1980-05-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity which I hope all members will support.
In view of the fact that the latest statistics indicate that the incidence of murder is on the increase, and that police officers across our country are being seriously wounded or killed in the performance of their duties, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Government of Canada take the necessary steps, through legislation or any other means, to make available to members of all police forces in the country the new, bullet-proof vests which are comfortable to wear and weigh only three pounds to five pounds, so that each and every one of them will have some measure of protection while protecting and defending the citizens of our country against all unlawful and criminal elements.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on an issue of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the plans of the federal government to reintroduce legislation to end public servant exemption from wage garnishees, and whereas public servants do not have full political freedom in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House unanimously support and resolve to remove from all acts those sections that infringe on the full political freedom of public servants in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEVELOPMENT OF COAL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, recognizing the importance of the $5 billion coal and industrial package now pending between Japan, British Columbia and Ottawa and its potential for thousands of new jobs and investment in the Pacific region of Canada.
In view of the disastrous expedition to British Columbia of eastern cabinet ministers, during which the federal government offered to put up $70 million in capital development out of $675 million required, and that ministerial assistants were quoted regarding "Social Credit turkeys" and "Now we know what kind of dinks really run this place", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That in order to assure that Canada begins to present a substantial and united front in negotiating with Japan, the government apologizes for the assistants' remarks, consults with elected members from the west before making any further expeditions, and increases the federal contribution toward capital development in proportion to the eastern Chrysler standard.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that 3,800 person-years of employment and some $220 million in financial investment for metropolitan Toronto is waiting for the federal government to proceed with the Harbourfront project, and in view of the fact that the

May 14, 1980
project, after years of planning, is supported by the Harbour-front board, Toronto city council, metro council, the provincial government, the Toronto construction association, the metropolitan Toronto labour council and, indeed, literally hundreds of social, cultural, recreational and business groups, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist):
That the Minister of Public Works advise his colleagues-the six Liberal members from metro blocking the project-that land use planning in Toronto, as it should be anywhere in this country, is the responsibility of local planning authorities in open discussion, not Liberal members of Parliament in closed meetings and, further, that the minister proceed with this project forthwith.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas fishermen lose their lives each year in our country because of the capsizing of their vessels, and the government itself has become a financial victim of this same phenomenon because of the questionable stability of the fishing vessel Rio San Lorenzo, the CIDA ship that will not float upright, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House order the immediate release of the Swyer report, prepared in 1973 and hidden by this government for some seven years, the publication of which report might have saved the lives of a number of fishermen and prevented the embarrassment and waste represented by the construction of such vessels as the Rio San Lorenzo.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISASTERS
Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, I rise, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that two days ago the hon. member for Erie across the way, was unable
to get unanimous consent to a motion to establish a special reserve fund for disaster relief, given the fact that in most cases the victims of such disasters, as well as the municipalities, are totally unable to provide the necessary financial assistance to rehabilitate affected areas and to help the victims of such disasters, and in view of the fact that in the last three years there have been several major disasters causing millions of dollars damage and personal loss, particularly in smaller communities where these kinds of losses are beyond the normal capacity of communities to respond adequately without a co-ordinated federal and provincial disaster relief program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That this House urge the Prime Minister to establish a special task force to review federal and provincial government policies with respect to disaster relief in this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has, over the years, fostered good labour-management relations between public servants and the Government of Canada, and today celebrates its sixtieth anniversary. However, the job security of its membership is now threatened by lay-offs and staff reductions. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House direct the President of the Treasury Board to consult with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and other representatives of public servants to establish fair rules respecting job security, to ensure good labour-management relations in the public service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing
May 14, 1980

Order 43, concerning the forthcoming Floralie International Festival of Flowers being hosted jointly by the city of Montreal and the government of Quebec this weekend.
Considering that the federal government, which issued the invitations to the festival, has invited South Africa, considering that as a result the government of Cameroon is seriously thinking of withdrawing from the festival, and considering that the Canadian government has in the past gone on record as condemning apartheid in South Africa, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the federal government issue a statement to the effect that, notwithstanding its invitation to South Africa to attend the Floralie International Festival in Montreal this weekend, it remains committed to its policy of opposing apartheid in South Africa.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity affecting small businesses throughout Canada.
Given the fact that the small business development bond provisions introduced in the December budget were defeated in this House and, since the present government has not yet proved the sincerity of its intentions, after giving notice in the economic statement of April 21 that it would reintroduce these provisions, potential purchasers of these bonds are understandably reluctant to invest in them and small businesses are uncertain how to issue them, and since the situation which these bonds were intended to address was urgent and pressing when the last government introduced them, and remains so, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to introduce forthwith amendments to the Income Tax Act that will provide a legislated basis to the small business development bond provisions introduced by the last government and presented again by the present government in its April 21 notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wonder if the minister can tell the House whether he has received a report, or any other information, from the National Energy Board relating to applications for a natural gas pipeline from Montreal to Halifax.
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, such a report has been received and it will be considered by cabinet tomorrow morning.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can the minister tell us whether the government is considering a recommendation to construct a Q and M line to Quebec City only at this time, consequently leaving the maritime provinces without the benefits of secure access to western Canadian gas, and without the benefits of a significant pipeline construction project and the jobs that go with it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the report will be considered by cabinet tomorrow, and as soon as cabinet makes a decision I hope the report will be made public and the cabinet decision also. The Leader of the Opposition will then be able to reach his own conclusions as to the content of the report and the nature of the cabinet decision.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, could we have a commitment now from the Minister of Energy that any announcement regarding government policy on a gas pipeline to or beyond Quebec City will be made here in the House of Commons before it is made elsewhere?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker, but I will be in the House tomorrow afternoon and I will be very happy to answer any questions. Moreover, the estimates are before the House and I will be quite happy to appear before the Committee of the Whole and answer any question on the subject once the decision has been made.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, just to be clear on this, the minister is telling the House categorically that he intends to make this announcement of a major policy decision outside the House of Commons. Will he tell us how he can justify that? Will he not reconsider and respect the rights of Parliament and recognize his obligation to make an announcement of that kind here in the Parliament of Canada and not at some other forum?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, I will be here for question period, I will be here for the estimates, and I will be very happy to answer any questions that may be asked.

May 14, 1980
Oral Questions ENERGY


REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH ALBERTA
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question with respect to energy supply. It is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has just returned from Alberta.
Within the limitations existing in question period, can the minister comment on the progress, if any, that he made in Alberta? Particularly, will the minister take the opportunity to assure us, or guarantee to the country that an agreement will be reached by the end of June?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I had a very fruitful and friendly meeting with my colleagues, particularly with my colleague in Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: However, as my hon. friend knows from the experience of his own government, these negotiations can be lengthy and sometimes difficult. It took them, as he will remember, six months not to have an agreement, so he should not be surprised at the necessity of one or two more meetings before I can answer the question raised by my hon. friend.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I am even less surprised that we have not received the assurance or guarantee I asked for when I put my supplementary question to the minister. The present agreement, as he knows, ceases to exist on June 30. Can he confirm that, in the absence of a new agreement, one of two scenarios will exist: one, unilateral action by a level of government, one or the other, within the confines of its constitutional jurisdiction; or two, in the absence of such government action, that free market conditions will prevail-market conditions of supply and demand? Will the minister confirm that will be the situation on July 1 ?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have to pay homage to the perceptive analysis of my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last November, the minister said two important things about the need to maintain a universal system of medicare. First, she said, "Medicare should be free and when I say free, I mean free; not two bucks here and two bucks there." She said in the same speech, "We can't wait six months; we have to take measures now."
Since the government of Alberta recently increased their health premiums once again-this time by 13 per cent-will the minister now practice what she preached and take immediate action to restore medicare as a universal right across Canada?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member could immediately contact the New Democratic Party of Alberta and ask them to exert local pressure to explain to their provincial members that they will not accept that, in order that the population at large in Alberta can do what the people of New Brunswick were successful in doing, namely, eliminating user fees and additional financial barriers to medicare.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, what a classic Liberal cop-out that is!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: For the minister's information, the leader of our party in the Alberta legislature has already done what she said should be done. Since the problem with medicare does not just exist in Alberta, but there is double-billing in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Ontario-


Some hon. Members:: And Saskatchewan.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair cannot even understand what is going on. There is too much noise in the chamber. Would hon. members please keep their comments until after the question period.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister said, in the same speech, that the then government-which was a Conservative government-should take immediate action to terminate such practices, and this was Liberal party policy. I now ask her, while she has the authority to so act, what is she waiting for?


Monique Bégin: The Leader of the New Democratic Party should give us the example, instead of copping-out of the referendum campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: That would be a good start. To get back to medicare, I do not know why the hon. member suddenly wakes up today. We have often discussed this in this House, and we said that all parties were going to make an effort-which some
May 14, 1980

have not adhered to-to restore medicare as the best institution at the service of Canadians as a result of efforts by everyone.
The hon. member knows very well that the tool provided to us by a piece of legislation approved by Parliament some time ago is a very heavy-handed one for the situation. The previous government, not the present administration, instituted a commission of inquiry presided over by Mr. Justice Hall. I have informed the House that Mr. Justice Hall has agreed to report in one month with recommendations. We shall make these recommendations public and try to act as soon as possible to restore medicare.
Other than that, the best exchange we could have-which, by the way, would not be and should not be confrontation- would be in this House, through television, to ask the local population and community to react to financial barriers being imposed when they should not be imposed in the light of the huge payments being made by taxpayers in all of Canada for medicare in Alberta, as everywhere else-though not in Saskatchewan, by the way.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister is now hiding behind a royal commission.
Oral Questions
pleased if she would repeat it. Let me put it this way: did the minister say that the matter was not public from September 17 on?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I shall reply in French so as to be absolutely sure the hon. member understands me perfectly. I must be cautious because we are talking about a royal commission of inquiry and the most important matter in Canada.
I want to repeat that when the minister instituted what appeared to be a commission of inquiry on September 17 of last year, if I remember correctly, we from the public did not know under what legislation, what legal or administrative instrument or what authority of Mr. Justice Hall, that was done, and we asked many questions of the government to find out what was really the mandate of the commission. We finally found out that the terms of reference were ten pages long, which does not mean anything, and covered everything under the sun. We eventually found out months later, or at least weeks later, during SOS medicare that Mr. Justice Hall was simply under contract with the minister or the Department of National Health and Welfare, which in no way constituted a royal commission of inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The chorus is at work again. She is hiding behind a royal commission report. Last October, when a Conservative government was in office, she said, and I quote her words, "We should not await the publication of the Hall report before acting." These are her words, not mine.
Having said last October that we should not wait for the Hall report before acting, why is she waiting now for the Hall report to come in before her government will make further studies and do something about it?


DATE OF NEW OIL-PRICING AGREEMENT
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It follows a question by my hon. friend from Perth.


Monique Bégin: For an excellent reason, Madam Speaker. When we were in opposition, the party in power did not send us a telegram with the information pertaining to the commission, how much money it had, what its mandate was, and so on. The hon. member may recall that it was appointed on September 17, 1979. We did not know what the mandate was; nobody knew. Nobody knew the amount of money made available; nobody knew the status of Mr. Justice Hall or the tools at his disposal to conduct a proper inquiry.
I was not in the government, neither was the hon. member. Where was he that day? We stated very clearly that in light of the information in our possession, we did not think that a commission of inquiry was needed. 1 still feel that way. But a commission exists, and we shall support it in order to get the best possible report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: A supplementary question to the minister. I tried to follow her answer, but I would be
Given that the minister has admitted that failure to reach a new oil-pricing agreement by July 1 would create a lot of confusion, at best, can the minister assure the House that there will be a new oil-pricing agreement in place by that time?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: As I have often indicated, I think, in the House, Madam Speaker, there can be no agreement without some form of understanding between at least two parties. I cannot guarantee that parties out of my control will endorse an agreement. All I can say is that I will do my utmost to try to achieve an agreement. I have already had two meetings with each of the ministers of the producing provinces. I have met the ministers of the consuming provinces at least once, except in the case of Quebec, and I expect to meet their representative by the end of this month or in early June. We will therefore pursue our discussions to try to arrive at an agreement.
1062

May 14, 1980
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, given the fact that there could be this confusion on July 1 if there is not a pricing agreement, could the minister enlighten the House about just what plans he has in mind?
Is it his intention to let market forces-in other words, the world price-dictate? Is it his intention to let Alberta unilaterally set the price? Is it his intention to have the federal government unilaterally set the price? If it is the latter choice, under what legislation? Is he contemplating bringing in the Petroleum Administration Act?
Can he enlighten the House and the country as to what his plans are? That date is very rapidly approaching and, given the minister's record, one is not being unfair in assuming that he will probably not reach that target by July 1.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there is little to add to what I have already said, namely, that our objective is to reach an agreement. We must proceed step by step. I think it would be irresponsible on my part to speculate on events which have not yet taken place and which, hopefully, will not take place. In any case, I hope we will reach an agreement by the end of June and I am working with this objective in mind.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is asked in the context of the destructive level of interest rates in this country and the fact that those interest rates have started to come down, no thanks to the government.
Would the minister undertake to investigate and report to this House what justification exists for Sears and The Bay to raise their finance charges from 21 per cent to 23 per cent effective October 1 this year, at a time when their profits are running at about 80 per cent over last year?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, obviously the question raised by the hon. member is a matter of concern not only for my own department but for the Canadian government as a whole. I would suggest to the hon. member that he put his question to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who has broader powers than me in this regard.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, in the interest of protecting the consumers of this country, I also refer to the minister the question of possibly looking into Master Charge and Chargex
interest rates-since these are consumer affairs-which have run at roughly 18 per cent to 20 per cent. In the case of Imperial Oil, its finance charges are increasing from 21 per cent to 24 per cent. Will the minister call in the heads of these companies and ask them to stop literally gouging the Canadian public?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the answer I gave to the hon. member on his first question applies to the second question as well.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In the Speech from the Throne, the government committed itself to the introduction of a freedom of information act. However, to date no such act has been introduced in Parliament.
May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether, pending the introduction of such an act, the Prime Minister has issued any directives to member of the cabinet to the effect that they should conduct themselves in strict adherence and compliance with the principles of freedom of information?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Yes, Madam Speaker. We expect to bring in a proposed freedom of information act or have it passed as soon as possible. In the meantime, the government is adhering to the policy guidelines with respect to communications to the public by public servants.


Mr. Nielsen:: Ours, or yours?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Communications, who has responsibility in the government for the whole issue of freedom of information.
May. I ask the Minister of Communications whether, in keeping with the principle of freedom of information, he will follow the practice established by the previous government of making available to Parliament and to the public the membership of cabinet committees?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, my responsibility in the matter is to introduce freedom of information legislation. We are looking at the matter very closely at the moment. We are reviewing the bill which in many respects was a very good bill and which was introduced by the former government. We are examining the criticisms made of that bill, and hope to come up with an improved bill in the near future.
Concerning the question of publication of lists of cabinet committees, that is obviously a question which should be
May 14, 1980

directed to the Prime Minister and not to the Minister of Communications.


ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, following the question raised by my colleague about freedom of information, I should like to address a question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In view of the ringing endorsation of freedom of information contained in the Speech from the Throne and the commitment of this government, I wonder how the Deputy Prime Minister can justify the statement in the Speech from the Throne with the fact that the government is now shutting off access to government information, particularly with respect to the list of order in council appointments. Will the Deputy Prime Minister now reverse that unfortunate decision, and continue the practice started by my leader of giving that information to the public?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have no hesitation in assuring the hon. member that the information to which he refers can, and will, be made available. There will be no effort to keep it confidential or secret.
As I understand his question, it relates to vacancies which occur in various bodies of the federal government. That information will be made available and open to the public.


Charles Joseph Clark: The composition of cabinet committees?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will extend that as well to cabinet committees, as requested by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe.
In view of the commitment to freedom of information, and also the statement in the Speech from the Throne, that section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act would be removed, how can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the fact that on March 13, 1980, the Secretary of State for External Affairs used this particular section to withhold documents from an inquiry being held by Mr. Justice Gibson of the Federal Court with respect to Canadian Dairy Commission policies? Also, will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate tomorrow to this House, or table a list of other instances in which this government has used the provisions of section 41(2)?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the particular case to which the hon. member refers. It would certainly be my wish, even before the legislation which is to come forward, to have the government act in accordance with the spirit of that legislation. But in the meantime we will attempt to do that and I will look into the point with respect to the particular case raised.
Oral Questions


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES FUNDING OF CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. The Canadian Conference of the Arts is meeting in Ottawa this week: a meeting, incidentally, which the minister has declined to attend, I understand.
Can the minister tell the House what immediate plans he has to meet the crisis in arts funding and to meet the needs of major cultural institutions such as ballets, symphonies and even the Stratford Festival which now find themselves desperate for funds?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I simply want to reply in part to the preamble of the hon. member's question. I was unable to accept the very kind invitation from the conference to address it tomorrow evening, for the simple reason that there happens to be a referendum campaign in the province of Quebec. Maybe the hon. member has not heard about it. The future of the country is at stake, and if there is to be a conference of the arts next year, there will have to be a country. It also happens that on Thursday evening I will be addressing a number of people in the province of Quebec and all day Friday I will be engaged in the referendum debate.
1 would, of course, very much like to attend the meeting of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, and I hope to have the opportunity of meeting with the executive of that conference in the immediate future to review some of the problems the hon. member has raised.


Mark Willson Rose: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. 1 hope the minister is not suggesting that no questions should be put on any subject other than the referendum while it is in progress. I am not suggesting the referendum is unimportant-but surely we are entitled to raise other questions during the referendum!
Since the minister appears, at the moment at least, to have no firm plans to protect and expand Canadian cultural institutions, can he tell the House whether or not he intends to follow the commitment of the previous government and follow the Applebaum preliminary blue paper on cultural development, with a parliamentary committee, to examine and review the whole matter and come up with a comprehensive cultural policy for Canadians?


Francis Fox: I thank the hon. member for his question. Unfortunately, he was not in the House last week when I responded to the very question he is putting which was put then by the hon. member for Rosemont. I would suggest to the hon. member that he refer to Hansard.
However, I would like to respond to the question in detail. I have already indicated that it was my intention, and that of the government, to pursue the work of the Applebaum com-

May 14, 1980
Oral Questions
mittee. I met with that committee on two occasions and I find that the work they have done until now is most worth while.


An hon. Member:: When?


Francis Fox: If the hon. member would let me complete my answer and if he would stop interrupting, perhaps he would learn some of the things that are going on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: The hon. member mentioned the blue paper which will be published by the Applebaum committee. The blue paper originated with my predecessor in this portfolio. The members of the Applebaum committee tell me they are not in a position to produce a policy paper at this stage; that they need more time before they can present the government with a complete policy paper in that regard.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, fortunately there is one Quebec member who now and then raises questions about that province. My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. A month ago 1 asked him if he would soon announce the sale of Nordair and I would like to ask him today whether negotiations have progressed and what groups or individuals in Quebec are apparently interested in the purchase of Nordair.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, consultations are being carried out in that case. I could not name from memory all Quebeckers interested in Nordair. There are a great number and I will send a complete list to my hon. friend if he would like me to do so.


INQUIRY WHETHER MAJORITY OF SHARES WILL BE HELD BY QUEBECKERS
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I wish to point out to the minister that 1 would like very much to know who is interested. I would also like to ask him if he is prepared to tell us, supposing that the sale is concluded in the not too distant future, whether he will make sure that most of the shares will belong to Quebec interests.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I cannot give a percentage, but I can very clearly indicate that there is no doubt in my mind that Quebec interests should play a very important role in the corporation set up as the result of that sale.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Will the minister confirm that the members of the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board were present, and can he say whether they were consulted about the reduction of the initial payment to western Canadian farmers of 50 cents a bushel from the October adjustment price set by the past government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I assume that my hon. friend is referring to the question he asked me the other day about payments going back to 1972-73. If that is the case, let me tell him that I inquired about this from my immediate advisers and was told that they were very surprised at the existence of such a situation, which explains why I was not aware of it. A further inquiry is being made now, I understand, from the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg and I am awaiting a report on that subject.
What I am trying to indicate, Madam Speaker, is that the subject is a very, very complex one, so that even my immediate advisers were not aware of its existence.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I should like to repeat my question to the minister. I will be very slow and will read it very carefully.
Will the minister confirm whether the members of the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board were present when the decision was made to reduce initial payments to producers by 50 cents a bushel from the October 15, 1979, initial payment adjustment level set by the past administration?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, again, this is a very detailed question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will consult immediately with the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and I will report on it as soon as I can.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare: it is on a subject on which she is very well informed.


May 14, 1980

Has the minister been able to approach her colleagues and receive permission to change the regulations under the Family Allowances Act and also the child tax credit section of the Income Tax Act that ends discrimination against orphaned children in Canada? In other words, has she had the time to put forward the regulations?


Monique Bégin: I am afraid not, Madam Speaker. I, too, have been involved for weeks now-every evening and even during the week-with the referendum campaign. I am sorry, but I have not yet had a chance since I took office on March 3 to proceed with a possible correction of the Family Allowances Act. However, I am aware of the problem and will give it my attention as soon as possible.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, in view of the injustice to orphaned children over the last number of years, would the minister attempt to bring in, with her colleagues, some sort of retroactive period at least back to the time of the introduction of the child tax credit under the Income Tax Act?


Monique Bégin: I hope to bring in that recommendation when we study the question with the hope of resolution.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. I am sure that in keeping with the non-partisan policy of maintaining a strong, united Canada, the minister is aware that at present the Treasury Board is negotiating with about 65,000 employees in four different groups at the bottom of the public employee pay scale, a large majority of them being women, and about 75 per cent of them in the clerk's area. They are earning less than $ 10,000 a year.
Can the minister tell the House why they were offered increases of only 5 per cent a year on a two-year term contract, when inflation is running at nearly 10 per cent, members of Parliament received on the first of this year 7 per cent increases, and corporate profits are running at over 50 per cent in the first quarter of this year?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the philosophy of the employer-the Government of Canada, through the Treasury Board-is to establish comparability in all these areas with the private sector.
In the case in point, negotiating procedures are under way, there is a mechanism established, and I am confident that a satisfactory settlement will be reached eventually and that the employees will be treated properly.
Oral Questions


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that unless the Treasury Board changes its policy immediately, the government will be facing a very important and crucial strike.
Can the minister give us an assurance that the current stand of the Treasury Board will change, so that many employees who are living on incomes below the poverty line will at least be offered increases comparable to those which members of Parliament have received or, preferably, up to at least 9.1 per cent which was the increase in the consumer price index in 1979?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, in my first answer I expressed the philosophy which guides these negotiations. At the moment, as I understand it, the designated procedure is progressing, and eventually, I presume, the conciliation board will be appointed. I think that in the process of collective bargaining we have a responsibility not only to the government but also to the employees to let the negotiating procedure, the collective bargaining process, run its course.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister is attending an important meeting this evening in Montreal, would the Acting Prime Minister convey to him the very best wishes of other Canadians, that is, the best wishes of hon. members from other provinces of Canada who support him fully in saying No to the referendum?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the interest he and his colleagues of all parties in the House are showing in the cause of the No in the Quebec referendum campaign. I thank him for the show of solidarity he has just expressed and I assure him that I shall be only too happy to convey those wishes to the right hon. Prime Minister who, I am sure, will want to publicize them even more. The hon. member can rest assured that his comments are very much appreciated. I want to take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to thank the House leaders of both opposition parties who, since the beginning of the referendum campaign, have been flexible to the point of allowing the government to fulfil its obligations in governing Canada and hon. members and ministers, specially those from Quebec, to go to that province and work for the cause of Canadian unity.

May 14, 1980
Oral Questions


SMALL LOANS ACT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Finance). It involves the Small Loans Act which was passed in 1939 to serve purposes which are no longer with us.
If the act is kept in force, it will require some 4,400 co-operatives to be registered under federal legislation. My question to the minister is: Is the minister considering repealing or amending the Small Loans Act?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance and I have received many representations from several hon. members, as well as the hon. member who has just put the question, with regard to the difficulties posed by the Small Loans Act. As the hon. member pointed out in his question, we are looking into two possibilities, namely repealing the act completely or amending it. All hon. members will surely understand, Madam Speaker, that we must take a very close look at the consequences of either amending or repealing the act. As soon as that study has been completed we will reach a decision. We want to act quickly because we are aware of the problems the current situation is creating for the caisses populaires and credit unions. As soon as a decision has been made, we shall advise the House of our intentions.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I appreciate the answer by the minister, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether he has a suggested timeframe with regard to when this change might take place- either repealing or amending.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the time-frame is as soon as possible.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, there is no similar policy under consideration at the moment, although we are encouraging Canadian ownership as much as we can of the mineral industry. We are, therefore, looking at ways to encourage the junior mining industries in some tax ways; but at the moment there is no policy of 50 per cent ownership.


Mr. Yurko:: Madam Speaker, the export tonnage of coal, particularly to Japan, is expected to rise substantially in the next few years. Can the minister advise the House whether all new coal export contracts will be subject to federal government agreement, either through the National Energy Board or directly by the government, as to the price of coal-and is the federal government considering an export tax on coal?


Judith A. Erola: The coal deal, as you know, Madam Speaker, has not been finalized, but the federal presence will be very much there. As a matter of fact, negotiations will include a federal as well as a provincial presence during the negotiations.


DISCUSSIONS ON PURCHASE OF SUNCOR
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if I can get his attention.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, I am listening.


Jack Wendele Shields: Last Monday, while the minister was walking all those extra miles, I directed a question to the Prime Minister that I should like to redirect to this minister. Has his government, or any department, initiated or taken part, through any Crown corporation or, indeed, PetroCan in discussions with Suncor regarding its purchase and, if so, what has taken place so far?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I want to confirm for the hon. member that I am not aware of any such discussions and my department has not been involved in any such discussions.
* *
*


OWNERSHIP OF PETROLEUM INDUSTRY-POLICY ON COAL
William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat tempted to ask my question in the tongue of my ancestors, but I will resist that temptation.


Some hon. Members:: Please do.


William J. Yurko: It is not an official language. Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Mines. In light of the stated specific goal of the government in the throne speech, that at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the petroleum industry will be effected by 1990, could the minister advise the House whether she, her government or any of its ministers are contemplating a similar policy, or have under review a similar policy for the coal industry?


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, would the minister inquire through Crown corporations or, indeed, PetroCan, if discussions are taking place, and will he report back to this House soon?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would raise a serious question as to whether it would be appropriate for me to inquire from PetroCan at this time whether they are carrying on negotiations and with whom.
As the hon. member knows, these types of discussions of a business nature are usually kept to a very, very limited number of individuals, even inside a corporation; and I, frankly, do not think it would be wise for me to even try to attempt to get this information at this stage.


NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO VANCOUVER ISLAND
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, "Je voudrais poser ma question au Ministre de l'Energie." I
May 14, 1980

think the minister is aware that Vancouver Island is the largest market in western Canada not presently served by natural gas. On Monday, in Vancouver, the minister refused to support British Columbia's proposal to build a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. My question is, why?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I had an excellent meeting with my colleague, the minister of energy for British Columbia, and I do not know where my colleague got the information that I was not supporting the notion or the principle of a pipeline to Vancouver Island.
On the contrary, I told CBC radio and the press which interviewed us at the end of the meeting that I thought it was an excellent initiative on the part of the British Columbia government and one which we welcomed very much. We will follow the developments in this regard with great interest and my colleague, the minister of energy for British Columbia, and I are due to meet again and discuss these issues at a later stage.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, according to press reports the minister has said that he could not afford, right now-with the $14 billion deficit-to put any money into this project.
Is the minister aware that such a project, while costing about $200 million, would replace 80 million to 100 million barrels of oil over a 20-year period, which would amount to something like $450 million to $500 million? If the minister can agree with those figures, is he then prepared to take another look at this matter and to commit himself, as he said a moment ago, to some federal support for this project?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would have thought that with the experience the hon. member has had in this House as a parliamentarian, he would not believe everything he reads in the press.


John Edward Broadbent: It is more reliable than the minister.


Marc Lalonde: For instance, it is reported that I did not attend the opening of a windmill experiment near Victoria, when in fact I was there with my colleague, the president of B.C. Hydro and, I think, four networks. I suggest to the hon. member that he check the press reports very carefully.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: "Ya Paunyi dooju kraus-no dynak-kooyou stcho dalishtee mnie nahodu skazaty paro sleeu."
Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. This is the fourth level of government I have served on in my many years as an elected representative of the people. With regard to the federal level of
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
government, I am very disappointed and frustrated with the present structure and effectiveness of parliamentary committees.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It being very close to the end of the question period, I ask that the hon. member put his question very rapidly.


John Kushner: Approximately two years ago a procedural organization committee was struck to look into the situation. As a result, two reports were tabled. Is the President of the Privy Council reviewing the reports with the intention of making recommendations to Parliament for much needed change?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the frustrations which the hon. member has expressed could also stem from his feeling that the speeches in the House are too long, that the House should sit in the morning and not at night, and that perhaps he should like to spend more time in his own constituency and deal with his constituents' difficulties. I am pleased by his interest in the changes to be made to our Standing Orders, and I shall give serious consideration to any idea he may care to submit possibly to streamline Parliament and make it more human and efficient.
* *
*


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from information provided by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Appolloni) in response to questions by myself and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) concerning chemical and biological warfare testing in Canada. The parliamentary secretary, in response to questions on this issue over the last two days, has misled the House; whether it was inadvertent or not, I am unable to say.
In response to my first question on this matter on Monday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence replied, as reported at page 930 of Hansard:
-1 think it is important to point out that the department feels very strongly that if such an experiment did, in fact, take place, it was not harmful to human life.
Yesterday, in response to the hon. member for Provencher, the parliamentary secretary said, as reported at page 1005 of Hansard:
The report that we have so far. .. is that, in effect, this substance was not harmful to human life.

May 14, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
Madam Speaker, the zinc mixture that was used in the Winnipeg test, according to available data, was zinc cadmium sulphide. Cadmium sulphide is a long-known poison and an experimental carcinogen. According to the Handbook of Poisoning, "the ingestion of as little as ten milligrams will cause marked symptoms." The handbook further states that cadmium is damaging to all cells of the body. In Japan since 1962 some 230 cases of degenerative bone disease have been attributed to cadmium poisoning. This disease progresses very slowly so that symptoms may not appear for decades. Furthermore, Dr. David Penman of the Saskatchewan department of the environment told me that to suggest today the spraying of zinc cadmium sulphide throughout a city would simply be beyond question. Surely the parliamentary secretary does not wish to contend that this is a substance that is not harmful to human life.
In response to my call for a full-scale public inquiry into chemical and biological warfare testing in Canada to determine the nature and extent of this kind of operation, the parliamentary secretary insisted that this operation was not a secret at the time. She cited two reports concerning the tests which were carried in the local press in 1953 as proof. I have copies of those press reports in front of me, and anyone reading those news reports and comparing what they claim is the purpose of the tests and what we now know to be the truth would have no doubt that Winnipeg civic officials and the population of that city were misled about these tests at the time.
Let me read the first report concerning these tests. I am quoting from the Winnipeg Free Press of January 22, 1953:
Civil defence authorities from Ottawa are going to study smoke behaviour in Winnipeg.
-committee granted the Ottawa request to make the study which was part of a national program to study air currents in built-up areas.
The tests are made by spraying the air with small quantities of fluorescent powder which adheres to smoke particles and makes them visible.
Later that year, on June 23, 1953, the Winnipeg Tribune reported that:
Winnipegers will be walking with their heads in the clouds next month- clouds of zinc powder which are to be released in civil defence experimental smoke tests.
Tests are to determine the feasibility of smoke screening the city and its vital installations in the event of enemy attack.
Nowhere is there reference made to testing for chemical and biological warfare. Even the communist councillor to whom she made reference yesterday believed that the tests were indeed to demonstrate the feasibility of smoke screens. This is quite obvious to those who have read his letter.
No one knew the real purpose of these tests. It is clear from the admission of the Department of National Defence that Canadians have been used as test subjects for experiments in chemical and biological warfare. Canadians have the right to know whether they are still unsuspecting test subjects, and they have the right to know the nature of the chemicals or
bacteria to which they have been, and for all we know are still being, exposed.
The types of answers provided by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence do this House a grave disservice by misleading all hon. members as to the nature and significance of this important issue. I would repeat my request that this government establish a full-scale public inquiry into this matter. It is a sad commentary on our governing process that Canadians must go to another country-in this case the United States-to find out what goes on in our own land, sanctioned secretly by our own government.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Appolloni) said yesterday, as reported at page 1005 of Hansard:
-these tests took place some 27 years ago. Many of the people who were alive at that time... or involved in the tests at that time have since retired or, unfortunately, for other reasons, have passed away.
Madam Speaker, I am alive and I was involved in those tests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: I was a member of the city council at that time. I would like to reaffirm what my colleague the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) said. He said that not only were the people of Winnipeg and the elected officials of the city of Winnipeg not told the truth, but in fact they were deliberately misled about what was taking place.
Let me quote from the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary yesterday as reported at page 1004 of Hansard. She said:
I should like also to caution the hon. member and all members of the House against paying undue attention to sensational reporting, the effects of which can only cause needless and cruel fear.
In reply to a further question she answered, again referring to the tests, as follows:
Far from being held in secret, it now appears that there were at least two reports of those tests at the same time-
Later she said:
-to imply that these tests were held in secret is wrong.
And later in answer to a further question, referring to the people of Winnipeg she said:
-we on this side prefer to assure them that there is no great danger-
I have a summary of the letter sent at the request of the Department of National Defence through the metropolitan director of civil defence in Winnipeg, Mr. M. H. S. Penhale, to the city clerk. The letter was transmitted to the city council and on the basis of it city council gave approval to the tests. The letter said that the proposed exercise was to investigate the behaviour of smoke dispersal in built-up areas. City council was told that a communique had been received from Ottawa, through the civil defence agency, which indicated that
May 14, 1980

climatic conditions in the area of Winnipeg showed that valuable data for civil defence purposes could be obtained by studying smoke particles under varying conditions, and that this would involve the release of small quantities of fluorescent particles.
On that basis the city council gave approval but it was not told, according to a spokesman for the Department of National Defence, Major Haswell, as reported in yesterday's Globe and Mail that the tests were to determine how radioactive fall-out from a nuclear explosion would be dispersed by the wind currents around an urban centre. It is clear from what Major Haswell said yesterday that the civil servants in the Department of National Defence in 1953 hid the real purpose of the tests from the elected officials of the city of Winnipeg.
I submit, Madam Speaker, that such action is completely inexcusable. It is completely unacceptable that some group of civil servants, whether in the Department of National Defence or the RCMP, should deliberately lie to the elected representatives of any body in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: In a democratic society it is the elected representatives who have the right and the responsibility to make the decisions. If they make wrong decisions, the electorate can determine that and, if necessary, elect another group of people at the next election. It is not the right of any civil servant or of any bureaucrat to decide that it is in the interests of somebody or other that the truth should be kept from elected representatives.
Today's Globe and Mail reports Major Haswell, the national defence spokesman in Ottawa, as admitting that the U.S. army misled residents of Winnipeg about the spraying in order to avoid creating anxiety. Madam Speaker, I suggest that there is no way in which United States officials could have misled the people of Winnipeg except with the knowledge and co-operation of officials of the Department of National Defence in Ottawa-our officials.
Yesterday's Globe and Mail also reports Major Haswell as saying:
-the substance is considered harmless and that the Winnipeg and Manitoba civil defence agencies were aware of the tests at the time.
Madam Speaker, I think we have a right to know just what the civil defence agencies in Winnipeg and Manitoba knew. Did they know that these were tests for radioactive fall-out? If they knew that and did not tell the elected officials in Winnipeg, they are just as guilty as the people in national defence.
The other point 1 want to raise is that yesterday the parliamentary secretary in the House and Major Haswell in The Globe and Mail today said that the tests were considered harmless. The same article in The Globe and Mail today quotes Professor Frank LaBella, a very well-known medical researcher at the University of Manitoba's pharmacology department, as saying:
-both cadmium and zinc are toxic and could be dangerous to babies, old people, asthma patients and sick people.
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
He went on to say-
-the metals are more dangerous when used in aerosol form, as in the Winnipeg experiments.
He also said-
-there have been a number of deaths and reported cases of brain damage in industrial workers dealing with cadmium sulphide.
This is a very serious matter, Madam Speaker. It was a very dangerous way to mislead the people of Winnipeg and it ought not to have happened. I think the way the parliamentary secretary answered the questions yesterday was shoddy, to say the least, and I should like to be assured not only that steps will be taken to ensure the same kind of thing will not happen again, but that there have not been other tests and that there may not be tests in the future without the people of my city or any other that is affected being told what is going on.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, 1 do not intend to speak for very long on this question. The point made by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant), namely, that information that has been given in this House has left an incorrect impression, is one with which I agree. I think the hon. member made that point very well.
The problem is obviously that this incident took place 27 years ago and the question now arises after the fact. It may be asked why we are raising it as a question of privilege now. The point that I have tried to make in my questions and which other questioners have tried to make is that it is the responsibility of government and those who speak for government, if they intend to give information-and, of course, they have the right to withhold information-to see that such information is accurate. On two different occasions the parliamentary secretary stated that, while the full details are not known about the tests and that tests are continuing or research is going on, they were not harmful to human life.
I find it rather incongruous that she is able to make the unequivocal statement that the test was not harmful to human life, while at the same time tests or research are still going on.
The hon. D. L. Campbell, who was premier of Manitoba in 1953 and is a very highly respected person, pointed out in an interview on Manitoba radio two days ago that, first, he could not recall ever having been informed of the tests taking place when he was in Winnipeg as premier; and, second, that at that time civil defence came under the aegis of municipal governments rather than provincial governments.
I think all of us know now that records of the committee of health for the city of Winnipeg in 1953 have now been found and that they make reference to these tests. The records do not show that the tests involved chemical or biological warfare but, rather, were tests relating to a smoke cover for the city of Winnipeg.
Another point concerns me deeply and that is the question of who made the decision for Canada to get involved in this kind of activity. The parliamentary secretary has tried to assure the people of Winnipeg that the tests were not harmful to human life and that we should simply take her good word on behalf of the government. I should like to do that. But the

May 14, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
information that we are getting from those doing the research in Manitoba is such that in fact the information that was given to Manitobans in 1953 was given in such a way as to mislead the population. Also, no information has been given on questions relating to whether other cities or areas were used for the tests.
To clarify this matter as quickly as possible, I think it would be of benefit to the country and to the government if a responsible minister would rise in his or her place and give us the details in terms of clarifying these matters, which started in 1953 from a false premise.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this matter. Some very good points have been raised, but 1 want to point out that the concern is that even if it is 27 years later, the material, zinc cadmium sulphide, in those days was not believed to be poisonous. Today we know that ten milligrams of cadmium sulphide is poisonous. Therefore, there could be some danger even if it is 27 years after the event.
I understand that the Department of National Defence is searching the archives right now looking for all of the background material with regard to this testing that took place back in 1953. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that she discuss this matter with the minister and that all of this background material be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for a thorough review, and this would enable us to find out the extent of the tests, whether they were done in other cities, and whether there are any harmful effects even 27 years later.
I would emphasize to the parliamentary secretary that she obtain this information as soon as possible and I suggest to the minister that it be referred to the standing committee.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 think the issue in which we are involved, as has been indicated by a number of hon. members already, is extremely serious. It cannot be lightly dismissed, as I regret seemed to be the attitude which the spokesman for the government took to this problem yesterday.
What is involved now is that tests taken back in 1953 in terms of existing medical knowledge may have led to some people now having cancer. I use those words with care and say "may", because I am informed that the germination period, the period over which such results would show, is 20 to 25 years.
Because this took place back in the mid-1950s, it cannot be lightly dismissed by saying that people in the city of Winnipeg experienced no consequences. That is an important medical reality, as I am told. Therefore, we just cannot bury the issue today. It requires very thorough investigation in terms of medical investigation. Perhaps this can be done on a selective basis or by random sampling of people who were in Winnipeg in order to find out whether people who happened to be in town at that time were affected in a significant way.
I see Liberal members on the other side laughing. Obviously it is a joking matter to some people on the other side of the House, but I can tell the hon. member from Toronto that it is not a joking matter at all to the people who might be affected by this test.
Second, I would like to point out that it has been made clear today, contrary to what the House was told yesterday, that the Winnipeg city council was not informed, nor were the people of Winnipeg, as to the real nature of the tests. In fact, to put it bluntly, they were lied to. They were told that the tests had absolutely nothing to do with what turns out to be the reality, but rather had to do with some kind of smoke clearing devices or their effectiveness.


An hon. Member:: A smokescreen.


John Edward Broadbent: That is simply wrong, and the spokesperson for the government had better make it clear today what the reality is. Can she deny that the letter which was sent out misled the city council of Winnipeg who gave approval to the decision, or did it not? Certainly the evidence that has been produced is that it was misleading, profoundly misleading.
This letter came from Canadian officials, but were the Canadians themselves informed as to the reality by the Americans? That point has not yet been made clear. Was it an instance in which the United States government that was responsible for conducting the tests did not pass on to Canadian authorities the real nature of the tests, or did the Canadian authorities in Ottawa know what the tests were about but lied to the people in Winnipeg? Whichever answer turns out to be the case, the implications are serious.
Finally, I think the government has an obligation now to produce to the House of Commons all information about communities across Canada, at that time or since, that have been involved, consciously or unconsciously, in similar tests. Were other municipalities sent, on the surface, innocuous letters describing certain events that would take place that they thought would be perfectly harmless, but which in fact turned out to be tests of a similar nature? Those, Madam Speaker, are a number of the issues involved that are extremely important and cannot be dismissed by the government.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, obviously I will await your ruling to see whether or not this is a question of privilege. I rather doubt it, but if there is a question of privilege involved at all, it could well be my privilege and not the privilege of a member on the other side of the House. In fact, I shall and will reserve the right to rise on a question of privilege, if I may, when I have checked the records of today. I especially want to check the exact words used by the hon. member, particularly when he referred to whether or not I misled the House. I am extremely interested in the words that he used before the word "misled". If I do have a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, you can be very sure that I shall ask your permission to rise on it tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 14, 1980

107!


An hon. Member:: They want to yell at the lady, but they do not want to listen to what she has to say.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have been listening to the remarks of all hon. members and I can reassure the parliamentary secretary that there was no unparliamentary language used.


Ursula Appolloni: The Leader of the New Democratic Party, with his usual rhetoric, asked for, indeed demanded, a thorough investigation.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Ursula Appolloni: I would like to point out to this House that for two solid days that is exactly what I have been promising this House on behalf of my department. There will be a thorough investigation. So much for some of the pious rhetoric of the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I must point out yet again that these tests took place 27 years ago. That means that they took place before some members of this House were even born.


An hon. Member:: To get an issue they can agree on, they had to go back 27 years.


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, this explains to some extent, I hope, the difficulty in finding details immediately of an event which occurred 27 years ago. In fact, my information is that one person particularly involved in these experiments is extremely ill. He is in a coma and has been so from another disease totally unrelated to these experiments. Unfortunately, we cannot get information from him because of his own health problems.
There are other problems. The Leader of the New Democratic Party suggested that this investigation should extend to all of Canada. I agree with him. The department fully intends to make it extend to all of Canada. However, I am sure that even the Department of National Defence, marvellous as it is, perhaps the best in the free world-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: -will need a little more than two days to come up with all the details of something that happened 27 years ago.
I noted some of the comments of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). Here again 1 should perhaps check the written Hansard. It occurs to me that he made reference today and yesterday as well to the supposition that these tests had not finished, that they were still continuing. I repeat, as I have said for the past two days, the tests in Winnipeg were stopped in 1953 after, 1 believe, the July to September period in which they were taking place.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) I believe was a member of the municipal council at that time. I do not have copies of the minutes. I do not even know if that
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
hon. member was present at the meeting on the day this discussion was conducted. However, to say that he was not aware of it and to say that, in effect, the authorities themselves did not know about it is quite a long step to take. I would say that just because the hon. member did not know about it does not mean that the authorities, the competent ones, did not in fact know about it. Therefore, to imply that just because of lack of personal knowledge the whole practice was secret is a fallacy.
Reference has been made to Professor LaBella. Without in any way impugning the integrity and reputation of Professor LaBella, I wish to draw the attention of the House to my remarks the other day when I said that pharmacologists, I think my words were, just as economists, unfortunately do not always agree with each other. What Professor LaBella says he may stand by, but it is my information that other pharmacologists have assured the Department of National Defence that there was no hazard to human life.
I come to my final point, Madam Speaker. If those members who stood up in their places today to protest my reply are truly concerned about protecting their constituents, 1 ask them why they do not give the department the information they are supposed to have so that the department can go further and move quickly with its own investigation. They would do that if their concern is genuine. However, if their concern is only to make "brownie points" and continue to scare people, then I rest my case. I do not know what else to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: There is absolutely nothing, but just nothing, in the rules which allows a member who is not satisfied with an answer a minister has given to one of his questions to raise the matter as a question of privilege. Today we have another example of a question of privilege which flows from an answer given by a minister to a member and the member not being satisfied either with the quality of the answer or the kind of information that has been given.
Hon. members know there are other procedures that can be followed if a member is not satisfied with the information he has received. I urge hon. members to use these other procedures rather than take up the time of the House after question period when that time should be taken up by something else.
I am in the position that I must listen to members in order to assure myself whether there is or is not a question of privilege. Therefore, I have welcomed some of the interventions. Today I listened mostly to members who come from the region where this incident occurred because I felt they probably had a specific interest in raising the matter. However, all of them were debating the question.
Therefore, I must rule that this is not a question of privilege. I will shortly no longer be formally telling members, when they are not satisfied with an answer given by a minister, that they may not raise it as a question of privilege. I ask for the co-operation of hon. members in this regard.

May 14, 1980
Privilege-Mr. S. Robinson


MR. ROBINSON (BURNABY)-RESPONSIBILITY OF SOLICITOR GENERAL TO TABLE REPORTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects the rights and responsibilities of all members in this House. I might add that it is a question of privilege of which I have given the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) notice, although he has unfortunately left the chamber. The question of privilege concerns the responsibilities of the Solicitor General under the statutes by which his department is governed.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Department of Solicitor General Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter S-12, section 5, on or before the 31st day of January next following the end of each fiscal year or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first five days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, the Solicitor General is required to table the annual report of his department.
In addition, the Solicitor General has a statutory responsibility pursuant to the Penitentiaries Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter P-6, section 30, to table the annual report of the commissioner of penitentiaries at the same time.
In each case the Solicitor General has failed to carry out his statutory responsibility to table these reports. This is a serious matter. This House and individual members of Parliament have a responsibility to carefully scrutinize the reports of the work of particular departments. That is our responsibility as members of Parliament. There is a statutory responsibility on the minister to table these reports, and in the absence of that tabling we are unable to perform our function as members of Parliament and critics of these particular departments.
In this particular case, Parliament has mandated that this department table reports at certain times. The most recent annual report was for the year ending March 31, 1978, over two years ago. Particularly in view of some of the important issues which this department has to deal with, areas such as the RCMP, the parole board and penitentiaries, it is critical that we have this information and that we have a basis upon which to question the minister both in the House and in committee.
Should your Honour find that this is a breach of the privileges of members of this House, I would move:
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for a full and comprehensive review.
This is a serious matter. We are unable to perform our function as members of Parliament without the information that the government is statutorily required to lay on the Table.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, judging from the question raised by the hon. member, he has two grievances. The first, that the Department of the Solicitor General has failed to table a report in the course of the first five days of the new Parliament and if I understand correctly, that the commissioner of penitentiaries had not done so either within the same period.
First, I would ask that the question be stood until the Solicitor General can give explanations, if need be, as he had to leave a few minutes ago for very good reasons. However, may I point out to the House that in the course of the last year we have had two general elections as a result of which in one year's time Canada has been administered by three different governments. I do not want these circumstances to be underestimated; they could have influenced the preparation of these reports and their tabling by previous governments. And it could be that such reports do not exist precisely because for the last year we have been without a Solicitor General and a Parliament. This might explain the fact that they could not have been tabled at the proper time.
Be that as it may, Madam Speaker, in view of this exceptional situation and the temporary absence of the Solicitor General who was compelled to leave, I ask respectfully that this question be stood until the next meeting of the House at which time the Solicitor General might give us his comments.


Madam Speaker:: Exactly; as the Solicitor General is not in the House at this moment, it would be wise, I should think, to put this question to him at a time when he could give the explanations the hon. member wants.


MR. CROMBIE-REMARKS OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege relates to some remarks made in response to a question by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). As I heard them, I gained the impression that the House was being misled. I should like to have an opportunity to consult the record and reserve the right to raise a question of privilege tomorrow.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, since the hon. member, who was my predecessor at the Department of National Health and Welfare, is kind enough to proceed as he has just done, let me indicate very briefly to the House, because I consider it important, that the beginning of my answer, when I said I would answer in French, was to get the message through and to protect myself from mistakes I could make in the English language, and not the way I expressed it. In any case, I should like to thank my predecessor for the kindness he has shown in understanding that even in saying so, I did not express myself very well in English. As for the point he wants to raise and for which, so it seems, he wishes to wait for the blues of Hansard in order to ascertain the precise content of my answer, in turn I reserve the privilege of answering him and defending my own rights.
May 14, 1980



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation\

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the second report of the committee of selection. With the agreement of the House, I intend to seek concurrence in this report later today.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table a copy of order in council PC 1980-1274 appointing Dr. Cliff Mclsaac as chairman and the Hon. Leon Balcer as the other member of the commission required by section 34(7) of the Senate and House of Commons Act to inquire into the adequacy of the allowances paid to members of both Houses of Parliament.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I rise to table a document in pursuance of an undertaking given in response to a question yesterday dealing with an analysis of the selection of site 9 as compared with site 15 for the relocation of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. I might say, Madam Speaker, that in the Liberal tradition of expediting matters, although it took two days to get a report from the Department of National Defence, the Department of Public Works have responded in 24 hours.


PETITIONS
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67, I have the honour to present a petition from the Action Canada group that collected the signatures of more than one million Canadians in all parts of the country, urging their fellow citizens in Quebec to stay in Canada and refuse to separate from this great country of ours and inviting
Committee Reports
Canadians of the province of Quebec to pursue the edification of their great country.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders: Government notices of motions:
May 12, 1980-The Minister of National Defence:
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear evidence and consider Canadian policy with respect to future defence co-operation with the United States in the North American region with particular reference to air defence and related arrangements embodied in and flowing from the North American Air Defence Command (NORAD) Agreement, and it shall report thereon no later than December 31, 1980.
Madam Speaker:: The notice of motion is transferred to government orders and ordered for consideration later today or at the next sitting of the House in conformity with Standing Order 21(2).



STANDING COMMITTEES


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the second report of the committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of this House presented earlier today be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Does the minister have the unanimous consent of the House to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 207, 295, 296, 341, 584, 585, 590. I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

May 14, 1980
Order Paper Questions
[ Text]


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978, what was the total number of Canadian railway cars and how many were owned by (i) CNR (ii) CPR?
2.	For the same years, what was the number and type of Canadian cars located in the United States and how many were owned by (a) CNR (b) CPR?
3.	What was the average percentage of Canadian-owned cars located in the U.S., at any given time, over the past Five years?
4.	What charges do American railway companies have to pay for retaining and utilizing Canadian-owned cars?
5.	What legal, diplomatic and other mechanisms are in place to expedite the return of Canadian cars to Canada?
6.	Did the government, or its agencies, take steps recently, aimed at strengthening the powers to expedite return of Canadian rolling stock from the U.S.?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Date	Total Number of Cars Owned by Canadian Railways	Total Number of Cars Owned by C.N.R.	Total Number of Cars Owned by CP RailApril 30, 1976	167,482	96,695	69,404April 30, 1977	161,799	93,744	66,067April 30, 1978	159,897	92,911	63,045April 30, 1979	157,073	90,805	62,632
Number and Type of Canadian Railway Owned Cars on American Lines Open Top Open Top Covered
Date	Box	Auto	Reefer	Gondola	Hopper	Hopper	Stock	Flat	Other	TotalApril 30, 1976	10,528	1,318	32	837	314	4,571	8	2,491	379	20,478CP Rail	4,148	527	13	330	124	1,801	3	982	149	8,077C.N.R.	6,243	791	19	496	186	2,711	5	1,477	225	12,153April 30, 1977	11,872	1,567	34	1,115	338	5,495	5	3,333	93	23,852CP Rail	4,678	626	14	439	133	2,165	2	1,313	37	9,407C.N.R	7,040	938	20	661	200	3,259	3	1,977	55	14,153April 30, 1978	13,027	1,332	30	1,170	218	5,505	6	3,730	1,104	26,122CP Rail	5,141	699	28	285	81	2,280	6	1,753	0	10,273C.N.R.	7,722	633	2	646	129	3,200	0	1,915	1,098	15,345April 30, 1979	13,723	1,733	4	1,309	111	5,481	6	3,784	1,239	27,390CP Rail	6,034	781	1	497	58	2,407	6	1,684	-	11,468C.N.R.	7,371	952	3	611	41	3,055	-	2,033	1,232	15,2983.	14.5 per cent4.	Charges are made in accordance with the Association of American Railroads (AAR) car service and car hire agreement. Each subscribing railway promises and agrees to abide by and enforce the rules prescribed for the handling of, and settlement for, freight cars. These rules are included in the codes of car service and car hire rules promulgated by the association. The rates for use of freight cars are based on time (by the hour) and actual line-haul mileages charges as specified in a car hire rate table. In addition, incentive hourly rates, specified in an incentive charge table, are applicable on certain mechanical designations and car type codes. Further, appurtenance rates, as specified in AAR appurtenance rate table S- time charge-are paid for the use of certain railroad owned multi-level auto-rack superstructures.5.	There are no legal or diplomatic mechanisms in place to expedite the return of Canadian cars to Canada. Through the railway directorate of Transport Canada, informal contacts were made in Washington last winter with the interstate commerce commission, the Association of American Railroads and federal railroad administration officials. Within these groups, as well as with the United States Customs, mechanisms are in place for expediting the return of Canadian railway owned equipment to the owner. The railway directorate monitors the situation through its contacts with the above groups and ensures that Canadian concerns are communicated to the United States government.6.	No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Grimshaw Trucking and Distribution Ltd. at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2.	What is the present retained earnings in the company?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1.	(a) (i) 1,000 common shares of $10 par value/share; 100 6 per cent cumulative redeemable preferred shares of $100 par value/share;
(ii) 500 common shares.
(b) Pursuant to article 92 of the articles of association of the company, the capital structure of the company was changed in 1973. The appropriate resolutions were filed with the office of the registrar of companies of the province of Alberta and registered on November 13, 1973. The authorized capital of
May 14, 1980

the company is now 2,000,000 common shares of no par value, of which 1,350,000 are issued and fully paid.
2.	Northern Transportation Co. Ltd. reports operating results on a consolidated basis only. Information on individual subsidiary companies is considered proprietary.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Yellowknife Transportation Limited at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2.	What is the present retained earnings in the company?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1.	(a) At time of purchase
(i)	500,000 common shares NPV
(ii)	308,003 common shares NPV
(b) By resolution dated February 10, 1978, the board of directors of Yellowknife Transportation Company Limited agreed to purchase 308,000 shares from Northern Transportation Company Ltd. for redemption, leaving three issued and fully paid common shares at no par value.
2.	Nil. The company has been inactive since 1966.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) temporary employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs have left the public service in each of the past three fiscal years and the present year to date, as the result of the transfer of hospitals and nursing homes to provincial jurisdiction?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: In all cases, where a hospital or nursing home is being transferred from the Department of Veterans Affairs, employees are offered employment, the next day, with the new
organization.		
1977-78	(a) 2050	(b) 351978-79	(a) 680	(b) 301979-80	(a) 100	(b) 21980-81	(a) 540	(b) 3


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, at page 515 where it is stated: "We found a number of internal control weaknesses in the way DSS-Services performed the function of the Receiver General... they require prompt attention and correction", to the knowledge of the Department of Supply and Services what are these weaknesses
Motions for Papers
and are steps being taken to give them "prompt attention and correction" as mentioned in the report?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
department is fully aware of the specific control weaknesses observed upon by the Auditor General. These concern five items as follows: keeping signature cards up to date, documenting the reasons for altering client prepared data, reducing the number of types of cheque requisition, more timely reconciliation of cheque issue differences and a change in procedures to ensure cheque issue differences are not carried forward beyond two years. More detail is provided in sections 17.143 to 17.153 of the Auditor General's report. All items are being addressed by the department and, in fact, corrective action has already been completed on two items.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, at page 517 where it is stated in relation to the Department of Supply and Services: "Included in the monthly reconciliation of outstanding cheques were some long-outstanding unreconciled differences which had not been satisfactorily cleared or resolved", what steps is the government taking to deal with this situation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
steps recommended by the Auditor General are that services "-should strengthen their procedures to ensure timely followup and explanation of differences between cheques issued and accounted for." At the time of the initial response to this recommendation, implementation activities were already in progress (reference page 533). Subsequent to this report, implementation was completed and the new procedures are in operation.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1979, at pages 494-95 where it is stated: "We found a number of internal control weaknesses in the way DSS-services performed the function of the Receiver General . .. they required prompt attention and correction", what is the government doing in this regard including all the details and what are the weaknesses?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
statement on page 494-95 of the Auditor General's report is a summary of the detail given on pages 515-17 which is the subject of question No. 584. The answer given to question No. 584 applies.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that all

May 14, 1980
Supply
notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-29, for granting to Her Majesty certains sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1981-Mr. Johnston- Mr. Ethier in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-29, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1981.
On clause (2)-


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to debate the clause but rather to clarify the plans we have for this afternoon. 1 believe it is understood that, since we are in Committee of the Whole, the time limit on speeches by members is 20 minutes and that this would include the time which might be taken for answers by ministers.
It has also been arranged that certain ministers are to be here and that questions may be directed to them. 1 think it is further understood that if any member who gets the floor on clause 2, since it covers everything, wishes to address his remarks to some other section of the estimates, he is free to do so. We leave in your hands the order of speakers to be followed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, that is a correct understanding. It is already embodied in the rules. As long as there is no implication that the speakers will be limited to one 20-minute period. There is a repetitive nature to proceedings in the Committee of the Whole.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, the agreement effectively provides a certain order for the ministers who will be questioned or whose estimates will be examined. However, as my colleagues will understand, all hon. members are equal, and on this side of the House, we intend to use all the time to which we are entitled, so there is no agreement about who should take part in the debate. I am certain that you will use your
judgment well, but I want you to know that there is no agreement on who will take part in the debate. Members on this side of the House enjoy the same rights as those on the other side and we intend to use the time to which we are entitled. However, it is true that there has been an agreement about the ministers to be questioned and they will be here.


Denis Éthier: From what I gather, there is an understanding. It has been quite usual that every member has 20 minutes to present his remarks, and he may also have another 20 minutes if someone else is not seeking the floor; but eventually if someone from the government side of the House wants to answer some of the interventions, he is also allowed 20 minutes. I think that will be recognized.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Chairman, my 20 minutes will be spent mainly in putting questions to the President of the Treasury Board. My first question will center on a booklet he published. It is called "Fiscalamity: How to survive Canada's tax chaos." It was published by the present President of the Treasury Board in 1974. In that year the minister stated:
This book is dedicated to all Canadians who share my belief that Canada, with its beauty, its resources, its people, and its legal-political heritage, could be a country of unequalled opportunity and happiness, were it not for too much taxation, too strong a bureaucracy, too much government, too much welfare, too many politicians, and too few statesmen.
Would the President of the Treasury Board indicate whether those are still his views?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the hon. member has upgraded his reading habits. As the hon. member indicated, the statement was made in 1974. I have been concerned about reform in government. I was concerned about reform in government. I believe the hon. member will find in those remarks and elsewhere in that book some of the sentiments which subsequently were expressed by the Auditor General, I believe in 1975 or 1976. I am delighted to say that in my view improvements have been made in all those areas, but again I suggest that there is always room for improvement.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I would also like the President of the Treasury Board to confirm or otherwise a report by Bob Reade which appeared in The Ottawa Journal published March 4 of this year which stated that the President of the Treasury Board favours four-year economic forecasts as a means of forcing economic planning. Would the minister confirm whether he believes in the four-year or five-year forecasting program which has been suggested in such reports as the Lambert report?


Donald James Johnston: Most definitely, Mr. Chairman.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear that answer, and I would bring the minister back to that dreadful evening in this House when during the throne speech debate the present Minister of Finance introduced what has since
May 14, 1980

been called a mini-budget. In that budget the President of the Treasury Board undoubtedly noted that expenditures had gone up some $800 million as far as the government was concerned compared with the figure last seen when the then minister of finance in the Clark government brought in his budget, and the deficit had widened on a budgetary basis from $10.4 billion to $14.1 billion. In view of that, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance did not give us a five-year overview as to where the ongoing expenditure, revenue and deficit figures were taking us in Canada, and in view of the confirmed-and I am pleased to hear this-attitude of the President of the Treasury Board, would he now table a five-year review as to where the assumptions used by the Minister of Finance when he entered the throne speech debate in this House would lead the country in expenditure, revenue and deficit terms?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of tabling any such projection at this time. In addition, that question should be put to my colleague the Minister of Finance, who, after all, is in charge of the fiscal framework. I believe his remarks on that evening to which the hon. gentleman made reference were quite clear in that regard.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Once again I think the House must remind the President of the Treasury Board of what his responsibilities are under section 5 of the Financial Administration Act passed by the Parliament of Canada. The minister, through the Treasury Board, is specifically required to pass on all matters relating to financial management, including estimates, expenditures, financial commitments, accounts, fees and many other items which are set out. In view of the fact that the previous Clark government set the pattern and tradition of showing ongoing expenditure and revenue levels for the Government of Canada-as recently as January 22 an update was done to show what would have been the expenditure and revenue levels without the Crosbie budget and what the expenditure levels would have been with the Crosbie budget-would the minister indicate what justification he has, other than being beaten back by cabinet colleagues, for not showing those figures to the Canadian public at the present time?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is given to theatrics far more than substance. He knows full well what was said that night by the Minister of Finance. He also should know full well, since he is my predecessor in office, what the responsibilities of the President of the Treasury Board are. He is asking me here when we are studying the estimates for 1980-81 to furnish not only an expenditure forecast for the next four years but also to furnish a revenue forecast for the next four years. Perhaps the hon. gentleman enjoyed playing the role of minister of finance and president of the treasury board when he occupied that latter post, but I have no intention of doing so. If he wishes to discuss the estimates, which we are here prepared to do, that is the purpose of this Committee of the Whole this afternoon.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if the most temerarious President of the Treasury Board in history is unwilling to give us both expenditure and revenue figures which are going
Supply
to affect all Canadians, would he at least give us his own expenditure projections-and let him not tell the House that he does not have them-based on the assumptions used by the Minister of Finance when he introduced his mini-budget? Would he give those expenditure levels for the next five years?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, I have no intention today of furnishing any expenditure levels. We are here to examine the 1980-81 estimates.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, would the President of the Treasury Board, then, say whether there is any reason why members of this House should not assume that the figures which were published by the Treasury Board on January 22 in a press release are not true today? They indicated that total spending by the year 1984 would reach $82,731 billion if the Crosbie budget was not passed. The Crosbie budget figures showed a saving to the Canadian public of $7 billion on the basis of the assumptions used. Can he deny that if there is not some change of events, approximately $83 billion will be the spending level authorized by his department, as forecast on January 22?


Donald James Johnston: As I recall, the hon. gentleman is referring to some political propaganda which was prepared by his office in the course of a general election campaign, and I am not prepared to accept such propaganda, if you like, which was not even prepared by the Treasury Board but by his own office, as having any relevance to the fiscal framework of the present government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am rather startled at how ill-informed the President of the Treasury Board is. I am specifically referring to Treasury Board of Canada press release 80-3 which, as I stated, was issued on January 22. So far as expenditures are concerned, the figure was based on projections given at that time by his secretariat. Does he wish to clarify this and to state that he misled the House unintentionally, and that in fact the expenditure figures were prepared by his secretariat?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the figure may have been obtained from the Treasury Board because clearly the hon. gentleman was incapable of preparing that kind of information himself; but in so far as the assumptions underlining those projections are concerned, the hon. gentleman must admit that they were his own.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In plain English, then, we have it established that, on the basis of figures prepared by the Treasury Board, the expenditure level, if something is not done, will hit approximately $83 billion by 1984. I leave it on the record that an open request has been made to the President of the Treasury Board, who professes that he believes in five-year planning, to give the figures to the Canadian public as to where he sees expenditures, and, we hope, revenue figures and deficits, will take us, on the assumption that were behind the mini-budget introduced by the Minister of Finance.

May 14, 1980
Supply
Let me touch on another question, one which is of grave importance to the people of Canada. I am referring to the question of cost overruns. On December 3, I moved a motion that a special committee of the House be appointed to inquire fully into the measures necessary to prevent recurring cost overruns on major government projects, defined as those involving expenditures in excess of $1 million, and in particular to carry out a review and an analysis of the measures already taken by the Treasury Board to prevent cost overruns on major government projects and to assess their impact.
There are various other matters covered in that motion, but my simple question to the President of the Treasury Board is: When does he intend to introduce a similar or, we hope, identical motion so that such a special committee can be established?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. gentleman will recall that I spoke on that motion at the time, in fact, quite passionately, inasmuch as I was chairman of the public accounts committee and 1 felt that the public accounts committee was the established forum, with the support which we know is available to it from, for example, the Auditor General's office, to continue the kinds of investigations which it had undertaken in the past quite successfully.
The issue raised by the hon. gentleman enters into the whole area of good management practices in terms of the control of costs on these various projects. We have, of course, a policy in place with respect to major projects. We are attempting, I think, to implement those procedures which, we hope, will prevent the kind of horror stories, of which undoubtedly the hon. gentleman is thinking, that are now part of our history. So I wish to reassure him that we will be taking all the initiatives possible to improve those practices, establish accountability and to do our best to bring these cost overrun projects completely under control.
With regard to whether or not we should have a special committee as opposed to having the public accounts committee study that matter, I would prefer to wait to see whether the public accounts committee has the time and the resources to carry out the kind of investigation to which the hon. member makes reference.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am indeed sorry to hear that the President of the Treasury Board is now reneging on a commitment into which this House entered in the former Parliament to set up such a special committee. I suppose we will now have to do it the hard way because, as a result of the Treasury Board directive, circular letter 1979-20, issued in July, 1979, we requested, among other things, that all departments report to us on their projects of $500,000 or more, indicating how the projected costs were running in relation to budget.
Let me start now the long process of taking the minister through those reports. The Department of Agriculture indicated that there is a laboratory in Lethbridge with an approved budget of $3,204,000. They reported to Treasury Board that the estimated cost to completion was $19,340,000, for a cost overrun of $16,136,000. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell us what he has done to stop that overrun?


Donald James Johnston: 1 apologize, but with respect to specific projects, did the hon. member make reference to one specific project? I am sorry, I was looking at a cost overrun document in front of me, and I would appreciate it if he would repeat the last part of the question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If it takes today and tomorrow, we have several hundreds of millions of possible cost overruns to review. The President of the Treasury Board has hesitated to set up a special committee which would have the job of doing an overview of these cost overruns. To be specific, the Department of Agriculture, so far as the Lethbridge laboratory is concerned, had a budget of $3,204,000. At last report, they said it could have a cost to completion of $19,340,000, a $16,136,000 overrun. What has he done to correct that overrun in view of what he told the House?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, in order to save the hon. member the pain and suffering of going through every project that has been examined with respect to cost overruns-


An hon. Member:: It is the taxpayers who are suffering.


Donald James Johnston: -let me tell him that there are 497 projects now reported upon which show original budgets of $4,752 billion with potential overruns of $1,062 billion. The major reasons for incurring these overruns in the opinion of the various departments include inflation, approval in constant dollars, project deferment, change in scope, project control, currency exchange and technical difficulties. System improvements are planned, as the hon. gentleman well knows, and each of these areas will be addressed with regard to those system controls in the various problem areas. A report to the Treasury Board at the present time with respect to those systems is in preparation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I feel that if the President of the Treasury Board is so unwilling to turn this matter over to a special committee of the House, presumably he should be asked to deal case by case with many of the overruns to which he has referred in passing. To be specific, would the President of the Treasury Board confirm or otherwise that the Department of the Environment, on its spending plan of $801 million, is now reporting that it could have cost overruns of $282,337,000, an overrun of 35 per cent in that one department alone?
May 14, 1980


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to comment on those numbers put forward by the hon. member for York-Peel.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Donald James Johnston: However, I should like to clarify something he said. He said that I seemed to show some lack of concern in my unwillingness to refer these matters to a special committee. That is not the issue at all. For some reason the hon. member does not seem to have confidence in the public accounts committee being able to deal with cost overrun problems.
Cost overrun problems fall squarely within the mandate of the public accounts committee. Why should he attempt to usurp the role of the public accounts committee? That was what I took issue with last year. That is what the public accounts committee is there for. It has appointed several subcommittees in the past. You will recall the investigation in the case of HMCS Bonaventure overrun some years ago, long before I was a member of this House. I do not object on principle, but I am saying we have a committee. The hon. gentleman would like to heap committee upon committee upon committee, as he attempted to do last year. We simply, in my view, do not have the time in this House to engage in that kind of exercise.
1 have complete confidence in the public accounts committee under the chairmanship, I believe, of an hon. member of his own party, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who 1 am sure will do an outstanding job as chairman of that committee. I suggest that these matters be placed on the agenda of that committee. I am sure the committee would entertain representations from the hon. member to that effect. It is not a lack of concern but rather a question of what forum these should be dealt with in; in my view we have such a forum, and it is the public accounts committee of this House.


The Chairman:: Order, please. I would point out to the hon. member for York-Peel that his time has almost expired. He has another minute.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the committee should note that what we are asking for here is that something of a current nature be done to arrest overruns the Treasury Board was informed of this spring. To suggest that it is all right simply to refer that matter to the Public Accounts Committee of this House in due course, is totally missing the point. We can save possibly hundreds of millions of dollars if we act now in response to what the Treasury Board has been informed may be cost overruns. Departments have been informed, Mr. Chairman, that in view of such overruns, contracts or projects may be terminated, postponed, reduced or very much changed.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. According to the rules he
Supply
may speak at a later stage, but I must recognize another member at this time.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue with the President of the Treasury Board some of these questions, those dealing mostly with efficiency and effectiveness in relation to expenditures of funds and resources; and there is one other matter that I think is very important, as I have mentioned before in this House and which I think hon. members recognize to be important. That is-

-human resources management. This is an especially important area in view of the fact that, in the last few years, public servants in general have been criticized, sometimes with reason and sometimes not.
Mr. Chairman, the Treasury Board is responsible for determining human resources and the way they will be used to meet the objectives of the government, and I believe that this issue is important enough for us to be allowed to discuss it at length this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by recalling that the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates has discussed supplementary vote 115a which comes under the heading of the Secretary of State. This is a renewable fund for staff improvement and development in the Public Service of Canada. I wanted to bring this up today because the Treasury Board is the employer and determines the specific personnel needs of the government and the training programs required to improve the operation of the government. It is well understood that the commission acts only as the agent of Parliament, and on the order of the Treasury Board, provides the instruction, the development and the training required. Of course, between what is called development and what is called training-

I want to talk about this matter as I think it is rather important that we distinguish between effectiveness and efficiency. Many of us sometimes confuse those two terms, but I would like to approach them at least from my interpretation. My interpretation of the word "efficiency" is "doing the job right", versus my interpretation of the word "effectiveness", which is "doing the right job." Doing the right job is what 1 think the Treasury Board has to do for the Government of Canada. Doing the job right is perhaps what public servants in general have to take care of and produce.
In the development and implementation of government policies and programs, as I have said before and will repeat again, human resources are just as important as any other resource which the Treasury Board or the Government of Canada have at their disposal. They are critical because it has been a practice in this House and outside, and in the press generally, to bash public servants for inefficiencies in their operations. Possibly it is very easy for people outside direct involvement in

May 14, 1980
Supply
the Government of Canada and the public service to go around and suggest that public servants are inefficient.
I would like to suggest that, without a set policy of government administration or a philosophy of management, something we have not got at this time and which I think the President of the Treasury Board must address himself to soon, there can be criticism. He should follow up on the Lambert commission report as well as Mr. D'Avignon's report which was tabled last year, and which we are aware represents an important contribution to parliamentarians in their obligation to answer to their constituents.
One of our first obligations to our constituents is to make sure that government and Parliament have, indeed, effective control of the public purse. There is no doubt about that. We must also assure ourselves that the human and physical resources of government are being managed well, with due regard to economic efficiency and effectiveness.
I come around again to those last two words, efficiency and effectiveness, because they are most important. People sometimes confuse what is meant by efficiency. What are managers supposed to be doing except, perhaps, following the philosophy of management, which is non-existent to them? Therefore, they do not know exactly what the government and the Parliament of Canada want them to manage. How do they manage? What is the stick and what are the carrots? There are lots of carrots around but not many sticks. I find that to be a lack, or something that is missing within the whole concept of government. What I mean is that managers within the public service sometimes do not themselves know what Parliament wants them to do. To me this is an essential point.
We have had in other years numerous commissions, task forces, committees and studies that were asked to tell parliamentarians how to improve government's effectiveness and public servants' efficiency. Last year we had the Lambert commission report and the D'Avignon report.
A few weeks ago we had a very interesting report tabled by the Auditor General which addressed, among many other things, management of human resources, accountability, productivity and improvements required. We must come to grips with these things in order that we can succeed in our efforts to restore public confidence in the management processes of this government.
It may have been popular politically to bash public servants over the head-and I have seen this during the last two or three elections-to threaten them with cuts, to be obsessed with numbers and to suggest that we should cut civil servants by 60,000 and reduce the number of Crown corporations by 400. That was an obsession with numbers which in fact did not attack real problems in respect of efficiency and effectiveness. [DOT]
Five thousand positions are being abolished by Treasury Board, or there is to be a cutback of 60,000 public servants, either by attrition or some other means. Some 400 Crown
corporations are to be privatized. Such policies often become obsessions. The press love these kinds of policies because there is something there to grab, to use to bash public servants over the head and to say, "You are the result and the cause of a lot of our problems." In fact that is not true. They do not address themselves to the important questions of good management, competent public servants and effective programs.
I would like to read from the Auditor General's report of March 31, 1979. It states:
Our findings should not be taken as an indictment to public servants for ineffective management of public funds and resources, because their mandate wasn't clear and their training was inadequate.
Once again, we do not have a global approach to training and development. The report goes on to say:
Both Lambert and D'Avignon, in their respective reports, confirmed that managing public funds and resources economically, efficiently and effectively has not been an important part of a difficult mandate of most managers of the public service. Nor have most managers been adequately trained in applying the principles inherent in good business management.
The maintenance of a competent public service depends in large part on the availability of adequate training and development programs, especially in these days of new programs, new techniques, new skills and new approaches to general management. 1 do not know how many different techniques have been used over the years. They come from the private sector and are given such names as "management by objective." There have been all kinds of processes and techniques proposed to better improve the management of the public service.
Yet every time there is a change we must realize that the public servants must adapt and that the structure which is being put in place, if it is to change anything, must be recognized by public servants as being put there to make them more efficient and to make the system more effective. In the last eight years in which I have been there, 1 have not seen this problem approached with, first of all, positive management by telling them what we want to do or, second, with a comprehensive training program which will adapt to the needs of the system.
One need only think of the Post Office. A program costing, I believe, $1 billion was introduced in order to mechanize or computerize or automate the Post Office. But did anyone ever think that those same employees would have to adapt to new techniques and acquire new skills? To provide these employees with these skills, we must train them as any employer would do. When an operation is changed, it is incumbent upon the employer to train and develop the skills which are required to do the job.
God knows, we have had in the systems of administration and government a great need for adequate training and development of skills. It seems to me that we have not addressed the problem seriously enough to actually produce the results that are to be expected. It would be presumptuous of me to dwell at length on the subjects. Their importance and seriousness present a challenge that make it imperative that this government and this President of the Treasury Board give inspired leadership quickly in establishing, first of all, global
May 14, 1980

policy for training and development for public servants and, secondly, a philosophy of the government somewhat in keeping with what Mr. Lambert and Mr. D'Avignon proposed with regard to change.
The basic objective of this policy should be to maintain a public service of the highest quality with employees who have the personal and professional skills to develop and implement government policies and programs.
The second objective should be a plan for the future needs of the public service for talented and skilled manpower.
The D'Avignon report mentioned that we need a management philosophy. I think that this is something which must be addressed seriously by this government. Management must be told what is expected of them and must be given the tools to lead effectively and manage efficiently all the resources at their disposal.
Just a couple of weeks ago I was saying that the government spends $100 million in training and development each year. According to the Auditor General's report, we spend $170 million per year in training and development. The report goes further and implies that we may be spending twice that amount. To me, that is an indication of a large expenditure of money without set objectives, proper planning or a philosophy which attacks training and development with a comprehensive, global approach to the problem.
I know that the Public Service Commission is not responsible for all the training. Elowever, Treasury Board is. As my first question, I would like to ask the minister if he is thinking in terms of presenting soon a comprehensive, global approach to training and development and, if so, how soon can we expect this document to be either tabled in the House or discussed publicly in committee?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, because he talked about several of the existing problems, problems and challenges for the Treasury Board, if you like. At the same time, I should like to give him the assurance that we are making an in-depth and active examination of the recommendations of the D'Avignon and Lambert commissions. As everyone knows, a few weeks ago, I received from the right hon. Prime Minister a mandate to direct those studies because we give high priority to the questions raised by the hon. member.

1 would hope, Mr. Chairman, that within the very near future we would be able to bring forward some specific proposals with respect to training and retraining. As I mentioned during my comments in the House the other night, one of our primary concerns is in the area of retraining personnel who are declared surplus. But the whole area of training is one which is actively under review. It appears to me that it has been unsatisfactory in the past for a variety of reasons. As I said, I hope that we will be bringing forward something in the
Supply
very near future which will meet the high standards that 1 know the hon. member and many other of his colleagues will insist upon.
In terms of the over-all philosophy of management of human resources, I would like to assure the hon. member that we are pursuing the D'Avignon report and the Lambert report actively. Specific committees have been established which report to me as President of the Treasury Board and which will bring forward recommendations with respect thereto in the very near future.
I hope that we will see rapid progress in this direction because the management of human resources has been neglected in the past. It is essential for the efficiency and morale of the public service, and I am confident that this House will be very responsive and, I hope, supportive of the initiatives that we intend to take in this regard.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on that question. I understand that the minister has the Lambert commission report and the D'Avignon report. Could the minister tell the House whether or not he is also utilizing the report of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate which sat for 18 months studying amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, yes, indeed we are.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who is doing the study? I understand the minister is co-ordinating it but exactly who is doing the study? Is it an in-House study by the department, an interdepartmental study or a public study? Are members of this House going to be involved in giving advice about what should be done, or is it going to be something cooked by Treasury Board, presented to us and then we must eat it whether we like it or not?


Donald James Johnston: If I may, I should like to expand somewhat on the mechanism as we now envisage them for bringing these reports and studies forward, Mr. Chairman.
There are two groups, one in charge of the D'Avignon recommendations which will put them in a certain form, in dialogue with me, acting through a co-ordinating member of Treasury Board. That group is headed by Mr. Orser.
In addition to that, General Anderson will bring forward recommendations to discuss with me. He is out of the country at the moment but I hope this will take place within a few weeks. The work is well advanced. I must pay tribute to my predecessor who agreed that these were priority areas and made an effort to ensure substantial progress was made.
I am, then, responsible for bringing these matters forward to a committee of cabinet chaired by the President of the Privy Council, the government operations committee. In other words, I report to that committee and the committee would ultimately make the decision with respect to our analyses and the packaging of the recommendations.

May 14, 1980
Supply
As hon. members will appreciate, there is a certain amount of overlap in the area of human resource management, in particular between the D'Avignon report and the Lambert commission report. That is the mechanism that I see at the present time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do I take it that the minister is telling us that apart from the D'Avignon and Lambert commission reports and the Public Service Staff Relations Act review-which is very important and which I think hon. members recognize was the object of serious study by this House and the Senate some three years ago-there are seven technical amendments concerning very important things to be done with reference to the Public Service Staff Relations Act? Am I to take it that the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for those amendments? In years past the President of the Privy Council was responsible. Do we take it that this has been changed and that Treasury Board is now responsible for reviewing its own Public Service Staff Relations Act?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, as I believe I indicated, the chairman of the cabinet committee with which ultimate responsibility rests in this regard is the President of the Privy Council.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: One last question, Mr. Chairman, which deals with the question the minister alluded to a few minutes ago, and that is the retraining facilities offered to public servants who, due to either lack of work or for other reasons, are laid off. I know the minister is aware that the manpower retraining programs which apply to the general public do not apply to public servants who are laid off. I understand the reasons for that. As an employer, government was told to do its own retraining. Sometimes, however, there is a situation where a public servant is laid off because of lack of work or for other reasons and is not eligible for the retraining programs offered by Manpower.
Could the President of the Treasury Board give an assurance that this whole problem will be cleared up soon and that public servants will be offered retraining facilities and allowed to use Manpower programs?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member's time has expired. Under the rules he may ask questions later.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Chairperson, I agree with many of the things that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has said. We sit on the same miscellaneous estimates committee and some of the concerns he has expressed about the Public Service Commission are also my concern.
I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether, in order to stop the overruns for training and development within the Public Service Commission, he would consider making departments responsible for paying for training which they indicate they require or sometimes request, so that the onus and accountability for spending for training and development are on the department and not on the Public Service Commission?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, that Very matter is under review at the present time. I understand the validity of the point and I believe it should be followed up in order to put cost and responsibility together.


Douglas Keith Anguish: At the present time the amount that is being reviewed by the miscellaneous estimates committee on overruns is almost three-quarters of a million dollars and is projected to be over $1 million for the next two years and each year following. I think it is necessary that there be some change in the accountability for training that is offered and that it is placed on the departments. I hope the minister will see fit to do that.
1 should like now to turn to the Auditor General's report, the main thrust of which I felt was in the area of government spending and ineffective management. The media, however, seemed to place the blame on the inefficiency of public employees. I should like to know the minister's impression of the Auditor General's report and what it was trying to say to Parliament.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. gentleman knows, 1 have attempted, and I think successfully, not only to think through the comments of the Auditor General but to discuss them with my colleagues on both sides of the House.
In my judgment, and 1 believe in the judgment of the Auditor General, the problems of inefficiency in the groups examined, which were classes 1 to 4 of the clerical and regulatory groups, are management problems. In some of my answers to questions in this House I have emphasized that it is important that we not try to make the clerical and regulatory group the scapegoat of inefficiency. As anyone knows, if that group is not performing, not doing work assigned to them, or if they are inefficient, then we believe that is the responsibility of management.
The question the hon. member raises must be placed in the same context as the question raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, namely that we have a management problem, a human resource management problem. That is what we are attacking through the reforms which we hope to put in place and through the implementation of the D'Avignon and Lambert reports.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Would the minister agree that it is being said of the Auditor General's report that ineffective management is the problem and not, in fact, the inefficiency of public employees?


Donald James Johnston: As a generalization that is my impression, Mr. Chairman. The management problem is the one to which we must address ourselves. I would not suggest for a moment that one does not find inefficiency here and there among employees, as one does everywhere, probably even in this House of Commons. We are going to address ourselves to this problem in terms of management, and I am satisfied that the Auditor General will support us in that because I believe that is what he would like to see.
May 14, 1980


Douglas Keith Anguish: 1 thank the minister for his answer. 1 was sure that was his stand on the report as well as the stand of the Auditor General, but 1 just wanted that to go on the record to show that it is not inefficient public servants or inefficient public employees that sometimes make the systems go astray.
It has been mentioned that the problem of human resources and personnel management will be addressed and given a lot of consideration. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Treasury Board to become responsible for personnel management and human resources as well as money management?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, in answer to that question, we are responsible for human resource management. We are responsible for the management of the human and financial resources of the government. What we are not responsible for at the present time is the staffing function, which rests with the Public Service Commission.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Chairman, to rephrase my question then, is it the intention of the Treasury Board to become involved in the staffing function of this government as well as the management of our money?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. gentleman probably knows, this question of where the staffing function rests has been addressed by the Lambert commission, by D'Avignon and by the Auditor General himself. Those three recommendations are that the staffing should rest with Treasury Board in terms of the over-all accountability of government for personnel and human resource management.
I would simply say at this stage that this is one of the recommendations which we are studying and which is under review, but we have not at this point in time made any firm commitment one way or the other with respect thereto.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Chairman, it was indicated in the public accounts for the year 1978-1979 that come out prior to the Auditor General's report that the spending deficit of the federal government for that year was $16,185 billion. That is the difference between the amount the government actually took in in revenue and the amount it actually spent out of the taxpayers' pocket.
I should like to know if the minister in fact finds this acceptable, and assuming that he will not find it acceptable, what the government plans to do to curb this deficit. Does it plan on increasing revenue or decreasing spending to lower that $16,185 billion deficit from 1979?


Donald James Johnston: First of all, Mr. Chairman, 1 cannot verify the number which the hon. member has put forward. He is talking about last year. The hon. member for York-Peel a few moments ago was talking about what he thought was the projected deficit, but I hasten to add that there has been no fiscal planning projection put before this House. I think that point was made clear during the comments of the Minister of Finance.
Supply
With respect to the role of Treasury Board as it addresses itself to a problem such as the deficit, our mandate and our responsibility is to ensure that public funds are expended in a most effective and efficient manner. So the extent to which we can reduce expenditures will have an obvious impact on the deficit. As I pointed out many times, one can reduce a deficit either by reduced expenditures on the one hand or increased revenues on the other. That is a statement which requires no proof, if you like.
That being said, 1 can assure the hon. member that at Treasury Board we are consistently following policies of restraint, trying to identify inefficiencies and improve management practices. The Comptroller General, as you know, has his IMPAC study under way-that is, the Improvement of Management Practices and Controls-whereby effectively a survey is made of all major departments of government. That being done, then a report is made and eventually an action plan is agreed upon between the office of the Comptroller General and the deputy of that department. That action plan would then be implemented and monitored and address itself to all these various areas of management improvement practice with a view to obtaining greater efficiency, and with a view also to permitting us to establish techniques of evaluating programs in those departments so that informed judgments can be made by deputies and ministers with respect to the validity, the value of particular programs, and as to whether or not they are achieving their intended objectives.
So in this whole area of improved management, Treasury Board has a very active role to play, and to the extent that we can get at reducing the deficit through that role, we will certainly do so.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I thank the minister for the answer; I am not sure what he said there. The $16,185 billion is an actual figure and it comes from the public accounts for 1978-1979. I am surprised that the three gentlemen the minister has brought in here cannot substantiate that figure.
I should like to ask the minister this. If it is in keeping with government policy to reduce that deficit-and he did not say whether it would be increasing revenue or decreasing spending-are the cuts in the public service of some 5,840 person-years of employment that he announced when tabling the estimates in fact part of that policy?


Donald James Johnston: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I did not pay as much attention to the latter part of that question as I should have. With my apologies, 1 would appreciate it if the hon. member would just repeat the last part of that question, please.


Douglas Keith Anguish: With respect to the policy just stated in response to my question about the $16,185 billion deficit, I asked if the 5,840 or so person-years of employment were part of that new policy that he is planning on implementing to reduce the huge deficit.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I indicated in this House earlier this week that it is not our policy to establish targets for

May 14, 1980
Supply
employee reduction. We do not intend to follow a policy, as my predecessor did, by saying, for example, that we are going to eliminate 60,000 public servants over a three-year period, partly as he suggested at the time by privatization of Crown corporations and then some in the control sector and some in the non-control sector of the public service. We have no such intention. What I am content to do is to attack inefficiencies and to evaluate and evolve programs.
In the course of that, it may be that by eliminating a program we will in fact lose some employees. At the same time, as I pointed out, we are very concerned about the position of employees who find themselves in surplus and subject to lay-off. It is for that reason, among many other reasons, that we are putting, I hope, a renewed and increased emphasis on retraining so as to find other positions for those employees in the public service.
That is the basic philosophy. It is not a question of saying that we are going to eliminate 5,000 or 10,000 jobs; it is a question of saying that we are going to attack inefficiencies. Surely the hon. gentleman will appreciate that a program which is being evaluated turns out basically not to be delivering a service to the public or to whomever it is intended to deliver to in the private or the public sector, it then behoves us to eliminate that program or to replace it with a more effective one. It is not unlikely that, in the course of doing that, the person-years would be affected. That is why we have this complementary program that I mentioned earlier of improved-and substantially improved, I hope-training and retraining.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the minister would answer this question. How was the criteria set, or what criteria was used to eliminate the 5,840 person-years of employment?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, again I apologize. Could I have that last sentence again? I am attempting to uncover where this $16.7 billion deficit which the gentleman referred to in 1978-79 occurred.


An hon. Member:: $16.1 billion.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order, please. The President of the Treasury Board has the floor.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Chairperson, what criteria were used to eliminate the 5,840 person-years of employment that were cut from public employees?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the person-year reduction the hon. member is referring to is that reduction which is contained and referred to in the main estimates which were tabled. I presume that is what he is referring to, namely 5,840 person-years, which reflects the policy of the previous Conservative administration.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to have the President of the Treasury Board tell me if in fact some of those cuts were in the Canadian Transport Commission in areas of safety regulation, in fact areas where we had two unfortunate accidents lately, one at MacGregor, Manitoba, and the other at Mississauga, Ontario, in which lives were endangered and which involved great cost to the Canadian taxpayer in the clean-up. Have some of those cuts been made in that area? Whether or not it is the policy of the former Conservative government, does the minister not think this should be rethought and that possibly there should not be cuts in the Canadian Transport Commission, since Mr. Macdonell, in his Auditor General's report, said that is one of the areas that should be beefed up and not cut? The minister has in fact chosen to ignore that, I would guess, and will continue to make cuts in areas of safety regulations within the Canadian Transport Commission.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Canadian Transport Commission cuts, those cuts, in the view of the commission, were made to achieve operational efficiency. I think it is presumptuous to assume that because of these cuts the safety of the Canadian public has in any way been endangered, or to attribute any accidents to the fact that these cuts took place. The hon. member is making an assumption which is certainly not warranted on the evidence before us at the moment.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I assure you, Mr. Chairperson, that the evidence is there. I would like to ask if the estimates that were tabled reflect any money to be paid out by way of incentives to senior bureaucrats to be attracted to this government.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some clarification as to what the hon. member means by "incentives to attract senior bureaucrats to the government." I am afraid I would need somewhat more information in order to respond to that in a meaningful way. What kind of incentives is the hon. member suggesting? Is he suggesting that we offer hiring bonuses to management groups? I am just not clear on the object of the question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has less than a minute to comment on that.


Douglas Keith Anguish: To my understanding, Treasury Board or officials under the President of the Treasury Board have discussed the possibility of making available large loans at extremely low interest rates in order to attract people to very senior public service positions. Is this in fact true and is it reflected in the estimates?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order. The hon. member's time has expired. He may have an opportunity later to pose his question.


Mr. MacBain:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about my impressions as a new member of this House. I want to put before this committee what I perceive to be the position of the people I represent on certain vital issues and what they expect of me, of this government and of the Thirty-second Parlia-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Good policy.
May 14, 1980

ment. I want to do so in the context of the debate on public accounts. I hope hon. members will accept what I have to say as relevant to the issue under debate and the constructive manner in which these remarks are tendered. Some of the things which I feel I have to say may not be well received on either side of this House. This is most unfortunate because in my caucus-and I hope in saying what I do I am not breaching caucus secrecy-I am known as "Mr. Nice guy."
One thing I must say will be well received; it is easy for me to say and I mean it most sincerely. Speaking of members of all parties, I have been most impressed by the calibre, dedication and compassion of all members of this House. 1 say that without equivocation.
That having been said, may I now move on to my personal concerns and those of my riding, concerns which are strictly relevant to this debate this afternoon, concerns which, if justified, should be addressed by our Thirty-second Parliament and hopefully remedied. The perception of government today in my riding is that it is incapable of efficient legislative action; that it is so busy fighting fires it has no time for long-term planning; and that government today does not accept as its mandate development and control of its estimates and expenditures.
My remarks are not addressed to the problem of accountability of management to the responsible minister, important as that area may be. My brief remarks address the problem of parliamentary and government control of expenditures and programs.
My concern is that the present House rules, the legislative structure and processes, and government itself are inadequate, time consuming, inefficient, cumbersome and uncontrollable. People in our ridings perceive that an administrative monster has been created which devours almost $58 billion a year and is growing. The budgetary process, I suggest, has long since been free of any real input and control by Parliament.
I am also so bold as to suggest that a further step has been taken, and that is that meaningful input and control by cabinet over our expenditures has passed from the cabinet to deputy ministers and their senior staff. The proposition can be sustained that budget development and control has passed from cabinet to the senior civil servants.
All governments today have become large and their poblems numerous and complex. Their size and problems have increased but no real steps were taken to modernize and streamline government to enable it to deal efficiently with its new responsibilities. Governments have allowed themselves to become bogged down by administrative details, archaic rules and saddled with budgets they did not prepare in whole or in part and have no mechanism to control, except possibly after the fact.
Our 1980-81 estimates, which have been tabled, were tabled after the fiscal year began and will not be approved until the fiscal year end is close at hand and most of the funds already expended. I ask the members the question, who in fact prepared the budget and who is controlling it? I want hon.
Supply
members to ask themselves whether they really feel the estimates as tabled will be significantly different when they are finally approved by this Thirty-second Parliament in the fall. We all know the answer to that question.
As a new member, it is my position that our Parliament plays no meaningful part in the development and control of our annual estimates, even after the fact. It is also my position that the cabinet itself has lost, to an alarming degree, meaningful input in the development of our projected annual estimates and control of our expenditures. Only a revamping of our rules and modernization of the role of Parliament, its committees and the cabinet can give back to Parliament and the cabinet real control over the purse strings of this nation.
The Speech from the Throne says in this regard:
To increase the confidence of Canadians that their national institutions can respond effectively to their needs, my government would propose a program to make Parliament both more efficient and more responsive.
As a new member it is my position that Parliament plays no meaningful part in the development and control of our annual estimates, even after the fact. It remains to be seen whether the remarks 1 read from the Speech from the Throne are transformed into action by the Thirty-second Parliament.
What part has this loss of meaningful input into and control of expenditures played in the drastic increases in our annual expenditures and our national debt? Let me give hon. members just two examples of expenditures which in their conception were modest and acceptable but which are now out of hand and out of control. The items I have chosen were selected at random. One is large, the other small.
1 wish to discuss our foreign aid program and use the expenditure in this direction as an example of lack of control. In 1950 our foreign aid expenditure amounted to $10 million. By 1960 the amount had risen to $82 million and in 1967 it stood at $279 million. In 1980, Mr. Chairman, our foreign aid exceeded one billion dollars under the auspices of the Canadian International Development Agency or CIDA.
Some will say a large portion of our foreign aid is "tied" and that it brings back some benefits to Canadian industry and Canadian workers. That is correct, but we must remember that the industries concerned are the ones which are telling us every day that government is too big. We must also remember that the dollars coming back from "tied" aid go to industry, not to the government which granted them.
We must also bear in mind that our government is in a serious deficit position; it is borrowing money at high interest rates so as to make available foreign aid which this country cannot afford, using Canadian dollars which are borrowed and which drive up interest rates, thus causing inflation and driving up our deficit and national debt to serious proportions. 1 suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this item of expenditure is out of control and has been for some time. This is an example of a good idea which has gone wrong.
1086

May 14, 1980
Supply
I do not suggest we should in any way duck our fair responsibility for foreign aid to developing nations. I ask only that the expenditure be controlled having regard to our deficit, our national debt, our unemployment and the general conditions of our economy in 1980. More than 15 per cent of the people in my riding are unemployed. We are borrowing to service our annual deficit and the national debt. We offer new programs or continue old ones on the basis of need, not on the basis of our ability to pay for the same. To explain: a family may "need" a new automobile but they put off the purchase until they can afford to pay for one. If national governments such as ours do not act in a similar manner, they will put in serious doubt the fiscal integrity of the whole country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Allister MacBain: The same can be said about many of our provincial governments, for example, Ontario.
The second expenditure item 1 want to discuss as evidence of lack of control is the annual expenditure for the support of our peace-keeping forces in Cyprus. Mr. Chairman, in 1964 Canada agreed, quite rightly, to supply a portion of the peace-keeping forces in Cyprus. This was to be a temporary assignment-a matter of months involving a limited expenditure. But what happened? The six-month mandate for the force has been renewed by the United Nations Security Council 36 times between 1964 and 1979, and I am told by those close to the scene that there is no end in sight. The island remains just as politically explosive as it was in 1964 and all attempts to negotiate a settlement have failed. These peacekeeping forces have more or less become accepted as a permanent fixture by the Cypriots and, 1 am afraid, by many Canadians.
What has been the total cost to Canada of this item of expenditure since 1964 over and above the pay and allowances of the military personnel concerned? The answer is more than $36 million. In the fiscal year 1980-81 alone it will exceed $4 million and the annual cost is rising fast. I put the question: Who has been controlling this vast expenditure since 1964?


Some hon. Members:: Pierre Trudeau!


Arthur Allister MacBain: It is an expenditure which in 1964 and perhaps for a few years thereafter was right and proper. Today it is out of control, as it has been for many years.
In December of 1978 when the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations spoke to the Security Council on the Cyprus question, he said:
We wonder how long the parties to this dispute can expect the international community to pour money and resources into a situation which they themselves do not seem to be working energetically toward alleviating ... our limit of patience is approaching.
Again I cite this small item of expenditure merely as an example, chosen at random, for discussion purposes today.
It is my position that we, as members of Parliament, and the government itself, have abdicated responsibility for the development and control of these massive expenditures amounting to almost $58 billion annually.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Allister MacBain: I say to all members of this House, in all seriousness, that this Parliament and this government must regain control over our annual expenditures. We must control our expenditures before the fact, not after the fact, and, needless to say, strict accountability is necessary and expected.
In my opinion, the next two decades will be years of no real growth in our GNP at best, and if there are reductions in the level of our GNP we ought not to be surprised. If growth is to level off or decrease, as I suspect it will, economies in government resulting from sufficiency in the supply of goods and services will not alone be the answer. There will be no landslide of new tax revenues-there is no need to look in that direction. We must gain control of expenditures both when they are in the process of being set and when they are being used. I have picked out only two expenditures at random to show that our expenditures are out of control.
Higher taxes are not the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Allister MacBain: Better business management of departments of government would be helpful, but again that is not the answer, as I have said. We must get all expenditure items in line with our ability to pay for same. I have merely picked out two items in passing, so to speak.
How much time have we in which to take corrective action? In my opinion, the maximum time available to us is, at best, the normal life of this Thirty-second Parliament. The situation cries out urgently for remedial action. Time is fast running out. Moreover, in the timetable I have proposed no notice is taken of Russia's future oil shortage and that country's possible action to satisfy this shortage, or of any other scenario which would severely limit our oil imports. That is another story for another day.
Our national government collects and spends our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. In our inability to control that process meaningfully our taxpayers, our business community and our Auditor General have little confidence. I for one-and I must say so regretfully-share that lack of confidence.
I am encouraged, as I have intimated, by the reference in the Speech from the Throne to steps which will be taken by this government, and 1 quote, "to make Parliament both more efficient and more responsive." I welcome such steps, as I know all hon. members will welcome them. As members of Parliament on both sides of the House we must work together to make our national government more efficient and more responsive.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two comments, essentially. The first comment is one I have made before, and 1 am sure hon. members of the House will agree with it. That is that we are all concerned about efficient and effective management of government resources, both human
May 14, 1980

and financial, and I think the hon. gentleman who just delivered some interesting comments would be somewhat heartened if he had seen the progress which has been made, which is being made and the role played by the public accounts committee of this House in that regard under the very able chairmanship of the hon. member for Capilano, with you as vice-chairman, Mr. Chairman. I was there very briefly and 1 hope that progress will continue under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
As hon. members know, there is much being done, but it has not all yet come to fruition. The Auditor General has told us, and I think all hon. members will agree, that information is fundamental to re-establishing the control of Parliament over the public purse.
It was under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Capilano that a report was made by the Public Accounts Committee with respect to a new form of estimates. This proposal was designed to give information to parliamentarians, to the public and to the media in order to make dialogue in this House meaningful, because it will be informed dialogue. 1 believe we are making good progress in terms of the new form of estimates, and I hope that we will have some experimental forms for review and consideration, if not later in the current calendar year, at least in the current fiscal year.
1 remind the hon. member that we do have responsibilities to make certain kinds of expenditures and not to waste money. There are certain productive expenditures which we are committed to making. The hon. member has singled out the foreign aid program as an example of a wasteful expenditure. Hon. members will recall that it was under Prime Minister Pearson that targets were established to which Canada aspired to raise its commitment to foreign aid. I do not regard this as being a matter of an expenditure out of control. In fact, we have fallen substantially short of the target which was then set not just by Canada but by all countries which are concerned about the Third World and about problems associated with the plight of people in the Third World. Foreign aid is an essential part of our foreign policy, and I think it is important that we not downgrade its role by suggesting that foreign aid, which is now at something like .42 per cent of gross national product when we intended it to be much higher, is one of those kinds of expenditures which is out of control.
All 1 say is that the message of efficient government is well received. We are moving rapidly in that direction. But let us not attack expenditures at random. Let us not attack expenditures which are absolutely necessary to maintain some of the fundamental social programs which are so desperately needed by our citizens.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the minister does not think we ought to take programs at random. I want to ask the minister some questions.
I have here 12 CIDA projects. One is overrun $3.5 million in a $12 million project in connection with a railway in the Congo. There is another $4 million on a transmission line in Tanzania, and roads in Sudan. These are all overruns of
Supply
enormous amounts. The minister has copies of these. What is the minister doing right now to go back to departments to find out why there are overruns? What is he doing to insist that people who caused the overruns or who made misappropriations or "mis-estimates" on programs which were conducted are replaced in the public service because they are incompetent managers? What is the minister doing in this regard?
While the minister is looking at that, 1 remind him of section 5 of the Financial Administration Act, which deals with personnel management in the public service including the determination of terms and conditions of employment, which are his responsibility. Responsibility for all people who are employed in the public service is the minister's. People have given us cost overruns on a host of jobs. What has the minister done to get at that problem? When the minister finds out these overruns are likely, is he doing anything with respect to the personnel involved?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, first let me point out that CIDA has been the subject of an IMPAC survey, as I recall, and we hope, through the technique which I indicated earlier of signing off an action plan with the head of that agency, to bring about substantial or important changes in the management and efficiency of the funds which the agency disposes of. CIDA is in a particularly difficult position because many of the projects to which the hon. gentleman makes reference are shared cost or shared responsibility projects with foreign governments, and sometimes in those circumstances CIDA does not have the control which perhaps it should have in order to have a well managed program.
Remedial action has been taken with respect to particular projects which have been brought to our attention, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that as President of the Treasury Board my concern is every bit as great as his. I am glad to see that he has those concerns because when we bring forward proposals in this House to attack these inefficiencies and to improve these areas of management, I trust that we will have full support from all the other parties.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear that, and I am glad that the minister is in fact looking particularly into CIDA and cost overruns. However, he did not answer the question. The question really is, what has he done about it in terms of replacing people involved in the departments, in the ministries-in CIDA, if you like-who were responsible for approving projects which have cost overruns in some cases double the original amount estimated, in some cases triple the original amount estimated and in many cases 30 per cent and 40 per cent over the original amount estimated? Surely that is a matter not just of simple inflation or something of that nature. That is a matter which smells of malfeasance. What is the minister doing to replace those people?
Has he a program in mind to change that management type, as brought out by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Mead-

May 14, 1980
Supply
ow Lake who asked him about management? It was suggested that we have some of the finest working people in our public service, and the President of the Treasury Board suggested they were management people. What has he done about these management people who, in many cases, have worked on projects which have cost the government enormous overruns?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member was a member of the public accounts committee, but I am not certain of that. In any event, I should like to point out that evidence has been put before the public accounts committee pointing to a lack of control in the past. This has happened on a number of these projects because of the inability to identify a person or several persons who are actually responsible for carrying forward a project. In the past, that has been a major problem. Under the major Crown projects policy, the project manager should be identified and accountability established. As I recall, the same is true under the policy on cost overruns which was published by Treasury Board when my predecessor, the hon. member for York-Peel, was there in August or September of 1979.
So the first step, before one can deal with personnel in terms of these cost overruns, is to be able to identify those persons who have been responsible. In the past that has been a problem. I hope that under the guidelines which we are establishing and the monitoring which we are carrying on that will cease to be a problem in the future.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased when I heard of the appointment of the hon. member as President of the Treasury Board, particularly in view of some of his remarks in his book "Fiscalamity". I should like to quote from that book and ask if it is still his opinion. On page 15 of that book he wrote:
The act of 1917-
Referring to the Income Tax Act.
-was the head of the proverbial camel that finally occupied the whole tent. While it is true that there has been another war, the continuing need for increased taxes has not been brought about by war efforts alone, nor by a series of national emergencies, but rather by the attempt to fill the bottomless financial pit created by the welfare state since the Second World War.
Is that still the minister's opinion of the problem?


Donald James Johnston: Of course, I was quite young when I wrote those words.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: At least 1 had the courage to commit some of my thoughts to paper at that time. 1 think that that particular sentence taken out of context-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: -is somewhat simplistic, but 1 do think that at one point in history, we moved too far too fast relative to our GNP. I think that the financial management of the affairs of this country in the early part of the decade left something to
be desired, and, quite frankly, that is one of the reasons I became involved in politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I must say that since 1975 I believe that the government has been on a responsible road, that gradualism was introduced to bring the growth of the public sector under control, to establish a trend with respect to government expenditures relative to the gross national product. So I like what I have seen in the past, and I hope that in my present role I will have some influence over continuing that trend in the future; in other words, in identifying social needs, ensuring that scarce funds are spent effectively in helping those Canadians who are most in need of help, and ensuring that in economic areas our priorities are on productive investments in the economic development so as to eventually increase our revenue base in this country and keep us on the road to prosperity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I would say that most of us on this side hope that the President of the Treasury Board has some clout in the cabinet, but clearly some things have happened, such as the presentation made by the Minister of Finance last April 21, which indicate that the minister has no clout in terms of any reduction in expenditures.
We have a situation where the amount contemplated to be spent this year is over $60 billion, with a deficit of $14,165 million forecast. Clearly the only progress we have had since 1975 has been larger deficits, larger and larger public debts, and larger and larger amounts required to be borrowed.
If that is what the minister says is progress in the management of the affairs of the country, I wonder what he has been smoking. Surely if he still believes in what he said in his book "Fiscalamity", perhaps he should read his book again and get back on track. Perhaps at this point the officials in his department, or officials in the other ministeries, have captivated him, taken him over, or destroyed his sense of purpose in controlling accounts.
I should like to make some reference to the Auditor General's report, in particular to page 27 of the report, where the Auditor General indicates that on his test of a group which consists of up to 50,000 employees in the public service, the efficiency of their work was 60.8 per cent, as compared to the average performance in industry of 87.7 per cent.
While the minister is commenting on that, perhaps he would also comment on the transcript of an interview given by James Macdonell to Bruce Phillips, Ottawa bureau chief, on CJOH-TV on Sunday, May 4, at which Mr. Macdonell said he thought we have a fine public service, but that the system was totally upside down. Would the minister comment on Mr. Macdonell's remarks with regard to the wampum theory of government, if he remembers it, and would he say what he has done in the three months since he has been appointed President of the Treasury Board to attack the problem of reducing the number of people involved and achieving efficiency? Could
May 14, 1980

he also say what he has done with respect to the comment in the Auditor General's report that the public service, in terms of how it is operating at present, is operating only at 61 per cent efficiency?


Donald James Johnston: 1 must say I am flattered by the references to my book. 1 would not want to accuse hon. members opposite of infringement of copyright, but they seem to have photocopies rather than the original.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Those are briefing notes.


Donald James Johnston: In any event, with respect to the point raised by the hon. gentleman regarding inefficiencies in the public service, the Auditor General did not say that the 61 per cent factor which he developed was applicable across the public service.
Second, the hon. member asked what I had done in that respect. Obviously I was concerned for a number of reasons, first, to determine the methodology, to determine whether one could extrapolate, as the hon. member has sought to do, to apply this across the public service at large. As I have said on innumerable occasions in the House, I am satisfied that one cannot make that extrapolation and that it is unfair to do so.
Going further as to what 1 have done, as he suggests, since the Auditor General tabled his report, 1 have held discussions at length with the Comptroller General to determine his appreciation of the Auditor General's findings. 1 convened a meeting with the Auditor General and the Comptroller General, with the opposition House leader, with the other hon. member whose constituency I do not remember, and with the hon. member from the NDP who has expressed interest and concern in this area. I believe we had a very informative and frank exchange of views on this subject.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What is your conclusion?


Donald James Johnston: I am coming to my conclusion. The conclusion is one which I already expressed earlier this afternoon, and that is that there is much to be done in terms of the management of our public service, that the problem is a management problem. It is not one that exists because we have lazy clerical and regulatory personnel sitting around deliberately being inefficient. The problem is our problem as management and, hence, it is our problem as government and my problem as President of the Treasury Board. I inted to do something about it as soon as possible, hopefully through the implementation of the recommendations, to which I also made reference, in the D'Avignon and Lambert commission reports.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The minister in a press release, when he tabled his budgetary figures, indicated there was a total of 318,435 authorized person-years in last year's estimates, and that he was reducing that to 312,575. The minister, I am sure, is also aware of a table prepared by his department which
Supply
indicated the total number of public servants at the end of February as being 290,206.
Why has the minister budgeted or produced in his news release an indication that the public service needs to be increased from 290,000 to 312,000, an increase of 22,000, when in the entire year commencing April, 1979, continuing through to February, 1980, an 11-month period, at no time did the public service exceed 302,937 employees, even to the end of June, 1979? Why has the minister gone along with the departmental estimates of the number of people required when his own figures prepared by his compensation analysis branch indicated that in no way do we need that number of authorized people and have not had that number of authorized people for over a 12-month period?
While the minister is talking about that, will he continue to file and supply members of Parliament, as they were supplied by the president of the treasury board of the last government, with the quantum and numbers of people in the public service on the basis of their various categories of employment, so that we as members of Parliament can be brought up-to-date as to what in fact is happening and how many people are in fact being employed by the government?
It strikes me as rather strange that this minister would bring estimates to this House of Commons calling for the total employment of authorized persons of 312,000 people when at no time did he have anywhere close to that number working last year. Indeed, the maximum was 10,000 less than that at one point, and at the end of the year it was 22,000 less than he now requires. That is an enormous difference and I think the minister must explain that. He must explain his incompetence in this requirement. Why has he asked for this kind of money, particularly in view of the Auditor General's statement about inefficiency? There is something wrong here and we need an explanation.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The President of the Treasury Board has a short period in which to reply.


Donald James Johnston: It will be very short, Mr. Chairman, because I think the hon. member is comparing the proverbial apples to oranges. We are talking about two different things. We are talking about continuing, ongoing personnel on the one hand with the lower figure, and we are talking about person-years in respect of the other figure, which includes temporary help and so on. The authorized person-year figure is the figure I made reference to in the material which I tabled with the estimates several weeks ago, and that explains the discrepancy.
I will be happy to furnish the hon. member with an explanation. I think probably there is confusion in many minds because of that distinction, but the distinction seems to be obvious once it is explained.


Mr. Masters:: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind the President of the Treasury Board that as we all seek to control the expenditures in this country, and we must do so with determination and with zeal, we must keep a certain perspective as to how these dollars will be used. In trying to save

May 14, 1980
Supply
money we must be careful that we are saving it in the proper fashion and that we do not as a government retreat from some very important principles and ideas as to how to get real value for our money. That is another aspect of financial responsibility.
I suppose what I am really getting around to saying is that I wish to speak briefly on the decentralization process, where it applies properly in this country, because it has a specific significance to the Thunder Bay-Nipigon area, a very vast region, as we are so fond of saying, but an important one, as are all the regions of Canada.
Decentralization has a role to play not only for Thunder Bay but for the many regions of Canada which really want a potential for development. We talk about a strong Canada, and our Prime Minister has said we will have a strong Canada, but only as strong as are the many regions of Canada. I am trying to make a small point in relation to decentralization as it affects our part of the world. In the parochial sense we would benefit from some parts of the decentralization planning, but in the larger sense I think it is in the interest of the country to have these very strong regions.
We must take an area such as northern and northwestern Ontario as one of the many important regions of the country, recognizing that it is on the cusp, if you will, between east and west, and, therefore, decentralization is an investment potential for our area which would not only serve the people of Thunder Bay-Nipigon and northwestern Ontario, but also Canada as well in tying together the east and the west. We are the centre and we are a little of each; therefore we want to be strong in the centre. If we were a hockey team we would say that that is where a good team begins.
Therefore, I would ask the President of the Treasury Board to keep in mind in his deliberations, as we in Parliament must do, that while we must practise fiscal responsibility, we must think in terms of what decentralization can mean to the country.
It is foolish to overdo that principle, but there are certain offices-DREE would be an example-that function better when they are moved out into the country where we can have people in position, living in the area with an understanding of the area and the distances, for instance, of northwestern Ontario, those who have a feeling for the people, thereby being in a position to make far more rational and sensitive decisions for the area. That is one of the things I feel speaks well for the decentralization process. This is not a make-work process, because that is wrong and it defeats our attempts at fiscal responsibility. If we can legitimately put those governmental functions into areas where they have an opportunity to serve a real purpose by being closer to the people, then the people will in fact recognize this Parliament and this government as being more sensitive to the people, and that will help to increase the potential for development in areas of this country of ours.
So when we talk about expenditures, we must also think in terms of some expenditures which are not expenditures in the
true sense but are, in a business sense, investment dollars. They are the dollars that will help each area to grow and play a real role in Canada. As I say, decentralization has been a principle that has been expounded by this government, one I am proud to be a member of now and in the past.
I would like to reinforce the thinking in that area because we can truly bring the government closer to the people without creating more government. That too is not what we are after; we are looking for value for our dollar and the building of the regions of the country. From the point of view of northwest Ontario or Thunder Bay-Nipigon we feel there are a number a projects coming up which will rightfully have a role to play in the decentralization process. I hope that as we deliberate on the cost, on how we will use the moneys from the public purse and on how we will deploy our resources and the excellent manpower we have in our civil service to be of the most benefit, we remember that decentralization is an opportunity to expand the potential for growth and solidarity in this country.
I make it a very strong point to the President of the Treasury Board that, with all the trials and tribulations he will have and the questions from all sides that he will face as to why we are spending money here and there, he will recognize that there will come a time when he can legitimately say, "I can support this project because it is part of a necessary, logical and legitimate decentralization process that will serve the country well."


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure the hon. member that we share the views he has expressed, tempered, of course, by our concern with the cost effectiveness of every decentralization project. Each project must be examined on its own merits.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier as he pointed out the unfairness that some people engage, from time to time, in bureaucrat bashing. Unlike most Canadians I have had an opportunity to read the minister's book, "Fiscalamity." It has long since been remaindered at Coles, and it is very difficult to obtain a copy, but I would be very glad to pass my copy around and show it to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. At the bottom of page 6 and at the top of page 7 the President of the Treasury Board dealt with the passage of what was Bill 259 by this Parliament. The sentence extends over those two pages and reads:
This was indeed the moment of triumph for the faceless technocrats and bureaucrats who lurk ambitiously behind Ottawa's political facade.
Does the minister feel that this is an apt description of the public servants for which he is responsible?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the book was published in several editions. I am not sure to which edition the hon. member is referring, not that I deny the accuracy of what he has quoted. I am delighted that he derives pleasure from reading some of the things which I have authored. I have written a number of other papers, but not many books, if any.
May 14, 1980

The hon. member's quote must be placed in the context of the particular legislation with which I was dealing, the tax reform bill of 1971.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, Treasury Board would not be in the mess that it is in today if Don Johnston were still alive!
I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board a question with regard to the statement made in Toronto by the Prime Minister on January 12 while speaking to the Liberal campaign college. I have asked this question of the Prime Minister in the past and 1 have been unable to get a straight answer. The Prime Minister, while speaking on behalf of the Liberal party at that time, committed the Liberal party if it were successful in gaining the Government of Canada to holding down increases in spending to less than the increase in the gross national product. Will that commitment be kept, yes or no?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I had interpreted the Prime Minister's remark as basically a repetition of the remark which was made, and which was written prior to that, I believe, back in 1976, when the view was expressed, and I believe it is still the view of this government and the Treasury Board, that the increase in expenditures would be kept within the trend line of the GNP. That is a significant undertaking, because it has been adhered to. One will find that expenditures from that period on have been substantially less than the cumulative GNP over the period.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tell us about tax expenditures.


Donald James Johnston: I am sure that the hon. member will have an opportunity to put his comments on the record in a more formal way. I think I have responded to the question, that it falls squarely within the context of the objectives set in the mid-seventies.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, after criticizing the spending plans of the Conservative government, the then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister, committed this government which is in office today to an increase in spending which would be less than the increase in the growth of the GNP. Will that target be achieved this year? In other words, will federal government spending increases for this year, 1980-1981, be held to less than the increase in the GNP?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the evidence that I see, I would doubt that that could be the case. It could not have been the case under the fiscal framework of our predecessors in office either. But we do not know what the GNP for this year will be, and it is a bit premature for me to say whether it will or will not be more or less than the GNP. Certainly I intend that this government will try to attain the objective of staying within the trend line, and I think it will be within the trend line.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, we now know what Liberal promises are worth after they get into office. It is worth asking the minister about this point because Canadians are entitled to
Supply
a straight answer as to whether or not this government intends to keep the solemn commitment which it made to Canadians. My colleague from York-Peel has asked for five-year projections on federal spending. I will not even go that far. I will ask the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible to Parliament for outlining the spending intentions of the government, what indeed will federal spending be for 1980-1981?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are dealing with the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A). The Minister of Finance indicated during his speech in this House some weeks ago that the projected total outlays could be in the neighbourhood of $60.4 billion. He also indicated at the same time that, depending upon the establishment of the blended oil price-which has been the subject of some discussion in this House-that figure could be decreased by as much as $1 billion, which would bring us down to $59.4 billion. That is the projection which was given by the Minister of Finance and I have no reason not to accept it at this time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, would the minister then give a straightforward answer. The minister went out of his way when he tabled these estimates to say that they did not constitute the spending plan of this Liberal government. The Minister of Finance, when he smuggled in his mini-budget a few nights ago indicated that the projections which he was putting before Parliament did not indicate the spending plan of this government. Does that figure of $60.4 billion, with a possible decrease of $1 billion if the oil plans of the government are brought in, constitute the spending ceiling? In other words, wiP expenditures not be allowed to go beyond that ceiling?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is well aware of the new expenditure management system under which the government is operating. I can assure the hon. gentleman that the established envelopes will be within those ceilings and that that amount of $60.4 billion does provide for a reserve.
At an earlier time I took hon. members through the difference between the projection of $58.4 billion of the then minister of finance in December and the $60.4 billion. I think the hon. gentleman would have to agree that the events which have raised the amount to $60.4 billion have been in large measure beyond the control of this government and would have been beyond the control of the previous government with the exception of the $345 million assistance through the guaranteed income supplement payment. That is a new Liberal initiative which is included in that amount.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Let us make sure that the record is very clear so that we can look back at it in a few months time. Is the minister saying now that he will not come back to Parliament to ask for authorization to spend more than the $60.4 billion in this fiscal year?

May 14, 1980
Supply


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I may be an inexperienced politician but I am not sufficiently naive to ever say "never" on any subject. 1 hope I will be able to come back to Parliament and report that we have spent less than the amount in question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, this minister is a one-man fiscalamity. Last Friday I put a question to him in the House relating to an unauthorized attempt to get into some 21 Canadian databanks operating from a location in New York City in the United States. Two of those databanks were located within the federal government. I asked the minister at that time whether he would table in the House a list of all federal government databanks which are hooked into the Infodat or Datapac systems.
Will he do that now and will he indicate what the contents of those data banks are? At that time the minister indicated there was nothing of a security or confidential nature in terms of the substance of the material contained in those databanks, so surely he should have no objection to tabling that material in the House today.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, following upon the request from the hon. member I have asked for that information to be compiled with a view to tabling it in the House. I might add that 1 am glad the hon. member asked the question because 1 intended to raise a point in the House and it is this. When I read my answer to the question posed by the hon. member, 1 saw that I had stated there was no sensitive material in any databank which had dial-in access. If 1 did not state that in those words, I certainly left that impression.
I should like to correct that impression, not by saying that there is sensitive material in those databanks, but to make it clear that the guidelines under which those databanks are operated do not permit sensitive material to be stored in them. I am not in a position, however, to give an assurance that there is no sensitive material in those databanks. That distinction should have been made at the time I answered the question. I am sorry it was not and I apologize to the hon. member.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, I know that members of the House will be very anxious to follow up on this question as to the nature of the material contained in the databanks for which there is a dial-in access.
May I ask the minister now about another matter. The Lambert and D'Avignon reports have both recommended stripping the Public Service Commission of its staffing functions and have argued that those staffing functions should be rolled into a reconstituted Treasury Board. In his 1979 annual report released a few weeks ago the Auditor General stated that he agreed with those recommendations. What is the position of the President of the Treasury Board?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I touched upon the subject in some of my earlier comments. I have heard representations supporting both positions. I have not made up my mind with respect to that particular recommendation but it is obviously one of significance. It has been considered by the three sources
of which the hon. member makes mention, namely, the report of the Auditor General, the Lambert report and the D'Avignon report. We are seriously studying this matter along with the other recommendations contained in both those reports and I hope we will take a position with respect thereto at a very early date.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister about another aspect of his responsibilities. Two Parliaments ago, in her previous incarnation as minister of national health and welfare, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare responded to questions in the House about the use of the social insurance number as being "bizarre." She did not recognize the concern that many Canadians had about the abuse of social insurance numbers.
The government of which I had the honour to be a part put together legislation which it was intended to introduce to Parliament around Christmas or early in the new year which would have significantly rolled back the use of the social insurance number within the federal government. Does the President of the Treasury Board accept the decision made by the previous government to limit to six or seven the authorized uses of the social insurance number which may be demanded by the government from private citizens?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows, since he had responsibility in this area, there is a study by the privacy commissioner on the use of the social insurance number. I understand we are to receive a report with respect thereto by next August.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is the President of the Treasury Board aware that the study by the privacy commissioner which was requested by my colleague Senator Flynn and myself dealt with the use of the social insurance number outside the federal government, namely, by the private sector and the provinces? What is the position of the President of the Treasury Board as the minister responsible for the use of the social insurance number within the federal government?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we have accepted the recommendations made by the hon. member himself with respect to the use of the social insurance number within the federal government. 1 understand that those recommendations were adopted by the previous cabinet, and as far as 1 am concerned at this stage those recommendations are being carried forward.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, when will we see the bill that was drawn up by the previous government to put into law the policy previously decided upon by the Treasury Board?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I would have to consult with the government House leader, the President of the Privy Council, on that point.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, dealing with another aspect of the minister's responsibility, the Lambert report, the public accounts committee and the Auditor General have each
May 14, 1980

expressed concern about the whole question of accountability and direction of Crown corporations. The previous government of which I was a member introduced Bill C-27 which was designed to bring some control and accountability to federal Crown corporations.
What has the minister done about that bill? There has been no indication that it is being reintroduced since he took office and assumed his responsibility. What is the status of that bill? Does he accept the recommendations of the Auditor General in his 1979 report that action is urgently required in this area?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I am currently reviewing the bill, plus recommendations and reactions to it and its proposed terms and conditions as they affect a large number of areas. A number of objections have been raised to certain parts of it, as the hon. member knows. It is my intention to bring forward a Crown corporations bill incorporating such amendments to the proposed legislation as may be necessary to resolve some of the difficulties which have been raised. I hope to do that at an earlier date. I also regard that, as the hon. member does, as a priority item.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, does the Crown corporations task force still exist and has the minister met in person with it?


Donald James Johnston: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Crown corporations task force does exist and I have met personally with Mr. Hy Calof.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Have you met with the task force?


Donald James Johnston: I have not met with the task force but I have met with Mr. Calof and discussed the work of the task force. I look forward to receiving-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request to leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to confirm some discussions that we have had among the parties involving the hon. member for Yukon, the deputy House leader for the Conservatives and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Business of the House
Because supply business is coming out of government time today and tomorrow as opposed to opposition time, and as a rule private members' hour would normally be held tomorrow, we have agreed that we should suspend private members' hour tomorrow to continue through with the supply business in the spirit of the order that was made covering supply for the whole year, 1980.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is correct that all three parties have agreed to this proposal.
While I am on my feet, may I also ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council if we can be given the assurance that the other three ministers whose attendance we requested will be here tomorrow, namely the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


David Michael Collenette: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be here tomorrow and as well I hope the Minister of Transport. He was prepared to answer questions this afternoon, but I am reasonably well assured that all three ministers will be here tomorrow afternoon.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I hope there is no inference drawn from the remarks of my colleague to my left and from the government representative that the President of the Treasury Board will not be here tomorrow, because we have many more questions for him. Hopefully we might get to one of the other ministers in due course, but we have almost a full day for the President of the Treasury Board for tomorrow.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, that is clearly the option of the parties. But perhaps members of the New Democratic Party would like to question another minister, and I think that was why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the question. Hopefully those ministers will be available; I am pretty sure that they will be available. But whatever the Conservatives want to do is entirely up to them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The proposal has been made for the suspension of private members' business tomorrow. Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 15, 1980