1981-04-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Considering that Canada is playing a greater role in the present U.S. space shuttle program than ever before, notably in terms of hardware, experimental devices and scientific personnel; and considering that the strongest impetus toward an increased U.S. presence in space is the escalating strategic arms race, including the planned deployment of high-energy killer lasers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the Canadian government urge the U.S. Senate and the Reagan administration to press for further arms limitation talks with the Soviets so that the space program is not dominated by military planning which threatens to plunge the U.S. into a strategic space war with the Soviet Union.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under Standing Order 43.
In light of the tragic and brutal massacre of 30 Salvadorans on April 7 by right wing forces, and in light of Canada's support of the United Nations' resolution of December 15 last condemning El Salvador's human rights record and requesting the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to examine the situation in El Salvador, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House convey to the El Salvadoran representatives in Ottawa our deep shock and outrage over the senseless killings of April 7, and urge the United Nations Human Rights Commission to commence its investigation into human rights violations in El Salvador forthwith so that further tragedies of this sort may be deterred through international pressure.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: The Nisku, Alberta, businessmen's association has just completed an alarming study assessing the impact of the National Energy Program on 41 companies in the area and the study concludes that in this small part of Alberta alone close to $40 million and over 400 jobs were lost by January, 1981, because of the National Energy Program. It is projected that another $100 million worth of contracts and business will be lost this year. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), I move:
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources explain immediately to those Canadian companies his philosophy as to why they must suffer this tragedy as he attacks the western oil industry.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


YUKON TERRITORY
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has stated publicly the government's anticipation that the Yukon may be given provincial status by 1985. The need for revenues from non-renewable resources by a province for the

installation of needed infrastructure is vital. Therefore, to accumulate such capital, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the government immediately establish a Yukon capital trust fund and direct into it all royalties from current oil, natural gas and mineral production in the Yukon. And furthermore, that the fund be used exclusively for capital works and infrastructure construction in the Yukon, and that, pending provincial status, the fund be administered jointly by the national and Yukon territorial governments.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne):
That this House recognize the daring search and rescue effort by the crew of a Greenwood, Nova Scotia-based Aurora aircraft, who, under adverse flying conditions, 300-foot ceiling and one half mile visibility, on their own initiative during a two-hour search on Monday played a key role in saving the lives of four people on a raft adrift on the North Atlantic.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering that on December 16, 1980, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted in favour of economic sanctions against the racist regime in South Africa, and considering the worldwide campaign against investment in South Africa being carried out by churches, non-governmental organizations, trade unions and humanitarian groups, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House condemn Bache Corporation for holding free seminars across Canada, including one in Ottawa this afternoon, to encourage investment in South African gold stocks, and that this House urge Canadian individuals and
companies to comply with the United Nations resolution calling for disinvestment in South Africa.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing order 43. Whereas the Big-stone Indian Band in northeast Alberta is nearing the completion of its protest march for economic equality in which both young and old band members are demonstrating their desperate need for economic assistance by walking 400 kilometres to gain the attention of the government, and whereas the band has received no indication from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. de Bane) that the government intends to address the very serious poverty and unemployment that plague these people, despite the fact that the government's western development fund was supposed to have placed the needs of native people in the west at the top of its priority list, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House condemn the government for its lack of response and compassion in this case, and demand that the government act immediately by meeting with the band so that a comprehensive plan may be developed to assist the band members to begin the arduous task of raising their standard of living and attaining economic independence.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity. I also ask the approval of my colleagues on humanitarian grounds. In view of the critical conditions prevailing in Lebanon at the moment,
April 8, 1981

and since it is increasingly evident that civilians are the target of military operations in that country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras):
That the House asks the Secretary of State for External Affairs to send his Syrian counterpart a note asking the Syrian government to order its deterrent forces posted in Lebanon to stop any operation against Lebanese civilians or those of any other nationality, as evidence of their respect for life and basic freedom principles.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Canada's trade deficit in manufactured foods and beverages is increasing rapidly, and whereas even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has admitted that of the $4.7 billion in food products imported into this country some $2.5 billion in manufactured foods, semi-processed meat and fish products could have been processed in Canada, and whereas the food processing industry is the largest employer in seven of the ten provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That this House censure the government for its lack of support and encouragement to the Canadian food processors and Canadian agriculture, and further that this House direct the government to devise immediately and put into effect a Canadian food policy designed to increase Canadian self-sufficiency in the production and processing of food.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, on page 45 of the seventh annual report of the Metric Commission there is a picture of Canada's new fighter aircraft, the CF-18A, and attached is a caption describing the specifications of the aircraft in metric. As both McDonnell Douglas
Oral Questions
and the Department of National Defence informed me "This CF-18A is built entirely to imperial specifications", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That this House censure the executive director of the Metric Commission for intentionally allowing to be published erroneous information designed to suggest that the aerospace industry in North America is metric when in reality it is still imperial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, for a few weeks now, has been hiding behind the constitutional skirts of the Prime Minister. The minister will know that mortgage rates have just gone up again to 16.5 per cent, U.S. interest rates are tending upwards again, inflation is running over 12 per cent, and the Canadian dollar is still vulnerable.
The Conference Board of Canada, in its first quarterly report, has concluded that the inflation rate, high interest rates, and the investment outlook plagued by the energy conflict between the federal government and the provinces, will prevent any sustained economic recovery in 1981. Would the minister now tell us what concrete steps he is taking to stop the increased interest rates or to dampen down inflation or to stimulate real economic recovery in 1981, in view of these forecasts?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, first of all the hon. member should not complain about how the question period has been going during the last several weeks. If it has been devoted to the Constitution, it is because the Leader of the Opposition and the other front benchers have totally ignored the economy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and concentrated on the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 8, 1981
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I welcome the return of the Tory party to the economy, which is evident today by the question of the hon. member. However, the hon. member has asked a whole series of questions with respect to interest rates, economic growth, inflation-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: And you can't do anything about any of them!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the answers to which would require a very long time.


Mr. Clark:: You are Minister of Finance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would refer him to the budget which outlines the economic strategy which is being employed by the government. When any changes are made to that, I would be happy to tell the hon. member for St. John's West. In fact I will try to make sure that he will be the first to know.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is 13 months now, and the government has not returned to the economy yet. It has not even turned to the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POLICY RESPECTING FISCAL AND MONETARY RESTRAINT
John Carnell Crosbie: I might quote Don McGillivray in yesterday's paper which said the minister's "first budget, according to non-government economists, increased inflation and reduced economic growth." I hope he will do better on his second.
My supplementary question will be much simpler for the minister. He has a job to understand anything over one syllable. Is it the policy of the minister and the government to exercise fiscal and monetary restraint? It is a very simple question. Is it the policy to exercise fiscal and monetary restraint?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, on the question of monetary policy which is being carried out under the direction of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, as my hon. friend knows, the governor of the bank, not so long ago, adjusted the target range for the growth of the money supply indicating a renewed effort at restraint on the monetary side. The Government of Canada fully supports the Governor of the Bank of Canada in that particular effort. That is the situation on the monetary side.
Has my hon. friend understood that, before I go to the fiscal side and tell him that it is the intention of the government to exercise restraint through a gradual reduction in the deficit, financial requirements, and maintaining restraint on government expenditures? That is on the fiscal side. Does my hon. friend understand that?


POSSIBLE CREATION OF ECONOMIC SLACK
John Carnell Crosbie: It has taken 13 months, but the minister is now telling us what his policy is. The minister is the Rip Van Winkle of finance ministers. He has been asleep for 13 months.
If the minister's policy is fiscal and monetary restraint, to create some slack in the economy-he has that policy, I assume-I want to ask the minister this: on January 9 his department said that public support was not yet present for a full program of wage and price controls because there was not enough general or severe slack in the economy, but the department suggested that with a policy of fiscal and monetary restraint the minister could create that slack. Is the minister now attempting to create that slack so that he can come in later in the year and announce a full program of wage and price controls as his department advocated in its paper of January 9?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the answer, clearly, to the question as put is no.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to put a question to the emperor himself, the Prime Minister. On this economic theme I would like to mention to the Prime Minister that there still appears to be a lack of industrial strategy on the part of his government or, if there is an industrial strategy, it seems to be founded on the exportation of resources on one hand and jobs on the other. Would the Prime Minister indicate what, if anything, the government plans to do with respect to the importation of foreign cars, especially Japanese cars, into this country, and does the government see fit only to have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce go to Washington to talk about the Japanese problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The emperor is not wearing any clothes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I believe the hon. member should be pleased that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is holding consultations with his counterparts in Washington because obviously, in looking at the impact of Japanese exports, one has to look at in terms of the North American market, and it is in that context that I invite the hon. member to judge the minister's visit to Washington.
April 8, 1981


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT POLICY ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister would care to familiarize the House with the government's policy concerning one related matter, that is, the question of foreign investment. Last September a trade mission of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce told the Japanese, "Canada welcomes foreign investment". Is that in fact government policy, bearing in mind that many assumed when they read the National Energy Program that certainly some foreign investment is not too welcome?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the assertion that some foreign investment is not too welcome is a policy followed by many governments, including the government which preceded mine, mine and probably the one which will follow mine.
For instance, in the area of banking we want to make sure that financial institutions remain under Canadian control and that they are not dominated by foreign investment. The same applies, for instance, to communications. There are areas where 1 believe even the very conservative Conservatives believe we should have control over our domestic environment. That is the policy we follow, and that is compatible with the desire to welcome foreign investment generally in Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On Monday night in El Salvador there was another in a series of tragic acts of violence perpetrated by the national guard under the control of the junta in that country. This time it was the vicious murder of 23 civilians in their own homes. Considering that the Government of Canada voted for a UN resolution last fall condeming the junta for its violation of human rights, is the Government of Canada now prepared to request the UN to take some direct action to put an end to the systematic murder in that country?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, during these last few months we have repeatedly expressed the horror we feel at the many violations of human rights in El Salvador. We have done so at the General Assembly of the United Nations, as the hon. member has indicated, we have done so at the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, we have also continued our efforts through the Organization of American States, and bilaterally we have expressed to the representatives of El Salvador in Ottawa our profound disagreement with
Oral Questions
what is happening in their country, and we shall do so again at the next opportunity, either bilaterally or multilaterally.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in recent weeks all that the Government of Canada has done on this subject is to accept the highly biased reports coming from the United States on what is occurring in that country. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, since we are, we hope, in the final stages of debating a resolution affecting human rights in Canada, if he would demonstrate some concern on the same subject for people who live elsewhere by having the Canadian ambassador at the United Nations request the UN Commission on Human Rights to investigate these murders that are taking place in El Salvador.


Louis Duclos: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that the situation in El Salvador cannot be described in black and white. The government in place led by President Duarte has announced its intention to undertake negotiations with the leftist forces. Unfortunately, whether these negotiations take place at the instigation of the Catholic Church in El Salvador or the Socialist International, up to now the revolutionary forces have been the ones to indicate that they did not want to take part in these negotiations.


REQUEST THAT UNITED STATES STOP ARMS SHIPMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will try another question, but I will not even go to the Prime Minister in this case because obviously he is not going to concern himself with what happens in that part of the world. But I will put my question to the gentleman who is doing the answering today. Considering that the United States is presently increasing its arms supply to the junta, and considering that the junta is dependent upon the use of these arms to perpetuate itself in power, will the Government of Canada at the very least use this most recent act of terrorism as a legitimate reason for requesting the United States to stop shipping arms to that country?


Louis Duclos: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know like everyone else that our position as a government concerning shipments of arms to this unfortunate country is extremely clear and precise. We condemn any shipment of arms from whatever source.

April 8, 1981
Oral Questions


AIR CANADA
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Speaking in Vancouver last week the president of Air Canada, Mr. Claude Taylor, made strong representations that Air Canada should be given an exclusive right to fly the Vancouver to Tokyo and Hong Kong international routes. In view of the fact that Canadian Pacific Airlines pioneered these routes, took the losses to get them established, and now the president of the state owned airline is giving press interviews in which he states he wants these routes, I would ask the minister whether the president of Air Canada is expressing official government policy, is he testing the wind of public opinion, or he is whistling in the wind and on a frolic of his own with no government sanction for such horrendous statements?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, obviously the president of Air Canada was expressing his own views.


An hon. Member:: They should be your views.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The reaction to those views is a clear indication that there is no consensus on the subject. But we are going to come out in a very few weeks with an adjusted domestic air carrier policy, and in the coming months we will review the international air carrier policy. In the meantime Mr. Taylor was expressing what he would like to see come about. By the way, we all rejoice in the financial and operational success of Air Canada in recent years.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief supplementary for the minister. Will he make a flat statement that Canadian Pacific airlines and other private carriers will be protected in their present routes from the grabbing tactics of Air Canada?


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this is the policy of the government at this time. The competition internationally between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific airlines is looked upon by the Minister of Transport as being desirable at this time.
 * *


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. The Reagan administration in the United States announced plans this week to relax automobile pollution and safety regulations
in order to aid the ailing automobile industry. This will be to the tune of $1.4 billion in savings to that industry.
In view of the fact that the industries in Canada and the United States are so closely related, can the minister tell us what effect these changes-and 18 of them affect the environment alone-will have on our environmental regulations?
Further, what has the minister done, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to ensure that the Canadian automobile industry does not receive another setback as a result of these changes?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, my department and the Department of Transport are assessing the significance of these potential changes. I will confer with my colleague, if there is any necessary response on my part.


REQUEST FOR RESTRICTION ON IMPORTATION OF JAPANESE CARS
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, again in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. As the minister knows, last week the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association, among others, which is comprised mainly of small Canadian businesses, appealed to the government for restrictions on automotive imports, especially those from Japan. I do not have to quote the statistics in that regard.
Since these ailing manufacturers fall under the jurisdiction of the minister, could he tell us what is his position in regard to these requests for import quotas? Has he made any representations to either the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or, better still, has he made any representations to cabinet in this regard?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, when spokesmen for the automobile industry met last week with the Minister of Supply and Services, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and other ministers of this government, it was clearly indicated that the entire question of automotive imports, particularly from Japan, ought to be assessed in the North American context. Since the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be holding talks this week with his Washington counterpart, I believe it would be premature to comment further on this topic.
April 8, 1981


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FORMER SPEAKER AND GOVERNOR GENERAL, HON. ROLAND MICHENER
Madam Speaker:: I am sure hon. members of the House would want to greet a former Speaker of the House of Commons and a former Governor General, the Hon. Roland Michener, and Mrs. Michener, who are present in the gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister knows that for two and a half weeks 80 members of the Bigstone Cree Band has been making a 250-mile trek from northern Alberta to Edmonton. This walk is their desperate way of asking Canadian people for a new deal which will include decent housing, with sewage and running water, better education, and, above all, economic development. The minister promised to meet with the Bigstone Cree. Will he meet with them when they arrive in Edmonton this weekend? Will he commit moneys from the Western Initiatives Development Fund to help the Bigstone Cree with their economic development?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I share the concern of the hon. member about the general conditions which native people face, particularly the large number in western Canada who have a real need for economic development. But I remind him that there have been meetings. In fact there was just one yesterday between the regional director of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the chief of the Bigstone Band. They are having these discussions.
We have indicated that we are very sympathetic to their suggestions. As soon as we can sit down and discuss with them and with other native leaders across Canada to develop a comprehensive approach to economic development, we are prepared to do so and hopefully work out what will be solutions for their future.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the people who are marching for 250 miles have the right to meet with the minister.


PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The minister knows, as the previous minister admitted, that the situation of the Bigstone Cree is typical of that of Indian bands from one
Oral Questions
end of Canada to the other. Indian people are tired of being told that if money is given to them it will have to be taken from another band somewhere else.
Will the minister go back to cabinet and secure sufficient funds in supplementary estimates so that the Indian people can put an end to this vicious cycle of poverty, disease, bad housing, and no economic development? Will the minister go back to cabinet to get these funds?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member must be aware that the role of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is always to endeavour, within the government, to get the maximum amounts of money possible for his programs. This is what I am doing. Having said that, I tell the hon. member that as far as the Bigstone Band is concerned there was an unfortunate incident with regard to the audit of their books and the manner in which the funds were handled prior to Chief Beaver becoming chief. Since that time we have endeavoured to be of assistance, as I think the hon. member for Athabasca is aware. We have done the maximum we can in terms of picking up the deficits and putting them on a sound Financial basis.
I might say that all the items respecting what we are prepared to do have been communicated both to the Member of Parliament for the area and to the chief of the band.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the continuing concern in Canada with acid rain and press reports that the United States administration is planning to reduce its powers under the clean air act to control acid rain, can the minister assure the House that, as a result of his meeting with Secretary of the Interior James Watt last week, the U.S. will not reduce its power to control acid rain under the clean air act and that it will be concluding an international agreement to control this problem?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As he noted, I met with Secretary of the Interior James Watt. He confirmed the word which the President of the United States gave us, that the United States expects to begin, as was originally forecast, negotiations leading to an air quality agreement early this summer.
Also I brought to his attention our concerns about possible changes to the American clean air act which might undermine the ability of the American government to respond to the international obligations it has to our country.

April 8, 1981
Oral Questions
I must say that I received some considerable reassurance from the Secretary of the Interior. Our discussions were somewhat disrupted since it was the day of the attempted assassination of the President. Our meeting was cut short to some extent, but he gave a very positive indication that the administration is not intending to act in a way which would undermine its present ability to respond to our interests.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is supplementary to an earlier one regarding the Bigstone Band. As the minister knows, the band is not satisfied with meeting with regional officials. It has asked specifically, as outlined in a telegram to the minister two days ago, if the minister cannot be there that a senior official of the PMO or PCO attend Edmonton to meet with the band. Will the minister do this?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for other departments of the government, but I indicated to both the hon. member and the chief of the band that we are very open to the representations of that band, as well as those of other native organizations in the west. We have been meeting on a very frequent basis with a number of native leaders over the past two or three months. We are certainly quite willing and open to any discussions which will take place. This is why senior officials are meeting with them at the present time to work out those details. But we must respect the fact that there are various kinds of native organizations-not just those that are marching but many others-that would like to make their cases known.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister who received a telegram from Chief William Beaver of the Bigstone Band last Friday. He indicated at that time that he had not read it. In the telegram the Prime Minister is being asked to intercede and send someone from the PMO or PCO to Edmonton to meet with the Bigstone Band. Obviously I am not getting anywhere with the minister responsible for the western development fund. Would the Prime Minister consent to sending someone to meet with the band this weekend? The band arrives in Edmonton on Friday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development answered that question earlier in the question period. He gave a perfectly satisfactory explanation. If the leader of the band wants to meet with the Minister of Indian
Affairs, the minister has never closed his door with regard to such meetings.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I was somewhat taken aback yesterday by an answer the minister gave to the hon. member for Assiniboia with respect to the plight of the service companies in the oil industry in western Canada. In his reply the minister seemed to indicate that there were special programs for these companies, bail-outs if you will, which is not what the industry is seeking. The industry is looking for changes in the National Energy Program which will restore the level of business to the level which prevailed on October 28. Does the minister realize that these companies do have a problem? If so, what is the minister proposing to do to change the National Energy Program? I would appreciate it if he would be specific.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I met with representatives of the service industry in Alberta a couple of months ago at which time I had an opportunity to discuss with them their particular problems. I again met with their representatives yesterday in Ottawa. I am fully aware of the difficult circumstances these companies and individuals are facing at the present time due, in part, to the reduction in exploration for natural gas because of a surplus of natural gas at the present time on domestic and international markets. This is also due to the combination of our fiscal measures together with the very high royalties and tax rates imposed by the government of Alberta on the oil and gas industry.
The combination of all these factors makes it extremely difficult at the present time for all these people. I hope that in the weeks to come we will be able to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement with the government of Alberta on the issue of oil and gas pricing and revenue sharing. We have indicated that we have approached these negotiations in good faith and have shown flexibility. I am still waiting for a similar indication from the government of Alberta.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Assiniboia is in Saskatchewan.


POSSIBLE CHANGE IN PRICING POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister has put his finger on it. The problem is caused by a combination of the National Energy Program, fiscal measures, as well as some of the measures which are outside his control. I am looking for some indication from the minister as to those areas which he feels are within his control and on which he feels he is able to move. Last night in committee we heard that one of those areas was with regard to price. The
April 8, 1981

companies, and members from the government side were there. They heard the representation that price is a very important factor. Is the minister considering a change in the pricing policy to allow for a different treatment of those low productivity wells in Alberta and Saskatchewan which generate a tremendous amount of drilling activity but which are not economical now because of the combination of factors, particularly price and the production taxes which were introduced in the National Energy Program on October 28?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we indicated in the past that we were approaching the discussions with flexibility and some room for adjustments and further modifications. I hope that the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan will approach these negotiations in the same spirit. Unfortunately, I have had no indication whatever that they are ready to move at all on any of these issues. I hope they will be willing to show the same degree of flexibility that we will be showing.


PETRO-CANADA CANCELLATION BY BRITISH PETROLEUM OF CREDIT CARD EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the National Energy Program deals with Petro-Canada as a key element of it and that the minister hopes that wide use and acceptance of Petro-Canada will be a desirable thing, I wonder if the minister is aware of a bulletin issued by British Petroleum to all their lessees and dealers, effective April 30, 1981, which states that the credit card exchange agreement with Pacific Petroleum, now Petro-Canada, will be cancelled. Is this a restriction with which the government agrees, or will the government enter into negotiations to ensure that the Petro-Canada credit cards can be used as widely as possible?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will certainly not enter into negotiations on behalf of Petro-Canada with their various competitors as far as commercial arrangements between those various companies are concerned. I suggest the hon. member phone Petro-Canada, or write to it, asking for an explanation. I will be quite happy to inquire on his behalf and inform him later on, if he wishes. I am not aware of this particular situation, which is obviously a matter of commercial decision left quite clearly to Petro-Canada and British Petroleum.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Canadian Human Rights Commission in its 1980 annual report, which was tabled yesterday, recommended that "it has now become urgent for Parliament to make it clear that sexual harassment constitutes discrimination on the grounds of sex and will not be tolerated", pointing out that public perception of sexual harassment as a major barrier to equality in employment for women has greatly increased. In view of the fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended last year, and is again recommending this year as a top priority, the elimination of discrimination against women on the grounds of sexual harassment, what action does the government intend to take to implement this important recommendation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, we are in the process of reviewing the recommendation of the commission which was tabled Monday. If need be we will introduce a bill in Parliament dealing with this matter after the cabinet has made a decision.
I fail to see the need to proceed very rapidly at this time because, unfortunately, the House has had very little time in recent months to look after such problems because the business of the House was taken up by something else.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the minister should know very well that it has been over a year since this recommendation was tabled. The report of the Human Rights Commission makes a number of other important recommendations, including a prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of political belief, sexual orientation, the abolition of mandatory retirement at an arbitrary age, and an end to discrimination against women based on pregnancy and childbirth. The minister has spoken many times about the importance of human rights. I suggest that if he is serious about these recommendations he take the advice of the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Svend Johannes Robinson: -and put up or shut up on human rights questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have spoken a great deal in the last year with respect to human rights. This is why we are about to have a charter of rights in the Canadian Constitution.


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

April 8, 1981


CONSTRUCTION OF MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION AT RENOUS, N.B.
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question, of which I have given notice, is for the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Did he put you up to it?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I do not need any prompting, Madam Speaker. As the minister knows-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, if hon. members opposite will keep quiet I will put my question.
As the minister knows, two of his predecessors gave commitments to me and, more important, to the people of the Miramichi, that a maximum security institution would be built at Renous.


An hon. Member:: No one else wants it.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The minister also knows that the commitment was rejected by the previous government. Can the minister tell the House if, and when, this commitment will be fulfilled, what the capital investment will be, and what the level of employment will be?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am very pleased to inform the hon. member that this project, which was cancelled by the Conservative government-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -has been reinstated and was approved by the Treasury Board last week-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -that construction will begin in September of 1982, that the project will cost $37.4 million-


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and that the estimated opening date will be January, 1986.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question to put to the Prime Minister and I do so in view of his role as Canada's No. 1 salesman for the Candu reactor to countries around the world. Could he advise the House why it is, in view of the fact that the Candu reactor is generally considered throughout the world as the finest piece of machinery ever produced to do the job it is called upon to do, that Canada is losing out regularly all over the world, particularly to France, on sales of this very important piece of machinery that Canada produces so well?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can think of a couple of examples of sales that we have lost because members of the hon. member's party either criticized the government that was going to buy the equipment, or complained about the lack of security arrangements for those sales.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, it appears that the only way that this disastrous sales record can be set right is by far superior salesmanship than has been available so far. In view of this great need, would the Prime Minister consider taking a short course in salesmanship? If he would, I would be very glad to arrange one for him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that some sales were lost to the Argentine precisely because the then secretary of state for external affairs, a member of his party, undisposed the government of the Argentine toward the buying of this.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 
SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have a short question for either the Minister of Supply and Services or the Minister of Communications which may result in saving enough money to help the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi pay for his new prison. I want to ask either or both of those ministers whether they have considered any changes in the policies that they employ in their departments with respect to the government telephone agency and the supply and procurement policies for government services. If they changed their policies and did not continue to use
April 8, 1981

perpetual leasing policies with Bell Telephone, but instead dealt with some competitive Canadian companies, they could probably save millions of dollars. Will the ministers look into this and respond on whether they recognize the potential for saving millions of dollars in this regard?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, we are always willing to look at suggestions made by hon. members on the other side of the House. We will be pleased to examine the matter and see if any improvement can be made.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Communications. Is the minister aware that the CBC staff at one regional centre is currently engaged in transferring programming to one-inch tapes for CBC-2 on equipment with the CBC-2 logo, even though CBC-2 has not yet been authorized by the CRTC? Does this indicate that the government has given assurance to the CBC that CBC-2 will proceed, regardless of the CRTC decision?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the answer to all the questions put by the hon. member is no.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Communications. Would the minister undertake to look into this matter, and would he please tell us his views on whether he considers it proper for the CBC to be spending public money on a system which has not yet been authorized?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to look into the matter that the hon. member has raised. If the CBC is interested in CBC-2, and if its application is in front of the CRTC, it goes without saying that it has undoubtedly spent some funds to prepare its application for the CRTC and is undoubtedly thinking in terms of a positive decision being given. I shall be pleased to look into the matter in a more general way.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Douglas Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who answers in this House for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board who sits in the other place. I wonder if the minister could advise whether the Canadian Wheat Board has purchased, or is
Oral Questions
negotiating the purchase, or is considering building a lake ship to transport grain.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot, but I will find out. I am aware, however, that the Canadian Wheat Board is aware of its responsibilities and of the need of adequate transportation for exports. It is trying to negotiate longer-term contracts on the Great Lakes but I do not know if the Board intends to purchase ships. I will find out immediately and report to my hon. friend in the next 20 minutes.


Douglas Charles Neil: As a supplementary question, Madam Speaker, when the minister is reporting could he determine whether it is either purchasing or arranging to build a ship? Would he also determine whether it will be paid for out of producers' funds? At the same time, would he consider having the legal department look into the regulations or the act to determine whether such activities on the part of the Canadian Wheat Board are, in effect, legal?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will do that.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. It relates to the CLC proposals that were announced on Monday of this week. Can the minister tell the House exactly what is happening with respect to the revision of Part IV of the Labour Code. When will he and his department get their act together and introduce their recommendations for the complete revision of Part IV, thereby guaranteeing the over 600,000 workers who are under federal jurisdiction, without exception, the right to refuse to perform dangerous work without fear of disciplinary action, and the right of designated worker representatives to shut down dangerous and unhealthy operations until they are corrected?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, if I were to attempt to deal with the several parts of the question I am sure I would be transgressing on the rules of brevity that apply in the House. That is the last thing I would want to do.
I do want to say that the question of the hon. member deals with a serious matter. We believe that our department, under a succession of governments and ministers, has provided as good a level of protection as any jurisdiction in Canada to the working people, despite the efforts of some people to play politics in that regard. I want to say to the hon. member that we have had a comprehensive review of the provisions of Part IV under way for a considerable number of months. We are moving toward the point when legislation of a comprehensive nature will be brought into the House.

April 8, 1981
Oral Questions
1 just want to make one other point, and that is with reference to the position taken by the CLC calling for particular reforms. It must be remembered by the hon. member that the CLC was consulted by our department about our ideas for reform and that a large part of the package which it is now talking about is based on ideas that originated in our department.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I should like to point out to the minister that the protection given to federal workers is about as bad as that given to workers provincially in Nova Scotia.
Given the fact that the minister and his department are aware of the urgent need to consolidate the 15 departments and agencies which have jurisdiction over occupational health and safety in the federal work place, what progress can the minister report to the House with respect to his efforts at the ministerial and departmental levels to ensure that this consolidation will take place, resulting in a rational administrative structure so that federal occupational health and safety measures can finally be enforced under Labour Canada and not under any other government department?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, consultations with various departments affected have been under way for some period of time and similar contact has been made with the Treasury Board. When new policy is determined, it will be announced in due course.
Finally, I might point out to the hon. member that traditionally the labour laws of the province of Nova Scotia, not only in relation to safety but in other provisions as well, have been well ahead of those of the province from which he comes.


YUKON TERRITORY
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State established a ministerial office in Whitehorse, with the manager of that office being one Joanne Linzey who is one of the directors of the Canadian Status of Women group?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the names of the people who would be employed in the Whitehorse office. I will check into that and report back to the hon. member.


ESTABLISHMENT BY MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES OF OFFICE IN WHITEHORSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources established a brand new office in Whitehorse intended to be staffed by eight? If so, for what purpose?


Mr. Laniel:: To compensate for your absence.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that the office has not been set up to compensate for the hon. member's absence from his riding in the last few weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is going to open a number of offices across the country, including the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, in order to manage and operate the conversion grant program designed to help citizens convert from oil to other forms of energy. Those offices will be operated by officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The staff there will serve the public of those particular provinces and regions.


PETITION
[Stage Direction]
miss Macdonald-revision of national energy program
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the forty-eighth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-60, to amend the National Energy Board Act, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that after a series of meetings between parliamentary leaders and consultations with our respective caucuses it would appear that the House may now be informed of a special order which is likely to get unanimous agreement. I simply want to take this opportunity to thank the parliamentary leaders of the other
April 8, 1981

parties who have been patient and who, in spite of the climate in the House, have always shown willingness to attend the meetings which were necessary to reach this agreement. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I will read the full text which in a few minutes might prove to be the solution and the way to end the constitutional debate, should the House agree unanimously.

That the motion of the Minister of Justice for an Address to Her Majesty concerning the Constitution of Canada, Government Orders, Government Business, No. 36, shall be disposed of as follows:
1.	The motion and any amendments proposed thereto shall be the business considered on Tuesday, April 21, 1981, Wednesday, April 22, 1981, and Thursday, April 23, 1981, and on those days no member shall speak for more than thirty minutes.
2.	No later than 6:00 p.m. on April 21, 1981 the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and the House leader of the New Democratic Party, and no later than 10:00 p.m., on April 21, 1981, the government House leader may give notice of one amendment to the said motion affecting one or more provisions of the motion and any such amendments shall be printed on the notice paper until disposed of.
3.	No amendments or subamendments may be proposed to the said motion except as provided in the preceding paragraph.
4.	At 9.45 p.m. on April 23, 1981, the Speaker shall put without further debate or amendment every question necessary to dispose of any proposed amendment and any amendment put on notice pursuant to paragraph No. 2 of this order which shall be deemed to have been proposed for the purpose of this order. No member shall rise to speak after this hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to comply with this order shall be decided forthwith before the House adjourns.
5.	The government shall not designate any days on which the said motion shall be dealt with until the first sitting day following the rendering of the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the appeals concerning the opinions of the Manitoba Court of Appeal rendered on February 3, 1981, and the Newfoundland Court of Appeal rendered on March 31, 1981 on the questions put to the said courts concerning the amendment of the Constitution of Canada.
6.	On any day that is designated for dealing with the said motion as may have been amended, the hours of sitting shall be as follows:
On Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays: From 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and from 2.00 p.m. to 11.59 p.m.
On Wednesdays: From 2.00 p.m. to 11.59 p.m.
On Fridays: From 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and from 2.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.
Provided that on any such day no private members' business or proceeding pursuant to Standing Order 40 shall be taken up.
6(a) A designated day for the purposes of this order is a day appointed by a minister of the Crown by written notice to the Clerk at least twenty-four hours in advance and, if necessary, such notice shall be published in a special notice paper. A day shall be deemed a designated day for the purpose of this order regardless of whatever proceedings are before the House at any time during that day.
7.	On any day designated by the government pursuant to the preceding paragraph no member shall speak for more than twenty minutes and no amendments shall be proposed.
8.	At fifteen minutes before the time of adjournment on the second day designated by the government pursuant to the paragraph numbered 6 and 6(a) of this order the Speaker shall at that hour put the motion as may have been amended. No member shall rise to speak for any purpose after that time and all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion of the Minister of Justice shall be put forthwith without further debate.
Provided that nothing in this order shall be considered to affect in any manner or to any degree the separation of the legislative and judicial powers, a fundamental principle of our Constitution.
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the government House leader in this matter. I think what we have accomplished by the negotiations which he described embodies four things. We have provided an opportunity for the federal-provincial process to work in the traditional way. The proposal really says this is nothing more than a special order of the House to govern its conduct of the debate which will follow. It permits all parties a reasonable opportunity for access to the amendment process. It permits the House to have the benefit of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada and to take it into account in the debate which will ensue thereafter.
We are agreed with the proposition put by the government House leader, and we are prepared to consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, it gives me particular pleasure to join with the other two House leaders in submitting to this House of Commons this historic agreement. The time that it has taken to arrive at this document has been very lengthy. We have had many meetings. I am sure there is not any aspect of the whole matter that we have not discussed, but it has been worth it because, as I say, we have achieved an agreement which I believe will prove to be historic.
As should happen in all bargaining sessions, each of us gave something, each of us won something. We are particularly pleased that we now have the guarantee that our amendments concerning aboriginal rights and equal status between men and women will come before the House for a vote. One other thing that we are pleased about, of course, will be shared by all members of the House. That is that we will be permitted to enjoy life without the trauma of closure.
When this debate is over after five more days of debate, however it comes out, whatever the vote is on the final motion, it will be the people of Canada who will have scored the greatest gain, for our Parliament will have acted in a civilized manner. That is the way we should act. 1 dread the thought of what the scene would have been had we not reached an agreement. We should act in a civilized manner and we shall now do so. In that way Parliament will have the right to be proud of what it will have done. We give our unanimous support to this agreement.


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


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think it might be advisable to have the House approve this agreement which seems to be unanimous, but for the record I suggest we should ask for unanimous consent.

April 8, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to the order which has been read by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Benjamin:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. In light of the success of the hon. member for Northumber-land-Miramichi, I wonder if the government House leader or the Minister of Transport could provide-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -the name of the Liberal backbencher to obtain success with Treasury Board on rail line relocation in Regina and an airport.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


POINTS OF ORDER
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It concerns the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so I hope he is not leaving the House. It involves the separation of legislative and judicial powers which we have just dealt with. I refer to the point of order I raised yesterday.


Marc Lalonde: It is not a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I can understand the exuberance of the House, but could we have a little silence.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I rose on a point of order yesterday having to do with the proper treatment of the judiciary in this honourable House by members of the House. In particular, I refer to Hansard for Monday, April 6. The Prime Minister, in replying to a question by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble), as reported at the top of page 8988, said this:
Madam Speaker, it is basic to our system that three judges, five judges, or nine judges, cannot tell us what is right. We are elected by the people. We are answerable to the people-
It is the job of the courts to judge whether these laws are intra vires or ultra vires.
With that I agree.
What the opposition has been doing is saying "We are timid fellows-"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -"because three non-elected officials have told us that such a thing could not be done."
With those remarks the Prime Minister was referring to the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland, Chief Justice Mifflin, and to Mr. Justice Morgan and Mr. Justice Gushue of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland. He referred to them as three non-elected officials. These are three appointed members of the judiciary, and it is so important that this House always remember that they are to be kept completely independent and treated in this House with the respect the judiciary should be accorded. I will refer to Beauchesne on that point in moment.
They are not non-elected officials; they are non-elected members of the courts of this land and, in the case of Newfoundland, of the highest court of that province. Chief Justice Mifflin was appointed in 1964 by the Pearson administration, Mr. Justice Morgan was appointed in May, 1975, by the administration of the present Prime Minister, and Mr. Justice Gushue was appointed in February, 1976, by the administration now headed by the Prime Minister.
As if that were not enough, this slighting and insulting reference to three non-elected officials who have told us that such a thing could not be done-this is the historic decision rendered March 31 by the Newfoundland Supreme Court which held that it was beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of this Parliament to pass certain resolutions-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must recognize that a point of order has to be short. If I understand the point of order the hon. member is trying to make, and I have before me the statement made by the Prime Minister, to which the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is objecting, he should state quite simply why he feels these words were unparliamentary, that would suffice. I would ask him not to discuss the substance of what took place in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland; that is not relevant to the point of order. We should keep this fairly short, and by that I mean a few sentences will suffice to make a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I now wish to make reference to another page of Hansard on the same subject. I intend to be very short, Madam Speaker. This is a matter of the dignity and independence of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, and there I do not intend to be too short.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: In Hansard of Tuesday, April 7-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. members opposite are not going to bully me, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland or the Supreme Court of Canada. As reported at page 9027 of Hansard for Tuesday, April 7, the Prime Minister carried on in the same manner as the day before. In reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), he said, referring to the opposition and the premiers:
If they want to fight the fight politically, they are saying what we have been saying for the past 12 months, it is a political issue, and that they have only used the courts to subvert the courts to their own political means.
April 8, 1981

If that means anything, it is an allegation that the province of Newfoundland in particular-because the only appeal court that has held against the government's constitutional proposals so far is the Supreme Court of Newfoundland-has used the courts in Newfoundland, or is subverting the courts in Newfoundland, to its own political means. That is an allegation that the judiciary in Newfoundland is not independent, that it has somehow been subverted by the province to their cause, that it has not acted judicially and with independence and reason. It is an allegation that it has somehow been subverted to their own political means by the provinces, in this instance by the province of Newfoundland.
Let me give the authority from Beauchesne so that hon. members opposite will not think this point of order is entirely frivolous. I refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition, page 103:
Besides the prohibitions contained in S.O. 35, it has been sanctioned by usage that a Member, while speaking, must not:-
(h) cast reflections upon the conduct of judges of superior courts, unless such conduct is based upon a substantive motion;
These are judges of a superior court in Newfoundland, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland on appeal.
At page 114 in the section headed "Protected Persons", paragraph 321 of Beauchesne provides:
(1) All references to judges and courts of justice of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary, and the Speaker has always treated them as breaches of order.
That is why I have risen on a point of order. Hon. members have been interrupted in Committee of the Whole by the chairman when they have cast an imputation upon a judicial proceeding. In this case, there have been imputations cast upon a judicial proceeding, unless the Prime Minister wants to clearly withdraw the statement which he made, or clarify it, and there have been imputations cast with respect to the three judges of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, all of whom were appointed by the government opposite and its predecessor. All of those judges are impeccable. Chief Justice Miffin has a record of 17 years of unparalleled service in Newfoundland. He is very highly regarded by the Bar and in no way should he be held up to ridicule in this House as a non-elected official. He has been a judge since 1964. He was appointed Chief Justice of the trial division in July of 1975 by the government of the Prime Minister, and in December of 1979 he was made Chief Justice of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal by the administration of the Leader of the Opposition.
This is a course of action started by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), whose job in this House is to protect the judiciary and who said on October 6 last that he was opposed to going to the Supreme Court of Canada because-and I quote from The Globe and Mail-"The Supreme Court is very unreliable and timing is very important".
I would like the Prime Minister to clarify whether he will say, once the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have ruled, that they have been subverted in some way or other by
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie
the provinces or by the hon. members of the opposition if the decision is not in accord with the decision that he wants, or if they affirm the decision of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal. Are they to fear a public attack from the Prime Minister if they do their duty in the appeal which they will be hearing on April 28? They are not in a position to defend themselves in the political arena. It is for the hon. members of this House to see that the judges are protected and not attacked or have slurs cast on them in this House by the Prime Minister, who is the first among us. The Prime Minister is the man-or the woman-who gives us the lead, the example. He is in no way superior to me. He is the first minister, but he is not one whit better than I am in this House, nor in my view is he one whit better than I am outside of the House.
However, I would ask the Prime Minister, before the Chair rules-and I know this was said during the question period in the heat of being questioned on a matter in which he is very much interested-to withdraw any suggestion that the judges of the Newfoundland Supreme Court are simply non-elected officials, or that anyone has subverted them. Because the word "subvert" means to overturn them, to upset them, to effect their destruction or to overthrow them. That is the definition in The Concise Oxford Dictionary.
The Prime Minister has said that the judges of the Newfoundland Supreme Court have had their destruction effected by the provinces, that they have been overthrown, overturned or upset. It is the Prime Minister who is upset and overturned and overthrown by this judgment, not the other way round.
I am not going to get excited about this. I have put this matter calmly before you, Madam Speaker, and I ask the Prime Minister to clear away this very unfair attempt to denigrate the Newfoundland Supreme Court.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the short answer would be that I have never heard such nonsense from a man who pretends to be equal to other hon. members in this House. However, I will give a longer answer to that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, you had better!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now I am being threatened by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, your own reputation would demand it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My first point is that I referred to the judges as non-elected officials. Madam Speaker, we both agree that they are non-elected. As to whether they are officials, I looked up the definition in The Concise Oxford Dictionary and I found the word "official", when used as a noun, meant "presiding officer or judge of archbishop's, bishop's, or especially archdeacon's court; person holding public office". So we know that one can be a judge of one kind and be called an official. An official is also a person who holds office. One reads in the same dictionary that "office" is defined as "position with

April 8, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie
duties, to wit, attached to it, place of authority or trust or service, especially of a public kind".
If anyone would be insulted because one is called a public official, it seems to me one must be even more thin-skinned than the hon. member for St. John's West. It is obvious-


John Carnell Crosbie: Really humorous. It is very humorous.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is obvious that I was using the expression "non-elected official" as opposed to the expression of "elected official", and we in this House are elected. I do not consider it an insult to myself to be called an elected official.


John Carnell Crosbie: Never been described as that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am there to serve the public of Canada. When I was making the distinction between elected and non-elected, I was really-


An hon. Member:: It is not like sophism.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What are you wondering about over there?


John Carnell Crosbie: "Sophism", he says it is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do you mean "sophistry", or "paralogism"? Which do you mean? It cannot be both. It has to be one or the other. I think the hon. member is really referring to paralogism, but it is not paralogism, if he will listen to my argument. I am sorry that the hon. member for St. John's West is wasting our time by raising such a spurious point of order or point of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: You think so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The division of powers is what I had in mind. It is accepted, in the very House order that we have all just agreed upon, that there is a fundamental distinction between the executive, the legislative and the judicial function. In this case, I was making the distinction between those who are elected officials and therefore part of the legislative power, and judicial officials who are part of the judicial power; they must be separate. So much for the suspicion that I might be accusing some people of something, debasing them by calling them non-elected officials.
The second argument was really a sophistic one, namely, that by accusing the provinces of subverting the courts, or using the courts to their political advantage, somehow-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Not "using", "subverting".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that is an attack on the courts. If the hon. member is suggesting that I might be attacking the provinces, then he might have a point; but to say that I am attacking the courts because I am saying that someone else is trying to use them is obviously sophistry.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are saying they allowed themselves to be used.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Will the hon. member stand and say where I said they allowed themselves to be used? Will he stand up and say that right away?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister said that it is a political issue and they have used the courts to subvert the courts to their own political means. That means that the courts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -have allowed themselves to be used and subverted. That is plain English. It is saying that the courts are not independent and have allowed themselves to be so used.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My case stands, Madam Speaker. The hon. member has just proved the point that he is talking nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have the two texts of Hansard dated April 6 and 7, to which the hon. member for St. John's West has referred and about which he has raised a point of order. The first one to which he had reference is on April 6. He felt that the reference to the judges of the Supreme Court as being non-elected officials could be denigrating or insulting to these officials. That was the only direct reference that the Right Hon. Prime Minister made to the judges. The fact that the reference was to the effect that they were non-elected officials does not seem to be either denigrating or insulting.
In my understanding of the other text, the Right Hon. Prime Minister did not speak of the courts but of the premiers, and he expressed an opinion on the way in which the premiers might be conducting their political battle in the case that concerns us. In the course of describing that situation, the Right Hon. Prime Minister used the word "subvert". The hon. member for St. John's West read the Oxford Dictionary, as I did, and he has given us the definition of "subvert", which is, of course, not an unparliamentary expression. On that ground I have to say that the point of order of the hon. member for St. John's West is not well taken.


PROVISIONS IN MAIN ESTIMATES, 1981-82
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the instructions of the Chair with regard to a notice which I gave the Chair about a week ago respecting the provisions in the main estimates of the current fiscal year, 1981-82, which I believe to be out of order based on rulings by Your Honour and previous Speakers.
I seek clarification by the Chair as to when this matter might be proceeded with. It obviously would be most advantageous to the smooth conduct of business if it were proceeded with at a time when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) could be present. Tomorrow or the next day would be satisfactory.
After looking through the history of this matter over the last ten years, I believe this is the first occasion on which this type of point has been raised with regard to the main estimates.
April 8, 1981

Heretofore it has always been with respect to the supplementary estimates, which provide a rather limited supply period, and therefore it was seen to be appropriate, near the end of the supply period but prior to the appropriations act being presented to the House, that this point of order be raised.
I suggest to the Chair that it might be beneficial to the smooth conduct of business both here in the House and in the committees which are currently hearing these main estimates if this matter might be examined now. If the Chair were able to find that the votes which I will bring to the Chair's attention are in fact out of order, then I think it would be conducive to the smooth conduct of government business and House business here and in the committees to have the matter brought to the attention of the House at an early rather than late date.
To put it simply, I suppose I am asking direction from the Chair as to whether tomorrow or the next day, if it suits the agenda of the President of the Treasury Board, I might raise the details of the points of order with respect to those items in the main estimates.


Madam Speaker:: I have received notice of the hon. member's intention to raise a point of order on this particular point, and I thank him for having given me that notice.	.
I just want to point out to the hon. member that those estimates constitute an order of reference for the committees and they cannot be discussed in the House until they have been reported by the committees. If the hon. member is seeking some remedies, it is perhaps through the committees that he might seek them.
However, this does not preclude the hon. member from raising a point of order at the time when the estimates will be reported to the House or deemed to have been reported to the House. It has been helpful when those points of order have been raised somewhat in advance of the time when the estimates have been discussed in the House, and I think closer to the date, that is, May 31, on which the estimates are to be reported or deemed reported to the House, I would entertain the hon. member's point of order. I think I would like to delay the matter until we get closer to that date, if that is agreeable to the hon. member. I think we will then be in a better position to deal with that problem.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I do not have any particular reason for concern, other than the fact that committees are now studying the votes, many of which I humbly submit are out of order; but if there is no problem with the committees studying votes which will subsequently be deemed out of order, there is no problem as far as I am concerned.
I do not wish my remarks to be taken as criticism, but one of the characteristics of previous decisions by the Chair is that when the Chair has concurred in the fact that certain votes were out of order, your Honour's predecessors have taken the position: "In view of the fact that we have just now known about it, we will leave them here, but let this be warning that this should not happen in the future". By virtue of the Chair's leniency in the past with regard to this type of thing and leaving in appropriations bills items which the Chair had
Privilege-Mr. Shields
judged were out of order-but given the time were left in-we now have circumstances in which those basically illegal votes are being used again in another illegal fashion. We have a perpetuation. I would not like the matter to be left so long that we would be back into the same circumstance of saying, "Well, given the time and so forth we will leave them in this time and hope the government will bear in mind the decision of the Chair", because, as I hope to point out when discussing the main estimates, that has not turned out to be the case in some instances.


Madam Speaker:: I think I understand the hon. gentleman's intervention. It seems that we are having some trouble determining which of those votes are in order and which are not. With respect to discussions which might take place between the different interested parties, it seems that those parties always agree on the principles, but when it comes down to the actual votes, there is disagreement as to which ones are in order and which ones are not. It seems that what the Chair is doing as these estimates come back to the House is determining as we go along which of the votes the Chair feels are in order.
I do not think votes have come back because of the leniency of the Chair. I think everyone is trying to define which of the votes are in order and which are not in order. That is the reason my predecessors asked if these points or order concerning this particular matter could not be brought earlier rather than later. I will entertain points of order to try to determine which of the votes are in order, but closer to the day on which the estimates will be reported back to the House. I think that is the difficulty. As we go along we have to reflect on each and every one of those votes.
I was going to suggest that at some point there be a meeting between the interested parties, but it seems they all agree when they meet. It is when the actual estimates come out that there is disagreement. So I suppose it is the responsibility of the Chair to determine by the different rulings which of the votes are in order and which are not. I will do that, and I will be more than grateful if the hon. member gives me the wisdom of his opinion.


PRIVILEGE
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I have given you notice of a question of privilege. Are you prepared to hear it now? It is a very short one.


Mr. Blais:: Go through the orders.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am not sure that the hon. member's statement was complete enough. I have the notice, but the statement of the hon. member is far from complete. If he refers to the Standing Orders, he will find that it is not merely a notice that I should receive but also a statement on the
9078

April 8, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes
question of privilege. If the hon. member wants to make a statement to me in writing, I will hear his question of privilege at another time.


MR. HAWKES-NOTICE OF INTENTION TO RAISE QUESTION
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is of the same kind. I believe I had a question of privilege stand over from several days ago by unanimous consent. I wonder what the status of that is.


Madam Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member whether he had two questions or one? If he has one, the notice I have just says, "I have a question of privilege which I would like to deal with," and that is all. There is no statement which would allow me to prepare any judgment I might have on that question of privilege.
I should remind hon. members that they should send the Chair a statement to save the time of the House. When they do, the Speaker tries in advance to understand what the question of privilege deals with and comes to the House a little better prepared to make a ruling. The Standing Orders state quite definitely that the Speaker requires a statement. In the past I have held hon. members to that Standing Order, and I intend to continue to ask hon. members to be helpful by sending me complete statements of their questions of privilege.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Madam Speaker. One day I did send Your Honour a brief note on a question arising out of the question period, but I think members should send a letter containing a somewhat more expanded version. The question of privilege related to the laying before the House of false documents, and if there is some confusion-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I do have that. It concerns the presentation of a false document and the making of a misleading statement to this House, but I would like to know what that false document is and what the misleading statement is. This notice is too general in nature for the Speaker to prepare any judgment on that question of privilege. I would have to know what that document is and perhaps receive the document so that I could look at it in advance. What are the misleading statements to which the hon. member is referring? I have the notice here and I do find it incomplete. I will listen to the hon. member's question of privilege only when he gives me a more complete statement.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the question concerns the falsity of motion No. 41 in the name of the House leader-


Madam Speaker:: Then the hon. member can put that in writing.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence for a moment. W'ould it be possible to make a very short statement on the question of privilege?


Madam Speaker:: It has to be put in writing and sent to the Chair one hour in advance of the time at which it is heard.


STATUS OF CLAUSE IN BILL C-57
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, I hope to be commendably brief on a matter which breaches my privilege as a member of the House and of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It arises out of the committee's present study of Bill C-57, which is the budget bill giving effect to the proposals on the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, and on a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas.
I am referring in particular to paragraphs 25.12 and 25.13 at page 53 of the bill. The Chair may have received judicial notice of a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the province of Alberta dated March 20, 1981, declaring that the purported attempt by Her Majesty in right of Canada to tax natural gas, the property of Her Majesty in right of the province of Alberta, was ultra vires the power of the Government of Canada. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) confirmed that he was not amending Bill C-57, that he had not yet made up his mind, along with his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) to appeal this judgment, and therefore the judgment that that portion of the act is ultra vires the powers of the Government of Canada is annulled. By a House order, this bill will be reported back to the House no later than Wednesday, April 15. In the interval, there are still a few witnesses to be heard tomorrow, and then the committee will consider the bill clause by clause.
My question of privilege is that I am put under the obligation of voting yea or nay on a clause which is being ruled illegal. It is not enough, I submit to you, Madam Speaker, to say that an hon. member can vote against it. That is only a Marie Antoinette type of remedy because there is no alternative, no choice. In fact, this clause is only part of an omnibus bill. If I find it repugnant to my position as a Member of Parliament, whose responsibility it is to uphold the law, to insist on voting against this clause, I must vote not only against sections 25.12 and 25.13, but I must vote against the whole of Clause 43 of the bill, which is Part II of the bill, and, in fact, against the whole bill, even though I may approve of a great deal of it.
My question of privilege is simply that the Minister of Finance has refused to remove that particular section and therefore not only members of the committee but all of us find ourselves in this position. Ultimately, unless there is an appeal carried to the Supreme Court of Canada which would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta, or unless the minister amends this bill, we will have to vote for something that is illegal, unless we vote the bill down and defeat the government.


Madam Speaker:: Again the hon. member is raising a question of privilege similar to the ones which have been raised in the House on a resolution. What the hon. member has just said leads me to conclude that he would like me to confirm the
April 8, 1981

judgment of the court declaring that clause in the bill ultra vires. I cannot do that. The hon. member knows that the Speaker should not make such a judgment. As a matter of fact, the rules governing the Speaker in the House of Commons enjoin the Speaker not to do that.
If the hon. member finds himself in a dilemma as to whether or not he can vote on a bill when he objects to a particular clause of the bill, I am afraid I am unable to do anything which would get him out of that dilemma. As a Member of Parliament, it is his responsibility to determine on what side of the question he wants to vote. Therefore, I do not see that he has a legitimate question of privilege, and certainly he has not established a prima facie case.


MR. WENMAN-OMISSION OF INTERJECTION FROM OFFICIAL REPORT
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which not only have I given you notice but which has been further aggravated today. 1 want to raise it on both counts as a question of privilege, one with notice and one without notice. It will qualify under both categories. In order to expedite proceedings in the House, I should deal with it briefly at this stage, and therefore I seek further direction as to whether you require a longer statement in order to handle this matter more expeditiously. If you would do that, Madam Speaker, I would deal with it very quickly at this stage.


Madam Speaker:: I found the hon. member's notice to be sufficiently complete. It gave me an idea of the problem to which he referred and I will hear him very briefly. If, in the first three, four or five sentences, the hon. member is not able to tell me exactly what the privilege is and whether he has a legitimate point to make, I will be at liberty to say that I do not find a question of privilege.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Perhaps with that request I will state specifically to what my question of privilege refers. It refers to statements in Hansard of October 17, 1979, at page 303 an earlier ruling by yourself, and at page 8787 and 8790 of Hansard of last Tuesday. My problem relates to interjections and how interjections in the House of Commons are handled, particularly when there might be conflict among the various levels of recording in the House as to where the priority should lie. This is a very important matter to me. This particular interjection has given rise to my question and I think in fact will make the case that it needs further consideration by Madam Speaker.
My question of privilege is twofold, and it relates in part to recorded remarks made by members in Hansard. The second part arises out of the remarks themselves. As to the first part, the remarks were made last Tuesday during an exchange in question period between the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). The Minister
Privilege-Mr. Wenman
of Justice was just finishing his answer, and his final remarks were as follows:
Of course, the Prime Minister said, and it is the position of the government, that we respect the decision of the courts. But we will finish our duty as Members of Parliament to finish the work that we have started in the fall, and of course we will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court before deciding to press the matter in England-yes or no.
At that point the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made an interjection which I heard or thought I heard at the time. The interjection seemed to say, in effect, "anything if we can get it out of the House".
I wanted to be absolutely certain that in fact the Prime Minister had made the remark, so I checked with the videotape at the broadcasting unit the next morning. The videotape in fact confirmed that the Prime Minister had made a remark to this effect. To be doubly sure, I checked the blues, and to my surprise the Prime Minister's remarks were not recorded. When Hansard arrived at my office at 12 noon the next day, I discovered the remarks were not recorded there either. I must confess I find the omission extremely disturbing, as I would like to show in the second part of my argument.
Apart from the omission, which was puzzling in itself, if hon. members would refer to pages 8787 and 8790 of Tuesday's Hansard, they will notice that there are a large number of interjections which were faithfully recorded. It is in fact the faithfulness and the detail to which our Hansard reporters went that make it even more amazing that this particular remark, which was possibly one of the more significant remarks of the day, was not included.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If I understand, the hon. member is telling me that Hansard has not properly recorded all the things he himself heard from his seat, and that subsequently he listened to the tapes and found those particular interjections.
I will not entertain the hon. member's arguments any longer because that, in itself, is not a question of privilege. I want to tell him that Hansard is not a verbatim report of what happens in the House, and some would say "thank God it is not". At any rate, it is not a verbatim report; it is as complete a report as possible of what has taken place in the House of Commons.
We do everything we can to make that report as complete as possible. When interjections are not heard by the reporters and are not so recorded, there is not much the Chair can do about it; possibly the Chair itself did not hear those interjections. At any rate, this does not constitute a question of privilege. The point of the hon. member is well taken, but if Hansard reporters have not reported the interjections, then they are not part of the record and that is final.
The hon. member is not seeking the floor to comment upon my decision, is he?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, perhaps-


Madam Speaker:: Will the hon. member please resume his seat. If he is rising to discuss what I have just said, he is commenting upon my decision. If he has a new point of order

April 8, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Crosby
to raise, I can hear it, but he cannot comment upon my decision.
I have explained to him that this is not a question of privilege. This is not the first time the House has been seized of a problem of this nature. The final word is that when the reporters have recorded interjections, they are in the report; if they have not heard them, they are not in the report.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I was just getting to the specific point. I am making the suggestion that there may have been a deliberate move to delete these remarks from Hansard because of their significance. Now, I think that-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wants to suggest that, he must give me proof of its being deliberate. Who did it, under whose instructions, for what reason? I cannot entertain a vague apprehension on the part of the member.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: That is my question of privilege, Madam Speaker, and that is what needs to be examined by the Speaker in some detail to determine whether there was any deliberate alteration or removal because of the significance this kind of a comment would have given to the debate. If so, it could destroy the good faith we expressed today. I had great reservations-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a charge to make, he can make it. The Speaker does not investigate every time a member says that an interjection has not been reported in Hansard. That would be absolutely impossible. If the hon. member has precise proof that somebody has deliberately omitted the interjection from Hansard, he can make the charge, but he must know what are the consequences of that. Then on the basis of that charge I would make an investigation.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the question of privilege which I raised in a letter to you dated April 1, 1981. In that letter I gave you notice of a question of privilege which was quite different in kind and character from the other questions of privilege which you first considered on that day and on subsequent days. Basically the question of privilege related to what I considered and perceived to be the preferential treatment given to Members of Parliament in relation to their access to the Official Report of the House of Commons, commonly known as Hansard. I think I gave you details of the question of privilege in the letter.
I do not want to prolong the matter here; I am quite willing to submit to you, Madam Speaker, a substantial memorandum on the subject. I have done some research and have tried to determine what was the origin of this practice of giving such
preferential treatment, and I want very briefly to mention three points.
First, in a memorandum dated March 27, 1981, Madam Speaker referred to the practice of granting access to Hansard and indicated that ministers, former ministers, parliamentary secretaries and others were given special and preferential treatment in relation to the examination of the transcript of the Hansard report, that other members had to obtain access to Hansard in a different way.
Second, I want to point out that on October 17, 1979, as reported at page 303 of Hansard for that day, Mr. Speaker Jerome stated that the Speaker is in charge of Hansard, exercises control over it and is responsible for the proceedings.
Third, I want to point out that the Senate and House of Commons Act and other legislation make it very clear that members of the House are Commoners; they share the privileges of this House in common. Indeed, on April 1, in response to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), Madam Speaker underlined again the equality of members of this House.
I cite all those points in support of my question of privilege. As I say, I do not want to prolong the matter in the House. I realize there are differences of opinion, even among members on this side of the House, about the matter, but 1 think I can demonstrate very clearly that we, as members of the House, ought to receive the same privileges in respect of the services of the House of Commons. Outside and off Parliament Hill we may not expect to receive equality of treatment; but if we do not receive it in the House with respect to the privileges and services provided by the House under the jurisdiction of Madam Speaker, then I think the privileges not only of myself but of all those who are victimized by this preferential treatment are dishonoured.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member sent me quite a complete letter on this particular problem. I just want to remind the hon. member that the matter of distribution of the blues has to relate to practicality. I understand there would be enormous distribution problems if the blues were sent to every member of the House.
I remind the hon. member that originally the blues were only provided as a courtesy to the Prime Minister, and much later they were provided to all cabinet ministers. Former cabinet ministers were then added to the list of members who receive blues. The blues are now distributed to cabinet ministers, ex-ministers, parliamentary secretaries, members of the Privy Council not in the cabinet, leaders of the parties, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and occupants of the chair throughout the sitting.


Erik Nielsen: And the press gallery.


Madam Speaker:: And they are distributed to the press gallery.


Howard Edward Crosby: What about to the member for Halifax West?
April 8, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Members have usually gone to the Hansard office to look at their blues. I am in the hands of the House. If this service should be extended to all members, I can look into the practicality of providing this service. But the system has worked well up until now and this is the first complaint I have ever received with respect to it. If the hon. member will bear with us and does not find it too cumbersome to go to the Hansard office to check his own blues, perhaps we could leave the situation as it is.


Howard Edward Crosby: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will certainly not comment on your decision since I am not exactly sure whether it was a decision on a matter of principle.
I would like to say this very clearly: I rose simply on a matter of principle. I did not want particularly to raise this issue because I knew of the difficulties it would cause. But in this House I thought we stood on principle and not on difficulties.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has a valid point. I like to think of all hon. members as being equal in this House. I guess equality must refer to the fact that a member has spoken in the House. That seems entirely logical. I agree with the hon. member that if we are all equal we should all receive this service. But, again, I am in the hands of the House. I am somewhat new to this practice, but I think it was established by the House itself. I will look into the question and determine how practical it will be to proceed, and whether we are sufficiently staffed at the present time to carry it through.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts- Mr. Clarke.
Order Paper Questions
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] * *

[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. 2,191, 2,196 and 2,240.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount was paid last year toward the cost of income maintenance and social services under the Canada Assistance Plan and what amount is the estimated payment for the current year, by province, for total payment and also per capita payment?
2.	Have there been adjustment payments in the past five years?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Please see list below.
2. There have been no adjustment payments in the past five years other than those associated with normal retroactivity, financial settlements and adjustments relating to the program interface between assistance and services and the established program funding of health services.
Canada Assistance Plan
Income Maintenance and Social Service Payments ($ Millions)
1979-80	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Y.T.	N.W.T.	TotalIncome Maintenance	34.2	7.7	38.5	56.8	512.1	354.6	35.6	44.0	87.5	183.3	.4	2.9	1,357.6Per Capita	59.23	62.15	45.24	80.59	81.44	41.51	34.69	45.58	42.62	70.18	18.35	67.29	57.02Social Services	9.0	2.7	15.1	9.5	220.3	118.0	24.5	15.9	39.9	72.2	.7	3.0	530.8Per Capita	15.59	21.79	17.74	13.48	35.03	13.81	23.87	16.47	19.43	27.64	32.11	69.61	22.29Total	43.2	10.4	53.6	66.3	732.4	472.6	60.1	59.9	127.4	255.5	1.1	5.9	1,888.4Per Capita	74.82	83.94	62.98	94.07	116.47	55.32	58,56	62.05	62.05	97.82	50.46	136.90	79.311980-81	Income Maintenance	41.1	8.5	45.9	68.1	565.4	374.8	43.1	48.6	101.3	209.5	.6	3.6	1,510.5Per Capita	70.74	68.00	53.56	95.11	86.65	42.98	41.13	49.90	50.12	78.11	25.00	78.26	62.49Social Services	10.7	3.3	16.6	10.4	279.3	134.4	24.7	23.6	43.8	89.7	1.0	3.0	640.5Per Capita	18.42	26.40	19.37	14.53	43.79	15.41	23.57	24.23	21.67	33.45	41.66	65.22	26.50Total	51.8	11.8	62.5	78.5	844.7	509.2	67.8	72.2	145.1	299.2	1.6	6.6	2,151.0Per Capita	89.16	94.40	72.93	109.64	130.44	58.39	64.70	74.13	71.79	111.56	66.66	143.48	88.99
Source: 1979-80 Actual Payments
1980-81 Supplementary Estimates "C"
Population-Statistics Canada
Note: The above amounts include the value of five tax abatement units for the province of Quebec.

April 8, 1981
Order Paper Questions HEALTH RESOURCES FUND CONTRIBUTIONS


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount, by province, was contributed from the Health Resources Fund to assist in meeting the capital costs of health training facilities in (a) 1978-79 (b) 1979-80?
2.	What amount is estimated to be contributed in the present year and what amount is included in the estimates for next year?
3.	In the last full fiscal year and the present year to date, what specific facilities have been assisted in the province of Quebec?


Royce Herbert Frith: See below.
1. Health Resources Fund
Province	1978-79	1979-80Newfoundland	2,951,975.60	-Prince Edward Island	133,844.90	-Nova Scotia	1,601,948.00	2,444,050.54New Brunswick	4,516,613.82	-Quebec	5,093,657.03	1,502,076.14Ontario	7,596,311.82	1,985,299.10Manitoba	4,163,192.48	799,408.13Saskatchewan	1,247,032.25	769,166.09Alberta	3,220,200.00	-British Columbia	10,910,009.91	-Northwest Territories	-	-Yukon	-	-Canada Totals	41,434,785.81	7,500,000.002.	1980-81-$17,321,000.00 1981-82-$ 6,000,000.003.	April 1, 1979, to March 1, 1981:
Montreal Neurological Institute Montreal General Hospital Hopital Saint-Luc
Cite de la Sante, Ville de Laval
Ecole de medecine dentaire, Universite Laval Hotel-Dieu de Levis Hopital Sainte-Justine Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite Laval


Mr. Herbert: Has the government considered the creation of a neutral body which would examine the comparability of wage rates in the private and public sectors and, if so, would such a body have the responsibility for suggesting rate changes prior to the negotiation of new collective agreements?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: There exists presently an agency within the Public Service Staff Relations Board, the pay research bureau, whose role is to obtain information on rates of pay, employee earnings, conditions of employment and related practices prevailing both inside and outside the public service to meet the needs of the parties to bargaining.
The needs of the employer and the bargaining units are established, by the pay research bureau, under the aegis of an advisory committee on pay research, comprising representatives of Public Service of Canada employers and certified bargaining agents, in order that the bureau's programs reflect their needs as closely as possible.
No action is being considered by the government in terms of changing the role of the pay research bureau or of creating another agency which would be involved in examining the comparability of wage rates in the private and public sectors.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,612 (revised) could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,612 (revised) be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

HOSTAGES-PRISON GUARDS OR STAFF Question No. 1,612 (Revised)-Mr. Skelly:
1.	Since I960, how many prison guards/staff were taken hostage and what were their names, the dates and the locations of the incidents?
2.	Since 1960, how many died in a hostage-taking incident and how many were killed by (a) inmates (b) penitentiary staff and, in each case, what was his/her name, the date and the location of the incident?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Elzinga:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to question No. 1,637. It has been on the Order Paper since October 21.1 realize that is not a lengthy period of time when compared with the length of time it takes to answer some questions on the Order Paper, but I find it somewhat disturbing that this question was not answered prior to the National Pension Conference, since this question directly relates to the Canada Pension Plan and the action the government is taking to ensure that there will be pension funds available for individuals in future generations.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to see what he can do with respect to answering this question in a forthright manner.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated many times in the past, I do my best to have answers as quickly as
April 8, 1981

possible. I shall undertake to get that particular answer for the hon. member.


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask about questions Nos. 1,007 and 2,003. Unless these questions have been answered in the last couple of days and I have missed them in the mail, they have not been answered. Question No. 1,007 was submitted last May 28, ten months ago. I think that the department has had some time to deal with that question. It is a very important question for small businesses and the use of form B32 to restrict international trade.
The second question, No. 2,003, was submitted on January 21. It deals with wheat sales and credit loans related to wheat sales to the Soviet Union and eastern bloc countries. It is not a very long or difficult question to answer. I would certainly appreciate some dispatch in the answering of these questions, Madam Speaker.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, it is a little difficult for me to answer the hon. member since, by his own admission, he does not know whether these questions have been answered. I am sorry, but I do not keep a running tally of the questions which have been answered. They are printed in Hansard each day. I would ask the hon. member to check copies of Hansard for the past week, and if the questions have not been answered then he can bring it to my attention in private and I will do my best to get them answered quickly.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, I also have a point of order with respect to a question which has been on the Order Paper for six months. It is question No. 1,541. The answer is rather important to me and to the province of Manitoba in light of the difficulties with the Liberal caucus calling for the opening up of the new fighter aircraft contract-to get more work for the province of Quebec. The government is not satisfied with 48 per cent, even with only 12 per cent for the rest of Canada.
My question asks what percentage of the new fighter aircraft contract will come to Manitoba, if any. It would certainly allay a lot of our fears if I could obtain as soon as possible an answer with respect to what percentage the government will give to the five aerospace firms in Manitoba.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I will give the same undertaking to the hon. member that I gave to the others.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 48?
Madam Speaker, Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. 50 and 52 are acceptable to the government.
Motions for Papers


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motion Nos. 50 and 52 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Riis:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House, copies of all correspondence between the government and the government of British Columbia, between the customs offices in Ottawa and in British Columbia and between any cabinet minister and the Ottawa customs office in relation to a custom declaration filed by the British Columbia tourist minister, Mrs. Pat Jordan, upon her return from a trip to the Orient in the summer of 1980.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), I should inform him that there has been no exchange of correspondence between the Department of National Revenue and the government of British Columbia, nor with any other government offices mentioned in this motion, in relation to a customs declaration filed by Mrs. Pat Jordan. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the motion be withdrawn?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would question the propriety of another member transferring for debate a motion not standing in his own name.


Benno Friesen: And he was not in his place.


David Michael Collenette: And he was not in his place either. Since it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said it, I am sure that he knows the rules better than I do.
COPY OF TASK FORCE REPORT ON BIO TECHNOLOGY Motion No. 50-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the task force report on Bio Technology.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
April 8, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Domm:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, notes, transcripts and all other communications exchanged between the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and senior departmental officials cited by the parliamentary secretary in the House on May 13, 1980, at page 1012 of Hansard.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 7, consideration of Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and motion No. 3-Mr. Beatty (p. 9053).
Mr. Fraser:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. When the debate concluded at ten o'clock last night we were on motion No. 3 and the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) was speaking. I took it that he had concluded, but we had not called a vote nor made a referral of the motion. According to the record, it has not been dealt with. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the Chair.


Madam Speaker:: Since 1 was not in the chair at the time, I will leave this matter to one of the assistants in the chair and I am sure he will be able to deal with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think we should deal with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) immediately. Do I understand that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) had completed his remarks on motion No. 3? If so, I will simply note that the normal course would be to defer the vote on that matter if no other members wish to speak. Could the Postmaster General contribute to the situation? If there are other hon. members who seek to be recognized on the motion, I will hear them.
[ Translation]


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that indeed I had completed my intervention last night and that in fact the Chair should have recognized another member who had risen and was seeking the floor. Motion No. 3 was not voted on last night, so we are still on motion No. 3.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, we offered amendments to this Post Office bill in committee, some of which were accepted and others refused. The clause by clause consideration of the bill in committee was speeded up so that it could be reported to the House prior to the Christmas adjournment. As a result, some of the matters before the committee were not given proper consideration, even though it sat till eleven o'clock one night. Some of the amendments which were not considered in committee are now before us.
After the Christmas adjournment, the House returned in early January. At that time we were given the assurance that we would deal immediately with this urgent legislation, but presumably between then and now it lost some of its urgency and is now treated by the government as filler legislation. Nevertheless, we take this bill very seriously. That is the reason the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) brought forward this motion, which specifically directs the publication of the salaries of people appointed as vicepresidents. Under clause 10 of the bill the board has the right to fix the salary of such number of vice-presidents as it considers necessary.
The object of this motion is to ensure that those salaries shall not exceed the scale fixed by the governor in council. In other words, we would not approve the appointment of a number of vice-presidents whose salary is determined without public knowledge. The bill provides that directors of the corporation are to be appointed by the minister of the Crown and the governor in council responsible for the corporation. It is only proper and right that the salary of that appointment should be fixed. There is no reason for the remark made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) last evening that the salaries of these officers would be hidden.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 which stand in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and myself, which are grouped for voting purposes, are similar in that they call for the direction of the governor in council to be published in The Canada Gazette. The point of these motions is to ensure that the public can see what is happening. We think that is important.
I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian public is very unhappy with the way in which the Post Office is operating at the present time under the direction of this minister. Indeed, the same is true of the situation under previous ministers. The minister has claimed that the Post Office works to 95 per cent efficiency. A letter sent by the Inspector General of Banks from Place Bell Canada to my office in the Centre Block took only seven days! I sent that information to the Postmaster General. This morning I received a letter from the Minister of health in the province of Ontario asking me to get together with him about the task force committee on inter-provincial financial relations. That letter took eight days to come from Toronto. If the minister regards that as good delivery, then he is quite right, because that is 95 per cent of the type of delivery we get and expect.
April 8, 1981

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to accept the appointment of vice-presidents without knowing the types of persons being hired and their salaries. Considering the experience we have had with this organization in the past, why should we allow the salaries of the chief executive officers to be kept from the public?
Last night the minister claimed that the corporation should have an element of independence. That is a laudable idea but it should not be entirely an independent organization. The minister does not claim that the organization is in competition with any other. Indeed, the whole tenor of the bill is to give the Post Office a monopoly on the delivery of letters. It is not a question of trying to protect the post office against competitors or of not allowing those competitors to know the internal workings and salaries of the executive officers of the Post Office. If it is not in competition with other companies or organizations, what is wrong with disclosure? Where is the competitive disadvantage that disclosure, or lack of it, would give the Post Office?
This bill is an attempt to establish a new corporation which will restore public confidence in the Post Office. The minister will not accept my colleague's amendment because he wants to hide something. This is not the way to build confidence in or a new sense of direction for this corporation. Surely the minister must go to the public and the House of Commons openly and say that all the cards will be laid on the table, disclosing who will be appointed vice-president and what salary will be paid. That is the kind of openness we want and we think that is necessary if this corporation is to be a success.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the hon. member for Wellington-Duff-erin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) did not take the opportunity to come to the committee to put forward this amendment. I think he has some concerns that he worries about.
However, I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn). We are not talking about whether salaries will be hidden; the amendment provides that we fix the salaries. Members of this party want to see the best representatives possible sitting on the board of directors.
We have some serious problems in the Post Office. We want that board to be able to select individuals who will represent the people of Canada. When that is done, the board will be presented to the governor in council for approval. We accept that. That kind of process was referred to in the committee. We accept the wording of the bill and, therefore, we oppose the amendment.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a few pertinent remarks specifically to the proposed amendment before the House. I listened with some interest to the comments made by the last speaker. Believe me, it would certainly be my intention, and I am sure the intention of all hon. members, that we have vice-presidents and other officers
Canada Post Corporation Act
of this intended Crown corporation who are competent and efficient and can inject some semblance of business judgment into the functioning of what otherwise has been a lacklustre and incompetent government department. However, that is an entirely different story, one which would take a great deal more time than the 20 minutes accorded me with respect to this matter. As I have indicated, I do not intend to take that long.
Let me deal with the provisions of the bill presented to us and the suggested amendments which have been made by our party. Clause 10(2) as it presently stands reads:
The board may, with the approval of the governor in council, appoint and fix the salary of such number of vice-presidents as it considers necessary.
On first reading one might come to the conclusion that it was intended that not only should the governor in council fix the number, but it should also fix the salary. I submit that on a strict legal interpretation of the words as they appear, that requirement of governor in council approval would be satisfied in the event that the corporation through its board, approached the governor in council and asked: "Will you grant to us the right to fix the salary and appoint the number of vice-presidents that we choose?" The governor in council would reply "Yes". Thereby the requirements of the subclause would have been met.
What we are concerned about is not whether we have efficient service-that is an entirely different matter-but whether at any time anyone but this corporation shall determine how many vice-presidents it has and how much they are paid.
In this bill we will be embarking upon a system foreign to Parliament, I submit. Yesterday I mentioned my views with respect to the laws, specifically regulations, affecting the public in Canada which this corporation may pass, and which, if breached, could result in fines or imprisonment of Canadian citizens.
We now have the board of this corporation entitled as of right to appoint 10,000 vice-presidents and pay them $1 million each, should the board so choose, without so much as the right to determine the number of vice-presidents or their salaries, I am not saying by Parliament, but at least by the governor in council. Surely the government at this stage is not fearful of the fact that it should exercise rights which a government is normally prepared to undertake and discharge.
If we examine the amendment, it simply has the effect of dividing up and removing any interpretation difficulty which currently exists, so that clause 10(2) would read:
The board may appoint and fix the salary of such number of vice-presidents as it considers necessary.
The board would have that authority, subject to what we propose by way of the addition of subclause (3) to clause 10, which provides:
The salaries fixed by the board pursuant to subsection (2) shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed by the governor in council for the Corporation.

April 8, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
That necessary amendment, I submit, is both logical and reasonable. I recommend it to the Postmaster General in the event that he can direct some attention to this matter. I recommend it also to our colleagues on the other side of the House. I hope all members of this House would take seriously the recommendations made by other members of this House who desire to serve the public and whose interest it is to see that taxpayers' dollars currently spent on this project, or postage revenue generated by this corporation, will be astutely administered. It is only prudent and reasonable that we should have some regard for the scrutiny that the government should give to determining the maximum salaries paid to vice-presidents of this intended corporation.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate for a few minutes in the debate on this amendment. I listened last night to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker). What we are debating is the formation of a monopoly. The hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke suggested that if the monopoly were to face a situation where it was no longer a monopoly but would have competition, the competition would then skim off the cream. In other words, all the profitable parts of the service would be skimmed off, and the Crown corporation would be left to deliver the unprofitable parts. I suppose that is a natural tendency.
I could agree with his proposal if the Post Office today would at least deliver the cream, but it does not. When it takes three weeks to deliver a letter from Toronto to Vancouver-or as someone has said, a penny a day is not bad-one wonders whether the Post Office is willing to deliver the cream.
One of the most important features we should incorporate into the operation of a monopoly is the process of scrutiny, to make sure that the monopoly is operating in the best interests of the public it is supposed to serve. I think the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke would agree with that. We must ensure that the public is protected from the callousness which is an inherent trait of human nature and is part of a monopolistic enterprise. I suggest we need an arm's length relationship to government by way of a commission to control this kind of monopoly. We have it in the telephone systems of Canada whereby the government by legislation creates a monopoly because it is the best way to deliver service to the Canadian people. If the cable systems of Canada are going to be a monopoly and the subscribers are going to be either the recipients or the victims of that monopoly, they deserve some protection from government by the creation of a commission to protect the subscribers.
Today a citizen goes to the post office and buys a stamp for 17 cents. The only assurance he has when buying that 17-cent stamp is that it will cost another 17 cents to deliver the letter. It actually costs 34 cents to deliver a letter. We have no guarantee of service.
Is the Crown corporation now being formed going to ensure that service is important? Will we have the same system of
priorizing the delivery of mail that we now have in the Vancouver post office, the distribution centre for British Columbia? First-class local mail receives first treatment, followed by provincial or national mail and then by international mail. During rush periods the international mail is piled up. It is set aside until such time as the rush is over. Then it is delivered. People wonder why it takes three, four or Five weeks for a letter from the U.K. to be delivered to a household in British Columbia. They do not realize that most of that time has been spent in storage in the post office in B.C.
Will there be a provision in the legislation that there be a regulatory commission which will ensure that the subscriber will receive maximum service from this Crown corporation?
The second trait that is inherent in human nature as it applies to a monopoly is that a monopoly tends to grow. With growth it tends to become inefficient. That is why I submit the amendment we are now debating is very intelligent and apropos to this Crown corporation.
I suggest the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke look at the experience of B.C. Hydro and see what has happened to that octopus over the past 20 years since it became a Crown corporation. He will see how much it has grown with seemingly very little checks against the kind of growth it has had. Would it not be circumspect in protecting the consumer that there be a built-in mechanism to ensure there are checks against unrestrained growth of this corporation? The board of directors should be limited as to the number of directors they can appoint. There should be no nepotism, no inflating of salaries. Limits should be set on salaries.
As the hon. member's party is so often willing to expound, people should go into the service in order to serve, not for what they can earn. If they want to serve on a Crown corporation which is serving the public, they should do so because they want to serve and not for the salary they are going to earn. Rest assured the vice-president and members of the board of directors of this Crown corporation will not be walking around with a tin cup. They will be adequately paid. However, there ought to be a limit and a check on growth in order to protect the consumer who would be forced into the monopolistic situation and, I submit, its inherent growth. I commend this amendment to the House and urge that members support it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
April 8, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now proceed to motion No. 4.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 45 and 46 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"addressed letters weighing fifty grams;".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must remind hon. members that when we studied this bill, and my hon. colleague opposite mentioned it in his remarks a while ago, we worked very quickly and very late into the night a few times and, unfortunately, an error was made. We forgot to delete the words "or less" in Clause 15(l)(e). I say simply to the hon. members that the purpose of motion No. 4 is to delete the words "or less" on page 8 of Bill C-42. This is a technical amendment; it is unimportant and of no consequence.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the minister would permit a question or two.


André Ouellet: Yes.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The minister is removing the words "or less". The concern has been expressed to me that we will end up with a postage system which does not have a charge for 50-grams exactly. That is unrealistic. As the minister knows, this charge was worked out in order to accommodate a charge for courier service delivery. It was intended that there be in effect an escalation, that as postal rates went up the minimum charge a courier could make would go up at the same rate as a 50-gram letter. Can the minister clarify that and give us an undertaking that at the 50-gram rate now, a courier could in effect deliver a piece of correspondence for around $1.20.


André Ouellet: By removing the words "au plus" in French and "or less" in English, the weight is specifically mentioned. The paragraph then reads as follows:
Canada Post Corporation Act
letters of an urgent nature that are transmitted by a messenger for a fee at least equal to an amount that is three times the regular rate of postage payable for delivery in Canada of similarly addressed letters weighing fifty grams;
The specific weight must be indicated. If we say "or less" it could be interpreted as meaning that a certain discretion can be used. Our purpose is precisely to set a fixed weight, that is, 50 grams in this case. Our schedule will set the cost for a 50-gram letter at so much, and those who want to use private couriers can do so despite the fact they will be charged three times the amount asked by the Post Office Department for a 50-gram letter.
In this instance, to answer the question of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), it would cost about 80 cents.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, we argued this point out in committee. The courier service portions were areas of deep concern when we were in the committee. We lost our concerns there. This is a part of a housekeeping portion of the bill which we fought for very strongly in committee. We lost, in the committee, on the courier portions of it, and we accept this housekeeping change.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe) moved:: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be amended in Clause 17, by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor: 'sender or addressee thereof or at the request of the government of any country or any independent postal authority, or in the event of an industrial dispute, insurrection or war';
He said: Mr. Speaker, I indicated last night while speaking in support of motion No. 1 of my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), the particular bill with which we are dealing this afternoon and which would create a Crown corporation of the Post Office was referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments at the same time as the subject matter of the bill was sent to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
The Chair will remember that back in July the standing joint committee tabled report number four to the House of Commons in which we requested that as a matter of procedure in the future all bills at second reading stage should have their regulation-making authority referred to our committee for

April 8, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
expert study and for recommendation to the House, and to the policy committee which would study the bills with a view to making amendments.
I think the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) will concur that the hon. members of the standing joint committee proceeded with great expedition to consider the regulation-making authority in the bill and make recommendations in our report to the House as quickly as possible, and that the exercise was useful and helped us to get a grip on the whole issue as to what was involved in the regulation-making authority the government was requesting.
What would be the implications of giving the government that authority? As the Chair is aware, and as the Postmaster General will be aware, the committee, in many instances, has brought to the attention of Parliament the fact that often bills are passed by Parliament which give the government regulation-making authority beyond that which is needed, and beyond that which has ever been justified to Parliament. We recognize it is a role for regulations to play, that the government must ask Parliament for authority to operate by regulation from time to time. However, we should recognize that whenever the government asks for that authority, it is asking for discretion to change law on the basis of delegated legislation, to change the law in a way which may affect the rights and privileges and incomes of Canadians.
What we find here is yet another clause where the Postmaster General is asking that the government be given the right to pass regulations. In this instance it would affect the ability of the Post Office to delay mail. The members of the standing joint committee recognize the fact that in some instances there is justification for withholding mail and not allowing it to go through. The Postmaster General was kind enough, when he was before the committee, to give explanations as to why he felt it was necessary that power be given to the Post Office to hold and not deliver mail in some instances. The committee considered the arguments of the Postmaster General and found them persuasive. It found that there was justification for holding and not delivering mail in some instances. However, it felt that the regulation-making authorities being asked for by the Postmaster General were far too broad, that he was asking for regulation-making authority which was not sufficiently justified to Parliament, and that all of the purposes for which he was asking authority to hold mail and not to deliver it could be accomplished by being more specific in the bill itself. Consequently, when the committee made its report to Parliament, paragraph 11 of that report dealt with this particular issue. It is a brief paragraph, and I think it would be useful to put it into the record. It reads as follows:
Paragraph (m) of Clause 17(1) contains a very large and vague grant of enabling power permitting the making of regulations 'providing for the holding of mail by the Corporation at the request of the sender or addressee thereof-
The following words are in italics in our report:
-or in any other circumstances specified in the regulations'. The underlined words (the italicized words) carry with them the potential for the holding of mail for purposes not now envisaged. The reason for this inclusion was explained to your committee as being, first, to accommodate bulk mailers who mail in advance, which would seem to be a matter covered by the first part of the
paragraph and, secondly, to cope with situations in which, because of strikes, insurrection or war, overseas mail is 'embargoed'. Your committee recommends that the underlined words be deleted and that some such words as the following be added:
'or at the request of the government of any country, or any independent postal
authority in the event of industrial disputes, insurrection or war.'
If the minister agrees with the amendment our committee has proposed, it would cover all of those instances where the Postmaster General has indicated he has given any justification to Parliament or to our committee for a decision by the Post Office to not deliver mail.
As I indicated previously, the committee felt that in some instances, if, indeed, there was a war or insurrection or postal disruption in another country, and if that country would prefer, because of the chaos, that mail be held until order be restored, that it is appropriate. If bulk mailers were to deliver large quantities of mail to the post office and ask that it be held and not delivered until a certain day, that would be absolutely appropriate also. That is simply a matter of providing service to a customer and ensuring that the needs of customers are met.
The committee had no complaints about that whatsoever. Our concern came from the fact that the government was asking for the authority to make regulations which went well beyond the scope of any justification ever given to Parliament. What we have stressed in report after report is that where the government asks for the authority to make regulations and where Parliament is delegating that authority to the executive and to the government, the government has the responsibility to first justify to Parliament the need for that regulation-making authority. If it can justify it, so be it. If it can justify only a portion of that authority, and if it is possible to spell out, in the wording of an amendment or specific clause or paragraph of a bill, exactly what it is that the government needs the authority for, so be it.
We believe the regulation-making authority held by the government, which is given by Parliament and which is out of the hands of Parliament, by and large, after it is given to the government, should be as constrained as possible. It should have been first justified and explained to Parliament and the Canadian people. Only that power and that regulation-making authority which has previously been justified to Parliament should be granted to the government.
As the committee report pointed out, the amendment which we have proposed here today would cover all of those instances which the Postmaster General proposed to our committee as justification for the withholding of mail.
If the government had other concerns as well, and if the Postmaster General had raised other concerns which could have been justified, we would have been prepared to see them also written into the bill in an explicit way, but we have tried to cover all those areas mentioned by the Postmaster General as being appropriate areas for the government to have the authority not to deliver mail which has been put into the system.
April 8, 1981

As joint chairman of the standing joint committee 1 should mention the fact that it is very uncommon in our committee for votes to be taken. To the best of my knowledge only once during my tenure as joint chairman has a vote been taken, and over the course of the past six or seven years I have been able to check only on a handful of occasions have any votes been taken. The committee functions by consensus and by all-party agreement. As a result it functions well. It is not a partisan committee. It is one which functions on the basis of co-operation, consensus and agreement.
The recommendation which is being made here today is the verbatim recommendation which was made by the committee when it made its report to Parliament after its scrutiny. It is the unanimous recommendation of our committee, without dissent on either side of the House. I think, therefore, it would be appropriate for members on all sides of the House to accept the recommendation made by the standing joint committee.
The motion I have on the Order Paper today does not go beyond that. It attempts to address every one of the concerns which were expressed by the Postmaster General when he appeared before our committee. We believe the amendment proposed is reasonable, and I hope it will receive the support of the Postmaster General and hon. members from all sides of the House.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the comments of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) who was co-chairman of the Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, I would like to remind him that the members of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which was considering Bill C-42 had on hand the report of the joint committee and were fully aware of its recommendations about Bill C-42. In fact, the committee accepted a number of recommendations from the joint committee. However, the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates did not accept that specific recommendation concerning section 17(l)(m) of Bill C-42.
The committee did not accept that recommendation for some very simple reasons and in trying to make that clause more specific, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe himself reveals the basic flaw in his argument against the general power to hold back the mail. There are circumstances other than those he points out where the mail must be kept back, especially when the identity of the owner of the mail is doubtful, when the recipient has just died or in the case of a litigation, when a letter is sent to a couple that is separated or divorced. Therefore we can see that it is impossible to anticipate all the cases in the regulations. Which fully demonstrates, in my opinion, that these words are absolutely necessary.
There is another reason why I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, and it is that there is no need to delete the words in
Canada Post Corporation Act
question, for they provide in fact the necessary flexibility in the regulations, for these regulations will appear in advance in The Canada Gazette and will be there for the public to examine. Is this advance publication procedure not an adequate protection for this kind of situation? As a matter of fact, it is because of the usefulness of this procedure that it became one of the recommendations which the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe had presented himself, to be among those recommendations of the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments which have been accepted by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and which we included in Bill C-42 when we amended it in the parliamentary committee.
I think this procedure is a guarantee and a protection, and that the text in its present form represents the ideal solution. Accordingly, I urge the House not to accept the motion of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe and I recommend that it be negatived.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, we have before us another amendment moved by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). It also was not presented to the committee for its consideration. I would like to discuss the amendment for a moment. It says the following should be substituted:
"sender or addressee thereof or at the request of the government of any country or any independent postal authority, or in the event of-"
I want to emphasize this.
"-an industrial dispute, insurrection or war;"
Surely to goodness the Conservative party and the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe do not want to lump the working people of the Post Office in with war or the possibility of war. Surely they do not want to lump an industrial dispute in with a war. Is that the kind of working relationship we want to bring about with postal workers? We are trying to bring about a change. We are trying to bring about a new Crown corporation in the desire that management and the workers will work together. Now hon. members bring in an amendment which refers to postal workers at the same time as it refers to these other eventualities. Surely to goodness that is not the intent of this amendment.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Have you read it?


Sidney James Parker: Yes, I have read it. The hon. member is asking that in the event there is an industrial dispute or war there will be certain changes. Surely to goodness we cannot put an industrial dispute in the same category as the possibility of war with another country.
There is legislation under which there can be mediation, negotiation, conciliation and so forth. This new Crown corporation will come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour, and the workers will be governed by the various provisions of the Canada Labour Code. I resent very much the

April 8, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
possibility of an amendment which deals with postal workers in that type of atmosphere.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It doesn't.


Sidney James Parker: We are talking about working relationships in the Post Office. We are trying to bring about co-operation among the various groups working within a framework which would give them the same protection under the Canada Labour Code as that enjoyed by any other worker in Canada. We cannot support this amendment as it presently stands.
I wish the hon. member had brought this amendment in during the committee stage so it could have been discussed openly in the committee. If some of these amendments had been brought forward at the committee stage, we could have used the mechanism of the committee stage to discuss them and finalize them in order to get the good service in the Post Office we are looking for. If that had been done, when the bill returned to the House we would have been able to deal with it, complete our deliberations and pass the bill instead of having to deal with these amendments at this time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hysterical friend would permit a question so that his comments can be clarified.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Would the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) permit a question?


Sidney James Parker: Yes.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask my friend whether, first of all, he is aware of the fact that the procedure which was followed was that the standing and joint committee made its report while the matter was still before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates with a view to ensuring that the miscellaneous estimates committee study the report. Second, could he indicate to the House whether he is aware of the fact that the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), a member of his party, was one of the members of our committee which unanimously made the recommendation he has just announced? Third, when he is complaining about lumping in postal workers with the matter of a civil war, is he aware of the fact that all the amendment said is that the Post Office would have the right not to deliver mail to another country if there was a civil war or an insurrection in that country or if there was a breakdown in the Post Office which would make it impossible for them to deliver mail, and that they would simply request Canada to hold the mail in Canada until they were able to get that straightened out? How does the hon. member feel that that is an affront to Canadian postal workers, and what does that conceivably have to do with the Canada Labour Code?


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that this was discussed in committee. The committee reported and, as the minister stated, it was taken into consideration at the committee meeting. I want to say also that that is not the intent of the hon. member's amendment. The amendment says
"in the event of an industrial dispute". The corporation comes under the Canada Labour Code in such cases. That is the question with regard to the comment made by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who is not here to defend himself, and I cannot answer that question.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was very amused by my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker). I am afraid he does not realize that this is a debate with respect to an amendment concerning the power of the governor in council to make regulations as set out in Clause 17 of the bill. We are dealing with paragraph (h) which, the way it is written now, would give the governor in council the right to make any damn regulation it felt like making, such as refusing to deliver mail for any reason. All it has to do is to promulgate a regulation as a result of which mail would not be delivered.
I am amazed that a party which pretends to look after the freedom of the individual would countenance a clause in a bill allowing the governor in council, or the government, to decide at any moment that the Post Office could refuse to deliver somebody's mail. That is what he is arguing. It is not a question of an industrial dispute. The hon. member for Well-ington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) wants to restrict the right of the governor in council to prevent the delivery of mail to the recipients, and he says that the regulations could apply only to a situation where a government of any country or an independent postal authority, in the event of an industrial dispute, an insurrection or a war, requests that mail be withheld. Those are the only grounds on which the governor in council will be able to direct that the Post Office not deliver mail. Surely the hon. member would not want the Post Office to have the right, under any circumstances whatsoever and at any time, to decide to prevent the delivery of mail to anybody through one of these regulations. That is what he says. The hon. member is in favour of that kind of provision. I am literally amazed to hear that from the Post Office critic for the NDP. Clearly he does not understand the bill. He hurled criticism at my friend, the hon. member for Wellington-Duff-erin-Simcoe who, together with the colleague of the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke, the hon. member for Burnaby, and other members, was involved in the regulatory process of studying this very clause and made the recommendation in a unanimous report to ensure that the government's regulatory powers are restricted to what it actually needs.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) spoke on this matter. I am sure he meant to acknowledge that he was before the committee and that the only conceivable reasons he would ever have as Postmaster General to restrict the delivery of mail were those set out in the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe. The Postmaster General now comes to the House and says there might be a marital dispute, that somebody might be separated or divorced. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, will the Post Office be running around the country checking whether people are separated or divorced, checking on the addressees and making regulations with respect to whether any member here is mar-
April 8, 1981

ried, separated or divorced and whether the Postmaster General should have a specific regulation preventing delivery of mail to a divorced person or persons?
The Postmaster General must blush at the suggestion he made in the House that he should have the right to make regulations preventing the delivery of mail to people because they may be divorced or separated. Every time someone is divorced or separated and advises the Post Office of it, mail will be withheld. The governor in council will have to inquire into family relationships and promulgate special regulations respecting the stoppage of delivery of mail to such people. Surely the Postmaster General has come to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments and has advised the committee of all the conceivable reasons he might want to have the right not to deliver mail. The members of that committee said, yes, they would accept that, but they want the Postmaster General's regulatory power limited to what he says he needs. The Postmaster General said to that: "Oh, but I cannot remember all the powers I might want. I might want the right to make regulations in any circumstance specified in the regulation". That is a carte blanche right to make regulations to refuse to deliver mail. What could be more improper? The Postmaster General went to the committee and explained why he wanted the right. So the committee gave him everything he wanted. But he wanted more, and he cannot tell us why he wants more except that there may be some divorced or separated person somewhere to which this could apply. That is his only reason.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to raise one point because I am becoming somewhat aggravated over the suggestion or insinuation of the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) that we should not bring out in the House what was discussed in the committee. Through the evolution of parliamentary procedures it has been recognized that relatively few members of the House are members of committees. There is provision for those who were not on the committee and those who were on the committee to make amendments, suggestions and changes in the proper order. If the hon. member refers to Standing Order 75(8), he will see that any amendment should be open to debate and amendment.
Let us not have any more of these suggestions that because it went through committee we are not supposed to discuss it or change it here. This is entirely different from Committee of the Whole. That provision is not provided for Committee of the Whole because all members are members of Committee of the Whole so, there is no report stage.
At report stage the hon. members who are presenting these amendments have every right to do so, and we have every right to debate them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Canada Post Corporation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Wellington-Duffer-in-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
If hon. members will permit me a moment, I would like to give them the benefit of the Chair's grouping for the remaining motions. Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 seem to be proceduraliy acceptable and could be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 are similar in part and should be debated together, with a vote on motion No. 6 disposing of motion No. 7.
Motion No. 12, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), the effect of which is to dissolve the corporation, based on Parliament sitting or not sitting in a particular year on a specific number of days, seems to be out of order on the ground that it goes beyond the scope of the bill.
The long title of the bill reads:
An act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other Acts.
I refer the hon. member to Citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's fifth edition which reads as follows:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope-
For that reason, regrettably I cannot accept the hon. member's motion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some discussion with the Chair with respect to the order Your Honour made a moment ago. To a large extent, that grouping and ruling was given last evening.
In the interests of the proceeding of the House, I was wondering whether your order could deal with motions Nos. 6 and 7 and leave the question with respect to motion No. 12 outstanding for the time being.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It was in error that I delivered this ruling at this time as it was delivered last night. I ask hon. members to excuse me for making this ruling a second time. This matter has been dealt with, and the House will now consider motion No. 6.

April 8, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be amended in Clause 20.
(a)	by striking out line 42 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor: "governor in council may"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 18 at page 13 the following new subsection:
"(4) The minister shall cause every direction given to the corporation and an estimate of any increased costs or losses likely to be incurred by the corporation as a result of complying therewith to be laid before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting after the day the direction was so given."
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could say a word or two about the purpose of this amendment. Clause 20 (1) of the bill reads as follows:
In the exercise of its powers and the performance of its duties, the corporation shall comply with such directions as the governor in council or the minister may from time to time give to it.
The effect of Clause 20 is to allow the minister, the governor in council or the cabinet to give directions to the new Crown corporation in certain circumstances where, in the public interest, it is deemed by the minister or cabinet that a specific direction would be appropriate. However, there is nothing in the clause, as it now stands, which requires that the direction, once having been given, must be made public.
When Clause 20 was in front of the committee before Christmas, I argued strenuously that directions were legitimate but that they ought not to be kept secret. On the basis of that I moved an amendment in committee which would have required, after a direction is given, that it be then properly laid before Parliament where it could be examined by members of Parliament and the public.
At the time the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) was not disposed to accept that amendment and, as a consequence, it was defeated. Since then I have made it clear on a number of occasions in public statements that my party viewed the secret aspect of these directions very seriously and that we hoped, as soon as the government realized the degree of seriousness with which we view this particular problem, there might be some disposition on the part of the government to rethink its position taken in committee.
The Postmaster General knows I pointed out that the problem with secret directions is that management, as a consequence of a direction, may very well have to make a management decision which might be quite inexplicable, unless it was made clear that the decision was being made as a consequence of the direct intervention of the Government of Canada.
Those members of the House who concern themselves with the labour relations aspect of the Post Office ought to be very aware that unions negotiating with the management of the Post Office ought not to feel that somewhere behind the curtain secret directions are being given to management by government which could affect negotiations.
I want to emphasize that in no way am I opposed, or is my party opposed, to the government having the power to give a direction to the Post Office. I will not take the time of the House now to go into the ramifications of that or the need for that power to be in there in the event it has to be used in the public interest. But the point which I have made in the past, a point which the Postmaster General fully appreciates, is that if there are to be directions given, and if those directions are presumably in the public interest, as they ought to be, then there is nothing wrong with being sure they are made public subsequent to the direction being given so that everyone can tell exactly on what matters Post Office management or Post Office affairs are being directly influenced by the action of the government itself. When the matter was in committee I made it clear to the Postmaster General that I did not oppose the right of the Postmaster General, that is the minister in Section 20, or the governor in council from giving these directions.
I now want to turn to a procedural matter. I will raise it now and then wait for the Postmaster General to speak. In motion No. 6, Mr. Speaker, you will notice that paragraph (a) says:
(a) by striking out line 42 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"governor in council may"
The effect of that would be to change Clause 20 so that only the governor in council could give a direction and not the minister. I had not noticed this before and it was only brought to my attention by the Postmaster General earlier today. That was not the intent of what I raised in committee, and it is not my intent now that a motion go forward which would mean that the direction could only come from the governor in council and not from the minister. I make the suggestion through you, Mr. Speaker, that this can be corrected. Motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South is identical to my motion No. 6, except for the fact that the hon. member for Mississauga South does not have the part in his motion referring to the elimination of the minister as having the power to make a direction.
I would therefore suggest that when this matter is considered perhaps I could be allowed to withdraw, by consent, motion No. 6 and that motion No. 7 proposed in the name of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Mississauga South, go forward. I suggest the House could dispose of this matter on that basis.
I now refer to the order of the Chair of last night, which Mr. Speaker just repeated in error. The order of the Chair last night said that motions Nos. 6 and 7 should be debated together and that motion No. 6 would be dealt with, thus disposing of motion No. 7 because the substance was the same. What I am suggesting now is that with the consent of the House I withdraw motion No. 6 and that motion No. 7 be the motion we now address ourselves to.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, when these amendments were proposed my friend was tied up with another committee. We discussed these motions and you will notice they are identical.
I respect my hon. friend's suggestion with respect to making
April 8, 1981

sure that the directives could come from the minister and not just the governor in council. I therefore accept the suggestion that motion No. 6 be withdrawn and we debate motion No. 7. The essence of the motion is to make sure-


André Ouellet: In reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), I should like now to inform hon. members that if there is the unanimous consent of the House to dispose forthwith of motion No. 6 and to proceed with consideration of motion No. 7, I should be quite willing to accept motion No. 7 as moved by the hon. member for Mississauga South.


Henry Perrin Beatty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will, of course, accede to the request by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). At this point I think it would be useful to bring to the attention of the House the provisions in the Crown corporations bill which was introduced by the Clark government, Bill C-27. It contained two essential elements, one of which is covered in my colleague's motion No. 7, which the House will be proceeding with.
The other element would have restricted the government to directives issued by the governor in council and not by a single cabinet minister. The reason for that was that the Crown corporations task force and the government of the day felt that the concept of interfering in the day to day operations of a Crown corporation, by the issuance of a directive, was sufficiently serious as to warrant a decision being made by the cabinet as a whole and not by a single minister. Consequently, the decision was made at that time to require that it be the governor in council and not a single minister who would issue a directive. However, it was the motion in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver South, and is part of the agreement with the minister that motion No. 7, which would at least eliminate the secret nature of directives, go forward and that his be withdrawn. Consequently, I would give my consent to the withdrawal of my colleague's motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House has heard the request of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) that motion No. 6 be withdrawn and that motion No. 7 be debated.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Agreed and so ordered.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be amended in Clause 20 by adding immediately after line 18 at page 13, the following new subsection:
"(4) The minister shall cause every directive given to the corporation and an
estimate of any increased costs or losses likely to be incurred by the corporation as a result of complying therewith to be laid before Parliament on any of
Canada Post Corporation Act
the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting after the day the directive was so given."
* *
*


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-59, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, without amendment.
 *
*



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on this amendment. I share the concern of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) that present Clause 31 will lead to some very undesirable situations. This is not only my opinion; I share the concern of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. I know this group has written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressing its concerns, and I imagine the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) has received a copy also. I will deal with those objections in a moment.\nThe amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South does a number of things. First, it eliminates a very long section and replaces it with a short and clear section. Any time we can shorten up legislation and get rid of any questions which might arise through wordiness is a good thing. We have a servant of Parliament here, the Auditor General, who reports annually to Parliament. Because his report is tabled in Parliament, the information therein is accessible to all Members of Parliament through the proper channels. For example, there is an automatic reference to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.\nIf we leave the clause as it is, we find in Subsection 7 that we will have a report made by the auditors to the corporation under this section transmitted to the minister by the auditors at the same time as such report is transmitted to the corporation. That does not give access to parliamentarians or to Parliament itself, except when the minister decides that such a report should come before Parliament. We have seen examples over the years of ministers sitting on reports like this because there is something in them which the minister happens to think should not come before Parliament. Parliament relies heavily on the advice of the Auditor General, as does the Standing\nCanada Post Corporation Act\nCommittee on Public Accounts. If we have our servant of Parliament reporting to Parliament, then there will be no secrets. In other words, no information will be lost. If we have outside auditors reporting to the minister, then we have no idea what information will filter down to Parliament.\nTo be fair, in Section 33, which is the reporting section, we find that the corporation shall submit to the minister an annual report in such form as he may prescribe relating to the activities of the corporation. Further on in Section 33(1) we read:\n-the minister shall lay the report before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting after the day he receives it.\nWe have also seen that annual reports of corporations, such as this, do not necessarily include the report of the auditor of that corporation. Therefore, if the Auditor General does not perform the audit of this corporation, Parliament will be laying itself wide open.\nThe minister has told us, and he has told me as well, that he wants to keep Section 31 as it is because he is going to rely on the proposed changes in the Crown Corporations Act, which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) indicates he is ready to introduce in the House as soon as he gets the approval required from other places.\nThe House has not seen that act. I do not know what it is going to say, of course. If it is going to say something other than what the amendment my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South, proposes, then I still think it will be a loss for Parliament in that we will not have that information available to us.\nI think I should share with the House some of the concerns of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. As I said, the president of that body has written the Prime Minister. Having reviewed the bill, the institute found Section 30, the only section dealing with auditors and the audit report, deficient in several areas. The institute has outlined those areas, such as follows:\nAn audit committee: the duties of an audit committee; the auditor's right to attend the audit committee's meetings, or to call a meeting; and the duty of directors and officers to inform the audit committee of errors or misstatements in the financial statements.\nMost Crown corporations have audit committees; whether it is the Auditor General or private auditors, it does not matter. Apparently, the post office corporation would not be required to have an audit committee. The situation when an auditor ceases to hold office, whether it be through death, resignation or the appointment of a successor, is not adequately covered. The bill does not provide for the right of an auditor to submit to a board of directors or the appropriate minister the reasons for his resignation or why he opposes the proposed actions. In the profession, a replacement auditor is required to seek out reasons from the previous auditor, but the retiring auditor should be required to give his reasons for resignation or, if he has been disposed of, before his expiry time. There are no provisions for the removal of an auditor or the right of an auditor to provide essential information. That is one of the things this Parliament has provided the Auditor General, that", 'April 8, 1981\nCanada Post Corporation Act\nis, the right of access to essential information. The bill does not provide for the qualified privilege of an auditor\'s report and statements.\nNor does it provide the use by the corporation of generally accepted accounting principles as set forth by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. For those of us who have been looking at Post Office reports over the years, I think we would like to be assured that the corporation will use generally accepted accounting principles. Furthermore, there is no provision for the annual attest audit of the corporation\'s financial statements or the auditors\' report on them. The bill should contain provisions similar to the Canada Business Corporations Act, which calls for both the audit and the audit report.\nThe provisions in Clauses 30(1) and (2) for the governor in council to appoint joint auditors, each for a two-year term, is regarded by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants as "an expensive and awkward procedure that offers few significant benefits." It is one which the CICA thinks should not be included.\nThe minister made a reference to a list of Crown corporations that have private auditors. I do not have the list with me, but there are dozens, if not hundreds of Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General. I think at the last count we found 436 Crown corporations. If some of them are audited by private corporations, then the rest obviously are done by the Auditor General. I believe the minister mentioned the Canadian National Railways and other Crown corporations which have private auditors.\nAs I said earlier, the access to information by Parliament from those corporations is not as good as it is from corporations which have the Auditor General as their auditor. We are now going through an experience of another Crown corporation which no longer wants the Auditor General as its auditor. It has taken steps which I have questioned in the House with the energy minister. That corporation is Eldorado Nuclear. It is in the process of getting rid of the Auditor General in order to turn its auditing over to the private sector. This will remove that corporation from the purview of Parliament. It may go some way toward destroying the right of parliamentarians to see that comprehensive audits are carried out where necessary.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa
April 8, 1981
Madam:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 8th day of April, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a bill.
1 have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and motion No. 7 (Mr. Blenkarn).
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the minister correctly he indicated that he is prepared to accept this motion. I see he is nodding his head so there is no point in spending the time of the House to speak in favour of the motion. I think we have had enough discussion and, if the minister is prepared to accept the motion, we could perhaps put the question.

April 8, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in favour of this motion also. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) fought hard for it in committee. We supported them there and we support them here tonight.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[ Translation]
André Ouellet: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be amended in clause 29 by striking out line 45 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"the next estimates laid before Par-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, again this is a small technical amendment which was suggested to us by the legal adviser of the House of Commons. If we read Bill C-42, at page 15, we can see the words "in the next Appropriation Act laid before Parliament". The legal adviser of the House of Commons has suggested that we use instead the words "the next estimates laid before Parliament", and that is the amendment I propose.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be amended by deleting clause 31 and substituting the following therefor: "31. The accounts and financial transactions of the Corporation shall be
audited annually by the Auditor General."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a long clause which provides that the corporation will have two auditors. A number of other clauses provide how they shall work. It is the position of this party that the Auditor General of Canada, who is developing a comprehensive system of auditing Crown corporations in order to protect the public interest and to make the disclosure that parliamentarians and the whole country require, should audit the corporation. We do not need companies such as Touche Ross or Coopers & Lybrand and the like to audit the postal
corporation at government expense. This corporation is not in real competition with other private corporations. Its purpose, presumably is to facilitate the government's mandate to deliver the mail. This department of government is to become a corporation but it will not be a corporation like Air Canada or Canadian National Railways. By its very nature it is subject to directive by governor in council, to ministerial directive; indeed, almost everything it does, including setting postal rates, is subject to direction by the governor in council. That being the case it is essential that Parliament's auditor conduct the audit of the corporation. I could say a great deal about the cost of private auditing. Parliament's auditor should do the work in accordance with the kind of report required by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This corporation will be something like Statistics Canada or Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and it should be audited in the same fashion. To suggest that the Auditor General is not capable is to cast a slur on him; that just is not so.
This corporation must report to Parliament in the manner in which Parliament is accustomed to receiving reports. A comprehensive audit should be carried out and the auditing practices of the Auditor General of Canada should be followed year after year. The audit should not be farmed out to one auditing company or another. The way that the corporation operates, its profitability and the use of money Parliament from time to time may need to vote in the estimates to support its activities, should be part of Parliament's auditing practice. Indeed, the Comptroller General should be involved and the report of the Auditor General should come before the committees of Parliament.
We are not happy with the way the post office has operated in the past and so we are about to experiment with a new postal corporation. There are many ways of going about this and of doing audit. The hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) pointed out an instance where an auditing company put a great qualification on the balance sheet of de Havilland aircraft. That was a private audit. But where a qualification is required we think that Auditor General of Canada should explain the matter. Members of Parliament cannot ask a private auditing company to explain the details of the financial requirements of the corporation if they are not empowered to do so by a committee of the House. How are they to find out where the money is being spent and how effective and efficient the corporation is? It is our position that the Auditor General of Canada should audit this corporation and that motion No. 9 should be adopted.
[ Translation]	.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak against the amendment and point out to the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) that actually where the major Crown corporations in Canada are concerned, the Auditor General is not responsible for the auditing of their accounts. Corporations such as Air Canada, the Bank of
April 8, 1981

Canada, the Federal Business Development Bank, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and even the Cape Breton Development Corporation use the services of private firms of auditors.
It would therefore seem quite normal that a large organization such as the Canada Post Corporation be authorized to hire auditors from the private sector. In any event, I believe this question will be settled not as if it were a separate issue but in a general way since it will be covered in the omnibus bill soon to be introduced by my colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). Therefore I would much rather leave Bill C-42 as it is and settle that question later in the omnibus bill.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this amendment. It came up in committee and it was discussed quite thoroughly. The minister said the same thing today he said in committee. I am pleased to see the Conservative Party recommending that the private sector not do the audit and the Auditor General do it instead. We agree with that procedure. We said so in committee and we say it here. We support this amendment.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on this amendment. I share the concern of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) that present Clause 31 will lead to some very undesirable situations. This is not only my opinion; I share the concern of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. I know this group has written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressing its concerns, and I imagine the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) has received a copy also. I will deal with those objections in a moment.
The amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South does a number of things. First, it eliminates a very long section and replaces it with a short and clear section. Any time we can shorten up legislation and get rid of any questions which might arise through wordiness is a good thing. We have a servant of Parliament here, the Auditor General, who reports annually to Parliament. Because his report is tabled in Parliament, the information therein is accessible to all Members of Parliament through the proper channels. For example, there is an automatic reference to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
If we leave the clause as it is, we find in Subsection 7 that we will have a report made by the auditors to the corporation under this section transmitted to the minister by the auditors at the same time as such report is transmitted to the corporation. That does not give access to parliamentarians or to Parliament itself, except when the minister decides that such a report should come before Parliament. We have seen examples over the years of ministers sitting on reports like this because there is something in them which the minister happens to think should not come before Parliament. Parliament relies heavily on the advice of the Auditor General, as does the Standing
Canada Post Corporation Act
Committee on Public Accounts. If we have our servant of Parliament reporting to Parliament, then there will be no secrets. In other words, no information will be lost. If we have outside auditors reporting to the minister, then we have no idea what information will filter down to Parliament.
To be fair, in Section 33, which is the reporting section, we find that the corporation shall submit to the minister an annual report in such form as he may prescribe relating to the activities of the corporation. Further on in Section 33(1) we read:
-the minister shall lay the report before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting after the day he receives it.
We have also seen that annual reports of corporations, such as this, do not necessarily include the report of the auditor of that corporation. Therefore, if the Auditor General does not perform the audit of this corporation, Parliament will be laying itself wide open.
The minister has told us, and he has told me as well, that he wants to keep Section 31 as it is because he is going to rely on the proposed changes in the Crown Corporations Act, which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) indicates he is ready to introduce in the House as soon as he gets the approval required from other places.
The House has not seen that act. I do not know what it is going to say, of course. If it is going to say something other than what the amendment my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South, proposes, then I still think it will be a loss for Parliament in that we will not have that information available to us.
I think I should share with the House some of the concerns of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. As I said, the president of that body has written the Prime Minister. Having reviewed the bill, the institute found Section 30, the only section dealing with auditors and the audit report, deficient in several areas. The institute has outlined those areas, such as follows:
An audit committee: the duties of an audit committee; the auditor's right to attend the audit committee's meetings, or to call a meeting; and the duty of directors and officers to inform the audit committee of errors or misstatements in the financial statements.
Most Crown corporations have audit committees; whether it is the Auditor General or private auditors, it does not matter. Apparently, the post office corporation would not be required to have an audit committee. The situation when an auditor ceases to hold office, whether it be through death, resignation or the appointment of a successor, is not adequately covered. The bill does not provide for the right of an auditor to submit to a board of directors or the appropriate minister the reasons for his resignation or why he opposes the proposed actions. In the profession, a replacement auditor is required to seek out reasons from the previous auditor, but the retiring auditor should be required to give his reasons for resignation or, if he has been disposed of, before his expiry time. There are no provisions for the removal of an auditor or the right of an auditor to provide essential information. That is one of the things this Parliament has provided the Auditor General, that

April 8, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
is, the right of access to essential information. The bill does not provide for the qualified privilege of an auditor's report and statements.
Nor does it provide the use by the corporation of generally accepted accounting principles as set forth by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. For those of us who have been looking at Post Office reports over the years, I think we would like to be assured that the corporation will use generally accepted accounting principles. Furthermore, there is no provision for the annual attest audit of the corporation's financial statements or the auditors' report on them. The bill should contain provisions similar to the Canada Business Corporations Act, which calls for both the audit and the audit report.
The provisions in Clauses 30(1) and (2) for the governor in council to appoint joint auditors, each for a two-year term, is regarded by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants as "an expensive and awkward procedure that offers few significant benefits." It is one which the CICA thinks should not be included.
The minister made a reference to a list of Crown corporations that have private auditors. I do not have the list with me, but there are dozens, if not hundreds of Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General. I think at the last count we found 436 Crown corporations. If some of them are audited by private corporations, then the rest obviously are done by the Auditor General. I believe the minister mentioned the Canadian National Railways and other Crown corporations which have private auditors.
As I said earlier, the access to information by Parliament from those corporations is not as good as it is from corporations which have the Auditor General as their auditor. We are now going through an experience of another Crown corporation which no longer wants the Auditor General as its auditor. It has taken steps which I have questioned in the House with the energy minister. That corporation is Eldorado Nuclear. It is in the process of getting rid of the Auditor General in order to turn its auditing over to the private sector. This will remove that corporation from the purview of Parliament. It may go some way toward destroying the right of parliamentarians to see that comprehensive audits are carried out where necessary.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
["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).\nI think I have covered all of my points. I hope the minister\nwill see fit to reconsider the very sensible amendment of my At 6.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, friend from Mississauga South.\tpursuant Standing Order.", 'Thursday, April 9, 1981']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-59, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority.



Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) tell us what the business of the House will be tomorrow now that we have a respite from you know what?


David Michael Collenette: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with Bill C-42. Hopefully we shall be disposing of that bill tomorrow night; the amendments at report stage and also third reading. The business for Friday will be subject to discussion among the House leaders.


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).
I think I have covered all of my points. I hope the minister
will see fit to reconsider the very sensible amendment of my At 6.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, friend from Mississauga South.	pursuant Standing Order.

Thursday, April 9, 1981