The Chairman:

It being Committee of the Whole, the procedures are such that the hon. member has the floor.

Mr. Beatty:

Yesterday I quoted from a book written by the current President of the Treasury Board called "Fiscalamity". He was kind enough to send me this morning a copy of the revised version of his text which is entitled "How to Survive Canada's Tax Chaos, by Donald J. Johnston". On the front cover it says "Should be required for every Member of Parliament". The minister in his note to me recommended that I read the author's note, which I had the opportunity to do. I want to quote to the minister one sentence from page 9 which reads as follows:

The growing list of government "white elephants" that have consumed billions of taxpayers' dollars, the failure of government to establish and abide by accepted financial controls as illustrated by the recent revelations of the Auditor General, the unacceptable level of remuneration, perquisites and retirement benefits enjoyed by certain of our "civil servants" which are virtually unmatched in the private sector, and the seeming disregard for the people's priorities, have all contributed to an attitude of hostility towards governments at all levels.

May I ask the minister whether he feels that the phrase "the unacceptable level of remuneration, perquisites and retirement benefits enjoyed by certain of our 'civil servants' which are virtually unmatched in the private sector" describes the situation in the public service for which he is responsible?

Mr. Johnston:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did take the liberty of forwarding a copy of the latest edition of that book to several members on the other side so that they would not be charged with infringement of copyright by using photocopies of an earlier publication. The phrase referred to, relating to civil servants, I believe was valid at the time those remarks were written, which is some years ago. I only have to refer the hon. member to the Conference Board study which was published this week. It in fact shows that the public sector is now lagging behind the private sector. As I indicated yesterday, I think that a number of the views expressed there were valid. I am delighted to see that improvements have been made and I am sure the hon. member would agree with that.

Mr. Beatty:

Mr. Chairman, the author's note was dated December 21, 1976. May I ask the minister whether he is saying to us today that the comment he made referring to "the unacceptable level of remuneration, perquisites and retirement benefits enjoyed by certain of our civil servants" is no longer applicable and no longer valid in any way at the federal level?

Mr. Johnston:

Mr. Chairman, the information I had before me at the time I was writing those comments had to do with a public perception, and had not only to do with the federal civil service. I believe the hon. member referred to a growing list of white elephants. I was thinking of a number of projects where there had been cost overruns not only federally, but provincially and municipally right across this country.

I can assure the hon. member that at the time those words were written in December, 1976, I was quite conscious of some of the cost overruns being experienced in my own city with respect to the Olympic projects. When he asks if I share or believe in those same comments today, I cannot remember the

May 15, 1980

specific instances, persons or quotes that I was referring to in December, 1976, but that was a perception of the public. I was pointing out how the public was concerned with how their tax dollars were spent. They want value for money. That philosophy is shared, I hope, by everybody in this House, including the hon. member. That is what we in Treasury Board are going to achieve.

Miss Campbell:

Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity today to speak on the estimates, not having spoken in this chamber for almost a year. I wish to direct some of my questions to the Minister of Transport. I will wait and see whether he needs any officials.

I welcome this opportunity to talk about the concerns of the constituency of South West Nova, concerns regarding transportation and how they relate. The Department of Transport is well aware of some of the concerns that any member of Parliament from that area would have. In particular, we have CN Marine which operates three ferries out of ports in that area. We are concerned about the direction CN Marine will be taking in this new Parliament along with the Department of Transport in order to provide better service to and from Nova Scotia to Saint John and Maine.

Today I want to talk about a couple of areas, Via Rail and the arrangements that have been made to provide service from Halifax to Yarmouth. I congratulate Via Rail. It is a Crown corporation that was given its powers during the time 1 was in office. I would like to ask about the financing of this one-year program that will come into effect in June.

I would like the minister to direct his attention to the Via Rail set-up in the area between Halifax and Yarmouth, going through the valley, and to tell me the cost that the department or the CTC will have to bear for the new arrangements to see whether the service will be improved and whether people will use it. The fact that there will be a return service daily as well as reduced fares, which I and many groups have advocated, will encourage people to use the service. This should be an energy saver for the province.

The next area of concern is the highway upgrading agreement between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government which was entered into in early 1978. The purpose of that agreement was to upgrade and reinforce the highway in Nova Scotia. South West Nova was quite fortunate-

Mr. Stevens:

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If I understand the hon. member's remarks properly, she now seems to be directing her remarks and possible questions to the Minister of Transport. As I understand it, the general understanding was that we would be dealing with the President of the Treasury Board, and when questions had ended with respect to that minister, we would then shift to another of the possibly three other ministers.

There is likely to be utter confusion if speakers direct questions to various ministers, and I should like a ruling. Are we going to deal with the President of the Treasury Board or

Supply

do we shift to somebody else? As I indicated last evening, I sense an inference that people, especially on the government side, and, possibly, in the NDP, were wanting to shelter the President of the Treasury Board, that somehow they had no questions for the President of the Treasury Board; they were not concerned about spending levels in this country or about rising deficits. If the hon. member is saying, in effect, that she has no concern about the cost overruns which have been revealed, no concern about these rising expenditures, I think we should get the air cleared. Is it not true that we are supposed to be dealing with the President of the Treasury Board in Committee of the Whole at the present time? If so, let's get on with it.

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member for York-Peel is a little "off' in his understanding of what is happening.

Mr. Stevens:

You speak for yourself.

Mr. Knowles:

I shall tell the hon. member for York-Peel that we are now discussing in Committee of the Whole clause 2 of the bill and clause 2 provides for fractions of every estimate in the book. So any member who gets the floor can speak to any aspect of the estimates he wishes.

As opposition parties we have said we would like four ministers to be here-the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In other words, we cannot complain if the other ministers are not here, but the member who gets the floor nevertheless has the right to speak to whatever section of the estimates he pleases. Having spent yesterday with the President of the Treasury Board we have decided that our speakers who get the floor today, in their turn, will deal first with the Minister of Transport, then with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and finally with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I believe Your Honour will have to recognize, considering what we are debating under clause 2 of the bill, that that procedure is perfectly in order, and so is the hon. member for South West Nova.

Mr. Collenette:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to confirm what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. 1 am sure the hon. member for York-Peel has inadvertently forgotten the rules.

Mr. Stevens:

Oh, no. Agreements mean something over here.

Mr. Collenette:

First of all, the rule is that on consideration of an appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole it is within the right of any hon. member to question any minister. The hon. member spoke about agreements. It was agreed among the House leaders that the opposition would designate several ministers whom they would like to question intensively. Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board was here all afternoon. Other ministers were present but there were indications from the other side that they wanted to stay with the

May 15, 1980

Supply

President of the Treasury Board. I scurried around during the question period making sure that things were properly organized. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be here at 4.30, the Minister of Transport is here now, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be here at five o'clock and remain until ten o'clock this evening to answer questions. Basically I am supporting the agreement made between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the House leader for our side and the House leader for the Conservative side.

The Chairman:

Order, please. I am hoping we can minimize these comments. The hon. member for Hamilton West.

Mr. Alexander:

On the point of order, I am somewhat amazed at the steps the government is taking in order to protect the President of the Treasury Board. As I understand it, and as a matter of fact, your list indicates-

Question!

Mr. Alexander:

Why don't you smarten up? There is no question. I am on a point of order.

Arrogance. I thought you were leaving.

The Chairman:

The hon. member should address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Alexander:

Yes, 1 am leaving. Sometimes I have mixed emotions about that. What I noticed was this. We see the President of the Treasury Board sitting with his officials, which gives some indication that he is rarin' to go. He was prepared to go on but it is only the President of the Treasury Board who is going as far as the agreement is concerned. As I understand it, there is an agreement in existence right now that it is the President of the Treasury Board who was to be questioned today, notwithstanding what the hon. member to my left has said.