speeches
Date	Place	Date	PlaceApr. 30	Watford, Ont.	Oct. 15	Elmira, Ont.May 2	Windsor, Ont.	Oct. 17	Vancouver, B.C.May 5	Ottawa, Ont.	Oct. 17	Fort St. John, B.C.May 7	Thamesville, Ont.	Oct. 18	Maple Creek, Sask.May 9	Vegreville, Alta.	Oct. 22	Hamilton, Ont.May 14	Toronto, Ont.	Oct. 24	Guelph, Ont.May 20	Toronto, Ont.	Oct. 27	Myrte Beach, S. CarolinaMay 23	Sussex, N.B.	Oct. 29	Toronto, Ont.May 27	Ottawa, Ont.	Oct. 30	Wakefield, P.Q.June 17	Stratford, Ont.	Nov. 4	Ottawa, Ont.July 2	Chatham, Ont.	Nov. 11	Rome, ItalyJuly 22	Ottawa, Ont.	Dec . 2	Ottawa, Ont.July 23	Benton Ridge, N.B.	Dec. 3	Lindsay, Ont.Sept. 5	Truro, N.S.	Dec. 9	Coldbrook (Kentville), N.S.Sept. 5 Sept. 9	Truro, N.S. Jasper, Alta.	Dec. 16	Ottawa, Ont.1976	Date	Place	Date	PlaceJan. 21	Calgary, Alta.	Sept. 22	Sao Paulo, BrazilJan. 21	Kelowna, B.C.	Oct. 1	Fort Frances, Ont.Jan. 21	Kelowna, B.C.	Oct. 8	Toronto, Ont.Feb. 4	New York City, N.Y.	Oct. 20	Blenheim, Ont.Feb. 11	Vancouver, B.C.	Oct. 22	Toronto, Ont.Feb. 12	Quesnel, B.C.	Nov. 3	Georgetown, Ont.Feb 12	Williams Lake, B.C.	Nov. 8	Winnipeg, Man.Feb. 16	Arnprior, Ont.	Nov. 8	Winnipeg, Man.Feb. 21	Windsor, Ont.	Nov. 10	London, Ont.Feb. 24	Ottawa, Ont.	Nov. 12	Toronto, Ont.March 4	Ottawa, Ont.	Nov. 15	Grand Falls, N.B.March 5	Uxbridge, Ont.	Nov. 17	Toronto, Ont.March 27	Leamington, Ont.	Nov. 18	Calgary, Alta.March 31	Strathroy, Ont.	Nov. 19	Calgary, Alta.Apr. 2	Clinton, Ont.	Nov. 19	Regina, Sask.Apr. 10	Coaticook, Que.	Nov. 19	Regina, Sask.Apr. 27	Athens, Ont.	Nov. 19	Regina, Sask.June 2	Calgary, Alta.	Nov. 24	Brandon, Man.June 9	Drayton, Ont.	Nov. 29	Toronto, Ont.June 23	Red Deer, Alta.	Nov. 30	Regina, Sask.June 29	Banff, Alta.	Dec. 1	Richmond, B.C.July 8	Ottawa, Ont.	Dec. 8	Edmonton, Alta.July 12	Pilot Mound, Man.	Dec. 8	Edmonton, Alta.Sept. 7	Buffalo, N.Y.	Dec. 10	Truro, N.S.Sept. 15	Ottawa, Ont.	Dec. 13	Ottawa, Ont.Date	Place	Date	PlaceJan. 3	Hanover, Ont.	May 18	Ottawa, Ont.Jan. 11	Culumbus, Ohio	May 25	Windsor, Ont.Jan. 13	Saskatoon, Sask.	June 2	Montreal, Que.Jan.14	Newmarket, Ont.	June 3	Ottawa, Ont.Jan. 19	Winnipeg, Man.	June 14	Chatham, Ont.Jan.19	Tilley, Alta.	July 6	Calgary, Alta.Jan. 20	Edmonton, Alta.	July 8	Ailsa Craig, Ont.Feb. 2	Letbridge, Alta.	July 13	Victoria, B.C.Feb. 2	Milk River, Alta.	July 13	Ottawa, Ont.Feb. 3	Lethbridge, Alta.	July 14	Port Albcmi, B.C.Feb. 7	London, Ont.	July 21	Roseneath, P.E.I.Feb. 8	Toronto, Ont.	July 22	Alliston, Ont.Feb. 8	Ottawa, Ont.	July 28	Regina, Sask.Feb. 11	Prince George, B.C.	July 28	Swan River, B.C.Feb. 14	Swift Current, Sask.	Sept. 19	Vancouver, B.C.Feb. 21	Ottawa, Ont.	Sept. 27	Toronto, Ont.Feb. 23	Miami, Man.	Sept. 29	St-Lambert de L6vis, Que.Feb. 24	Peterborough, Ont.	Oct. 20	Ottawa, Ont.March 2	Ottawa, Ont.	Oct. 25	Ottawa, Ont.March 4	London, Ont.	Oct. 25	Montreal, Que.March 8	London, Ont.	Oct. 26	Ottawa, Ont.March 15	Saskatoon, Sask.	Oct. 26	Belleville, Ont.March 22	Ottawa, Ont.	Oct. 27	Kamsack, Sask.March 31	Ottawa, Ont.	Oct . 31	Windsor, Ont.Apr. 19	Orillia, Ont.	Nov. 7	Winnipeg, Man.Apr. 29	Windsor, Ont.	Nov. 16	Rome, ItalyMay 2	Chateau Montebello, Que.	Nov. 29	Hamilton, Ont.May 6	Ottawa, Ont.	Dec. 7	Niagara Falls, Ont.May 7	Wakefield, Que.	Dec. 12	Ottawa, Ont.May 13	Hunterville, P.E.I.	Dec. 15	Chatham, Ont.1978	Date	Place	Date	PlaceJan. 11	Toronto, Ont.	Apr. 14	Rodney, Ont.Jan.16	Winnipeg, Man.	Apr. 17	Oakville, Ont.Jan.16	Winnipeg, Man.	Apr. 18	Ottawa, Ont.Jan. 16	Winnipeg, Man.	Apr. 20	Spencerville, Ont.Jan.18	Charlottetown, P.E.I.	Apr. 21	Durham, Ont.Jan.19	Spokane, Wash.	Apr. 24	Campbellford, Ont.Jan. 27	Peterborough, Ont.	May 5	Regina, Sask.Feb. 9	Paris, France	May 11	Renfrew, Ont.Feb. 10	Paris, France	May 25	Windsor, Ont.Feb. 15	Quebec City, Que.	May 31	Halifax, N.S.Feb. 18	Amherstburg, Ont.	June 2	Kitchener, Ont.Feb. 21	Calgary, Alta.	June 14	Mexico City, Mex.Feb. 22	Ottawa, Ont.	June 14	Mexico City, Mex.Feb. 23	Ottawa, Ont.	June 21	Alma, Que.March 1	Lethbridge, Alta.	Sept. 11	Cottam, Ont.March 2	Ottawa, Ont.	Sept. 12	Toronto, Ont.March 8	Ottawa, Ont.	Sept. 13	North Bay, Ont.March 10	Virden, Man.	Sept. 21	Guelph, Ont.March 13	Calgary, Alta.	Oct. 20	Calgary, Alta.March 31	Kirkton, Ont.	Oct. 23	Leamington, Ont.Apr. 3	Ottawa, Ont.	Oct. 25	Gananoque, Ont.Apr. 4	Bloomfield, Ont.	Oct. 30	Ottawa, Ont.Apr. 6	Carp, Ont.	Nov. 13	Toronto, Ont.Apr. 10 Apr. 12	Richmond, Ont. Winnipeg, Man.	Nov. 20	Ottawa, Ont.


Mr. MacKay: Were warrants requested pursuant to Section 16(2) of the Official Secrets Act, refused by the Solicitor General after they were recommended by the RCMP and, if so, how many?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Information concerning warrants issued pursuant to Section 16(2) of the Official Secrets Act will be contained in the Solicitor General's report to Parliament early in 1979, however, statistics with respect to refusals are not required.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1. With reference to the uninsured losses due to damage to buildings under the control of the Department of Agriculture detailed at page 9.60, Volume 1 of the

March 26, 1979

1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada, for what reason was the loss of $44,208 unexplained?
2.	What is the explanation for the loss?
3.	In what locations did the losses take place?
4.	Did the Department undertake procedural or structural changes to ensure that such an incident does not recur and, if so, what were they?


Eugene Whelan: 1.	The location, identification of buildings and estimated cost of damage sustained is all that is required to be reported for the Public Accounts of Canada.
2.	(a) Drying and threshing shed-estimated loss $19,208. Several persons who gained access by force were syphoning gasoline from a semi-tractor trailer unit stored in the building.
(b) Incinerator building-estimated loss $25,000. Incinerator overheated.
3.	(a) Research Station-Scott, Saskatchewan.
(b) Quarantine Station-Grosse lie, Quebec.
4.	(a) Yes. Increased security has been initiated to help prevent further occurrences of break and entry.
(b) Yes. The new facilities will be constructed in accordance with current National Fire and Building Codes of Canada.


Mr. Halliday: 1.	For the fiscal year 1977-78, how many (a) beef (b) dairy (c) poultry (d) pork (e) egg (f) corn producers in the Constituency of Oxford (i) applied for assistance (ii) received monetary assistance from the Department of Agriculture?
2.	For the same year, how many persons in the Constituency (a) applied for a loan (b) received a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation?


Eugene Whelan: 1.	Departmental records and accounting systems are not maintained nor designed to provide information by constituency. The information requested could only be obtained by conducting a manual search of a large number of producer files.
2.	Farm Credit Corporation advise that statistics are not maintained on a constituency basis. Oxford county consists of two field areas, which results in an overlap into Brant county. However, based on the foregoing, the answer is:
(a)	120.
(b)	110.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 58 and 963 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.
Waste and Mismanagement


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What gifts of more than a $100 cost to the taxpayer were given by the government and its officials to representatives of foreign governments for their personal use or the use of their families in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977?
2.	In each case (a) what was the cost of the gift to the taxpayer (b) to whom was it given (c) on what date was it given and by whom (d) for what reason was it given?
Return tabled.

Question No. 963-Mr. Beatty:
1.	What gifts of more than a $100 cost to the taxpayer were given by the government and its officials to representatives of foreign governments for their personal use or the use of their families in 1978?
2.	In each case (a) what was the cost of the gift to the taxpayer (b) to whom was it given (c) on what date was it given and by whom (d) for what reason was it given?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its continuing waste and mismanagement, and its failure to implement management and administrative procedures that will ensure that the taxpayers' funds are spent efficiently, effectively, and according to the will of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will be aware that, since this is the final day in this period, steps will be taken to finalize some aspects of supply this evening. That will result in the House being asked to deal with two supply bills this evening. As has been our practice in the recent past, I hope the House will proceed, as we have done recently to the satisfaction of hon. members, to have the bills distributed now, notwithstanding the fact that they will not, of course, have been read a first time and will not be read until some time much later in the day. This practice has taken away a great deal of the difficulty of the supply process in the manner in which we conduct it at the present time, giving hon. members the opportunity to see the bill earlier in the day.
This, of course, is an unofficial action and awaits first reading of the bills which will take place only after today's debate is concluded. The government, in an effort to co-oper-
4490

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
ate with this practice, now has available sufficient copies for distribution. May I assume it is the desire of the House that that be done forthwith?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will note that at 9.45 o'clock this evening every question necessary to dispose of proceedings on this motion shall be put forthwith, in accordance with Standing Order 58(10).


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the interim report of the royal commission on financial management and accountability, known as the Lambert commission, begins with a 200-year old quote by Thomas Paine:
Government, like dress, is a badge of lost innocence.
These words, as the author points out, reflect the free spirit of mankind that grudgingly concedes that, while governments may be a necessary evil, healthy suspicion of and constant vigilance over their activities must be maintained.
Government must have money and resources to operate and to do the things we ask of it. While no one loves the tax collector, Canadians certainly recognize that taxes are the price they pay for the provision of goods and services that they ask government to provide.
They give these funds to government in trust and ask that they be spent efficiently and effectively and on programs which they have approved through their elected representatives. That, sir, is the essence of our Canadian democratic system of government and therefore, when the taxpayers' money is misspent, wasted in an effective and inefficient manner and when the elected representatives have little or no say in how that money is to be spent, then our very system of democracy is undermined. That is why we have chosen this motion for discussion on this the final allotted day in the current supply period.
I am certain that when historians look back on the Trudeau years, it will be the gross mismanagement and resulting maladministration and waste that will stand out. It will be that, Mr. Speaker, which will define the place in history of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). No government in Canada's history has taken so much from the taxpayers of Canada and spent it so wastefully. No government in Canada's history has disparaged and downgraded parliament in the way this government has. No government in Canada's history has failed so miserably to achieve the goals it set out for itself.
We all recall, that, when the Prime Minister first took office he was dedicated to achieving the twin goals of a just society within a strong and united Canada. This Prime Minister, we were told, was the man to end separatism and create one strong Canada. Five years later he even declared separatism dead. But as we know, that obituary, like the obituary to Mark Twain, proved to be a gross exaggeration and today there is a government in Quebec dedicated to tearing this country apart. Tearing it apart? Perhaps that is an exaggeration. Perhaps, as
[Mr. Speaker.)
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) would have us believe, they are only four-fifths dedicated to tearing the country apart. Or is it one-fifth?
We all remember the other goals of this Prime Minister in his quest to achieve a just society for Canada. He said that he would end regional disparities in this country. He created a Department of Regional Economic Expansion, spent hundreds of millions, indeed billions, of dollars, yet today regional disparities are, if anything, worse than they were before he set out to cure them.
The Prime Minister set out to cure unemployment. He said that everybody who wanted to work should be able to work. Yet despite these lofty declarations of intent and innumerable job-creation programs from LIP to Katimavik, the fact of the matter is that during this government's term of office unemployment, save for a few perturbations, has steadily increased to the current level of 8.2 per cent. In France, a nation of 50 million, there are riots because unemployment is approaching one million. In this country we have had an unemployment level of a million Canadians for months and months and we have less than half the population of France.
The Prime Minister said he would not tolerate excessive inflation and indeed he committed himself to a wrestling match. To aid him in this fight he not only utilized the Department of Finance and the other departments of government, but in addition created five different outside boards and commissions to help him-the Prices and Incomes Commission, the Food Prices Review Board, the Anti-Inflation Board, the Commission for the Study of Incomes and Prices, and lastly the National Commission on Inflation. The current rate of inflation is 9.2 per cent. When this wrestling match started it was less than half that.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, when talking of this wrestling match with inflation we must never forget that it was this Prime Minister who said price and income controls would never work, that he would never introduce them. Then, with the election safely out of the way, he turned around and did exactly what he said he never would do. He will be remembered for that deception perpetrated on the Canadian people. He will be remembered for all of his failures. He fought inflation and failed. He fought unemployment and failed. He fought regional disparities and failed. He fought separatism and failed-failed miserably.
Well, Mr. Speaker, is it fair to ask how all these failures arose? I think it is. Indeed, we and the Canadian people have been asking regularly and these are the kind of answers we have been getting. At various times the Prime Minister has blamed his manifold failures on just about everybody and everything. He has blamed the weather on occasion. He has blamed international economic situations on several occasions. He has blamed provincial premiers for his failures in economic areas, his failures in energy policy, and, of course, his failure to drive separatism into the grave and keep it there.
But lately he has been making the most ridiculous accusations he has ever made. He has started to blame all of these failures of public policy on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. March 26, 1979

Clark). If one were to believe the statements the Prime Minister has been making, it is Joe Clark, the Leader of the Opposition, who is responsible for the disunity in the country, the falling dollar, the fact that eastern Canadians still do not have a secure supply of oil, and indeed just about every other problem facing the nation. Only a bankrupt government and a bankrupt Prime Minister would stoop to that level.
These most recent attacks on the Leader of the Opposition may be very entertaining to Liberal partisans, but they are fooling nobody. We know and the Canadian public know that the blame for this mismanagement, these monumental failures, rests right on the shoulders of this Liberal government and in particular this Prime Minister. The fact is that the present Prime Minister is the least able manager of any Prime Minister in Canada's history. It is widely accepted that this cabinet is the weakest in Canada's history. As a cabinet maker, the Prime Minister is a bust. Part of the reason is that he is a very poor judge of people. As Douglas Fisher stated in a column in the Toronto Sun on March 21, 1978:
Who was Mr. Trudeau's first senator? Bobbie Giguere! Who picked Jean Dube, Stanley Haidasz, Warren Allmand, Bob Stanbury, Tony Abbott, Jean-Jacques Blais, Jean-Pierre Goyer, Pierre Juneau and Jack Horner for the cabinet? Who chose Yves Pratte to head Air Canada and later placed Bryce Mackasey in the chairman's position at the airline?
The column goes on to list other such disastrous appointments and then Mr. Fisher points out:
Surely any leader who can be so robustly against wage and price controls, even as a freeze device and then take them up 15 months later without a quibble of candour, has demonstrated how various is his judgment.
But, even if these individuals are better than most people give them credit for being, they really have not had a chance to show it. The Prime Minister, because of the manner in which he has managed his cabinet, has almost destroyed cabinet government as it has been known to most Canadians. 1 wonder how many people realize that since the right hon. gentleman took office there have been 191 cabinet changes; that is, the 34 cabinet positions have in total been occupied by 191 different people. This means that on an average each cabinet minister has served in five portfolios and remained less than two years in any one particular cabinet post. Anybody in his right mind knows there cannot be anything else but mismanagement and maladministration when the chief executive officer of an organization changes with that kind of frequency.
At the deputy minister level, changes have been almost as frequent. Vitally important portfolios, like industry, trade and commerce, energy, mines and resources and even finance have seen their deputy ministers change with far too much frequency. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has had four deputy ministers in the last four years-Jack Armstrong, Gordon MacNabb, Marshall Cohen and now Ian Stewart. Is it any wonder that the government has no coherent energy policy? If a private sector organization went through such managerial changes it would be in deep, deep trouble, and if not bankrupt, on the verge of bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, if we want to know why this government has failed so miserably to achieve the goals it has set for itself, we need look no
Waste and Mismanagement
further than how this Prime Minister has built his cabinets and how he has managed them.
That mismanagement is undoubtedly the root cause of the grossly inadequate financial management and control this government has exercised over taxpayers' money. Hon. members will recall the observation of the Auditor General in his 1975 annual report, and I quote:
The present state of financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
That was said in 1975, and the government did absolutely nothing in response to that highly critical statement regarding its management capabilities. The Auditor General was moved in his 1976 annual report to state, and I quote:
Based on the study of the systems of departments, agencies and Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control of the Government of Canada is grossly inadequate. Furthermore, it is likely to remain so until the government takes strong, appropriate and effective measures to rectify this critically serious situation.
It is hard to conceive of a more damning statement of gross mismanagement. It is hard to conceive of what words an auditor could use to be more damning in his criticism. An audit of that kind delivered to a private sector company would result in the immediate resignation of all senior executives and, very likely, shareholder suits directed against the board of directors.
What was the response of the government? Essentially nothing. The government did accept one recommendation of the Auditor General. A Comptroller General was appointed, but the government refused to give the Comptroller General any legislative authority to perform his function and to get to the root of the problem. As we predicted during the Comptroller General debate, the evidence is mounting that this lack of legislative authority has resulted in several attempts to prevent the Comptroller General from doing his job. There have been several attempts to undermine the huge and important task he is called upon to fulfil. My colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), will have more to say about that in this debate, but that basically has been the total action taken by the government.
The failure of the government to achieve its goals resulted in a new ministry last fall, the Board of Economic Development Ministers, but as yet I have not talked to anybody or read anything about just exactly what this group is going to do. Clearly, the members of the board seem more determined and concerned about putting a good face on this government prior to the coming election rather than restoring proper management.
The specific examples of waste and plain spillage of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money as a result of the failure of this government to administer properly its position of trust are really too numerous to list, even if I had the whole day. The Post Office Department alone would require a day of debate, especially when we realize that in the last ten years the number of pieces of mail delivered by the department has

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
increased 20 per cent and that the staff has increased by 50 per cent. The Post Office Department is running a $350 millions deficit. In spite of all that, it still cannot deliver mail on time and frequently does not deliver at all.
We could spend a day talking about the $3 million ill-considered and poorly planned Loto Canada spillage which the minister responsible tried to claim was an example of good management. The money wasted by this government on airports like Mirabel, Pickering and, yes, even Calgary, is worthy of a day's debate.
The money wasted and squandered by Crown corporations like Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in its Argentina deal deserves at least a day of debate, and we certainly could have a day of debate on the money wasted by the Department of Public Works on excessively high cost office space in Ottawa and Hull. There is not time to deal with them all. There is not time left in this parliament to do justice to debate on examples of waste and incompetence on the part of this government, but my colleagues who will be speaking later in the day will try to deal with some of these and others.
Anyone can understand mistakes, but ten years of continuing waste and mismanagement of incredibly damning audits by the Auditor General and no evidence of concrete action taken to rectify this-to use the words of the Auditor General-"particulary serious situation" are things the public do not understand and will not forgive.
Closely related to these gross failures in management is the disparaging and cynical view of parliament that this government and particularly the Prime Minister take. As the Lambert commission points out in its interim report, and as the Auditor General has pointed out on several occasions, parliament has lost control of the public purse and, indeed, the government probably has as well.
No Prime Minister in history has had less respect or less regard for this institution, parliament, than has this Prime Minister. Hon. members will recall that famous quote to the effect that we members of parliament are nobodies when we get 50 yards from the Hill. That statement might have been made in a fit of pique, but the evidence shows that that indeed is the view of the Prime Minister. He genuinely believes that the House of Commons has no right to interfere with government, that we do not have competence, that we are nobodies and therefore, by implication, that those who elected us are not very smart either.
The fact that this is the view of the Prime Minister is reflected in the manner in which closure is used by the government with such increasing frequency. Just last week there was evidence of the government's writing closure into legislation. Such is the enthusiasm of this government for closure that we had the ridiculous spectacle last week of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) moving closure on a debate which had ended.
Without complete parliamentary oversight and parliamentary authority over spending by government, we do not have a parliamentary democracy, not in any real sense. The rule

changes introduced by the Prime Minister soon after his taking office removed the last vestiges of authority parliament might have had over the spending habits of this or any government. But the Prime Minister has not been satisfied with just eliminating parliament's authority with regard to spending. He was not satisfied just to change the rules so that parliament could no longer alter even a nickel's worth of the government's spending plans. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent parliament from even knowing about or being aware of government spending.
In this respect I refer to the way in which spending estimates are cooked and manipulated to disguise their true magnitude. I have dealt with this subject in this House before. I have dealt with the manner in which this government disguises its true spending. I have pointed out the flimflam and basically dishonest bookkeeping which successive presidents of the Treasury Board have utilized in an attempt to lull the Canadian public into believing that the government really does have a handle on spending and that it really is reducing the amount being spent.
I have pointed out how, through the use of Crown corporations, vast sums of money-billions which belong to the taxpayers of Canada and which we in the House of Commons should be examining and authorizing the expenditure of-are being spent, amounts which not only do not receive parliamentary authority but which also are not even presented to parliament for its information. Starting in 1968 the government changed the rules regarding the presentation of estimates so that loans repaid were no longer listed on the revenue side but showed up as negative expenditures. If the government used the old and proper accounting procedure, spending estimates this year would be $244 million higher than the estimates presented. This year, the government is presenting spending estimates of an incredible $52.6 billion. Even more incredible and frightening to anybody who cares about the economic welfare of the country is that our $12 billion deficit is some $2 billion more than the entire spending of the government when this administration took office.
However, that is not the whole story. That $52.6 billion does not include $1.5 billion being spent by Petro-Canada. It does not include several hundred million dollars being spent by the Export Development Corporation. It does not include the several hundred million dollars being spent by CMHC. It does not include moneys being used to subsidize Syncrude production. That is some type of revolving fund. It does not include moneys being spent on airports because the airport revolving fund has been taken out of the spending estimates. Mr. Speaker, the actual spending is several billions of dollars higher than this government has declared to the public. This disguising, this hiding of public sector spending from the elected representatives of the Canadian people-that is, from us in the House of Commons-is a classic example which demonstrates the utter contempt that the Prime Minister has for parliament and our parliamentary, democratic system.
March 26, 1979

I could quite easily spend an entire day talking about the ways in which Crown corporations are used to abuse parliament, but I want to bring to the attention of the House just one of the more recent examples. When spending estimates were tabled last spring by the then president of the Treasury Board, the current President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras), he assured the House and the Canadian public that spending would be restricted to $48,800 million, not a cent more. Later in the year when the Liberals anticipated an election and wanted to look fiscally responsible, they reduced that figure by another $500 million.
That target proved impossible, so what did they do? They directed CMHC to sell over $400 million worth of mortgages from their portfolio. This CMHC did at a loss of millions of dollars to Canadians, a loss which does not show up anywhere in the bills, a loss which is not admitted. It is impossible for the House to determine what loss was involved in that sale.
Then the government had the colossal gall to list in Supplementary Estimates (A) receipts from this sale of $365 million as a negative expenditure. They sold the assets and listed the receipts of these assets as a negative expenditure. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? If that is not flimflam, if that is not book cooking, what is it? The fact of the matter is that by that little procedure they disguised spending by $700 million and they were then able to stand up and say: "We have achieved the target we set." I say, hogwash. They achieved no such target, they cooked the books.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: That is right.


Harvie Andre: That is not the only way they cooked the books. It is interesting to note what they have done with the amendments to the family allowances program which resulted in the claim of a $690 million reduction in expenditures. Do you know how that happened, Mr. Speaker? They listed the tax credit as a negative revenue. They said they spent $690 million when in fact their cash requirements went up. The new program is costing them more money than did the old program, but they are claiming a reduction of $690 million in expenditures. If that is not flimflam, what is it? That kind of book-cooking, that kind of manipulation, in the private sector would result in the financial officers of any company going to jail because of their distortion of the true financial picture by some $730 million. Yet here we have the government doing it all the time.
If you wonder why we have so many Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker, you need look no further than that example for the reason. Crown corporations give the government enormous flexibility to create the kind of impression they want to create. If they want to disguise government spending, they push it off on to Crown corporations. If a public issue or problem breaks out and they cannot come up with a solution, they create a Crown corporation, give it a fancy title and offer this to the public as an example of how responsive they are. If the Crown corporation does something which is perceived to be positive, the minister is up front taking the credit; but if the Crown
Waste and Mismanagement
corporation fouls things up, the minister claims ignorance and denies any responsibility.
The classic example of that is AECL. When AECL sold a reactor to Argentina, the then minister of energy, mines and resources, Donald Macdonald, was saying that this is an example of how wonderful Crown corporations can be in the energy sector. When it turned out that we were going to lose tens of millions of dollars on the deal and we had to pay a bribe to get the contract, you could not find a minister who would admit to having heard of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
The fact that members of parliament not only do not have an opportunity to approve Crown corporations' spending programs but are not even given any information about these programs is precisely the thing about Crown corporations that this Prime Minister likes. That explains why, during the period 1970 to 1975, three-quarters of the current 400 Crown corporations were created-300 Crown corporations in a five-year period. So what, you might ask; if they are doing a good job, why not let them? The fact is that they are not doing a good job, as the Auditor General pointed out. In his 1976 report he stated:
In the majority of Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control is weak and ineffective.
This is a terribly damning statement. What did the government do? The Privy Council did a study in which they recommended some changes to the Financial Administration Act and said a bill would be placed before parliament in the fall of 1977. A month ago I asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) whether he intended to live up to that promise and introduce the bill. His answer was precise and succinct: he said no, he had no intention of doing it.
The fact that the Auditor General points out that Crown corporations are mismanaged, the fact that there are over 200,000 people employed by these Crown corporations, representing basically a second civil service beyond the control of parliament and probably beyond the control of the government, the fact that these Crown corporations control assets of over $30 billion, and the fact that more and more of the public are demanding that this government do a better job of managing its resources, had not affected this government one whit.
Crown corporations are too convenient a tool to hide and disguise government activities, and even if they are wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars, the government does not intend to do anything about it. Deception has been so much the way of action of this government that it cannot seem to comprehend that openness, honesty and full accountability to parliament is the only way that proper management of the taxpayers' resources will occur.
I could go on and on with various examples of mismanagement. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last fall the government announced $500 million worth of cuts. We have taken another look at that list. They have backtracked and flip-flopped on 15 items representing $165 million. So they have flip-flopped on $165 million worth of so-called cuts last year.

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
The government is now in possession of an initial copy of the Lambert commission report. The commission has reported and the copies are being printed and should be made public in a few days. If they are not made public, it is because the government does not want the public to know the recommendations which the Lambert commission made.
The commission recommends changes in the way that cabinets and deputy ministers are appointed and moved around. It is recommending changes in the manner in which this government is organized. It is recommending an enhancing and an upgrading of the role of parliament to ensure that the people's representatives can find out what the government is doing as well as exercising authority over it. It is recommending changes in Crown corporations and the way in which they are handled. It is recommending changes in the Treasury Board and in other central agencies of the government. In essence, what the Lambert commission is doing is making recommendations for very widespread changes in the manner in which this government has been operating. In making these recommendations the Lambert commission is stating implicitly that at present the government is maladministered and grossly mismanaged.
Lest hon. members on the other side get the wrong impression-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Five minutes.


Harvie Andre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members of the House. I will take two more minutes. I did not want to give the impression that I am in receipt of an advance copy of the Lambert commission report because I am not, but I do have a general inkling of what it contains. Indeed, one can get that message from the interim report. If I look forward with anticipation to the report of the Lambert commission, it is because it will be recommending precisely what my party has been recommending for quite a period of time.
If there is any doubt about that, I would refer hon. members to the debate which took place in February of 1978 when we allotted an opposition day to this subject. We laid out in specific detail the necessary changes to restore democratic control in the government's spending processes and to ensure that proper management and effective control of taxpayers' money is the rule rather than the exception.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, the government administers taxpayers' money in trust. A position of trust demands the utmost in care, efficiency and effectiveness, and that the money be spent in accordance with the wishes of the democratically elected representatives of the people. The government has failed to honour this trust. It has failed miserably,

and in the process it has wasted enormous amounts of money, and perhaps even more seriously, it has wasted ten or 11 years which could have been put to better use.
Basically the Lambert commission is recommending that everything the Prime Minister has done in regard to managing the affairs of Canada be changed. That verifies our view that this is the most poorly managed government in Canada's history. I urge the House to support this motion so that Canadians will get their long overdue opportunity to express their opinion.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) for introducing this motion before the House today. Let me indicate at the outset that we intend to support it.
I should like to comment on approximately three or four matters. First, I will give some evidence of government mismanagement and waste. I will make a few comments in general about government spending and the practices of various governments across the country. Also I should like to comment a little on the entire area of corporate waste, which we sometimes forget about.
A portion of the motion reads "to implement management and administrative procedures that will ensure that the taxpayers' funds are spent efficiently". The hon. member for Calgary Centre referred to Crown corporations and the fact that there are approximately 400 of them in the country. Also he referred to the lack of authority parliament has over them. Perhaps a solution which should be thought about by parliament is the one which was introduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) when he was premier of Saskatchewan a long time ago. At that time they struck in the legislature a committee on Crown corporations. Part of the practice of the legislative assembly in Saskatchewan is that an annual report of every Crown corporation is referred to the appropriate committee before the house recesses or before the house closes for the year. In that way members of the legislative assembly have a direct input into what Crown corporations are saying and doing. For at least the commercial Crown corporations, such as Petro-Canada, Air Canada, AECL and various other ones, perhaps this procedure should be implemented into the rules and regulations of this House. Regardless of party or regardless of government, it would give all of us a chance to give some input to the directions and priorities of Crown corporations.
In terms of the entire area of waste, there is a lot of evidence concerning government waste and mismanagement. All one has to do is look at several Auditor General reports. They show the whole litany of bad decisions, waste and mismanagement listed year in and year out. One can look at examples in the city of Ottawa where federal government buildings are sitting empty. I am glad the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) will be replying. Perhaps he can comment on this area as well.
I have before me a copy of an article which appeared in the February 24, 1979, edition of the Ottawa Journal. It is
March 26, 1979

entitled: "Vacant space will cost $167,000 a month". It refers to the moving of certain public servants across the river. I am not commenting upon the policy of government buildings being decentralized out of Ottawa to Hull or other places; I am commenting upon the lack of good management-that there should be a tremendous waste of buildings already available. I am commenting upon the fact that there should have been better planning and phasing in of the program so that taxpayers' funds are not wasted in such a manner.
There are other examples of government waste. I should like to refer to one which has been localized and raised in the House before. It is an ad which appeared in a small weekly newspaper in my constituency. I believe this ad has appeared in every weekly and daily newspaper in Saskatchewan recently. The one I have in my hand appeared in a weekly publication known as the Foam Lake Review on March 14, 1979. It is an ad which could be almost labelled a political one, except that it is paid for by the Government of Canada. It is in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) of Transport Canada. The ad is entitled: "Can Canada really export 114 billion bushels of grain a year by 1985?". The ad refers to the tremendous achievements of the government in the last few years by building export capacity for the movement of grain. I should like to know how much such an ad costs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It pretends to be an article.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has stated, it looks like an article. There was another such ad in Vancouver. It referred to saving thousands of dollars on car fuel over the next five years if one could. It was in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), the honourable czar of energy. There are various ads of that sort. I see the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) smiling. He is really very ashamed about this.
What about PRAC? PRAC was established by the Minister of Transport to look at rail line abandonment in the prairies. I should like to quote from the ad wherein it refers to PRAC. It reads as follows:
You can fight for unprotected branch lines several ways, starting right now. Here is what you can do:
1.	Form a local retention committee. Co-operate with other retention committees on the same rail line.
2.	Study the reasons why the Hall commission or PRAC recommended abandonment. You may find an important mistake or you may find the situation has changed.
Many mistakes have been made by the Prairie Rail Action Committee. The ad continues:
3.	Let the western arm of the CTC know you plan to defend a line. It will be alerted that people are interested in saving a line and want a hearing.
The minister could be saying this in press releases and in speeches. One can go back to the fact that most of the lines should not be abandoned in the first place. It continues:
The western arm of the CTC can deny an application for abandonment for Five years or so. The western arm of the CTC can also recommend to the
Waste and Mismanagement
Minister of Transport that a line should be added to the permanent network,
guaranteed into the next century.
The Minister of Transport can add lines to the permanent network.
One must remember the cost of such ads to taxpayers. This type of thing makes Canadians very, very cynical about government, the management ability of politicians, bureaucrats and public servants. That makes me very sad because I do not think Crown corporations, governments or public servants are any less capable of managing money than the private sector. I do not think they are any less capable of planning the economy than the private sector. It is ads such as this which lessen the credibility of government as an institution. They lessen the credibility of people who are involved in public life and manage the funds of the country. It is nothing less than a blatant political ad. The government is sticking its hand and greedy fingers into the pork barrel in an attempt to be re-elected in a few ridings in western Canada.


An hon. Member:: That is the way to do it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I wish the hon. member opposite would rise to his feet and say that this is the way the government should go about doing things for the country.
In a debate of this type we should look at the priorities in managing money which the government has set. It is not only that the government wastes money, but we should look at its priorities. It is willing to give millions of dollars to professional hockey teams for rinks, but when a small town wants to build a rink for amateur sport, suddenly it meets the government's restraint program head on. I ask why?
Then look at what is being done about medical research in this country. Again, this has been cut back. When we look at the problems the native people have, and problems in respect of Indian housing, again we see that we are running into restraints. I think that is mismanagement of government funds.
Millions of dollars are being handed to the pulp and paper industry in spite of the fact that these companies are making profits and are not broke. Still they are receiving over $200 million in public funds. I think that is mismanagement of government funds.
When I look at the gifts the government opposite gives the huge corporations I am reminded of the fact that this government has probably borrowed more money abroad than any government in the past in order to prop up the falling Canadian 85-cent dollar, about which the government boasts sometimes. It is now printing a new $20 bill which is not worth much more than the dollar of a few years ago. This government has borrowed billions of dollars to defend the falling dollar, and we are now paying all kinds of interest on that borrowed money. At the same time this government is deferring corporate income taxes. That is money this government could use to reduce this huge deficit, money that could be used

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
to build up the economy in this country, making it much stronger.
I notice that corporate deferred taxes have gone up $1.6 billion in the third quarter of 1978 compared to the third quarter of 1977. I understand these deferred taxes now stand at some $12.3 billion as of the third quarter of 1978. These are deferred taxes. I am sure that if the poor people in this country, such as those women working in the squid industry in Newfoundland, wanted to defer a few bucks in taxes it would not be long before the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) was demanding that they pay these few bucks to the national revenue department.
These are the things I think we should be noting when we are talking about government mismanagement of funds. We should look at this government's priorities to see whether it is governing for the ordinary, little person in this country. I think we should also be futuristic and think about the way this government is planning the economy. Just think of all the types of priorities this government has. If we look at these priorities in hard terms I think we must conclude that the government is wasting all kinds of money and is not planning the economy.
We should look at a number of different areas, for example grain handling. The Wheat Board has said that if we had put more money into boxcars we could have sold an extra $350 million worth of grain this year alone. We could have done that if we had adequate rolling-stock. We have seen many reports that say that if the government had a proper program in respect of nutrition to inform people about the foods they are eating, we could save hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year in terms of hospital bills that are escalating so rapidly in this country.
There are many other things one could point out. I think of the money wasted in relation to our human potential, particularly when I look at that vast reservoir of unemployed in this country, the result of a lack of planning in our economy. I look at the fact that we as a nation import more manufactured goods per capita than any other industrial country in the world. Surely to God we can do more processing of our raw materials in this country, for example, by upgrading the nickel in Nickel Belt and the Sudbury basin. By doing this we could be providing jobs for Canadians. I think that is one of the most condemning features of this government's lack of ability to manage and plan our economy in a proper way.
We should look at the food picture, something about which I am very interested in terms of agriculture and the consumer. We are becoming less and less self-sufficient in the production of food. If we had proper government management of the economy we could be producing a lot more food in this country. Some 70 per cent of our strawberries, for example, are being imported along with some 30 per cent of our cabbages, 44 per cent of our onions and 24 per cent of our cherries.
Many of these things that are imported could be produced in this country. I look across the way and see my good friend, the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand). I do not

have the clipping with me, but that environmental czar over there said about a year ago that if we could use the energy that is wasted in this country we could produce an extra $2 billion worth of fruits and vegetables. He said that we could do that if we had proper planning of resources for the Canadian people.
In fact, if we discount grains and oilseeds we find that in 1978 our net deficit in the production of food amounted to about $1.6 billion. We are only about 90 per cent efficient in the production of beef. Just think of our very small population and the huge acreage we have in Alberta, Saskatchewan and other provinces for the production of beef. If we had proper management of the economy we could be more than self-sufficient in the production of beef in this country.
These are some of the things we should be looking at when we are considering a motion such as the one before the House today, and this brings me to the second part of the subject I wish to discuss. I do not think it is just the government across the way that does not know how to manage things. I got the impression from the Conservative party that it was a super manager and would get rid of government debts. I got the impression from members of that party that they would cut back on government spending. I used to believe them as I am basically a person who believes everything everybody tells me. I always believed that people were telling the truth. Perhaps I was naive in thinking that they would not mislead me. I did a little bit of research to see whether the Tories have a monopoly on prudent government spending, small deficits and proper management and planning. That is not what I found at all. I think this House should know some of the facts.
I just noticed in the paper on Saturday that Premier Lough-eed had added another five our six members to his cabinet, and with 29 cabinet ministers in the province of Alberta he has the largest cabinet of any provincial government. In terms of a small Tory management team, again this is an indication-


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Barrett.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Barrett had a much smaller cabinet than that.


An hon. Member:: How many people are there in Alberta?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The population of Alberta is something under two million. The population of Quebec is over six million and the population of Ontario is well over seven million, yet Alberta still has by far the largest provincial cabinet in this country.
Let us look at numbers in respect of public servants. The province of Saskatchewan has 1.8 per cent of its people in the public service. In Nova Scotia, 2.3 per cent of the population is in the public service. In that Tory bastion of Alberta I am told that 2.4 per cent of the people are public servants, and in Tory New Brunswick the figure is 3.4 per cent. I understand that the national average is 3.3 per cent. This shows that the government that is a socialist government is the one that knows how to manage. Saskatchewan is by far the best managed province in this country.
March 26, 1979

Let us have a look at capital spending. When Tories hear the facts they cannot face them and they leave the House, like the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) is now doing. Let us have a look at per capita spending. The hon. member for Calgary Centre talked a lot about government spending, but which province in 1976 had the lowest per capita spending in the country? Was it the province of Ontario or the province of Alberta, or was it a Tory province at all? The answer is no; it was the province of Saskatchewan. It spent $1,436 per capita. Alberta had a per capita expenditure of $1,657, with Ontario spending over $1,700. All the other provinces had per capita expenditures that were higher, including Tory Ontario.
Let us look at government debt. Everybody knows that Saskatchewan for years was a very poor or have-not province. It was a province that always received transfer payments from the federal government. Let us look at government debt because we often get lectures in this House by Tories about how they would get rid of debts if they were in power. The lowest per capita provincial debt in this country is not the debt of a Tory province, and not that of the province of Alberta, but rather the province of Saskatchewan with a debt of $980 per capita. The province of Quebec is second with a per capita debt of $1,803. Alberta, with all its wealth and immense potential, its heritage fund and everything else, has a per capita debt of $1,880; in other words, twice as high as the per capita debt of the province of Saskatchewan. Then there is wealthy Ontario with a per capita debt of $2,059. In poorer provinces such as Newfoundland, the per capita debt is $3,000.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Tory New Brunswick is very, very bad. In Saskatchewan, however, one-seventh of every cent goes toward paying off the debt of the province, whereas in Ontario eight cents of every tax dollar goes into paying off the provincial debt. We must put into perspective the fact that, the Tories are very, very poor when it comes to managing the taxpayers' money. I am not quoting the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) or the hon. member for Edmonton Centre or anybody else in that party; I am merely quoting the facts as they are stated by statistics Canada with regard to the various provincial governments in this country.
The third area which I would like to talk about in the three minutes I have left is corporate waste. We talk a lot about government waste, but there is also corporate waste which in many cases, I think, is more extravagant or, at least, as extravagant as the waste by the government of this country.
I remember CEMA and the great debate about the egg marketing agency a few years ago. People hit the roof because a few million eggs had spoiled. The spoiled eggs represented about one half of one per cent of the eggs produced in this country. It amounted to about one day's production by all the hens in Canada. If a company had a margin of error of less than one half of one per cent, I am sure that many people would say that they had a very efficient board of directors.
Waste and Mismanagement
There are many cases of corporate waste. For example, I have a report commissioned by the Food Prices Review Board called the Mallen report. The report discusses the waste in the retail food system of our country and how Canadians are paying more than they should because of the fact companies are so wasteful. The report also discusses excess capacity. They said, for example, that the average excess capacity increased the price of food by some 3.7 per cent. In Sydney, for example, people are paying-


Mr. McKenzie:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One of the Tories is terribly upset. I wonder if anybody has a valium tablet.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will cover it when I am on my feet.


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: More, more!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I will take but one minute, and I thank the House for giving me the additional time. I was talking about-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I hear someone telling me that there is not unanimous consent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I hope that you, sir, will take note of the fact that to the speaker of the Conservative party who moved this motion, we gave unanimous consent. I want the House to notice how ungracious certain members in the official opposition appear to be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. That is a matter which is beyond our control.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, in support of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), I must say there was unanimous consent, I think, to allow the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) to continue his speech for a few minutes. I respect your decision, but I would like to add a few remarks on the motion presented by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). It is a pity, Mr. Speaker, that once in a while-in fact, often-we have to introduce motions such as this one to make the public aware of the carelessness and incompetence of the government which has been in power for almost ten years.
On November 29, 1977, in a motion I introduced in this House, I mentioned particularly the lack of foresight and
4498

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
leadership on the part of the government. Naturally, when I said steps had to be taken to get the economy going again, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned among other things a few very important points, namely the weakening of our industry as a result of the flooding of the Canadian market with imported products, foreign products, inadequate funding to create employment in the economically weak areas and particularly the very high interest rates we have to pay on borrowings by federal, provincial and municipal governments and school boards.
The two hon. members who spoke before me talked abundantly of the waste of this government. I refer to the fact they forgot to mention-I hope they simply forgot to mention-the shameful waste that we have been witnessing and the fact that every day we are paying over $17 million-$17.9 million, to be more specific-in interest on this country's debt. And we of the Social Credit Party of Canada are convinced that it is a shameful waste because the Bank of Canada could readily be used to create the necessary credit and thus be indebted to ourselves rather that to foreigners. So, except for us, this government and the opposition forget to talk about those important things particularly trying to show the people of this country the mismanagement of this government in face of the constant waste going on day in and day out.
Mr. Speaker, during that motion I introduced in November, 1977,1 asked and still ask on behalf of the people of my riding, the people of Rimouski and the people in the Gaspe area in general, the government at that time to take immediate steps to ensure the freedom and security of workers, farmers, mothers and people in general. I also urged the government to create jobs for young people coming out of our universities or CEGEPs with big, beautiful diplomas, with big, beautiful parchments but who face nothingness-we have no job. Mr. Speaker, those people have courage and will, they want to earn a decent living. They face the incompetence of the government, unemployment, welfare and misery.
Mr. Speaker, as the incompetence of the government apparently became its trademark and as regional disparities are increasing, it becomes more and more difficult to find jobs in some areas. After the budgetary cuts, those same areas are also unnecessarily affected by those drastic measures, namely the less favoured areas, as I said earlier.
When I spoke last October 17 in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the rate of unemployment in my area was 15 per cent; in Quebec, only the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area had a higher unemployment rate, and only by a few decimal points. Today, Mr. Speaker, even if our area is represented in cabinet, even if all the neighbouring constituencies are Liberal, the rate of unemployment has, sad to say, climbed to 21.2 per cent; this is the highest in Quebec and comes right after the Corner Brook area in Newfoundland where the unemployment rate is 24.3 per cent. It is therefore important to remind everyone of

this situation, Mr. Speaker. I always make a point of recalling this situation because I feel we must remove these economic disparities if we want Canada to develop in harmony. It is most discouraging to note, however, that the gap between rich and poor areas has again widened.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to come back to the relevancy of today's motion which concerns government waste. The latest example of this, and probably the most inexcusable, is certainly the famous $23 million contract with General Instruments to launch the notorious and short-lived Loto Select. Once again, the federal government did all it could to go over the heads of the provinces and do what it wanted while interfering underhandedly in an area of provincial jurisdiction. In addition to the financial losses caused by the cancellation of this contract, there was also the arrogance that this government showed toward the provinces. But the provinces no longer tolerate this type of interference and are showing an ever more united front, so the government had to backpedal and the Canadian taxpayers, that is all of us, now have to pay the piper without having danced to the tune and to suffer from the incompetence of the government opposite.
Mr. Speaker, on October 23 last, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) asked to be allowed to make a very small additional loan of $17 billion for so-called operating expenditures. The financial requirements of the government reached astronomical proportions at the same time as all sorts of things were done to save $4 billion by cutting back very important existing services. During that time, the Bank of Canada exhausted its reserves to support our drowning dollar, which has been trying to surface for several months already, but to no avail, Mr. Speaker, since the dollar stayed at 85 cents and floated between something over 85 cents and 84 cents, to the great satisfaction, it seems, of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner).
The government has also invested in all sorts of programs of doubtful need and effectiveness. We could talk, for instance, of all the commissions on prices that we have seen. We have had the Prices Review Board, the Anti-Inflation Board, the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity, and finally, the National Commission on Inflation. I would like to know the cost of establishing and dismantling all those commissions, which have been totally ineffective and, in any case, never had any real power.
What about real estate resources? We now have more office space than we need because the public service will curtail its expansion and even cut back staff in some instances. It will even be worse with a Progressive Conservative government since that party intends to cut 60,000 government jobs. Also, the government decentralization will also affect the surplus of space. The government has shown a complete lack of foresight. I hope it knows where it is going. In any event, the final verdict belongs to the people and it will come soon.
March 26, 1979

I also want to mention the propaganda war going on between Quebec and the federal government which both want to promote their view of federalism. We spend large sums of money in advertising not to promote federalism as is but rather to promote Trudeau style federalism, a centralized and dictatorial form of federalism where the provinces are only the pawns of the central government. There again, we do not know how much that will cost us. This debate strikes me as sterile. Instead, the government should apply itself to making concrete proposals to the provinces, at least to prove to Quebec its willingness to come to terms. While the Pepin-Robarts report has gone to gather dust on shelves somewhere, both DREE and the Department of Supply and Services are going ahead with their little publicity campaign in Quebec, simply because the provincial government made a campaign of its own to get people involved in its OSE program. It seems to me those federal funds could be better invested. I know many unemployed workers in my riding who would be very happy to know the Canada Works program has more funds at its disposal.
Another example of inconsistency comes to my mind, that of the child tax credit. Anyone who has the right to claim that tax credit will have to fill out a separate tax return; this means that in a family where there is but one wage earner, that is the father, the mother will have to fill in her own tax return. And talk about the problems of separated couples and the income of dependent children! Revenue Canada will have to check over two million additional tax returns, that is the tax returns themselves, checking the return of the wife against that of her husband, and all the appended slips and required vouchers. Now that is another costly administrative chaos. In addition, a large number of those returns will surely not have been filled in properly. Can you imagine all that paper work, all that red tape in order to reduce family allowances!
Mr. Speaker, when ordinary folk have to tighten their belts because inflation is eroding their pay cheques and unemployment constantly threatens a large number of workers in this country, we must react quickly and use public funds to solve urgent problems and so improve the lot of our people and foster human dignity in this country.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion because I am concerned that members opposite are continuing to ignore the genuine progress that is being made in the area of management efficiency by this government. I am concerned because, in the rush for public attention, facts are being overlooked and much evidence is lost in the mud of political rhetoric.
I -vant to take the next few minutes to review for hon. members some of the initiatives that have been undertaken and to discuss some of the actions now under way. I will discuss the continuing program of restraint in spending and in the administration of the government operations, as well as draw attention to the IMPAC studies under way by the
Waste and Mismanagement
Comptroller General. I will comment also on the government's restraint program.
As far as administrative measures are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the members of this House that a program of administrative restraint was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) when he was president of the Treasury Board on March 25, 1976. This program has been carried through vigorously both by my predecessor, the present President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras), and myself, and I am pleased to report to you the following achievements of administrative restraint during the first nine months of fiscal year 1978-79.
In keeping with the new Treasury Board guidelines on office accommodation, the government in consolidating and reducing its over-all use of office space. More than 82 accommodation requests were received by the Treasury Board during the last year and the space requested was reduced by more than 20 per cent. As a result, government reduced its actual inventory of office space by about one million square feet with a concomitant saving of about $7 million in annual rent.
In keeping with government policy to conserve energy, Treasury Board has issued new guidelines for the acquisition of motor vehicles. As a result, the purchasing trend of a few years ago, which was made up mainly of full-sized sedans and station wagons, has been completely reversed. Compacts now account for 55 per cent of new purchases, while full-sized car purchases dropped to 3 per cent in 1978. Apart from the obvious savings in energy consumption, the reduced purchasing price that can be attributed to this changing mix in the government vehicle fleet is of the order of $1 million per year.
With respect to broader energy savings, Treasury Board, in co-operation with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, has instructed departments to observe the necessary caution of energy consumption. As a result, the government energy bill last year was reduced by $31 million. Reflecting these measures of prudent housekeeping, Ontario Hydro reported that the city of Ottawa was the only major city in Ontario to use less electricity in 1977 than the year before. A good part of the credit goes to the federal government, according to Ontario Hydro, for cutting down its consumption.
In a further attempt to conserve energy while supporting public transportation, government no longer provides all of its employees in city core areas with free parking. In 1978-79 this policy, which is now in effect throughout most Canadian cities, produced revenues of $1.4 million.
In the broad area of office equipment, government savings last year were some $3 million as a result of better tendering procedures, limiting choices and further restraint in acquisitions. Similarly, with respect to office furniture, expenditures have been reduced sharply over the past years and are now stabilized at around $5 million per year, compared to $7 million per year before the restraint program took effect. Meanwhile new policies have been put in place to maintain the newly established ceiling of $5 million.

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
To cut down on the number of employees that were engaged from temporary help agencies, Treasury Board last year instituted a new policy whereby such employees cannot be hired for more than eight weeks and all contractual arrangements with the agencies would be conducted by the Department of Supply and Services. These policies have resulted in a much better utilization of existing public service staff while reducing government expenditures on outside help by millions of dollars.
Whereas newpaper articles last year quoted figures of $25 million for temporary help, these expenditures for the first nine months of the current fiscal year were $6.6 million for the national capital region and about $4 million for federal offices elsewhere in Canada.
First class air travel by public servants has been reduced by 90 per cent since 1975.
With respect to electronic data processing, government expenditures, expressed in 1974 dollars, have remained virtually constant at a level of some $210 million per year. In keeping with government policy, the services of the private sector are used extensively and are expected to reach $49 million in 1979-80 out of total expenditures of about $380 million.
New policies and more stringent reporting mechanisms have been introduced with respect to such expenditures as hospitality, conference travel and essential membership fees, with the result that the newly established expenditure codes for these items will enable close scrutiny and year to year monitoring.
In keeping with our general determination to improve administrative practices throughout the public service, Treasury Board has implemented over the past year new policies on the management of large capital projects, improved reporting requirements for contracts with individuals, more stringent guidelines on permissible fees and stricter control on contracts with retired public servants.
In addition to this broad range of administrative measures, Treasury Board has given new impetus to the government-wide program of incentive awards to reward those employees who make specific suggestions to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of their programs. I am pleased to report that the net effect of this rejuvenation has been demonstrated by savings of $9.7 million during 1978. These savings constitute a 300 per cent increase over the average annual savings of past years. These initiatives have brought about a sharply increased awareness among public servants of the importance of administrative restraint. This has resulted in a saving of some $75 million through these measures during the past fiscal year.
This is not the only area where public servants have shown a greater awareness for economy and efficiency in their departmental activities. Another obvious one relates to the office of the Comptroller General of Canada. Not long after the appointment of the Comptroller General the government announced that his office was undertaking a project with the acronym IMPAC-"Improvement in Management Practices and Controls". The objective of IMPAC is to work with departments to identify needed improvements in the area of
(Mr. Buchanan.]
management practices and controls and to develop action plans to implement these improvements. IMPAC would also provide government with an overview of the current state of management practices and controls across the public service and thus provide the basis for fact-based statements about the quality of such practices and controls.
Initially the IMPAC survey was to include the 20 largest departments of government and cover 70 per cent of the budget and 84 per cent of person-years. Subsequently a further 11 organizations have been added to the survey and the totals are now 76 per cent and 90 per cent respectively.
The IMPAC survey is being conducted by teams composed of more than 40 experts from the office of the Comptroller General and is co-ordinated by a small secretariat of five persons. The survey covers the major portion of the management cycle, from planning through the various administrative and control mechanisms to audit. It is based on a questionnaire prepared by the office of the Comptroller General prior to the start of the survey. The findings of the survey form the basis of discussions between the Comptroller General and the deputy minister of the department involved. The result of the survey and these discussions will be an action plan prepared by the department to bring about improvements in its management practices and controls, where the need for improvement has been identified in the survey.
At the present time the surveys of 13 departments are completed; the remaining seven of the first group are more than half finished. Action plans are being concluded in three departments. It is expected that all the action plans of the first group of 20 departments will be agreed to by December, 1979, and those of the other group of ten departments by April, 1980.
There are already visible results from the IMPAC survey. Often when the teams arrive at a department they find that the major needs have already been identified and corrective action is under way. Some of the action plans resulting from the IMPAC survey will take a number of years to implement fully, and although there should be an immediate improvement in management practices and controls across government, some major projects will not be completed for a number of years. The Comptroller General will be reporting progress to Treasury Board and ensuring that the momentum now under way is maintained.
Finally Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the government restraint program. The government announced its restraint policy in 1975 as part of the anti-inflation program. Spending is linked to growth in the GNP. This policy is applied to all spending including budgetary outlays, loans, investments and advances. Furthermore, the government committed itself to a target in advance of the fiscal year. In every year beginning with 1976-77, the first full year of the program, the targets have been set at or below the growth of the GNP. In every year the government has held actual spending well below the targets.
March 26, 1979

In both the 1976-77 and 1977-78 fiscal years, actual spending was held more than $1 billion below the announced ceilings, for growth rates of 10.4 per cent and 7.1 per cent respectively. Hon. members are aware that for 1978-79, the fiscal year just ending, the original ceiling of $48,800 million was reduced by $500 million as part of last August's spending cuts. When the public accounts come out later this year, I am confident they will show we have come in well under that ceiling. That means spending growth in 1978-79 will be less than 9.5 per cent.
For this coming fiscal year, 1979-80, $2 billion was cut from originally forecast requirements last August to give us a target of $52,600 million. I announced the details of the government's planned spending within that total when the estimates were tabled on February 19. That represents an increase of 8.9 per cent over 1978-79 spending.
The distribution of that increase among the various types of federal spending provides an indication of just how firmly the government has acted to control spending growth. About 58 per cent of the total budgetary growth is accounted for by transfer payments to individuals and other levels of government, subsidies and assorted other transfer payments. Another 43 per cent of the net growth is caused by the rising cost of the public debt. This means that estimates for operating and capital expenditures of government departments and agencies are actually lower than they were in 1978-79. In addition, I would like to note that departments, within those reduced budgets, still have to absorb the effects of inflation.
Control of public service growth is also part of the restraint program and the government's record is just as impressive. Here are the facts Mr. Speaker. In 1976-77, the first year of the program, traditional growth rate of authorized person-years was dramatically reduced to 1.3 per cent. In both 1977-78 and 1978-79 this growth was held to only six-tenths of 1 per cent. For 1979-80, largely as a result of the spending and public service reductions announced last August, there is an absolute reduction of 6,685 person-years. That is 2.1 per cent lower than last year. At that point, the size of the public service will be approximately the same as it was four years ago.
The record of the government is exactly the opposite to what is suggested by the motion before us, and knowing the sound judgment of this chamber, 1 am sure it will have the good sense later this day to soundly defeat the motion.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to rise and speak on a global matter until I heard the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) tell us about this period of restraint which the government in its self-worship has imposed upon the Canadian people.
I should like to remind hon. members that they are busy spending $1 billion a week and creating a deficit of $1 billion a month. We have been told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) that the national deficit has now increased by $1.2 billion over the estimates for the fiscal year 1979 in this "period of restraint." The Minister of Finance has further
Waste and Mismanagement
advised us that in fiscal year 1980 we will carry close to a $13 billion deficit. If this increase in the rate of deficit continues, the 1983 deficit will be close to $16 billion and the aggregate deficit between 1979 and 1983 will be $70 billion. So much for restraint!
In addition, this government has utilized $4.2 billion of United States funds in reserve to support the sinking Canadian dollar, an amount which represents about 90 per cent of the foreign reserves available in September, 1977. We have negotiated two foreign lines of credit to supply more reserves for foreign currency and by November 1, 1978, drawings in these credit lines amounted to $2.4 billion. Again, so much for the restraint expressed by the President of the Treasury Board.
Further, between 1968 and 1978 federal spending will have quadrupled, going from $12 billion to $50 billion. So much for the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he requested national air time on August 13, 1969, to discuss the economy, on which occasion he said we would be on the road to disaster if nothing was done to bring spending under control. Yet the hon. gentleman talks about restraint.
During the Prime Minister's three years of "restraint", federal spending increased by $14.3 billion, or 44 per cent. This increase amounts to $226.50 per Canadian and represents an amount larger than the entire federal budget for 1968. I am talking simply of the increase in spending during the "period of restraint."
The gross public debt is now running at about $6,700 per Canadian worker and at about $3,000 per Canadian-an increase of 87 per cent in nine years. On that same August night of August 13, 1969, the Prime Minister told us that deficits were to become a thing of the past. Mr. Speaker, the gross public debt today amounts to $67.1 billion and total government spending as of January, 1978, was $50 billion. Yet the President of the Treasury Board stands in his place and enumerates "tinkertoy" items of restraint in an effort to disarm criticism.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to deal with a more global aspect of the problem which faces us. Once again we are engaged in a debate on waste and mismanagement. It is entirely possible that the Canadian public is numb, because in the aggregate the figures are overwhelming; it is difficult to relate to them. Just two weeks ago a reporter asked me why I was so upset about the possibility of $22,000 in postage being wasted by one of the departments of government. The reason I get upset is that I know how hard it is to save $22,000. I know how hard it is to pay back $22,000 when you have borrowed it from the bank. I also know that between $22,000 and $50,000 of capital can create one new permanent job. So I get angry when I see such a sum wasted. I know what an additional $5,000 a year could do for many people at the low income level.
There is deep and widespread concern that this parliament is not representing or serving the people properly. No doubt the introduction of electronic Hansard and the electronic media is accelerating the concern that something is seriously wrong. Only last Friday in the Ottawa Journal, Mr. W. A. Wilson

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
wrote a column headed "Feeling of Malaise Grips the Nation". He spoke of the "Me first" syndrome. He talked of a sense of public responsibility that seems to be missing. Few good examples are being set by political leaders, business leaders and professionals. In Mr. Wilson's view the political process does not bear upon the sort of malaise that is affecting the nation. He pointed out that in the debates on universal suffrage at the turn of this century it was feared that full democracy would lead to such heavy demands that the system would collapse. Although this has not occurred, Wilson states:
Groups within the political process discovered the art of creating public appetites and then built their hold on power by satisfying them.
While on this malaise which is of increasing concern to many people who want to see freedom survive and an improved quality of life evolve, I refer to a series of articles by Norman Macrae, the deputy editor of London's The Economist. These articles are entitled "Ailing Democracies may be Terminal Cases". Mr. Macrae points out that voting democracies have some serious challenges ahead. One of those challenges is public sector imperialism. Power has passed to what Solzhenitsyn, in his warning to the western world, called the "political bureaucrats" and the ''official bureaucrats".
Macrae pointed out in his articles that these two groups now spend a higher proportion of gross national product than did the priests, kings, nobles and capitalists during their own peaks of power. I suppose the problem we face is one of human nature, for it seems that every time we allow a particular group to have power, it is certain to develop ways of keeping its own bureaucracies growing. In his articles Macrae also pointed out, and I quote:
The concentration of spending power in the hands of bureaucrats has been sanctified on the supposition that there are lots of services that can more efficiently be produced by state monopoly than by the market.
Macrae also said, and I quote:
In the past few years, it has become probable that none of these now exists.
He pointed out, and I quote:
Productivity per man in the civil service has sometimes declined during the past two and a half decades by over 90 per cent while productivity in the market sector has more than doubled.
We have an example of that here at home. The Auditor General's report of 1978 states that the public service and the federal civil service is at a productivity level of about 65 per cent when the least we should expect is an 85 per cent level. The rate is 20 per cent less than should normally be expected. Of some 330,000 man-years, 20 per cent is 66,000 man-years. On just a quick calculation, if we want a dollar measure, that adds up to something in the order of three-quarters of a billion dollars. That is an unproductive burden on those involved in real work.
Our challenge as parliamentarians is to reverse the incentive aspects which are built into this system. At present it is not in the interest of the bureaucracy to be productive, for its status and comfort are measured by the size of its budget and the person-years of departments.

In addition, bureaucrats work in an information environment where problems are committed and studied but seldom solved. Bureaucracies live on unsolved problems. For instance, since 1969 there has been a total of 26 royal commissions appointed by this government. In the public accounts of 1978 the cost of six commissions and studies or reports came to over $5 million. I have not been able to obtain the figure for the cost of studies over the last decade.
Another serious aspect of public concern, as I sense it, is that the interests of parliamentarians seem to be above those of the people and that this institution has become a top down-not a bottom up-institution of democracy. That has become dramatically evident in the last decade. Parliament has gone completely contrary to the popular will on such issues as capital punishment, bilingual policies, communications policies and the use of the Unemployment Insurance Commission as a welfare and wealth distribution scheme instead of protecting the insurance aspects of its purpose. That alone this year is another $5.3 billion burden which should really be a self-supporting program.
The inability of parliament, through fear or its shrug attitude, to do anything about the problems within the civil service and the mismanagement and anarchy within the Post Office is a challenge which has been with us for the last five years. The situation today is no better than it was five years ago. I suppose it is fair to say that there is lack of leadership in this institution because we are caught up in the "Me first" syndrome, and we are not offering the leadership which must come from the top. We have failed so far to get the system under control and to deliver an efficient, economic and effective use of the tax resource, which comes solely from those engaged in real work. This concern exists in all free countries, not just here, and because this institution does not react as it should we call for direct democracy. We see the Prime Minister and some of his wise men from the west calling for this great direct democracy, which is symbolized, in most people's minds, by proposition 13 in the state of California. Just as an aside I would like to say that when the Prime Minister and some of his hypnotized followers speak of direct democracy, the farthest thing from their minds is the example of proposition 13, which has the force of law.
I am new to politics and have trouble relating to the art, which really serves only the short-term, election to election needs of political power. To me there is a serious flaw in a system which fails to look beyond the next election in planning the use of its resources wisely. I note that there is nothing in the proposed constitutional changes and entrenchment of rights which moves to correct these flaws. Where do we see a right for the taxpayer to be guaranteed a balanced budget? Where do we see entrenched a right for the taxpayer to be guaranteed efficient, economic and effective use of the tax resource?
I have also been reading Reginald Whittaker's book "The Government Party", which is an expose on the organizing and financing of the Liberal party from the years 1930 to 1958. It really boils down to the fact that the art of political power in
March 26, 1979

Canada, as perfected by the Liberal party, is the art of patronage and building and controlling a bureaucracy. The last decade has seen the use of these instruments of political power rise to the point where the rank and file Canadian can no longer contain his disgust for politicians and the system. Patronage does not serve the poor. It does not distribute wealth, as the Prime Minister loves to imply with his quote "From those with means to those with no means". Patronage redistributes wealth on a constituency basis, with the beneficiaries being the middle class. It ignores minorities.
The building and use of the bureaucracy as a root of political power in the last decade has now arrived at the point where its cost is overwhelming those responsible for the production of wealth. The increasing workload on members of parliament caused by civil servant buck-passing, indifference and, at times, sheer arrogance, is becoming truly alarming. This issue is not limited to the Canadian civil service. It seems to be a wide issue in the western world and is very well reported on in a book from the United Kingdom entitled "The Disobedient Civil Servant". So I say again that we are dealing with a phenomenon which is not limited to our own country but, nevertheless, one which must be addressed in a serious way in this House when we are debating the mismanagement of our resources.
We must ask whether parliament, which sits over this bureaucracy, can survive as a form of government capable of continuing to protect and serve man's freedom and man's quality of life. Can the member of parliament improve his performance and serve meaningfully a public which feels increasingly isolated? In the role of watchdog over supply, can the member of parliament accept the full role of a director elected to represent the shareholders of Canada? Our record is tragic, and the neglect of our overview and watchdog role with regard to the nation's tax resource is a disgrace.
The introduction of television into the House now delivers the challenge of these questions squarely onto the desks of members of this House. Can we react to the warnings of Solzhenitsyn and Norman Macrae of The Economist of London, England? I think we can. I think we have to move in a substantial way to improve the committee system of parliament if we are going to manage the tax resource properly.
I offer the following suggestions. First, the public accounts committee should be given a permanent director with the right to hire and/or call on research staff as required on particular subjects. The committee should be given a permanent committee room with office facilities adjacent. The committee should perhaps be reduced to 14 members or less with parliamentary secretary pay and status. The chairman should be from the opposition and should be given the proper status for his responsibilities. The function of the committee should be to conduct audits, and it should study and report on governmentwide issues. Perhaps the committee's proceedings should also be televised.
Waste and Mismanagement
In addition, and parallel to that committee, I should like to suggest that there be put in place a permanent expenditure committee with a permanent director, a budget and the right to hire or call on research staff as problems require. It should be given a permanent meeting room and office facilities, perhaps adjacent to those suggested for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It should be made up of 14 members or less, members should have parliamentary secretary status and pay, and the chairman of that committee should also be an opposition member. Its function should be to examine and review the criteria supporting the spending process.
In view of the fact that we now have 400 Crown corporations, I think that a permanent Crown corporation committee should be set up with an act supporting the function of that committee. Its object should be to review the objectives and the use of resources by Crown corporations. Again a permanent director should be appointed with a budget to hire or draw on research staff as required for the subject matter at hand. Again these facilities should be co-ordinated with those suggested for the public accounts committee and the expenditure committee. The parliamentary secretary pay and status should also apply to members of that committee.
With these suggestions, if we could put a view on the spending process at the beginning and also at the end and examine the activities of Crown corporations which also have a spending capacity based on a public resource which creates a contingent liability, we could start to get the essentials of this process under control.
I should also like to draw the attention of members to Votes and Proceedings of Friday, March 23, and the substantive report which members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts submitted to the House in their third report dealing with the reorganization of the form of the estimates, marrying that form to the public accounts so that we can have audit trails from a vote appropriation all the way through to the reporting of the fact in the public accounts. We are also calling for an informational system in the form of the estimates, a summary volume and other volumes to follow which would provide the detail within each department, opening up and removing once and for all this aura of secrecy which seems to prevail around a poorly presented wealth of information which has not been organized in the proper form. I would commend to hon. members a reading of that third report because I think it is one of the more important reports that that important committee has tabled in this House.
As I listened to the President of the Treasury Board I came to the conclusion that only self-worship or the narcissism of this Liberal government prevents their recognition of the malaise that faces our people and our form of government. They have had an opportunity to correct the system in the last decade and they have not. We have heard of the extent of their restraint program and I have figures to show the infinitesimal effort that has been made in light of the magnitude of the challenge that has faced the government. They have delivered a debt which future generations will have to carry and which

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
rests at $67 billion at present. The service cost on that debt is 150 per cent the amount spent by our Department of National Defence. This government, with its restraint program, has borrowed money to pay interest on loans and is spending $6,500 million a year servicing that debt when it spends only-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the two speakers from the official opposition, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). Perhaps it should be noted that at present the Government of Canada redistributes approximately 71 per cent of the tax money it collects to the people of Canada in the form of direct payments, such as CPP, old age security, family allowances, and the transfer of payments to the provinces for medicare and welfare.
In other words, out of the 100 per cent revenue which the federal government collects, approximately 29 per cent is spent directly by the government on the armed services, the Post Office and various direct contributions which the federal government makes. What we have seen in the last generation, that is in the last five, ten or 15 years, is a very large increase in the amount of money that is transferred to individuals and provinces, and a gradual decrease in the amount for which the federal government has direct responsibility. Some of us on this side of the House have concern over the fact that the federal government has less and less operating room as the amount of money it spends shrinks, whereas our non-discretional amounts increase.
The hon. member who spoke before me referred to the deficit and the increase in federal expenditures. What he did not say is that those increases are taking place in areas which I have already mentioned, that is, old age pensions, family allowances and transfers to provinces. If the hon. member is going to be honest and call for a cutback in government expenditures, he would have to call for that cutback in moneys that are paid out to the provinces and to individuals; but I have never yet heard the opposition call for a cutback in transfer payments to individuals or in old age pensions. Quite the contrary, they would like to have it both ways. They would like to appear financially responsible and at the same time ask for further increases in government expenditures.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from an article in today's Ottawa Citizen by Leonard Shifrin entitled "Strange Paternity of Politics". It reads:
Since the Budget Control Act of 1974, the U.S. has treated tax expendi-tures-selective benefits provided to the tax system by way of deductibility of mortgage interest, a preferential treatment of capital gains, and so on-the same 
as direct expenditures. Every year Congress is presented with a tax expenditure budget as well as a direct expenditure budget, and the two are debated and passed together.
The tax expenditure concept has been virtually ignored in Canada until Clark pushed it into prominence in his long list of selective tax cut promises. With the total cost of those promises now approaching $6 billion, the idea that tax spending needs to be watched as closely as direct spending is starting to take hold.
We heard just prior to my rising in the House two members of the official opposition who have gone up one side of the government and down the other regarding budgetary deficits. It appears from the article from which I quoted that there is a fear, not only among the press but among other people, that the official opposition, in their quest for power, has now brought out a program which would add a further $6 billion deficit to the existing deficit. I have heard no one in the House deny that the various programs outlined by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) would not in fact cost Canadians an additional $6 billion. Yet in considering an official opposition motion today, under which we are supposed to be discussing waste and mismanagement, the remarks of two members of the official opposition have been to the effect that we should decrease the budgetary deficit. I am not sure if hon. members have read the comments of the hon. Leader of the Opposition who has said exactly the opposite. In fact he has gone on record-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You are misleading the House and you know it.


Hugh Alan Anderson: 1 hope the hon. member is not disagreeing that the Leader of the Opposition said that they would increase the deficit from its present level. In fact, the finance critic of the official opposition, in trying to explain that position, said that it would be only a temporary increased deficit for perhaps a month or two. If the offocial opposition is saying that it can go into an additional $6 billion deficit and eliminate it in a month or two, perhaps this should be brought forward to Canadians. Not only many members on this side of the House but people across Canada wonder how a $6 billion deficit can be diminished in a month or two.
Hon. members opposite seem to feel that their position is rational, that we should be attacked as being financially responsible for the deficits we have incurred. Yet they will be more financially responsible by incurring even greater deficits. If hon. members opposite can marry those propositions together, God love them, because they will have to do so not in the House but before Canadians within a short period of time. Then the people of Canada will judge whether they can give out promises of $6 billion and at the same time attack the government for not being financially responsible. Until hon. members opposite marry those two propositions together, I suspect Canadians will do exactly what I am doing today. They will ask, "How can you criticize the present government for deficits when you are telling us that you will give us even greater deficits?"
March 26, 1979

The hon. member for Calgary Centre questioned the adequacy of the government's implementation of management and administrative procedures which will ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent efficiently, effectively and according to the will of parliament. Only a few weeks ago in the House I participated in a debate wherein, due to the fact that teaching facilities at universities for doctors, nurses and dental assistants were sufficient and that there were more rooms and class facilities than were being utilized presently, the Government of Canada decided to cut that program off. Obviously it was no longer needed. The classrooms which were built and the facilities which were put up were not being utilized fully at the present time. In the same debate I listened to the official opposition say that the Government of Canada should spend that money anyway since it is committed to the provinces, and that regardless of spending another $12 million, $15 million or $20 million, we should create additional classrooms even though the present ones were not being fully utilized.
I bring this matter up because it is very hard for some members on this side of the house to hear that we are being financially irresponsible, yet on almost every occasion when we say that funds can be cut from this or that area and we provide a rationale for it, usually we are criticized in ringing terms for not caring for the people of Canada. There are certain ways it can be done. For five years I have listened and the most criticism we have received is that various departments are not funded enough. Hon. members on this side will realize that day in and day out we are castigated because we do not provide money for worthy projects. One can say that on one hand, and then say on the other hand that the government should be more financially responsible, should not increase its deficit or its budgets. But one cannot have it both ways.


Steve Eugene Paproski: When did you start becoming responsible?


Hugh Alan Anderson: One cannot have it both ways. One must be financially responsible and say no, especially when considering the stupid argument regarding whether further classrooms should be built for dentists, doctors and nurses. It was the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard, that since we committed the money, whether it was needed or not, we should continue to spend it. That is what the official opposition does: they want it both ways, and they cannot have it both ways.
With respect to taxpayers' funds being spent officially, it must be obvious to all members that parliament has made many provisions by which the Government of Canada accounts to parliament for the funds which it has appropriated. The principal piece of legislation is the Financial Administration Act and the related regulations promulgated thereunder. Parliament is provided with many opportunities to review the government's financial operations, contrary to what has been said by some members today, both prospectively and retroactively. For instance, these opportunities are: the estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan); the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien); the statements of financial operations published monthly by the government in the Canada Gazette', and the
Waste and Mismanagement
public accounts of Canada prepared by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane) and tabled in parliament by the Minister of Finance. The estimates and the public accounts of Canada are reviewed in depth by committees of the House of Commons, and the budget of the Minister of Finance is debated in the House. Also there is the annual report of the Auditor General which is tabled in the House. This provides members with the opportunity, if they wish to partake of it, to review an independent opinion of the financial operations of the government.
It is no secret that we in this House are dealing with the main estimates in each of the standing committees at the present time. Hon. members have alleged that they are not given an opportunity of looking into departmental spending, yet last Thursday the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development met and we sat for 35 minutes waiting for a member of the opposition to show up and look at the main estimates of the department. Obviously members are busy, but we hear the same complaint month in and month out, year in and year out, that members do not have an opportunity to look into the estimates and spending of departments.
If people in Canada attended a standing committee meeting, they would wonder what we are doing. It is obvious to many members on both sides of the House that the time we have to look at the main estimates is not utilized very well. Often we wait 15, 20 or 25 minutes for a quorum to start proceedings. In many instances members do not discuss the main estimates but matters which pertain to their ridings. They use this procedure as a means of asking questions of departmental officials, as well as the minister of the particular department concerned. I do not disagree with the right of members to do so, but if they are before the committee to look at the main estimates and to question government spending, then I am sorry I have to say that the time is not being utilized well.
Also it is fair to say that the annual report of the Auditor General gives members of the House the opportunity to review an independent opinion of the financial operations of government, especially as it relates to the use of spending authorities according to the will of parliament. The forum for this review is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I should like to refer to one matter which has caused me some concern; it has been discussed by members on both sides of the House. We now have an Auditor General who is totally independent, we have a Comptroller General and we have people who look very closely at the spending of government. I wonder if hon. members in the opposition have considered that it is all very well to look at the actual spending and the fiscal accounting operation of departments and their budgets but have concluded that there is an overstepping into the actual decision making about money to be spent by particular departments. From my own point of view, I have some fear that the more controls and the more watchdogs you have in respect of government spending, the more in fact you are questioning the decisions of the government to spend.

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
1 am sure there will be several projects in the department for which I have concern, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which in years to come will come under criticism in reports of the Auditor General. We are in a devolution period in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We are asking Indian people across this country to participate more in decision making regarding their own affairs, and this includes financial responsibility. However, with decentralization not only from Ottawa to the various regions across Canada, but decentralization of funds to Indian bands, with those bands making more decisions regarding their financial affairs, there will be the creation of additional conflict between the Auditor General and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I bring this to the attention of the House in the hope that at some future date we will not have so many watchdogs over the Government of Canada, this parliament and the various departments that no one will want to make a decision for fear the decision will be brought forward in the Auditor General's report, or in some other report, showing the financial administration carried out by them in disfavour.
I think it is fair to say that the government shares a healthy concern for adequate accountability which, I hasten to say, has not been brought about because of a malfunction of the system but rather by a desire to improve the existing system. To achieve this very objective let me remind members that the government established a royal commission of inquiry on financial management and accountability in the Government of Canada. The creation of this royal commission was announced by the then president of the Treasury Board on November 22, 1976. If I may quote him, he stated at that time:


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
March 26, 1979 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Yves Pratte, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 26th day of March, at 8.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
-I wish to inform the House of the circumstances which led the government to establish a royal commission of inquiry on financial organization and accountability, and to comment on the terms of reference of that commission as laid down in the order in council which I have just tabled.
Hon. members will note that the mandate of the royal commission has two distinct but, in the government's view, closely interrelated objects: Financial organization, namely, the structure, systems and procedures whereby financial management and control are exercised and should be exercised at all levels and in all departments and agencies of the Government of Canada; accountability, namely, the structure, systems and procedures required to ensure the effective administrative accountability of deputy heads of departments and heads of Crown agencies to the government and, where appropriate, to parliament.
The first object of inquiry reflects the extent to which the government shares the concerns expressed by the Auditor General in his report to this House for the fiscal year 1975-76, as well as during his numerous appearances before the public accounts committee, that the highest attainable standards be met in the administration of public funds. The second object of inquiry reflects the government's determination that the complex of issues, both technical and political, raised in considering certain specific recommendations of the Auditor General be clarified or resolved as swiftly and as effectively as possible.
The president of the Treasury Board at that time-
['Hear, hear!']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Andre):
That this House condemns the government for its continuing waste and mismanagement, and its failure to implement management and administrative procedures that will ensure that the taxpayers' funds are spent efficiently, effectively, and according to the will of parliament.
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, we are back again with another motion with regard to waste and mismanagement. The only suggestion I would make is that this motion should have the word "duplication" added to it as, of course, duplication has been a specialty of this government. We in opposition have taken a responsible position over the years in dealing with waste, mismanagement and duplication, but we have been stonewalled every time by Liberal members and members of the NDP who are no more interested in restraint and cutting back on expenditures than in flying to the moon.

March 26, 1979

One of our first attempts with a responsible motion was on February 2, 1978, when we called for the formation of a special committee to be struck before February 28, 1978, to consider the enactment of sunset laws to provide for the termination of programs or agencies which had outlived their usefulness. This was a motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Of course, it was talked out by members of the NDP and Liberals who are not simply interested in a proper examination of government departments and their expenditures-it is a matter of philosophy-and also the adoption of new, flexible budget planning techniques to discourage unnecessary growth of department budgets. Of course, if anybody wants to find out whether we have any control of things he just has to read the Auditor General's comments, but I will get to that in a few minutes.
This situation of parliament no longer having any control of expenditures came about in 1968 when one of the first acts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was to change parliamentary rules so that there was no proper examination of expenditures. I will get to his comments about that in a few minutes.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), who has just spoken, said that we have a proper examination of the budget and the expenditures of these departments. What a ridiculous lot of nonsense that is. We do not have any control at all. There has only been an amount of $19,000 removed from budgets since 1969 out of the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent. There is no proper review in depth when we consider the miscellaneous increases to which the Auditor General has referred, without even considering the Auditor General's comments. He has said that he cannot even find out where the money is going.
We have heard a lot of reference to restraint, but that is not really the right word in many cases. We should be referring to the elimination of duplication, mismanagement and waste. I should just like to refer to a few of the costly luxuries and excesses of this government. Let me give these examples. A consortium of seven major oil companies cancelled a promising $60 million drilling program off the coast of Labrador in 1977 because Ottawa and Newfoundland were both seeking control over offshore minerals.
In Quebec, public housing projects worth $150 million were blocked for as long as four years because of disagreements between federal and provincial agencies.
The residents of some 20 communities in southern Manitoba were denied cable television for three years while officials in Winnipeg and Ottawa fought over the ownership of a certain type of cable equipment.
In 1975, the tax burden on the Brenda copper mine in British Columbia was more than double the rate paid by competing mines in the United States as federal and provincial attempts were made to solve this problem. There has never been any attempt by this government to eliminate a lot of this duplication.
Waste and Mismanagement
A moment ago an hon. member in the NDP was exhorting me to tell the truth. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) referred to a great deal of figures earlier this afternoon with regard to provincial debt. He also referred to the Alberta debt, and the fact that the municipal debts and a great many other debts in that province have recently been reduced. The latest figures are not out for the provincial debt of Alberta. Therefore, there is no way that a member can quote figures in this House on the debt of Alberta. If anyone wants to talk about the debts of provinces, they should present the whole picture including the ways in which provinces transfer their debts. For example, some provinces transfer their debts to Crown corporations. There is no way that one should quote debt figures unless one goes into total detail.
Another example of waste by this Liberal government is the $4 million spent on the Task Force on Canadian Unity. There was no need for the appointment of this body at all. Every time this government feels that there is a crisis, they give a job to Jean-Luc Pepin. The members of this House and the Senate are elected and appointed to deal with the problems of this country. My leader took a responsible position with regard to this task force and proposed the appointment of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to solve the problem. We do not need Pepin or somebody else to travel across the country at a cost of $4 million. Last year a joint committee sat through part of the summer and into the fall to deal with Bill C-60, the constitutional bill. Another such committee could have dealt with this matter. There might have been some travelling expenses, but I am sure that we could have saved from $3 million to $3.5 million.
When the government is responsible and controls its expenses, it shows up on the bottom line in the rate of inflation. Since the end of World War II, there have been only four governments which have had sound financial policies and controlled their expenditures. During these governments, there was nobody dying on the streets or starving to death because there was sound financial policy. I will refer to three, the Adenauer administration of Germany, the Eisenhower administration and the Diefenbaker administration. They had the best record of any governments since World War II right up to the period between 1957 and 1963. While the other two countries had an inflation rate hovering around 2 per cent, the inflation rate of the Diefenbaker government was between 1.2 per cent and 1.6 per cent. That is a very enviable record and I hope that we can return to controlling inflation again with a responsible government in this country.
With this government it is either total incompetence or deliberate incompetence. When one studies the statements made by the Prime Minister over the years with regard to-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It is deliberate.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The hon. member says that it is deliberate. I would like to read some of the statements made by the Prime Minister because they are certainly very suspicious. He has stated:

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
You can never spend more than you have; otherwise you have endless inflation.
He did not mean a word of what he said because at the present time the government is spending $1 billion per month more than it takes in. The comments by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) this afternoon are absolutely meaningless. It can be covered with jam, meringue, honey and all the rest of it but with all his sweet words and sweet talk, the government is spending more than $1 billion a month more than it takes in. The Prime Minister identifies the problem and indicates that he knows what will happen, but he goes ahead and does it anyway.
The Prime Minister has also said:
I have never been able to accept any discipline except that which I imposed upon myself... I found it unacceptable that others should know better than I what was good for me.
That is the philosophy of an individual. It is not the philosophy that one looks for in a politician-a politician that will not accept discipline. I guess that is why the Prime Minister changed the rules in 1968, so there would be no proper parliamentary control over expenditures. That was one of his first acts as Prime Minister, because he has no use for this House at all. Here is another statement made by the Prime Minister:
Federalism must be welcomed as a valuable tool which permits dynamic parties to plant socialist governments in certain provinces, from which the seed of radicalism has slowly spread.
What on earth does he mean by that? That is a very, very strange statement, and it creates suspicion as to what this man is really up to. The Prime Minister has also said:
Indeed the experience of that superb strategist, Mao Tse-tung, might lead us to conclude that in a vast and heterogeneous country, the possibility of establishing socialist strongholds in certain regions is the very best thing.
Such a move would only create further suspicion. As one of my colleagues said, this is a very deliberate plot to bankrupt this country, this mad Liberal spending that we have.
I would also like to refer to the famous Liberal vanishing act which the Auditor General highlights every year. In speaking before the House of Commons public accounts committee in February, Canada's Auditor General, J.J. Macdonell, said that his department could account for only half of last year's $47 billion in federal expenditures. Macdonell told the House committee that reports his department receives on government spending are so confusing that it is a big gamble to certify government accounts at the end of the year. We hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni making statements to the effect that everything is under control. He read out statements to the effect that we would have proper accounting and what have you. There is no proper accounting at all.
Officials from Mr. Macdonells' office complained that the spending estimates contain too many complicated tables when simple written explanations would tell more. They criticized government spending estimates as containing too much distracting detail and not enough information on how much money each program actually costs. The Auditor General's department said that important facts about planned expendi-

tures are virtually impossible for parliamentarians and taxpayers to get their hands on. This is exactly why we presented our motion on February 2, 1978, to have a proper parliamentary system with investigative powers and the power to bring witnesses in under oath. It would mean a sincere effort properly to examine expenditures.
Another example of duplication is the recently appointed National Commission on Inflation to replace the AIB, although some of the staff will be transferred over to the National Commission on Inflation and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There are three different groups looking into prices, inflation and what have you. I do not know why we need the AIB or the National Commission on Inflation.
I would like to read out to hon. members the objectives of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which has a budget of $75 million a year and a staff of approximately 2,700 people. Their objective is to promote the integrity and viability of the market system in Canada. One of its subobjectives is to protect and promote the interest of consumers by working toward a fair, safe and efficient marketplace. With a budget of $75 million and a staff of 2,700 people, why is the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs not investigating supermarkets with their price gouging? They are not living up to their mandate. Why do we need the AIB and the inflation commission? They are just window dressing.
When there is responsible government, it attracts investment. By attracting investment the employment situation looks after itself. The Libera! government likes to talk about the 450,000 jobs they have created. If the private sector could create 450,000 jobs with a Liberal albatross around their neck, imagine what it could do without the albatross. We would be well off in this country. I must emphasize that unemployment is costing us $8.5 billion a year. If things are so good, it should not be costing $8.5 billion to cover unemployment. This figure is broken down as follows: $4.5 billion goes to the Unemployment Insurance Commission; $2.5 billion is accounted for in lost taxes and $2 billion is allocated for welfare. Canada has a very serious problem on its hands.
I will give you an example of what can happen with a socialist type of government in power, like the one here in Ottawa, and like the one we had in Manitoba. I have figures here which I have read into the record before. An investment counsellor has gathered some devastating figures of the amount of money which moved out of the province of Manitoba when it had a socialist government in power. That government was the best friend Alberta and the United States ever had. Now that the socialist government is no longer in power, the economy of the province is starting to turn around. The province cannot do it alone. The government is doing a remarkable job since it has taken over, but it still has the Liberal albatross from Ottawa around its neck.
March 26, 1979

An example of what has happened since the socialist government was defeated in Manitoba is as follows. Finance minister Donald Craik said:
Private investment in Manitoba during 1978 increased by 22 per cent, the highest increase of any province in Canada.
Mr. Craik went on to say:
-he was "naturally encouraged" by the revised figures from Statistics Canada on private investment last year.
I will now cite national figures. In 1970 to 1972 direct investment abroad was $1 billion a year. For 1976 to 1978 it was $3.1 billion. Investors have no faith in this government and that is why they are taking their money elsewhere. The examples of the situation for Manitoba which I gave a moment ago are an exact duplicate of what is happening across the country. Investors do not put ads in the paper; they do not tell anyone; they just silently move away. If anyone wants to challenge the figures, he can come to my office and I will give him statistics that show the number of businesses and the amount of money that have left this country over the last three or four years.
Whether a country is being run properly is evidenced by the amount of money it can attract as investment. Canada attracts very little. Foreign investors do not look kindly on this nation. In 1970 to 1972 direct foreign investment in Canada was $2.4 billion. Today it is $0,025 billion and declining. We will have these serious problems with unemployment, and what have you, as long as we have socialist governments, which the Prime Minister says he wants to plant in different provinces, and as long as we have the socialist philosophy we have here.
If we ever have an election and this government is re-elected, we will have exchange controls. This government has repeatedly denied it will impose exchange controls. This government cannot control money leaving this country and it cannot attract money. People abroad are discussing the subject of exchange controls. In the March 16, 1979, edition of Myers' Finance & Energy is an article entitled "Exchange Controls Coming?" The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) on many occasions have denied that exchange controls will be imposed, but they have no credibility at all. Their word means nothing. We have already seen that evidenced during the last federal election campaign concerning wage and price controls, and the other ridiculous statements made by the Prime Minister that he will control expenditures, which I have read into the record today. In the Myers' Finance <6 Energy March 16 edition it is reported:
Just as obviously Canada cannot continue to tolerate this haemorrhage of funds.
That suggests foreign exchange controls. That means permits to get money out. Just how stringent, liberal or temporary, remains to be seen. But controls, once started, could hardly be removed as long as this threat of Quebec's separation hangs over the country.
We have a double-jointed problem, Mr. Speaker. If the Canadian people are considering returning this government to power they will be faced with exchange controls. Government members can make all the statements they want denying imposition of such a thing but their word means absolutely nothing. Canada's situation is being analysed from abroad. I
Waste and Mismanagement
have given you the figures showing the amount of money which is leaving this country, as well as the little bit that is dribbling in. We cannot survive. The only solution which the government can come up with is either to print more money, borrow more money, or spend more money. Let me remind hon. members that in order to pay the interest charges on Canada's debt it costs Canadian taxpayers $23 million a day. But here we have the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni telling us how wonderful everything is and that they have everything under control.
In fiscal 1980 total federal spending, budgetary and nonbudgetary, will reach $52.6 billion. This figure is up $4.3 billion, or 8.9 per cent from the $48.3 billion spending forecast in fiscal 1979. The $4.3 billion in planned spending increases is the largest dollar increase in spending since fiscal 1976, the year in which the 1975 federal spending restraint program began.
It is interesting to note that when the present Minister of Finance was the president-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: First I want to congratulate the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) for his motion which reads as follows, and I quote:
That this House condemns the government for its continuing waste and mismanagement, and its failure to implement management and administrative procedures that will ensure that the taxpayers' funds are spent efficiently, effectively, and according to the will of parliament.
That initiative will give us an opportunity to explain to the people of this country the various government policies, the allocation of budgets, the cuts made in several departments, the various recommendations that were made in the last few years. The wording of this motion is very general and resembles somewhat the comments we hear more and more often. Those comments are heard in families not only in my riding, in my province, in this country, but I think those remarks or comments are heard all over the planet. Let me explain. I think we all heard it said that the man who asks his wife for more details about the management of the family budget occasionally has a few not always very flattering remarks to make to his wife. But that happens regularly in all families, as I was saying, not only in Canada but all over the planet. It is part of the reason why I congratulate the hon. member for Calgary Centre for pointing out that situation with his motion which allows the government to explain the

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
various budget measures to improve that situation and the situations which were pointed out.
Mr. Speaker, this opposition motion has no originality whatsoever because after listening to all the speeches made by opposition members, I have yet to hear suggestions or recommendations as to the departments or Crown corporations which should cut their budgets or staff. We are still waiting for those suggestions or recommendations.
This afternoon, the minister spoke about his program, and I shall come back to that later on. This day gives us an opportunity to put things in perspective, and I am certain that if the opposition can make any positive and concrete suggestions to reduce the deficit further or to improve our management criteria, they will be greatly appreciated by the minister whether he receives them in this House or in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The hon. member for Calgary Centre talked about the deficit generally, and also talked about deficits and inefficiency at the Post Office Department.
Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member spoke about this department in particular, I would like to remind him that if he had been there for the consideration of the Post Office estimates on March 5 last, when the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, he would know what the minister said about the situation in his department. At the staff level, it should be noted that it is in this department that cutbacks have been the greatest. The department lost 1,850 man-years because of the cutback program.
The minister also spoke about the efficiency standards which are now applied in the Post Office and mentioned some data collected quite recently, more specifically last January. The minister said that 93 per cent of items for local delivery, or 40 per cent of all mail items, were delivered in the 24 hours following their mailing and that 98 per cent of the mail was delivered within 40 hours. Moreover, in eight of the 22 postal installations covered in the survey, 100 per cent of the mail was delivered within 48 hours after its mailing.
I wanted to speak about this particular department in view of the comments made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre in his speech supporting his motion. I now come back to the deficit item of the budget. It is stated that the deficit amounted to $90 million for the year 1972-73. Thereafter, it increased yearly according to the various work agreements which were signed. In 1976-77, the deficit reached $578 million, but it went down by $19.5 million in 1977-78, and we expect a significant decrease this year even in the face of higher gas prices and wages under new collective agreements.
Mr. Speaker, I make all these comments to show how serious the hon. member really was in moving such a motion. I believe that the text of the motion is simply a pious wish aimed at blaming the government. The hon. member even said that

he could criticize the activities of various departments all day, but I only gave the facts for the department that he chose himself and I am giving the answer that we received when we considered the estimates of the Post Office Department during the March 5 meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now continue to comment on what the minister said this afternoon. I have no intention of dealing with all the matters raised by the President of the Treasury Board this afternoon, but I will simply deal with his reference to efficiency standards developed in some departments, and especially the particular attention granted to 24 departments accounting for 80 per cent of total Canadian government expenditures.
Efficiency and motivation standards were also established for public service employees. There has been, as well, a first report of these efficiency standards and new policies put forward by the government to reduce expenditures and increase efficiency. It may be easy at some point to reduce expenditures, but increasing efficiency and productivity in the public service is another story. The minister made reference to the energy conservation policy established in every department. He also referred to the purchase of compact automobiles in all departments. I wonder if at the provincial level the same recommendations were given to employees. The minister also referred to higher than 90 per cent reduction in first class transportation. The minister has also informed us in February last of the over-all budget allocations. What was the increase in estimates over the last few years? If criticism must be levelled at someone or some department, figures have to be put in context. So just what was the increase or the growth rate in Canadian government expenditures over these last five years? The increase in 1975-76 was roughly 18.5 per cent, 10.4 per cent in 1976-77, in 1977-78 the growth was 7.1 per cent, in 1978-79 they went up 9.5 per cent, and for 1979-80, our estimates read 8.9 per cent of total expenditures. Comparing the current year with fiscal 1975-76, where the growth rate was about 18.5 per cent, the current 8.9 per cent shows a significant decrease, greater than 50 per cent.
It is very easy to blame the government for higher expenditures, but where do these increases occur? What is the allocation of resources for various functions? Hon. members certainly received the distribution of those expenditures and it must be noted that regarding the health and welfare of Canadians, a total $18.33 billion are allocated in the current fiscal year. Are opposition members claiming those national health expenditures should have been reduced? Those $18 billion, 35.5 per cent of total Canadian government expenditures, are transferred to the provinces. Those funds collected by the Canadian government are redistributed for the health and welfare of Canadians. From this amount, we go on to debt service, $8 million or 16.5 per cent of the total budget. Economic expansion, $5 billion, or 10 per cent, and $5 billion for defence. But

if we now turn to the budget, I note that for my province, Quebec, a high percentage of expenditures come under direct assistance to individuals. I note, for instance, that under the various federal government programs, an amount of $1.35 billion is provided for equalization payments to Quebec. Now the province of Quebec can do as it wishes with these funds paid out by three provinces, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, to help the poorer provinces, in accordance with their needs and priorities, develop the economic sector they wish, their industry, for instance; but the provinces could also distribute the money among their residents if they wished. Under these equalization payments, Quebec gets 52 per cent of the total amount paid out by these three provinces. I do think we ought to mention it, especially in the context of a constitutional debate. I note that amount, Mr. Speaker, and the source of information is the C.D. Howe Research Institute as published in the periodical Accent Quebec. It is a research and publication program set up by the C.D. Howe Research Institute of Montreal. We note here that the steering committee is chaired by Mr. Michel Belanger, president of the Provincial Bank of Canada, and includes members of some New Brunswick universities, business leaders such as Alcan officials, but I will not list all the members of that board of directors. Research has been performed by the C.D. Howe Research Institute which has already published about ten booklets on taxes, expenditures in Quebec and in Ontario, a comparison of taxes and expenditures in those two central provinces. I refer to page one. It is pertinent and I think it should be stated, because I have never seen that excerpt in any newspaper. I quote: The central government has also paid a substantial amount of equalization payments to Quebec. The combination of its own revenue with equalization payments provides Quebec with a total per capita income higher than in Ontario. However, the level of per capita expenditures is higher in Quebec than in Ontario. Thus, in spite of the fact that Quebec is financially poorer than Ontario, it spends more per capita.
The following question should be asked: Does that higher level of expenditures indicate superior services, a greater need of public services or a less effective distribution of those services? The public also questions not only the Quebec government but all other governments about budgets and productivity standards within various departments.
Regarding these transfer payments to the provinces I was saying that one can wonder if cutbacks could have been made? And there again, Mr. Speaker, when Quebec expansion minister Landry criticized the federal government for having made these cutbacks, he said they would result in a loss of jobs for his province.
I have no intention of dwelling on that issue but I would like to deal with it in a more constructive manner than the member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard). He seemed to attack the Canadian government for its advertising budget designed to publicize the economic incentives offered by the Department of Regional
Waste and Mismanagement
Economic Expansion, which aims at informing Canadians on the purchasing capacity of the Department of Supply and Services. Yet what he does not tell us, for instance, is their support for the Parti Quebecois which is revealed by the fact that the government of Quebec spends $24 million in advertising, a subject which I do not intend to deal with now and which has also already been raised by the Union Nationale party. We are dealing here with an amount almost similar to the one spent by the Canadian government for the country as a whole. So I am wondering who spent or invested greater and more generous amounts of money than we did. Are we really dealing at this stage with a waste of public funds? I put the question to the hon. member for Rimouski.
I now want to deal with the criticisms made by the NDP member who was calling for more severe review of the financial operations of Crown corporations. I must say that to a certain extent I share his opinion on the subject. This is why I have already introduced a private bill concerning the activities of CBC so that the appropriate committee might study its annual report a soon as it is tabled in order for us to have ample time to ask questions from this corporation. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention other important activities, namely the decision made by the Canadian government regarding the development of the aeronautical sector.


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


Mr. Peters:: It being six o'clock, may I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At six o'clock the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) had the floor, and he has 20 minutes remaining.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, looking at the official opposition benches, one wonders whether a message has already been received.
The Conservative motion today deals with a problem which I am sure all Canadians know we have. It has been aggravated partly by the fact that the Liberal government has been here, in my opinion, much too long. There is always a tendency for

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
there to be an over-expenditure of funds. Money is used for the wrong purpose when a government has been in power for a long period of time. In fairness I must say that even in the case of an NDP government the situation would not be different. I remember at one time meeting with cabinet ministers from across Canada, agriculture ministers, and finding that some who were members of my own party were more conservative in their attitude than others. In terms of dealing with waste and abuse this is a factor with any government which has been in power for very long.
Let us consider, for instance, this government which has been in power for many years. Very few cabinet ministers have not had lengthy cabinet experience. Those who have not had lengthy cabinet experience have had lengthy experience here as members. One such minister is the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid). Yet this government is not able to handle the very simple problem of Mrs. Dube, who has been standing out in front of this building starving herself for 20 days. It is not able to solve her problem. Some hon. members say that her problem comes under provincial jurisdiction.
When Mrs. Dube was in Quebec city and met the premier of Quebec, he told her that her problem was not his, that it was not something he could help her with, and that it was something that has to be solved in Ottawa. That is why she moved to Ottawa. She has been here ever since. The government has not been able to solve her problem or the problems of many other people. Mrs. Dube's problem is simple. I understand that the ceiling in her basement was too low. Perhaps she will die on Parliament Hill. If we do not get around to having an election, there will still be 265 members here who cannot solve her problem.
It is no wonder that there is abuse of power. A number of things have been done as a result of the Gallup poll. One has been mentioned many times in this House. For partisan reasons the government has left office space vacant in the city of Ottawa by moving some operations to the city of Hull. This has cost hundreds of millions and will cost governments a considerable amount of money in the years to come. There may be some merit to this change. There has always been talk about solving Quebec's problems by giving Quebec more. However, there are now many office buildings in Ottawa which are empty. About one-fifth of Ottawa's office space has become vacant in the last five years simply because the government has moved some operations across the river. This was done to show the people of Quebec that they also have a role to play in our national capital. All the government has done, however, has been to confuse the people of the city of Hull who do not know what belongs to the province of Quebec, what belongs to the national capital commission, or whether Hull will be annexed with the city of Ottawa. I do not think this move has done anything for national unity, but unreasonable expenditures have certainly been made.
Hull is not the only place to which moves have been made. The government has decentralized. Veterans Affairs headquarters are being moved to Charlottetown. Can hon. mem-

bers imagine anything less necessary than moving the pension commission or the headquarters of a department without moving services? No hospital facility is being moved, just Veterans Affairs headquarters, where records are kept. A move is being made to Prince Edward Island just so that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will be elected forever. It means that if people from Vancouver are going to see the pension commission they will have a great time of it because they will see the whole country; they will travel from sea to sea. It may be nice for the old veterans who can make it, but many of them will not make it half way; they will not make it to Ottawa, and they will certainly not make it to Prince Edward Island.
What about the farmers wanting to talk about a farm loan? I read the other day in a press release of the Department of Agriculture that farmers will have to go to Camrose, Alberta, to see about a farm loan. We have put quite a bit more money into the Farm Credit Corporation, but for a farmer to get a loan now and to talk to a senior official, it will be necessary to go to Camrose, Alberta. I wonder if that will really happen physically. I wonder whether it will happen after the election. We would have to know whether a Liberal cabinet minister is elected in the province of Alberta, because otherwise it might be located in some other place.
Centralization is not saving us any money. It will cost a lot of money to people who are not able to provide the infrastructure services, but it will probably be able to provide the Liberal party with a few votes as they move agencies around the country. The other day I asked about moving the Department of Supply and Services to Matane, Quebec, because the cabinet minister was from that area. I made the crack that we are going to buy our pencils in Matane now rather than in Ottawa. To be fair to the minister, he came over to me privately, not to show up my ignorance but to point out that they only bought a few dollars worth of pencils in Matane, that they were still buying pencils in other places. If that is so, why do we bother with decentralization? Why do we bother with it if it will not bring some advantages to the minister and to his community?
Most Canadians are fed up with what they consider to be the waste of parliament. It was mentioned earlier today that we have no control over expenditures. Not long after this motion is passed or defeated, another motion will be put forward whereby we will approve millions and millions of dollars worth of estimates, most of which have not been considered by members. We have not made a change in $20 million or $30 million worth of estimates in the last ten years-my colleagues say, not even $20 or $30 worth. When we are in committee and we find that the government has misplaced, mislaid or misappropriated $20, it will probably be found, but when you talk about $20 million-no way!
Since we have changed the procedure on estimates, they now beautify the departments; they are a valedictory address to the individual department and to the people who work in it, and we are not able to decide as members of parliament what the
March 26, 1979

expenditures are for. Since most of the estimates do not even go to the committees, they do not get even a superficial type of examination. The minister has indicated that we have now established a Comptroller General and that we have a new force in the Auditor General's Department. But parliament is asking someone else to make the decision for it.
Since I have been here members of parliament have been talking about horses on the payroll and the expenditures at Mirabel where we bought land which we are not going to use. When the threat of an election loomed, it was necessary for Toronto not to feel cheated, so we said that the land in Pickering should also be purchased. We will have an airport at Pickering, not because we need one but because we have to balance it with Mirabel where great abuses have taken place for the same reason, namely, to elect the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: These huge expenditures are not made for the people. The people in Montreal did not ask for that airport. They found it very easy to get to Dorval, and they found transport facilities to Dorval very good. Now every time I go to Montreal I hear dozens of complaints about how hard it is to get from Dorval to Mirabel or from Montreal to Mirabel, and anybody who has driven from Ottawa to Mirabel knows that they have not put up a sign telling you to turn off to Hawkes-bury to get on to the Quebec side to get to Mirabel.
All these expenditures and extravagances have been made for one purpose so far as the public is concerned.


An hon. Member:: Even the airlines did not want Mirabel.


William Arnold Peters: That is true. The people who did not like it most were the airlines, and most of them are not satisfied even today.
A number of changes have been suggested by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and by the whips of the parties. Several weeks ago I heard the Liberal whip making a very interesting dissertation on changes that should be made to assist members of parliament to make more reasonable decisions on expenditures. Changes are talked about, but normally are overriden by the need to pass legislation, and therefore allowances are not made to members to participate in gaining an understanding of what are the expenditures of the nation.
I am pleased to learn today that the government has provided members of parliament with two bills. My colleague will probably be able to tell me what the expenditures in those two bills are. I looked at both of them and in one I found an expenditure of about $311 million, I presume. In the other one I was not able to ascertain what is the bottom line in the bill. As we approach March 31 we will be making an expenditure of something like $52 billion or $53 billion. Most of the items that will go into making up that amount have never even been discussed by members of parliament.
There is no machinery which allows members of parliament to make a decision about these expenditures, and for this
Waste and Mismanagement
reason the general public is very unhappy and dissatisfied, to the extent that an article appeared in a newspaper the other day which probably makes a lot of sense to most Canadians. It talks about one of the large supermarkets which has decided to forget all the hoopla, forget all the name items, forget about all the brand name labels like Trudeau, Clark and Broadbent, and choose a no-label party. There is a lot of merit in a no-label party because we have not spent a lot of money and time building the images. There are no brand names, no images to indicate to the Canadian public what will happen, and obviously after the election none of those things will happen.
All members are interested in controlling the expenditures. Proposition 13 in the United States is not dead in Canada. In fact it is badly abused in some parts of Canada. Today we heard a member from Manitoba talk about the joys of many of those abuses where you cut down on the services that are asked for by people, where you cut down on things to which Canadians have become accustomed. Eventually we will have to develop a mechanism, if this institution is to function, that will allow a scrutiny of expenditures before they are made. I believe the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has done a very good job, but it is dealing with accounts after the fact- accounts after something has been spent.
If one looks at some of the items we will pass later this evening, one will find that many of them are dollar items, not statutory items but transfer ones. The initial reason for putting those items down has changed. It has been decided that those moneys will be used for something else. It gives us an opportunity of knowing exactly why we are passing the moneys. We are passing items that are only a transfer from one estimate to another.
There are abuses in the expenditures. Some abuses which are taking place can be controlled and there are other abuses which cannot be controlled. Now that we have made the decision to spend money for the infrastructure across the river, what will happen? Now that it has been decided that we will not go into the business of bilingualism and will cut back on the expenditures of training people in a second language, whether it be English or French, what will happen to those large complexes across the river? Mr. Levesque has indicated that he wants to operate those buildings. There are four or five buildings in Place Campeau as it is commonly called, or Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere. What will happen to those expenditures if there is a major change in the attitude of the provincial government and they decide to operate them?


An hon. Member:: Roll them over.


William Arnold Peters: I am not sure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has the floor. I suggest hon. members listen.

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement


William Arnold Peters: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether that comment was made in jest. Perhaps we will move the fence back a few feet behind the parliament buildings and annex it. Perhaps that will be the answer.
If the Governor General was not a friend of mine, I would continue this exercise. Seeing as he is, I will cease and desist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-42, an act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada-Chapter 17.
Bill C-49, an act to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.-Chapter 49.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Andre):
That this House condemns the government for its continuing waste and mismanagement, and its failure to implement management and administrative procedures that will ensure that the taxpayers' funds are spent efficiently, effectively, and according to the will of parliament.
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I was
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
taken by the words mentioned in the motion of the opposition, words such as "waste and mismanagement," and I thought I should at least address myself to some of them.
I find it interesting that there is such stress on waste, and I was rather surprised that one member of the opposition, when referring to the kind of "waste" this government has indulged in, referred to the commission on national unity. I cannot understand how any member of this House could in any way feel it was a waste, no matter what the cost, to send people across this country to deal with a question involving national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I cannot understand for an instant why such hon. gentlemen as Mr. Robarts and Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin ever have any remarks of that nature related to them when they, as honest, true, and great Canadian citizens took on the task for this parliament.
I have no quarrel with the hon. gentleman who said that we members of parliament have a great deal of ability at our disposal and that we do indeed represent our constituencies. I agree with him completely. But quite often we have business here and we need the advice of experts. Experts are not always those who have honorary degrees, earned degrees, or professions. So it was necessary to take two gentlemen and a lady, all of whom we know well, and send them across the country, with others, to hear what ordinary souls had to say about unity. To use this as one of the examples of "waste" and extravagance on the part of the government is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.
There are other examples. I would like to go back to the days of another Auditor General, Maxwell Henderson. I remember well that during the period when he was talking about government expenditures, he was quite willing to accept that the budget in the Auditor General's office would go from $2.25 million to $4.25 million the next year, and to $6.25 million the following year, while government expenditures did not increase to that extent at all. That, however, was fair from the point of view that he should have the necessary funds to check government expenditures.
This august gentleman commented on something which it might have been more appropriate for the opposition to comment on, rather than them merely making remarks about the wastage on the unity commission. They could have mentioned that there exists inevitably some mismanagement in large corporations and in large governments, as Maxwell Henderson said. This mismanagement often occurs in mid-stream. It is easy in hindsight to talk about all the things which occurred, but the government is dealing with reality and what is occurring now. Some of the innovative changes in policy must be made at the moment. It does not necessarily mean that everything before that time was done wrongly. It means that changes were necessitated as a result of outside forces and
March 26, 1979

forces which occur within the country. Maxwell Henderson recognized this.
The next Auditor General, of course, was J. J. Macdonell. He noted that the Treasury Board had acted on 55 of the 117 abuses singled out in the 1972-1973 report, and that another 33 per cent were under review. He said that the reason his annual report was so short was tjiat so many of the faults he found in various departments get fixed, and therefore lose their materiality. Macdonell said that he was impressed by the people he met in government "lots of sincere, hardworking public servants", were the words he used.
Macdonell said that the average reaction when he finds fault with something is, "Good heavens, we must do something about that", and most times they do. It appears this attitude of co-operation and the low profile approach of Mr. Macdonell will be of great help to us in the future. Mr. Macdonell has quickly revealed himself as a superb professional who is bringing new prestige and authority to his office. He said that the public accounts committee should be delighted with this new report, that at last MPs have a chance to do something constructive. The committee will have before it a report which even notes how departments have mended their ways. That, after all, is what the exercise should be all about.
I would like to read a little note from the press concerning supplementary estimates.
The federal opposition parties were caught napping. None of them showed up at the House of Commons committee meeting which was scheduled to hear Mr. Buchanan defend his department's spending estimates. That is hardly the close scrutiny of governmental spending the people of Canada expect from opposition members.
The opposition talks of mismanagement by the government. What kind of management has the opposition shown in the use of the public accounts committee when they do not even turn up to ask questions of the minister when he was prepared to answer them?
We do not get comments like these from everyone. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has a vital interest in this country, and I believe that they are very important. Their comments are very important to the business community and are certainly good guidance to and good criticism of the government. This is what they said about the budget:
The chamber labelled the budget as responsible, and commended Finance Minister Jean Chretien for resisting the temptation to bring in a Financially dangerous program of massive tax cuts. While expressing alarm at the government's cash requirements of $10.8 billion, the chamber said the fact that these requirements are being reduced by $1.3 billion from 1978-79 levels is particularly welcome.
Why can the opposition not give criticism of that nature instead of attacking the money spent by the task force in trying to find out what the Canadian public think of our dream, our rebirth and renewal of our constitution? However, the chamber does not stop there. Later on it says:
The Canadian Chamber has agreed to support the Comptroller General in his initiative to establish financial control mechanisms in various federal departments. The chamber has offered to assist in the implementation of the scheme, and will help to secure the appropriate people for the assignment.
Waste and Mismanagement
With an important step like that having been taken, we are talking like we are in the dark ages, as though everybody has sat by for ten years and done nothing. It just does not happen to be true, and the facts which I have read to you bear this out. Here are a couple more facts. Total federal government expenditures, as a percentage of the gross national product, have dropped since 1975. This is something which is rarely ever said publicly. It is almost as though it is a shame to admit that anything in line with a controlled industry has existed. In the fiscal year 1975-1976 government expenditures totalled 22.5 per cent of the GNP; in 1976-1977, 21.5 per cent; in 19771978, 21.0 per cent; 1978-1979 forecast 20.7 per cent, and the 1979-1980 forecast, 20.3 per cent. How is it that the opposition can presume that nothing has happened? This most certainly gives an indication of efficiency and effectiveness as the motion requests.
The federal government has reduced its expenditures by $500 million for 1978-1979 and by $2 billion for 1979-1980. What about the growth of the public service itself, which has reduced from 5.6 per cent in 1974-1975 to .6 per cent in the 1977-1978 estimates? All these facts seem to be ignored.
What do we talk about? One of the hon. members opposite, a member for whom I have the greatest respect, discusses the terrible plight of a person who is petitioning outside the buildings of parliament. It is not untraditional or unusual that an opposition member or I might not be able to do anything in a situation where the due process of law has been applied in the courts of our land. This person must either accept the judgment or search for higher authority to repeal it. It is ridiculous to expect a parliamentarian, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), or a member of cabinet to supersede a decision by the courts of this land. It must be remembered that justice stands holding the balance. I notice though that sometimes one eye is covered, but all of us must accept what comes from justice, all of us must accept that cruel lady, and the lady may have to accept that cruel lady as well. That does not mean to say we will not do what we can to defend an individual in trouble, but we must obey the laws of the land. I submit, whether hon. members consider it inappropriate for members of parliament, because it is parliament that is involved, not just the government, that it is certainly not an example of waste, inefficiency or mismanagement.
We seem to forget that in the first few paragraphs of the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister said that from projected spending for this fiscal year the government would be subtracting $500 million, and from the expenditures expected for the next fiscal year it would be taking away $2 billion. If hon. members opposite quarrel with those figures, or attempted to prove them incorrect, I could understand, but instead we end up with arguments concerning some incident which might occur on the Hill or in the other place, and using it as an excuse to condemn the government for almost everything that has occurred.
However, the end of the motion says something else, and I would like to address a few words in that regard. This is with respect to the concern about government spending according to

March 26, 1979
Waste and Mismanagement
the will of parliament. In the motion there is talk of waste, management, and expeditiously doing our work. It also questions whether we will do the spending according to the will of parliament. I will mention briefly some of the measures taken to provide improved disclosure of information to parliament.
In September, 1973, the Treasury Board published a guide on financial administration for departments and agencies of the Government of Canada. The guide is the policy of the government on financial administration in departments and agencies. It also provides directives and guidelines for a course of action for deputy heads to follow in discharging their responsibilities in financial administration, including the utilization of appropriation authority according to the will of parliament. The guide is designed not only to explain to managers their responsibility to control appropriations approved by parliament, but to provide useful direction for establishing the cost of program achievements or outputs to ensure that results attained would have the maximum effectiveness and efficiency in the use of public funds.
This guide directs that for any appropriations by parliament, the department classification shall be threefold; first, by activity element to make visible the cost of obtaining the output or benefits to be derived from expenditures; second, by responsibility centres to identify who is accountable internally; third, by objective of expenditure to provide a standard for identifying the acquisition of an asset and the utilization of those resources in producing benefits to the public. This hardly sounds like a government which has gone willy-nilly and not indicated ways in which parliament can be informed and cannot inquire into how the will of parliament is being followed through in the expenditure of funds.
These three characteristics of financial administration, which are emphasized in this guide, are financial disclosure, which is concerned with providing information to parliament; accountability displaying information by organizational components to identify financial responsibility; and control whereby only those with properly delegated authority can authorize the use of appropriations for purposes for which they were approved by parliament.
If we do not use these guides which are available to us and ask questions concerning them, and directly get into the government's business and its spending of funds, how can we sit here and talk about waste and mismanagement? We all serve on committees. Each of us has a responsibility. The guidelines are set out to make the information available to us.
On October 7, 1975, two years later, the Treasury Board's report on the study of the accounts of Canada was issued. This report set forth findings, analyses, and recommendations of the representatives of the Treasury Board, the Department of Finance and the Department of Supply and Services, and the terms of reference approved by Treasury Board. The 41 recommendations contained in this report were unanimously accepted by the executive, the office of the Auditor General and the public accounts committee. These are now being

implemented. However, I still continue to hear charges that nothing has been done.
These recommendations focused on the manner in which information is reported, and addressed such items as the annual base of most parliamentary appropriations, including the need for any limitation on commitments applicable to future years, the vote structure used in the estimates, including the effect of allocations of costs between votes, cost recovery techniques and net voting, information reports, including the summary statements in the estimates, the Canada Gazette and, of course, the public accounts. Many of the recommendations in this study have now been implemented, and others are near completion.
We seem to be faced with a feeling that everything must be done, that somehow governments must take a big brush and, if white is beautiful, paint it white, and if black is beautiful, paint it black. It does not happen that way. We go through several shades of grey to get to either white or black. Things do not happen overnight. The sun rises and the sun sets. Some people seem to think that if they were in power, suddenly in one moment they could change it all and everyone would find it all correct. But they would find as many complications as this government has. The important thing is to react to whatever is happening and change policy in mid-stream as a result. There is always someone who says that the previous policy was no good. But it was good for its time, and change had to take place.
Of major interest in this context is the study of the form of the estimates. In the spring of 1978 the program branch of the Treasury Board secretariat, in conjunction with the office of the Comptroller General, formed a task force to study the estimates. The objectives of this study are to evaluate known criticisms of the estimates, to design a presentational format for the estimates which will assist in a better understanding and more meaningful discussion of the government's spending plans to consult with members of parliament departments, and others regarding the design proposal, and to develop plans, procedures, and guidance to implement an agreed upon approach.
Those words are most important in the kind of government which exists in Canada, not just the government per se on this side. It says "an agreed upon approach ." There are many people with expertise on the other side who can say what is required so they can better understand. They are invited to be part of that ongoing system which will make a more meaningful study of estimates possible.
A basic principle has been proposed by this task force. In its statement on the proposal of the progress of this work, the secretary of the Treasury Board recently told the public accounts committee that the role of the estimates committee is to communicate to parliament the level and the nature of the government's spending plans for the coming fiscal year as a reflection of government policies and priorities, and to foster the public understanding of the purposes and objectives underlying the spending plans.
March 26, 1979

The government and the Auditor General are in agreement that a prime means of facilitating accountability is through an information system which provides the bridge between the estimates and the public accounts committee. The end result will be consistency-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) is rising on a point of order.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF DISSOLUTION AND ELECTION ON MAY 22
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to advise the House that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), called on the Governor General a few
Dissolution of Thirtieth Parliament
moments ago. Accordingly, I would like to advise the House that the present Parliament of Canada is dissolved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: By proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada, dated March 26, 1979, the present parliament is dissolved and members and senators are discharged from attendance. May I add that the date of the election is May 22.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 can only indicate that, in the face of these circumstances, I immediately leave the chair. I want to extend to all members of the House my deep gratitude for the co-operation and support they have extended to the Chair throughout this rather long period of time. If any members are so inclined I will be awaiting their attendance in room 16.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Thirtieth Parliament was dissolved at 9 p.m. by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General.


END OF VOLUME IV