1982-06-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the government is eating "crow" by giving back to the petroleum industry some $2 billion which it should never have taken in the first place, but so far the government has been unrepentant for extracting from consumers millions of dollars via the excise tax, the Canadian ownership tax, the tax on gasoline and heating oil, etc. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House condemns the Liberal government for its greed in levying these taxes and thus killing much of the industry, and for its refusal to help consumers by returning some of the ill-gotten taxes extracted from the aged, the crippled, common workers, businesses, farmers, fishermen and others.
Will this government show no compassion for the poor?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR INTRODUCTION OF PLANNED INCENTIVES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, in the past three months the prime lending rate in Germany has dropped from 13 per cent to 11.5 per cent, in Japan from 7 per cent to 6.4 per cent, and in the United Kingdom from 14 per cent to 13 per cent, but our prime rate went up to 17 per cent. Interest rates in Canada are now 2 per cent to 4 per cent higher than they are in the United States and will probably go higher, yet our currency is even weaker on foreign exchange markets. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the government produce a new fiscal plan for Canada involving incentives to investors, both Canadian and foreign, discontinue all programs prejudicial to new investment in the country, as in the National Energy Program and FIR A, and stop wasting foreign exchange to try to prop up, by artificial means, the exchange value of our currency.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that Canadian National has decided to reduce again its order of rails from the Sysco operation in Cape Breton, and since this latest cutback from 88,000 tonnes to approximately
44,000	tonnes will increase the number of jobs lost at both SYSCO and Devco, which latter supplies raw materials to Sydney Steel, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House condemns CN for its callous disregard for the worker force and the economy of Cape Breton, and further condemns the laissez faire attitude of Cape Breton's three Liberal Members of Parliament, including the Minister of Finance, who continue to talk about economic growth and ignore the decline which is devastating the entire Canadian economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in Newfoundland, Stephen Neary, stated on May 13 in the House of Assembly that he would not trust his federal Liberal colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), "as far as I can throw him", and that every action of the minister justifies this observation, and in view of the fact that the actions of the Liberal government in Ottawa since May 13 show conclusively that federal Liberals cannot be trusted even as far as they can be thrown, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):

June 2, 1982
That this House approves the statement made by the leader of the Liberal opposition in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, with the addendum that the federal Liberals in toto cannot be trusted even as far as they can be thrown.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby.


HIRING OF PARLIAMENTARY GUIDES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that there is significant evidence of the Liberal patronage machine at work in the hiring process for parliamentary guides this summer, and in view of the fact that the merit system established to hire guides was bypassed to hire three candidates who were not recommended, but rather were supported by Liberal Members of Parliament, including the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House respectfully requests the Speaker to appear before the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services to explain fully the reasons for the apparent revival of the Liberal patronage system in the hiring process for summer jobs on Parliament Hill.


Madam Speaker:: There are other ways of dealing with this, and I invite the hon. member to use those other channels.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program which began in 1974 was originally designed to train both present and new workers in skills. On April 1 this year this program, which had a previous budget of $102 million, was severely restricted and now can only be used by a company if new workers are hired and subsequently trained. This month Butler Metal Products Co. Ltd., of Cambridge, Ontario, was refused funds for upgrading skills of present employees, making such employees less employable and more likely to have to resort to unemployment insurance benefits. Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration re-examine the effect that the changes to the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program have had on skill training and direct his officials in the field to allow companies to upgrade the skill levels of their present employees if the result is increased productivity levels and a higher skilled work force.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT SUGGESTED DELETION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN PROPOSED LEGISLATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I believe that hon. members of all parties are concerned about human rights in Canada and, for that matter, throughout the world. In view of their concern for establishing and securing rights to true worship and the rights to our religious practices, I should like to call upon them to give unanimous support to this motion.
It has been brought to my attention that there have been complaints by some church groups regarding certain aspects of Bill C-10, the Canada Non-profit Corporations Act. Specifically, these church organizations are concerned about the possible appeal to the courts by a member disciplined by his corporation. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs delete Articles 114 to 116 inclusively from Bill C-10, the Canada Non-Profit Corporations Act, regarding the disciplining of members.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, this is another motion that will pass! The "Mandate", a Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey released today, shows that 52 per cent of the businessmen and businesswomen surveyed favour an immediate halt to Canada's national program of metrication. Only 43 per cent of the business community want to go ahead with metric in any form whatsoever. These results repeat and confirm the results of several national polls and surveys conducted in the last year or two which show that all sectors of Canadian society oppose metrication on extremely good and reasonable grounds. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That this House acknowledge the results of the CFIB survey on national metrication and accept the topic as a suitable and pressing subject for immediate debate with a view to halting the enforced move to metric.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
June 2, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, given the persistent attempts by the Minister of Finance to whitewash the government's dismal performance by chastising the United States for not bringing its deficit under control and for failing to bring interest rates down, and whereas the United States federal deficit is presently about half as large per capita as Canada's, U.S. mortgage rates are well below those available in Canada, and our dollar has crashed to less than 80 cents U.S. today. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist):
That the Minister of Finance be condemned for his skulking deceit in not having the decency to distinguish between President Reagan's successful attempts to cut taxes, to cut government spending and to restore incentives to private investors in contradiction to the failed experiment in MacEachenomics which translates into higher taxes, increased government squandering, and an outright attack on the integrity of Canadian business.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, you have before you some motions under Standing Order 26 which you will deal with later today, so my questions are directed to the Minister of Finance.
The minister will know that, one way or another, he spent about $1 billion last month propping up the dollar, at least another $225 million yesterday, and goodness knows how much today. He will know, from looking at the market, that his $750 million U.S. bond issue on the Euro-dollar market is now selling at a discount rate to yield 15 per cent. Can he tell this House what plans he has as Minister of Finance to improve the climate of confidence that the world might have in Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has related his question to changes in the international currency
Oral Questions
market, and has talked about changes in the official reserves. I think I should point out to the hon. member a fact which ought to be borne in mind, namely, that yesterday and in preceding days the Canadian dollar did weaken against the United States currency. But that is not a phenomenon unique to Canada. Most other OECD currencies weakened against the American dollar, which has been very strong because of high interest rates in the U.S. That is the cause of the situation affecting Canada and other countries.
Yesterday the hon. member was making quite a number of dire predictions about the fate of the dollar. I should remind him that even though the dollar went through 80 cents early this morning, by noontime it had made a significant rebound to 80.34 cents.


John Carnell Crosbie: How much did that cost you?


Mr. Broadbent:: How much did you spend?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That shows how careful the hon. member ought to be in making these unjustified predictions.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF POLICY
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, to keep the minister up to date, at two o'clock the dollar was 80.22 cents. We in this party would like to see a strong dollar. We would also like to see some action by the minister to improve the climate of confidence in Canada. Therefore I ask the minister when we might have a new financial statement of the aims of this government. We hope it would include some effort by the government to lessen the restrictions on foreign investment in Canada which would improve the climate of confidence for Canadian investors, and give entrepreneurs an incentive to invest in Canada so we can make it grow again and Canadians can have jobs again. When will the minister give us that kind of a statement? When can we have a new financial presentation from the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when the government decides it is appropriate to make a financial statement, then of course I will be glad to tell the House about it. However, I should tell the hon. member that if he is again linking the necessity for a statement by the Minister of Finance to currency movements, then presumably he will be urging the President of France, the Chancellor of West Germany, and the Prime Minister of Britain also to make statements in their countries, because each of those currencies have had precisely the same experience as the Canadian dollar has had in the last two days.
The hon. member should understand that this is a phenomenon which is being forced on all the currencies of the major industrialized countries as a result of the strength of the American dollar, which in turn is the result of very high interest rates in that country which are having such a very

June 2, 1982
Oral Questions
damaging effect on the economies of all countries of the industrialized world.


REQUEST THAT INTEREST RATES BE LOWERED
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, first of all the minister will know that the German currency in relation to the Canadian currency has strengthened by 3.8 per cent. The minister will know that we do not really worry about other currencies because 90 per cent of our trade is financed in American dollars.
In view of the fact that other countries have been able to have substantial reductions in their prime rates, for example, Germany from 13 per cent to 11.5 per cent in the past three months, and England from 14 per cent to 13 per cent, and in view of the fact that our T-bills are now selling for over 15.5 per cent, can we expect new high rates of interest in Canada tomorrow, or will the minister direct the Governor of the Bank of Canada to lower interest rates to give people in Canada a sense of confidence like people in other countries are getting from their governments and their central banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that there is no person who is doing more to restrain interest rate movements in the country than the Governor of the Bank of Canada. In light of the circumstances, the Governor of the Bank of Canada has to maintain a balance between the exchange rate and the short-term interest rates, in light of the pressure that is being placed upon both these rates on the exchange market and in the short-term market by the very powerful economy which the hon. member has mentioned. When he talks about the very high proportion of our trade with the United States, he is obviously admitting that that economy and its operations have a very heavy impact on what happens in this country.


EURO BOND BORROWING
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In his insistence that the Canadian dollar is strong, he sounds like the "Charles Atlas" of the financial world trying to build economic muscle under the twin weights of his massive capital outflows and huge budget deficits. If the Canadian dollar is so strong, why did the government have to float a $750 million issue on the Euro bond market which, I understand, is the largest single maturity issue ever raised in that market? Why would the Minister of Finance have to borrow that much money to add to our international reserves?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is prudent to maintain one's international reserves in good shape. There was an opening in the Euro dollar market for a bond issue of this size-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -at a rate more favourable than that at which such borrowings could be made in the United States. It was my decision to make that borrowing at this particular time. It does not seem to be a very unusual step because we have moved on previous occasions to borrow on the foreign market.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance who has not answered the question: is this the single largest maturity issue ever raised in the Euro bond market? It is a massive amount of borrowing that he has had to undertake to support the dollar.


MINISTER'S FORTHCOMING ATTENDANCE AT VERSAILLES SUMMIT CONFERENCE
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance recently went to Paris to learn that unemployment in Canada is at record levels. Is the minister going to the Palace of Versailles to learn that he is running the economy on the wrong economic track? The Prime Minister is also going to Versailles. Why is he going? Why is the Prime Minister not staying here to defend the dollar and his economic policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that I have been before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs twice in the last two days, and I have not heard from her or from any other member of the Conservative Party a single policy option that could be implemented at the present time by the Canadian government.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You sure did today.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will send you my speech of last week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We know the policy that we are following, but members of the Conservative Party have been unable in these difficult times to articulate any consistent policy that could be considered. I believe in that circumstance they are failing miserably in their duty to the people of Canada.


Mr. Jelinek:: Aren't you the government?


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Indeed the dollar has fluctuated down to its lowest level since the Depression, during the past 24 hours. The minister knows that the major reason for the decline of more than 5 cents since last fall is to be attributed to our record balance of payments deficit which exceeds some $6.6 billion. The short-run problem has been compounded in recent days by the government's failure in the energy field and its associated megaprojects.
Will the minister at long last recognize that we are in a state of economic crisis in the Canadian economy, that last fall's budget is completely outdated, and that we need a new budget
June 2, 1982

now? Will he announce the date of a new budget which will be brought down before the summer recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like to cooperate as much as possible with the hon. member, but it is not possible to announce a new budget date today.


REDUCTION IN ENERGY TAX REVENUE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a different version of the same question to the minister. I point out in the same context that last fall's budget assumed that the federal government would have some $61 billion in revenue coming in over the next five years from its National Energy Program. As a result of the announcements made two days ago, that amount has dropped a full $25 billion. In that context, and given the immense negative implications for the people of Canada in terms of the economic impact of that data, will the minister at least assure us today that he will announce, within 24 hours, the date of a budget which will be brought down before we recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot give that assurance.


INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to ask the minister once again, considering that since the budget came down in November. 58,000 men and women have been laid off in the province of British Columbia, unemployment in the province of Ontario in the first quarter has increased 111 per cent, and in the province of Quebec
75,000	men and women have been laid off in the manufacturing sector alone, will he acknowledge that he has some serious obligations to the people of the country and tell them, especially the unemployed, that they will have some prospect for jobs this summer because he will bring in a budget within the next month?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has correctly identified unemployment as a very serious problem in the economy. He knows that we are now in the midst of a world-wide recession and that unemployment levels are rising in every country of the world, or most countries in the industrialized world. In the next breath the hon. member goes on to suggest that there is some easy way out of this difficulty-


John Edward Broadbent: No, no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and that the magical wand is the presentation of a budget. The hon. member never tells us what policies he would recommend except policies which, if the Minister of Finance were unwise enough to accept them, would make the situation worse, would cause more inflation and more unemployment. That is the policy of the New Democratic Party which has been restated time and time
Oral Questions
again. It is not a policy which is followed by any government that I know in the industrialized world, including his socialist friends in Europe.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF POPULAR REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY
Madam Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of His Excellency Mr. Frigyes Puja, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of Hungary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. 1 should like to ask the minister why the Government of Canada, in taking over the fish processing plant in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, is moving by way of the fisheries Prices Support Board. Why is it directly taking over the plant through the aegis of a Crown corporation, instead of providing the necessary assistance in concert with the Government of Newfoundland to the operator of the fisheries products plant, which is a much more sensible arrangement? Why is the government proceeding this way?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue and I went quite some distance in our efforts to try to find a solution. 1 met with the company in question. We had very lengthy discussions. There were negotiations between representatives of my department and the company. In the end it was agreed that this was the only approach which would work. I recognize that it is not a perfect approach but I had to try to find a solution so that the fishermen, whose season was about to start, would have a counter at which to sell their fish. I made it clear that it is a one-year agreement or understanding until we can come up with some longer-term solution.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister did not address the crucial question of why he did not provide assistance to the operator in co-operation with the Newfoundland government, and why the Kirby task force was diverted from its principle function to put this deal together.

June 2, 1982
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, as welcome as the aid is, because it is an important plant, I have to ask the minister is it now the policy of the government to take over uneconomic plants directly and operate them in this way, or is this merely a move to bail out his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member's experience should really not allow him to get away that easily with that question. For example, he knows that we came to the assistance of the Grand Banks and the Gaultois operations when that company presented a business plan which was discussed with the bank and members of the Kirby task force. We found a solution. We made it very clear that it was a temporary solution while longer-term restructuring was taking place.
We met with the company and it made it very clear that it did not want to operate St. Anthony. We made it clear that we would come in with some form of assistance. They asked for something, I offered what they were asking for, and then they wanted something else. I simply had to find a solution to give the fishermen of that area enough hope that they could sell their fish as well as giving some plant workers some support for a year. We will see what happens in the restructuring.


CLOSURE OF FISH PLANT AT GEORGETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It also relates to the catastrophic state of the Canadian Fisheries industry. For example, H.B. Nickerson and Sons Limited of Prince Edward Island have shut down their Georgetown Seafoods Plant, eliminating nearly 400 jobs at one fell swoop.
The Prince Edward Island government has devised a strategy, and proposed it to the federal government, that would require the federal government to permit a fish quota for the plant in question large enough to make it profitable. Is the minister planning to accept the Prince Edward Island government's proposal since it is a reasonable one? If not, why not?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, in 1969 there were licensed vessels which brought fish to this plant which were sold to H.B. Nickerson Limited. They were moved to another part of the Maritime provinces. This policy was accepted at that time and there was, in fact, no absolute limitation of licences even on that size of vessel.
I made it clear in 1974 or 1975 that the dislocation of traditional landing patterns would not be allowed by a wholesale move of licences from one area to another. Unfortunately, the proposal made to me by the Prince Edward Island government would have implied dislocation to another area in the Maritime provinces. This left no room for substantive negotiations with the company which has the control of those licences at the present time.
In light of that proposal, which simply was not workable, I have been waiting for other proposals. I have been willing to try to sustain Georgetown if serious negotiations were to take place with H.B. Nickerson in an attempt to divert some fish to Georgetown. That proposal has not been brought forth yet.


ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, if the minister is not prepared to accept the eminently reasonable proposal of the P.E.I. government to keep the Georgetown Seafoods plant open, even though that proposal is approved by Nickerson and Sons Limited, the company concerned, does the minister have an alternative plan to protect the jobs at Georgetown Seafoods? Does he at least accept the principle that such plants in the region must be kept open and that the federal government has a vitally important role to play toward that end?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I very much hope that the information which those questions appear to convey is very carefully examined. The fact is the proposal which was presented to me would have, or could have meant serious dislocation to plants in another area of the Maritime provinces, in this case Cape Breton.
I made it very clear that I was willing to exert some authority to ensure that the normal flow of fish which had been coming to Georgetown over a number of years would continue. Unhappily, the proposal which I had before me would have meant taking licences away very arbitrarily from one area to put them into another area of the Maritimes. I am afraid I could not do that.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As commendable as the agreement is between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to protect Canadians from the impact of chemicals and certain herbicides, has the minister had an opportunity to study with her department the product called Lontrel which was developed by Dow Chemical, and which increases the yield of a field by some 30 per cent? This product is being used by our competitors in other countries. People who use this product would be quite prepared to sign any kind of release required. Has the minister had an opportunity to study whether or not this particular product might be made an exception?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, with respect to this problem which the hon. member has raised with me on several occasions, according to the actual rules of the game in the department
June 2, 1982

with regard to health protection it would be very difficult for us to recognize changing the procedure to determine the validity of the product that the industry and the producers would enjoy. I am sorry that I have to give a negative answer up to now. We are not in a position to give the necessary certification immediately. Some tests are still not completed or ready.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH NATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for International Trade. Yesterday he made an announcement that he was shelving the idea of establishing a national trading corporation. He does that despite the fact that an all-party committee recommended last year, in a very large and comprehensive report which was made after 270 meetings, that we needed such a corporation in Canada to promote trade for small and medium-size businesses. It also stated that this corporation could also increase exports by some $14 billion per year. In light of that, and the fact that the committee said this was critical and crucial, can the minister explain to the House why he is rejecting the idea of establishing such a trading corporation for Canada?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the recommendation from the parliamentary committee indicated that initial capitalization of approximately $300 million is needed; 50 per cent to be made up by the private sector and 50 per cent from the government. As you know, our greatest priority right now is export financing. That is the quickest way to create jobs in Canada. I am sure that the hon. member would agree that our number one priority now with respect to the current situation is to reduce inflation and create jobs for Canadian industry. Therefore, all the financing which is available to me goes to our number one priority, which is export financing.
We did not shelve the idea of a national trading corporation. We postponed the decision for now until such time as the private sector which, at this point has not come forward with any kind of proposal to put up $75 million or $100 million toward the corporation, decided to do so. If they decide it is a priority in the future we will be happy to consider the proposal.


REASONS FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH RECOMMENDATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, how much longer will the minister wait? Twenty-five per cent of our GNP is dependent upon exports. Most other countries have trading corporations and trading houses. There is a decrease of our share in world trade. We have a $21 billion deficit in manufactured goods trading. In light of all those things I want to ask the minister very precisely what proof
Oral Questions
does he need before he establishes a national trading corporation to help the small and medium-size companies.


Edward C. Lumley: First of all, Madam Speaker, we do not derive 25 per cent of our GNP from trade; we derive 33 per cent from trade. Second, is the hon. member interested in jobs being created now in light of the high unemployment in this country? There is no guarantee whatsoever that one single job would be created with the establishment of a national trading corporation. With export financing there is a guarantee from the day we sign a contract that jobs will be created right here in this country, and I think that is our priority now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. As lack of enthusiasm by the banks has caused the Small Business Bond to be of very little value to farmers seeking additional funds with which to meet the very serious financial problems they are faced with today, has the minister approached his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and strongly urged him to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to enlarge its borrowing power so that our farmers may obtain the additional financing they need at 10 per cent interest in order that they may deal successfully with the great financial problems they are faced with at this time?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, to answer the hon. member first of all concerning the small business bond, I believe about $2.5 billion in total has been loaned under that program to small business people, so, to some, it has been a big success. We have worked very closely with many farmers, with the Farm Credit Corporation and with lending institutions. Arrangements were made between the Farm Credit Corporation and the lending institutions to use the combination of a Farm Credit Corporation loan and a small business bond. It is true that there have been many turn-downs. We are reviewing how far the Farm Credit Corporation can go with the new legislative power which has been vested in that corporation. We are moving as rapidly, as fast as we can. We hope that we will be in a position within two or three weeks to make a recommendation to the Minister of Finance.


CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE REPRESENTATIONS
George Harris Hees: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance, Madam Speaker. As the minister knows very well, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has brought an urgent plea before

June 2, 1982
Oral Questions
the government that additional borrowing power be given to the Corporation so that it can make this additional money available at 10 per cent to farmers who are faced with very serious financial problems. Is the minister giving this serious consideration, and when does he expect to be able to make an announcement on this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Agriculture has indicated, we have already indicated our approval in principle that the Farm Credit Corporation might be able to extend its capacity to borrow in private markets.


MINES AND MINING
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Mines and of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the near crisis state in Canada's mining industry, with shutdowns and labour disruption now affecting more than 34,000 mine, mill and smelter workers across Canada, which multiplies to at least 160,000 employees when service jobs are included, and whereas these unprecedented cutbacks are a consequence of economic conditions which prevailed several months ago, not the current economic conditions, what specific proposals has the Minister of State for Mines offered, and what actions is the government prepared to take to remedy this serious crisis which is having a devastating impact on communities all across Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the concern of the Minister of State for Mines has been quite obvious, and she is in Calgary today addressing the Business Outlook Conference. I am sure she will be happy that I pass on to her the representation of the hon. member.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I think the matter is so urgent that it needs a more direct answer than that.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the Prime Minister, being chairman of the cabinet, has some idea of what specific initiatives we can expect the government to take. What will the minister and the government do for the 10,000 striking steel workers at Inco, the 3,000 iron workers laid off in Labrador, the 6,000 unemployed asbestos and iron miners in Quebec, the 3,000 miners in Ontario, the 3,000 on the prairies and another 2,000 in Atlantic Canada-


Madam Speaker:: Order!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -and the 10,000 laid off mine workers in British Columbia? What will the government do, Madam Speaker?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to my role as chairman of the cabinet. He will know that if the cabinet wants to make an announcement, it does so. I will tell the hon. member that he can expect that when we have an announcement to make, we will let the House know about it.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board a question involving employee-employer relations in the public service, specifically the Public Service Staff Relations Board decision involving Neil Fraser, and the Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the air traffic controllers. With respect to the first case, the Public Service Staff Relations Board case, the judgment appeared to leave unanswered the question of what is appropriate political action, excepting the case involving Neil Fraser himself. This speaks to the use of parliamentary committee to explore the matter. Has the minister considered the establishment of a parliamentary committee to see whether there could be a better definition of the political rights of public servants, involving their ability to speak out?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I thought the Public Service Staff Relations Board was quite helpful in that it really confirmed what has been the view expressed by myself and, I believe, by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, that we are very much involved in an area of judgment and black and white lines cannot be drawn. Nevertheless, I have followed up the suggestions which have been made.
I indicated in the past that I personally had no great objection to parliamentary committees but that I really did not feel that their deliberations would be terribly helpful in this particular case. I raised some suggestions in a letter to the Prime Minister and discussed the matter with a number of other colleagues. I understand that the Prime Minister has looked at the matter and, in fact, has responded, but I have not yet seen his letter.


ARBITRATION PROCEDURES
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Will the minister undertake to table the letter? I call to his attention my concern because his counsel said at the hearing that if public servants speak out at all, they do so at their own risk. There is no guideline whatsoever with respect to that matter, and that causes me some distress.
June 2, 1982

With respect to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of the air traffic controllers, it does blunt the efficacy of the strike route, I think we must say, and may also raise the importance of the arbitration route. If a parliamentary committee is established, would the minister consider referring the question of improving the methods of arbitration in the public service to that committee? I ask this because it seems to me that the situation may well give way to a greater and greater use of the arbitration route in settling disputes, or questions involving the relationship between the public servant and the employer.


Donald James Johnston: I tend to agree with part of the question raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. There may, indeed, be ways of improving the arbitration route. We are constantly looking at ways to improve the arbitration route and, for that matter, other measures under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I am raising those matters with my colleagues. But with respect to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, it seems to me that it simply confirmed the intention of parliamentarians, many of whom were probably here in 1967 when the act was adopted and when the designation process was established.


INQUIRY WHETHER MODIFICATIONS TO FOOTWEAR IMPORT CONTROLS ARE CONTEMPLATED
Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. In view of the many representations that have been made by members on this side of the House and by the Canadian footwear industry, could the minister inform the House whether and when he expects any changes in the current policy on footwear import quotas in Canada?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, we shall make a decision on the footwear question during the last week of June or the first week of July, after the federal-provincial conference of Trade and Commerce Ministers on June 21 here in Ottawa.


INQUIRY WHETHER STATEMENT ON FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY WILL BE MADE BEFORE SUMMER RECESS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. Could the minister give us any guarantees today that a statement regarding the footwear industry will be made before the summer recess, while the members are still here and not after they have left?
Oral Questions


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, my colleagues on this side of the House have already requested that we make a statement before the parliamentary recess. It is my hope that, after we have had discussions on the shoe issue and other issues with my provincial colleagues, we will have an announcement to make, prior to the ending of the session.


ASSURANCE SOUGHT THAT FOOTWEAR ANNOUNCEMENT WILL BE MADE BEFORE SUMMER RECESS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am not asking for hope, I am asking for a commitment. Could we have a commitment from the minister today that there will not be a statement on the footwear question after the House has adjourned, as was unfortunately the case with VIA Rail?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as I said, what happens in this House on our side is the responsibility of our House leader. I will discuss it with him. We hope to have a decision made prior to the end of the session.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He has indicated that a new budget is in the offing. He will be well aware of the $21 billion deficit in manufacturing which has resulted in the loss of 200,000 jobs. The cost to every man, woman and child in Canada is $1,000 each, annually. Will the minister state to the House today that in the new budget the government will be moving off its disastrous resource megaprojects strategy and into a manufacturing-oriented strategy in terms of economic recovery and job creation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, to clear up the first point, I have not stated, either directly or indirectly, that a new budget is in the offing. When that decision is made it will be announced to the House.
I would direct the hon. member's attention to the document tabled at the time of the budget, entitled "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s", in which was laid out the economic approach of the government. If he looks at the document carefully he will find that the manufacturing sector did receive very strong support as a major element in the future growth and development of the Canadian economy. For that reason I do not believe that the hon. member is asking us

June 2, 1982
Oral Questions
to do anything that we have not fully acknowledged presently in our approach to economic development.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUDGET
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows absolutely clearly that it was the megaprojects that the government was counting on to be its economic saviour in the 1980s and the 1990s.


Miss Jewett:: That is right.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Will the minister send a clear signal to Canadians today that he will be bringing in a new budget before the end of June?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I attempted to answer that question earlier, in reply to the hon. member's leader. I want to tell the hon. member that when a decision is taken to bring in a new budget, when the circumstances are appropriate-


An hon. Member:: They are appropriate now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -1 will advise the House and take my hon. friend into my confidence at the earliest possible time.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to address an important question to the Prime Minister on a matter which was raised on Monday in this chamber, the subject being Canadian parts content in Japanese manufactured vehicles, to protect Canadian jobs and give opportunity to our vital automotive industry which employs
101,000	Canadians. On Monday he took the question under advisement. I expect that with a five o'clock departure tomorrow to Versailles there is no more time to consider it. Would the Prime Minister assure the House that he will meet with Premier Suzuki of Japan and insist on a much higher Canadian parts content, much higher than the one half of 1 per cent which the Minister of industry, Trade and Commerce admitted was the Canadian parts content in Japanese cars?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will remember that I took notice of that question in the absence of the Minister of State for International Trade. Of course the subject has been discussed between us before and since then. I will keep in mind the negotiating strategy of the minister when I meet Premier Suzuki in Versailles.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON ISSUE
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, that is a far cry from an assurance, at a time when the automotive industry is in the dire straits the Prime Minister talks about. One half of 1 per cent parts content is a long way from 85 per cent. Some 101,000 direct jobs,-625,000 jobs in the industry in total-are dependent upon this kind of decision. I wonder if the Prime Minister would reconsider and give us an assurance that a much higher parts content will come about, rather than the Mickey Mouse tactics of slowing down the import of Japanese cars through inspections on the west coast.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I repeat that the strategy we are employing in regard to negotiations with the Japanese is not something I would want to discuss with the hon. member across the aisle of this House. He does recall himself that on Monday there seemed to be division within his own Conservative caucus as to whether we should be encouraging the entry of Japanese cars or discouraging that entry. I had hoped that in the last three days they might have got their act together, but I see that they have not.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that is prompted by the concern expressed by the Canadian shipbuilding industry. When the government reduced the shipbuilding subsidy from 20 per cent to 9 per cent, approximately two years ago, it promised the industry a revision in its policy. To date that program has not been forthcoming. What is the current situation? Is the minister now ready to tell the Canadian shipbuilding industry what the government is willing to do to assist the industry?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, contrary to what was suggested by my hon. friend, the government did not reduce the subsidy. That subsidy of 20 per cent was a temporary measure. Once its term ended, the subsidy was allowed to revert to the basic 9 per cent. However, we also set up a task force to consult with the shipbuilding and ship repair industries, with the trade unions, and with the users of Canadian ships. We are looking at the results of this consultation very actively, as a basis for decisions on a new policy. I think we are fairly advanced in our consideration, at the cabinet level, and I hope to be able to make announcements, together with my colleagues, on this matter before too long.
June 2, 1982


QUERY RESPECTING SPECIFIC PROJECTS
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce knows that the international shipbuilding industry is heavily subsidized by national governments, and there is a real question of whether our Canadian shipbuilding industry can carry on without help from the government. I want to know more specifically what the government is willing to do about specific projects, like the new Canadian National marine ferry that is to be constructed, and what assistance it is going to give to the shipbuilding industry to aid in the construction of icebreaking vessels to open up the Arctic-which is part of the government's program in terms of the energy policy.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we recognize the importance of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry to the Canadian economy generally, and to a number of areas of our country specifically. Just in the past year or so, we have taken some very important actions to help that industry. There is our support for the expansion of the Saint John Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in Saint John, New Brunswick. There is the very substantial support to enable the expansion and updating of the Halifax shipyards in Halifax, Nova Scotia. We will be making announcements, as time goes on, about our further measures of assistance and support to recognize the capacity for productive activity of the workers and management in our Canadian industry.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Some time ago he gave assurance to my colleague, the member for Vegreville, that his government would be looking at removing some portion of the 60 cents a gallon tax this government takes on fuel used in the agricultural production of food. Has the minister had an opportunity to look at this?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, people in the farming industry will certainly appreciate that answer.


REQUEST THAT TAX BE REMOVED
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has complimented the two provinces which have removed their taxes on gasoline. Those two provinces are Saskatchewan and Alberta. Will this government do equally as well and remove
Petitions
taxes on the production of food? That would benefit not only to the agricultural community but also the consumers of Canada who now have to pay for this grab by the federal government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to announce the tax changes suggested by the hon. member.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Tuesday, June 1, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to table a petition on behalf of the employees of Canpark Services at Vancouver International Airport. This petition arises out of a recent decision taken by the Ministry of Transport to reject the lowest and all bids for the provision of parking lot attendant services at Vancouver International Airport, a decision which led to the heartless termination this week of employment for 20 persons including a number of new Canadians and middle-aged women supporting unemployed or handicapped husbands and their children. These employees have given dedicated service to the public at Vancouver International Airport for as long as ten years in some cases.
The petition recommends that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) be urged by this House to grant the parking lot employees at Vancouver International Airport a minimum six-month extension of work at the airport or that the minister arrange alternative employment for them in these difficult times so that they may continue to support their dependent families.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present a petition on behalf of
18022

June 2, 1982
Petitions
hundreds of my constituents who are calling upon the federal government not to co-operate in any way in the construction of prison facilities on the Oakalla lands in Burnaby and to ensure that the government lives up to its previous promises to remove completely all correctional facilities from the Oakalla lands.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to present a petition signed by 29,277 citizens of Canada who are deeply concerned about the plight of seven prisoners of conscience now being held by the government of Yugoslavia in defiance of that country's obligations-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please remove that basket from his desk. 1 have never seen a petition presented in a basket with an inscription on it.


John Carnell Crosbie: -in defiance of that country's obligations under the Helsinki Final Act to which it is a signatory. The seven individuals named in this petition have been recognized as prisoners of conscience not only by Amnesty International but also by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), who has referred to them as "classical cases of dissidents". Therefore, the petition asks the House to urge the Government of Canada to make representations to the government of Yugoslavia in order to obtain the early release of these seven individuals.
I have the petition here, and there are so many names I am afraid the petition had to be put into a basket.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am not able to accept that.


John Carnell Crosbie: You can pick them up by hand if you want.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member can present his petition in the usual way. If we allow this, we will have all sorts of things being exhibited in the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just so that we may be clear on this question, I take it your ruling is not to be construed in such a way as to deny the right of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to represent-


Mr. Campbell (LaSalle):: Sit down, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am sorry I am being shouted at by hon. members across the floor who do not want to have the views of some 29,000 Canadians on this question of prisoners of conscience heard.
I take it, Madam Speaker, you are not ruling in such a way as to prevent-


Mr. Cousineau:: You are not fair at all.
[ Translation]


Charles Joseph Clark: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) is continuing his
harassment, and I wonder whether he is against petitions by Canadians. I hope that the Chair's ruling does not deny the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) the right to submit his petition in any form he likes.


Madam Speaker:: Of course not. This is quite elementary. Petitions are to be presented in the usual form. In the case of this particular petition it is quite obvious that it can be carried in the usual way. If I allow a basket or anything else, someone might bring in a petition in a baby carriage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members must know that decorum in this House is a necessity. I do not understand how on one word from the Speaker it can be taken that a petition is not accepted.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, have you made a ruling that this petition is not accepted?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


René Cousineau: You are worse than Joe.


John Carnell Crosbie: If you have, I certainly want to object. If you have not, fine.


René Cousineau: You and Joe should jump into the basket.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, have you ruled that this petition is not acceptable?


Madam Speaker:: Of course not. The Speaker just receives petitions, and that is why I have not pronounced a word about the petition except to disallow the display.
Introduction of bills. The hon. member for Victoria.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to limit the extraordinary discretion of the Treasury Board under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to reduce radically the pensions of Canadian forces personnel on the basis of-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am a bit confused. I have had no notice of this bill. I do not think the hon. member is following the proper procedure. Do we have notice of this bill?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I submitted copies to the Clerk of the House this morning.


Madam Speaker:: Forty-eight hours' notice is required, and we will receive the bill when the hon. member satisfies the procedure.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
June 2, 1982
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,879, 2,880, 2,881 and 4,288.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the Foreign Investment Review Agency at page 32.17, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the agency explain the 8986 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
(a) The reason for increase is not volume of expenditures but presentation format. In 1978-79 all expenditures over $2,000 were listed in the public accounts for professional and special services. In 1979-80, only items over $25,000 were listed as per Receiver General Directive 1980-2, therefore a greater number of items were included in the other types of services category.
(b) Account-Other Types of Services	1979-80	Amount
Accounting and auditing services	$16,700
Legal services	5,786
Management consulting services	4,400
Training fees	2,018
Protection services	12,257
Research services	14,100
Miscellaneous other business services	11,079
Registration fees-conferences	325
Hospitality	679
Service fees-Supply and Services	Canada	1,331
Membership fees	5,375


[Stage Direction]
(c) Contracts over $2,000.
Accounting and auditing services-Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Que.-$16,700; Legal services-Connolly, Bove and Lodge, Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.-$3,746; Protection services-Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, Ottawa, Ont.-$12,257; Miscellaneous other business services-Dunn and Bradstreet, Toronto, Ont.-$7,936; Research services- Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ont.-$10,000; University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.-$10,000; Management consulting services-Technovation Consultants, Ottawa-$4,000.
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce at page 32.17, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the department explain the 1205 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each
Order Paper Questions
type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
(a) The reason for increase is not volume of expenditures but presentation format. In 1978-79 all expenditures over $2,000 were listed in the public accounts for professional and special services. In 1979-80, only items over $25,000 were listed as per Receiver General Directive 1980-2, therefore a greater number of items were included in the other types of services category.
(b) and (c) Account-Other Types of Services 1979-80	Amount
Tourism Program	
Bilingual training expenses	$ 3,522
Foreign language training expense	5,764
Training fees	8,006
Protection services	136
Medical and health care expenses	4,864
Registration fees-conferences	17,210
Promotional gifts	200
Membership fees	17,295
Service fees-Supply and Services Canada	1.468 $58,465
Contracts over $2,000.	
Membership fees-Bureau International	du Tourisme
Social, Brussels, Belgium-$2,565. Training fees-Public Ser-	
vice Commission, Ottawa, Ont.-$3,870.	
Grains Program	Amount
Accounting and auditing services	$12,916
Simultaneous interpretation costs	194
Training fees	1,100
Registration fees-conferences	1,067
Promotional gifts	228
Official hospitality	7,190
Hospitality on travel status	628
Data processing services	8,025 $31,348
Accounting and auditing services-Supply	and Services
Canada, Hull, Que.-$12,916; Data processing services-Sta-	
tistics Canada, Ottawa, Ont.-$8,025.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce under the Trade Industrial Program at page 32.16, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the department explain the 10,430 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so

June 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
(a) The reason for increase is not volume of expenditures but presentation format. In 1978-79 all expenditures over $2,000 were listed in the public accounts for professional and special services. In 1979-80, only items over $25,000 were listed as per Receiver General Directive 1980-2, therefore a greater number of items were included in the other types of services category.
Account-Other Types of Services 1979-80	Amount
Fees-private schools	$ 13,256
Simultaneous interpretation costs	1,635
Translation services contracts	21,495
Bilingual training expense	20,417
Medical and health care expenses	7,766
Special health care expenses	16,615
Credit reports	29
Safe storage of effects	723
Long-term storage-effects	257
Research services	3,891
Public relations services	9,348
Promotional gifts	14,181
	$109,613
(c) Contracts over $2,000.
Public relations services-Procom, Toronto, Ont.-$4,988; Translation services	contracts-Hexacom	Corporation,
Ottawa, Ont.-$18,055; Research services-Bowden's Information Service Inc., Toronto, Ont.-$2,213; Promotional gifts-Clark Irwin and Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont.-$5,000; Smith Advertising Specialties, Mississauga, Ont.-$2,008.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Was a contract awarded to Les Editions Societales CL Ltee by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to prepare camera-ready copy of a 32-page publication and, if so (a) how was the contract value determined (b) what was the cost breakdown of the Company's proposal?
2.	Was the contract tendered and, if so, how many bids were submitted?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I. The
Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract, on behalf of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to Les Editions Societales CL Ltee, for the provision of work, identified in part (b), related to the design and development of a booklet on small business.
(a)	The value of the contract was determined by the client department as a result of an unsolicited proposal submitted directly to Industry, Trade and Commerce.
(b)	The cost breakdown is as follows:
Creative concepts	$30,790
Project management	39,500
Circulation/distribution	20,368
Research	3,659
Writing/Editorial	4,574
Translation/typesetting	5,675
Design layout	5,934
Overhead and profit	15,060
2.	No. Contract was awarded as a result of an unsolicited proposal.


David P. Smith: I ask, madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I have notice of a motion under Standing Order 26 in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the crisis in the Canadian dollar, which has reached its lowest point in history in comparison with the U.S. dollar, a fact which is directly related to the failure of the government to announce its intention not to proceed with measures related to last fall's outdated budget, the collapse of the government's energy program and the related failure of the government to produce a new economic policy for Canada.


Madam Speaker:: I have another notice for an urgent debate under Standing Order 26 in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise to ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the dramatic and dangerous drop in the value of the Canadian dollar.
There are two reasons why a debate is urgent. The first is that our dollar has fallen to a record low. The second is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) depart tomorrow for an economic summit at Versailles. The Parliament of Canada has a right and an urgent responsibility to advise the government and to
June 2, 1982

hold the government accountable, before it enters into any undertaking at Versailles.
If you accept this application for an emergency debate, I am ready to move the appropriate motion.


Madam Speaker:: Both motions under Standing Order 26 relate to the crisis in the value of the Canadian dollar and its effect internationally.
The Chair recognizes the importance of these matters but the report that the dollar has reached its lowest point in history in comparison to the United States dollar does not alter the fact that the problem is of a continuing nature and not in the nature of a genuine emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration, as provided for in paragraph 16(a) of the Standing Order.
Paragraph (d) of the same section of Standing Order 26
states:
(d) The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session pursuant to the provisions of this Standing Order-
I must point out that on December 18, 1980, in a similar situation, I allowed a request to discuss a matter under Standing Order 26. In my decision that the matter was proper to be discussed, I stated, in part:
In this case both hon. members have drawn my attention to the juxtaposition of circumstances of rising interest rates, the rising cost of living index, the rising rate of inflation, and the decline in the dollar.
I also said that the matter could not be debated at an early opportunity and probably not at all, since the House was about to adjourn.
It would not be reasonable to expect the Chair to agree that the matter proposed today is different simply because the dollar has registered a further decline.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has indicated in his statement that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) will depart tomorrow for an economic summit at Versailles and suggests that Parliament has a right and urgent responsibility to advise the government and hold the government responsible.
We are all aware, of course, of the importance of that meeting, but the provisions of Standing Order 26 do not permit me to allow an emergency debate on that basis.
It is therefore with regret that I cannot accept these applications for an adjournment motion under Standing Order 26.




David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 99 in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is acceptable to the government,
Energy, Mines and Resources
subject to the usual reservations concerning internal departmental memoranda.


ALL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN AMBASSADOR WILLIAM BROCK AND MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE CONCERNING FIRA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 99-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all letters, memoranda, minutes of meetings and other forms of communication since January 1, 1981 between the United States trade representative, Ambassador William Brock, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce relating to foreign investment and the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
Motion agreed to.
David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the other notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 19, consideration of Bill C-102, to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation, and the motion of Mr. Pinard (for Mr. Lalonde).
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) had the floor.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I understand that we are again debating Bill C-102 and that I had the floor the last time the bill was considered. This is report stage of Bill C-102, which is a bill to create energy Crown corporations exclusively by order in council rather than by legislation.
When we left the bill 1 was on my feet responding to an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), and I said I would conclude my remarks on that amendment when the bill was next before the House, and that is today.
There are two amendments to Bill C-102. I think 1 have already said that we had no trouble with the other amendment proposed by the Conservative Party and that it should be accepted to further democratize, so far as that is possible, the working of this bill. Then there is the amendment I have referred to and I have something to propose which I have not

June 2, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
been able to show to the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, although I have shown it to his House leader and to the parliamentary secretary. 1 think it would help to make Crown corporations publicly accountable.
Before I seek leave to introduce that amendment, I understand the government has a small amendment as well. We are certainly prepared to give consent for the parliamentary secretary to introduce that amendment. I want to make some comments, however, with respect to the speech of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, but before I do 1 wonder if I might inquire if he has a copy of the amendment I propose to introduce.


Mr. Beatty:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe I have a copy of the amendment that the hon. member will propose. But I think there is some confusion. It is my understanding that when the House recessed at six o'clock on May 19, it was dealing with motion No. 3 in the name of the government House leader. That motion deals with the issue of negative resolutions in the House. 1 do not think my colleague can move another amendment until we dispose of the discussion on motion No. 3 currently before the House. It would be my intention to speak briefly to that motion if the hon. member has finished his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps the Chair should recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall).


Mr. Dingwall:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is also my understanding that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was speaking to an amendment introduced by the government and that he would continue his remarks. I will seek unanimous consent of the House to introduce another amendment later. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway will also seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an amendment.
As the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe suggested, I think we should proceed with disposition of the government amendment which is now before the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, naturally I am prepared to follow that order. Before I do, I should like an indication from the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe if he would grant consent on behalf of his party that I may introduce an amendment. When speaking to my amendment I intend to try to address again some of the points he made in a rather good speech on his own amendment. At that time I was not in a position to reply but I have had time to think about the matter and I have introduced another amendment. I should like to know his position on that.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is looking for an assurance from this party that at a later date he would have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an amendment. I gather he is concerned that if unanimous consent were not given he would have to contrive some other way to get his remarks on record on the motion that is before the House now.
I believe there was an agreement among all parties that any amendments proposed on any side would be allowed and debated. On behalf of my colleagues I can certainly give the assurance that we are prepared to allow the hon. member to dispense with notice in moving his amendment at a later time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I would never contrive to get in remarks on another motion! I am prepared to sit down now so that we can get on with basic matters.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I infer from those remarks that the hon. member has just finished his speech on motion No. 3, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to make some brief remarks on motion No. 3 proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to amend the provision in the bill for negative resolutions. It provides that there be either a negative resolution or, conceivably, an affirmative resolution which would be the sole parliamentary control of the incorporation of these new Crown corporations.
I think when members of the House deal with this, they should keep in mind that the central issue is how Parliament controls these emanations of the Government of Canada. Ostensibly, Bill C-102 is designed to provide a framework whereby there would be some parliamentary control over the proliferation of new Crown corporations. At the present time it is possible for three public servants to go out this afternoon and incorporate a new Crown corporation under provincial, federal or foreign legislation.
The government's argument about Bill C-102 is that it would bring in a regime and system for incorporating new Crown corporations in the energy field. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed our party's concerns, and I intend to reiterate them, possibly later this afternoon, about this whole concept of giving the government a blank cheque and saying go out and incorporate as many corporations as you want. There is no requirement to come back to Parliament and explain their purpose or potential cost; just go ahead and do it. Parliament's sole control over this would be through a negative resolution or through an affirmative resolution as contained in the amendment before us right now.
Our party will accept the proposed government amendment, Mr. Speaker, on the ground that it is preferable to what is there today. As I pointed out on second reading, the negative resolution provisions are probably unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, the Senate is expressly forbidden to authorize the government to spend money. But the government, in the existing provision, would give the Senate the right to overrule the House of Commons. You would then have the ludicrous situation where members of the House would vote on a negative resolution and say to the government: No, we do not want you to go out and spend, say, $2 billion to buy another Crown corporation. The House would have expressed the will of the
June 2, 1982

people of Canada and exercised its responsibility as custodian of the public purse. Then, under the current provisions of the bill, we would find that unless the Senate passed a similar negative motion, they would have in essence a veto. The Senate's failure to veto also the government's decision, its failure to reiterate a House of Commons vote, would give the government the authorization to go ahead over the express opposition of the House of Commons. My guess is that the only reason we see a somewhat improved provision here for a negative resolution is that the government recognized the very real prospect that the incorporation of a Crown corporation under that sort of procedure could very well be struck down in the courts. The government does not want to run that risk and consequently is proposing a whole new procedure here for negative resolutions.
There was a rather amusing exchange of letters between the chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), where the chairman expressed very serious concerns about the negative resolution procedures in the bill. The government then put down this amendment which they were proposing. However, last week we received from the minister a letter stating that he rejected the concerns of the committee. As far as he was concerned, the procedure was adequate, notwithstanding the fact he had already moved an amendment to change it. It was a curious action on the part of the minister because he indicated that he simply was not aware of what he was doing.
What do we have now, Mr. Speaker? We have a provision which is infinitely preferable to the existing one. The Senate will not have the ability to overrule the House of Commons and authorize the creation of new Crown corporations which the House has specifically rejected. However, we have a curious lack of symmetry in the bill. There is the belief, which most of us in the committee have cherished for some time, that where you have a negative resolution procedure, either House passing a negative resolution should be enough to cast a veto on a statutory instrument. Yet what we have is a provision in this amendment whereby those negative resolutions can be initiated here but not in the Senate. By the same token, there is a provision where if the minister, under some unexplained circumstances, chose to put forward an affirmative resolution, he could do so, but it would have to be initiated in the House of Commons.
It makes sense to me, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure it would to all members of the House, that if the government is going to go to the trouble of putting down an affirmative motion, it should be entitled to do so in either the House or the Senate. Indeed, because of the legislative demands on our schedule here in the House, it often makes sense that other actions such as this should be initiated in the Senate where the schedule is less intense.
It is surprising that the government proposed an amendment which goes some way to addressing the House's concern, but creates a complete lack of symmetry and a situation where action cannot be initiated in the Senate to strike down or
Energy, Mines and Resources
affirm the statutory instrument. It would have been our strong preference to give the option to the Senate to initiate that action there instead of having to wait until the House had disposed of the matter.
Having said that, the proposal before the House today is infinitely preferable to what is in the bill at the present time. This amendment, if passed, may result in a bill which was unconstitutional again coming into conformity with the Constitution of Canada. Consequently, we are prepared to accept that although we feel the measure proposed by the government only goes half way to meeting the concerns of members of the House.
The other point is that a negative or affirmative resolution procedure is no substitute for the government coming back to Parliament and putting down a bill to create a new Crown corporation and having it debated. Anyone who has had the opportunity to read the reports of VIA Rail Canada is aware of the fact that on two separate occasions the president of VIA Rail has said that perhaps the greatest problem facing that company is that their mandate was never spelled out by the Government or Parliament of Canada. They find themselves charged with the responsibility of running a passenger system which has never been properly mandated by Parliament; they have never been told by Parliament what is expected of them.
We have had no explanation whatsoever from the government as to the need for these new energy Crown corporations. Surely, if it was setting up the mechanism for them, one would have thought it would take the House of Commons into its confidence and explain why the government feels it may need to create an unlimited number of Crown corporations. Surely it would be preferable to deal with them on a case-by-case basis, and that in each instance where the government felt it was necessary to intrude in the marketplace and set up a new Crown corporation, it would have come back to Parliament with legislation to be debated in the same way as PetroCan. Instead, the sole parliamentary control will be through the procedure included in this amendment before us today. There will be, I believe, three hours of debate in the House and three hours in the Senate on what could be the setting up of a Crown corporation worth perhaps $2 billion and with enormous consequences for industry. Yet our sole involvement in this House will be a three-hour debate.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament is irresponsible if we accept the proposition that a three-hour debate is adequate when the government is considering making a major intervention in the marketplace and possibly committing billions of tax dollars to a new Crown corporation. The issue is not whether or not there should be Crown corporations. That is an issue for another day, and we should be able to look at it on a case-by-case basis. The issue is not whether the government should be forbidden to incorporate a new Crown corporation in the future. How do we as trustees for the taxpayers of Canada discharge our responsibility and make sure that their tax dollars are spent in a way that is prudent and wise?

June 2, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that where sums of that sort are involved and new Crown corporations could have the potential for very seriously interfering in the markets of the country, to discharge our responsibilities we deserve and we require more than a three-hour debate in the House of Commons and three hours in the Senate.
It is obvious that the government has made the decision that we will be denied more than that. Parliament will not have acts brought to it in the future respecting energy corporations for debate in Parliament. There will not again in the future be something equivalent to the Petro-Canada Act being debated in Parliament which was the case before that corporation was set up. In the future, the government will use this very easy procedure which it has proposed in this bill which will allow it to incorporate new Crown corporations. Parliament's control over this procedure will come in the form of a three-hour debate either on an affirmative motion authorizing what the government is doing or on a negative motion put down in the House of Commons. We believe that is unacceptable. We believe though that the amendment before the House today is better than the unconstitutional and unwise provisions contained in the bill as it stands today.
I want to indicate that we will be voting against this bill, even after it has been amended. We would be voting against it even if the government were to accept the amendments moved by our party, because we believe it is a dangerous bill. We are, however, prepared to allow this motion to go forth. While it is inadequate, it does something to ameliorate the damage that is done by the present negative proposal which is in the bill at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: My understanding is that I will put the question on motion No. 3. Following the usual practice of five or more members standing in their places, the division will then be deferred. I will then look to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall) for what I understand is a government amendment, about which I have been advised there will be just a short debate. I will then look to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who has been so kind as to forward a copy of his amendment to the Chair. When those matters are disposed of and if there are no further amendments, I will then call in the members to deal with the ensuing divisions.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Pinard, for Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.


David Charles Dingwall: That clause 1 of Bill C-102 be amended by striking out line 29 on page 1 and substituting the following:
"(0 acquire, hold, dispose of or otherwise deal in securities or assets of'
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is primarily technical in nature. The amendment is drafted to deal with two possible problems. It could arguably be read that if there were no amendment it could prevent a Crown corporation from disposing of any of the shares or assets that it might be set up to acquire and hold. This would put an undesirable limitation on the ability of a Crown corporation to carry out its responsibilities as a Crown corporation. I am referring, of course, to Schedule D of the Financial Administration Act.
On that basis, it is proposed to add to the words "acquire" and "hold" the words "dispose of or otherwise deal in". The words "shares or assets" are too limited. The oil and gas industry is an industry in which there are a wide variety of different kinds of instruments. While some would arguably come within the normal interpretation of shares, there are many that would not. Again, it would unnecessarily limit the flexibility of a Crown corporation operating in that industry if it were limited to shares and assets alone. For that reason, the word "securities" is proposed in the amendment.
I said at the outset that this particular amendment is primarily technical in nature.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has sought unanimous consent for leave of the House to present an amendment. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, would the parliamentary secretary permit a question of clarification? He may have explained the point but I missed it when one of my colleagues was speaking to me about procedure.
I can understand the provision dealing with "dispose of'. Obviously the concern is that the bill as currently worded could prevent the government from disposing of securities that it has acquired through the bill. Could the parliamentary secretary elaborate on the words "otherwise deal in"? Could the parliamentary secretary give us examples of the sorts of actions that would be covered by that portion of the amendment?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would clarify what he is seeking. Is he seeking an explanation of the words which were contained in the previous draft legislation, or is he seeking a greater clarification of "security and assets"?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I was looking for a clarification of "or otherwise deal in". I would like clarification as to how the government sees Crown corporations otherwise dealing in securities or assets.
June 2, 1982


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, briefly, I believe it has been stated in testimony given before the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation that there are a variety of instruments which are put into effect, if you will, in the oil and gas industry. They may take on a number of descriptions. There are joint ventures of various kinds intertwined and intermingled. Therefore, it provides for some flexibility within the act so that those particular measures will not impede the success of any Crown corporation in its dealings in trying to get something off the ground or in the ground. It is a measure of flexibility given to the Crown corporations which, I believe, is part and parcel of most, if not all, corporations in the oil and gas industry.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts made by the parliamentary secretary to expand on that, but could he give us a specific example of an action that some company might take that would be covered by this provision? He indicates that the government is trying to give the companies more flexibility. Could the parliamentary secretary give a specific example of some action that would be taken, whether it would be otherwise dealing in securities or assets? How specifically would this particular provision come into force?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a question but if I had had notice of it, I could have provided him with several examples. If he wishes, I could give the hon. member an undertaking to provide him with them. However, I do not have any at my fingertips at the moment.


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 amendment?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Dingwall) agreed to.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to introduce the following amendment:
That Bill C-102 be amended by the addition of a clause as follows:
"8. (1) The activities of Crown Corporations created under Section 6, both in terms of the public policy responsibilities and financial accountability be referred annually to the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons.
(2) The appropriate standing committee referred to under Section 8(1), at its first meeting after reference do establish a review committee made up of members of the Board of Directors, consumers and employees of the Crown Corporation, the appointees of that committee to serve on a voluntary basis and to report periodically to the standing committee on the functioning of the Crown Corporation".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway be presented to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered.
Energy, Mines and Resources


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, we are debating one of the energy bills which resulted from the splitting of the omnibus energy bill after the famous or infamous bell-ringing episode. The omnibus bill was divided into eight bills and Bill C-102 is one of them. The result of the division of the former bill is that we have had time to look at individual issues in the omnibus bill. Some very fascinating and modern problems have surfaced which perhaps we would not have debated if we had debated the omnibus bill.
I should like to deal with the creation and operation of Crown corporations. We have a strange alliance in the House. My friends on my right have quite a different attitude to Crown corporations than we in the New Democratic Party, but we seem to come up with some of the same conclusions though for different reasons. One such conclusion is that Crown corporations must be accountable. I should like to speak briefly on why they should be accountable, and on my amendment which includes a rather novel way of making Crown corporations accountable.
We in the New Democratic Party take the position that regulation-making is a necessary part of our system of government. It is inconceivable to us that governments in a western democracy could function if every decision required legislative approval. However, what is at issue is the degree of regulation under which we live. As I understand it, much of the regulation making in the United States during the 1960s and the early 1970s resulted from the desire to satisfy democratically sanctioned goals within an economic system which otherwise would be motivated exclusively to turning a profit. The present anti-regulation mood in the United States is an attempt to ease the economic burden of regulations. In the United States they deal with the economic productivity argument versus the social responsibility argument.
More sharply, of course, are the efforts to deregulate much of the environmental protection which has been set in place, an effort which Canadians sometimes find hard to understand. If our society allows deregulation in areas which one can describe as socially beneficial in order to aid the economic productivity side of the equation, we believe the whole area of advancing technology will be opened up to less democratic control. In other words, the limits of technological growth may not be in the area of energy and resources as many environmentalists would have us believe. Rather, the limits may apply to our democratic process to control the effects of technology. Clearly regulation-making power is an extension of government and therefore is a vital tool on the side of democracy; but it is a tool which cannot be abused.
In Canada we have regulation-making which was abused in the issue of the pre-build of the Alaska gas pipeline where the government, by order in council, made the wrong decision without really going to Parliament. It agreed to pre-build the pipeline and as a result, lost the financing for the entire pipeline.

June 2, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
Also we in Canada have advanced in the area of Crown corporations which are not really a form of regulation but are related to it. I should like to refer to two recently published books. One is entitled "Public Corporations and Public Policy in Canada" which was published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy. The second one is entitled "Government in Business", which was published by the C. D. Howe Institute. They deal with both provincial and federal Crown corporations.
I have been acquiring an interest in this field, and it is a fascinating one. One problem is corporate profitability versus the policy role of Crown corporations. This issue is a very central one because it raises the dichotomy facing Crown corporations. Do those which have commercial functions exist to make a profit or do they have some public policy responsibility? If they do, how can that responsibility be measured? If they do, what sanctions could be set in place to regulate entities which do not meet that measured responsibility?
I am sure I do not have to remind Conservative members to my right that their party got into trouble over its abortive efforts to privatize Petro-Canada. I think that resulted, among other things, from not having really established that Petro-Canada had failed. Beyond that, Canadians accepted the need for a Crown corporation in the oil and gas industry. In effect, Canadians expected that Petro-Canada would have some responsibility in the area of public policy. It will be interesting to hear the debate in the months ahead over the Canada Development Corporation in order to discover whether Canadians have decided if it should be privatized or whether it has a public policy role.
The measure of Crown corporations, however, is undeveloped. Politically it seems to me that it is a quagmire and requires some very careful examination before coming up with a policy. Merely calling for greater accountability of Crown corporations is too facile since it loops back into the basic question of profitability versus public policy responsibility. There are some things we can do if we accept the fact that we must have greater accountability.
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) is one of the few members of the House who pays particular attention to this area. I congratulate him for that. I have learned quite a bit from reading his speeches.
I should like to put the problem as I see it. Both parties in opposition are advocating that a Crown corporation should be created through Parliament. I think we both agree that it should not be created by order in council. If the government says that it cannot do that because Parliament takes too long, the answer is to reform Parliament, not to say that it cannot be done.
The hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) told me that VIA Rail was formed by a one dollar item in the supplementary estimates. What kind of scrutiny does that give Parliament? My point is that even if a corporation is created by Parliament-and Petro-Canada is an example-we still have the problem of ongoing accountability.
During the debate on Bill C-101 the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) gave a very thoughtful speech on the role of Crown corporations. He pointed out that while we on this side support Petro-Canada and would not privatize it, we still have some questions as to the thrust of its development in the north, its role with environmental and native groups and indeed its board of directors. I must be charitable in describing its board of directors. There are Liberals on its board of directors; it is patronage-ridden. We do not really have much accountability even after we have created a Crown corporation. This is what I want to talk about today.
There are two other issues facing Crown corporations. One is the relationship between public and private corporations and the other is the privatization of Crown corporations. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe does not have the privilege of coming from British Columbia as I do. He has not seen-and it is not a privilege-the breakup of many Crown corporations in that province through BCRIC, the BCRICing of Crown corporations or transferring them to the private sector. This has been a disaster in British Columbia. If the hon. member ever gets into power again and he has the same idea of privatizing Crown corporations, I suggest he should take a look at the way BCRIC has failed. Those are issues for another day.
I should like to focus my attention on the amendment because I think it covers some of the issues. I have suggested in the amendment that in the activities of Crown corporations they have a responsibility. My amendment suggests that it should be referred to the appropriate standing committee. Ideally we should have a special committee on Crown corporations. I understand Tommy Douglas, when he was the leader of our party in Saskatchewan, established a special committee. I understand that in Britain there is a special committee of the British House of Commons that deals with this. I think it was called the statutory regulations committee in Saskatchewan which specifically dealt with Crown corporations.
I have not had the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and therefore it is new to me in many respects. I am sure that if my understanding of it is wrong the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe will correct me. It is my understanding, however, that it has made recommendations to have an ongoing review of Crown corporations. I am told, for example, that it was proposed to make the Auditor General the auditor or co-auditor of a Crown corporation with the authority to conduct a comprehensive audit. I understand that this happened with respect to the Post Office for a period of two years, but when the Auditor General wanted to get his mandate reviewed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wrote to him and said no. Therefore, they have really been denied any authority.
I am also told that the hon. member for Regina West proposed an amendment a few years ago, which was accepted by the government, which would require the annual reports of
June 2, 1982

Air Canada and the CNR to go to the committee. I believe that the committee has spent some time during the last month questioning the appropriate officers from Air Canada and the CNR, thereby setting a true example of scrutiny and parliamentary accountability.
Of course, I would have moved that this go to a special committee, such as the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation, but I believe it would not be proper to specify that directly in terms of House procedure. My amendment is general and simply moves that the activities be referred to the appropriate standing committee. A House order could then be entered as to which committee would consider it.
I would like to make it clear that the first part of the amendment is to establish ongoing legislative accountability, both in meeting public policy commitments as well as being financially responsible for Crown corporations. The second part of my amendment calls for the establishment of a joint management-employee-consumer review committee. This committee would keep an ongoing brief. It would not be paid because of the obvious problems it would present. It could serve on a voluntary basis and act like a watchdog over the committee.
This amendment goes farther still. It involves an area about which Canadians should start thinking. It is called economic democracy. This term is not only used by Tom Haydon, Jane Fonda's husband, but is also used by social democratic parties in Europe. Economic democracy is a very big issue there and has been debated by my party's counterparts in Europe, the socialist party in France and the social democratic party in West Germany, which are the governments in those countries, incidentally.
As I understand it, the parties want to move to make Crown corporations more accountable. The reason for that is simple. People want to have some control over the institutions that control their lives.
One of the first successful cases I had when I was a young lawyer in Vancouver was against British Columbia Hydro, which was a rather monolithic corporation. I challenged that corporation to pay security deposits back to poor people because I thought it was illegally keeping the security deposits. The Supreme Court of British Columbia subsequently held that this was true and it ordered $400,000 in security deposits returned to those people.
At that time people asked me what I was doing by trying to take on a big Crown corporation like B.C. Hydro. I remember saying that I did not have any qualms about doing that since by taking on a large Crown corporation it seemed to me we were trying to make it more accountable. B.C. Hydro is a good example of a Crown corporation that is very unaccountable to the British Columbia legislature and to the people of British Columbia.
My amendment begins to deal with this problem. It deals with economic democracy. I believe it is the beginning of a movement to put some of the workers and some of the people who consume the services of a Crown corporation on the boards of directors. The board of directors of Petro-Canada
Energy, Mines and Resources
should be made up of an environmentalist, someone from the small oil industry and the large oil industry, and some Inuit or Dene native people since Petro-Canada operates in the North. It should not only be comprised of deputy ministers from Ottawa and political patronage appointments. Since I cannot yet change the manner in which appointments are made to the board of directors of Petro-Canada, the problem which confronts me is to open up the process for these appointments.
One way of opening it up is to propose this amendment. This is not a complicated amendment. The government believes in accountability, economic democracy and people being able to have some control over their lives. As well, if the government believes in making Members of Parliament more active in scrutinizing these corporations, why not accept this amendment? It simply allows a reference to a standing committee in order to enable that committee to examine these Crown corporations. For example, assume that Dome Petroleum is made a Crown corporation and a special corporation is made for the Beaufort Sea. A year from now an appropriate committee could review what those corporations have been doing and how they were managing their finances. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe could ask many probing questions on behalf of the taxpayers to find out what was happening in those corporations.
The second part of my amendment would provide for a voluntary review committee to be appointed by a parliamentary committee. It would be a broad-based committee comprised of consumers and employees of the Crown corporation. Although it is a novel idea, it is a small step toward greater economic democracy. Therefore, I would urge the House to accept the amendment.
In relation to this matter, I did have the opportunity to review the problem of accountability of Crown corporations in terms of "agent of Her Majesty". This relates to some of the amendments introduced the other day by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe. The law is confusing because it applies both ways. It may be argued that even if you do not stipulate "agent of Her Majesty", Crown corporations are still agents of Her Majesty because, if you read the rest of the act, the government has a type of direction in the Crown corporation. These facts are probably only understood by lawyers. In any event, it may not matter one way or the other whether you stipulate an agent of Her Majesty or not. The Air Canada Act specifically states that Crown corporations are not agents of Her Majesty. Does that make all other Crown corporations agents of Her Majesty? That could be argued. I believe the better argument is that we must review the whole scope of how Crown corporations are set up.
That brings us back to Members of Parliament because we are the ones who are literally creating the law on these energy corporations. While this is a serious matter which sounds technical, it is really quite a simple issue. It is to give the people control over their lives and over some of the instruments that affect their lives. I believe there is great support in the

June 2, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
country-certainly from the left wing of the country-as well as from our party for an amendment such as this.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in discussing the hon. member's amendment. I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary intends to put the government's position on the record. I can indicate my general support of the amendment although I do have some reservations about it.
He first proposes to ensure that the appropriate standing committee in Parliament would have the opportunity to review the activities of a Crown corporation on a regular basis. The other novel proposal is to give the appropriate standing committee itself the responsibility of striking a review committee. I have never heard of a review committee before. I am not aware of any in place at the present time which report in any way to a standing committee of Parliament made up of members of the board of directors, consumers and employees of the Crown corporation and that those appointees of the committee would serve on a voluntary basis and report from time to time to the appropriate parliamentary standing committee. He says he sees this, in essence, as a foot in the door for economic democracy, that in time we would find that workers and other affected groups would find their way into the boards of Crown corporations, and that because he cannot do that at this point, what he is doing is trying to accept a second best solution. I do not see it as particularly advancing that cause. I do see the value of it in that the hon. member appears to be attempting to improve some element of accountability between the Crown corporation and Parliament, and that, in itself, is constructive.
There are problems posed by the fuzziness of the amendment. How many people would there be on such a review committee? When would it hold its meetings? How would it be financed? How would the reports be prepared? How, in fact, would a parliamentary committee be able to reach into a corporation where it perhaps did not know the employees to choose or which one of the employees would be appointed to serve on the review committee? What, in fact, would be the action taken by Parliament as a result of the review committee's report? There are a number of questions here which leave the amendment somewhat fuzzy, but I do not believe this is insurmountable. I believe the intention of the hon. member, in terms of improving accountability between Crown corporations and Parliament, is basically sound.
I do, perhaps, want to use his amendment, however, as a vehicle for very briefly dealing with one issue that he raised, the question of the appropriate relationship between Crown corporations, Parliament and the committees of Parliament. I think he quite correctly mentioned the fact that the Public Accounts Committee has proposed that there be one committee on Crown corporations which could hold Crown corporations accountable in the future. Indeed, this is done in several other jurisdictions.
The real issue here is really a fifty-fifty proposition, whether that is the better way to proceed or whether it is better to have
regular standing committees taking the responsibility for appropriate Crown corporations involved in their fields. By and large, the argument in favour of having a committee on nationalized industries or on Crown corporations would be most forceful in instances where the responsibility of the government was essentially that of monitoring the financial activities of the Crown corporations, ensuring, for example, that annual reports were made, that the corporate plan was properly spelt out from time to time and that proper procedures were followed to allow for accountability.
Where there might be some difficulty in setting up one committee of Parliament to which all of the Crown corporations would report, amounting to 171 at the present time, I believe, is where there were very specialized areas of activity. There are several different types of Crown corporation, but perhaps for the purpose of simplicity I could divide them into two categories. The first is one which operates as a business corporation. It may very well be, for example, that if a company were in some trouble, the government would make the decision to take it over and become the 100 per cent owner; it was then nursed back to health and operated on a businesslike basis. There is no particular public policy concerned there other than that of ensuring that the company continue, and perhaps protecting the jobs of the workers. The government would not be involved on a day to day basis in overseeing the activities of the company, giving instructions that it must get into a particular field or not get into a particular field.
Companies such as de Havilland, which are not created as instruments of government policy-the government thought it was essential that it have an aircraft company-could very easily report to a committee on Crown corporations in Parliament. The role of that oversight committee would largely be to ensure that the company was functioning on a sound basis, that its finances were well run and that it was properly managed. By and large, it would not get into issues related to the role of the government in that aircraft industry per se. The only question which would have to be asked from time to time, other than questions concerning the soundness of the management of the company, would be whether it was still necessary that this function remained under government control or whether it should be returned to the private sector.
There are, however, other Crown corporations which are very clearly instruments of government policy. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is one that springs to mind. That is a departmental Crown corporation. Perhaps most Canadians are not aware of the fact that it is a Crown corporation. It is inseparable from government policy. It does not function on its own. It is an integral part of the government's policy on housing. There is an instance where the considerations of Parliament are essentially policy considerations. What is the role of the government in the provision of housing in Canada? What should it be in the future? The argument against having such a company report to a committee on Crown corporations in Parliament is that that committee would have good expertise on financial management and on accountability in general, but it might not have the special-
June 2, 1982

ized expertise necessary properly to scrutinize the activities of a Crown corporation in a specific field.
Air Canada comes to mind again. Is it better that Air Canda should report to a committee on Crown corporations or that it should report to the transport committee? The CBC is another example. It is set up as a direct instrument of government policy. It was not that the government felt it was financially necessary to get into this area to rescue private broadcasters in some way, but, rather, that the government decided that the CBC would be a useful instrument in fostering Canadian culture in Canada. It recognized that it would be run at a loss and that there was a role for the state to play on a continuing basis. In my judgment, the policies and actions of the CBC are an integral part of broadcasting policy in Canada. If there were to be one central committee on Crown corporations, my hon. friend would have to ask himself whether it would be appropriate that the CBC, Air Canada and the other corporations report to that one committee or whether they should report to an appropriate standing committee, such as ones dealing with broadcasting, transportation and so on. But I should point out that while my hon. friend said he would like to move in that direction, the amendment he has put before the House today would not create a committee on Crown corporations. It makes reference to appropriate standing committees and would mean that Air Canada would continue to report to the Standing Committee on Transport, the CBC to the Communications and Culture Committee, and so on.
In sum, then, what we have is a proposal that Crown corporations would report on a regular basis to the appropriate standing committee. My friend has made a proposal which is imaginative and novel. I think there is some precedent for a parliamentary committee to strike a review committee which would report to it from time to time. I do not see it as the answer to the problem of the need for more accountability, nor do I necessarily feel it is desirable in some instances that Parliament should always be looking over the shoulders of the Crown corporations. A case in point is de Havilland. I am not sure that Parliament should be involved in the day to day activities of de Havilland. The real issue of concern to Parliament, first of all, is whether de Havilland should be well run and, second, whether it should be owned by the government or by the private sector. It is not an instrument of government policy.
If we had an appropriate Crown corporations omnibus bill, as was previously promised to us on numerous occasions by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) but which is now dead, then I would say that the proposal by my hon. friend might be far too restrictive. But in the absence of that legislation and other measures being taken by the government to enhance accountability to Parliament, I suggest that any measure proposed by hon. members of the House which would improve the accountability of Crown corporations to Parliament should be supported by hon. members of the House of Commons. Consequently, we are prepared to offer our support to the hon. member for his amendment.
Energy, Mines and Resources


Mr. Jarvis:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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):: The Chair will now call in the members, not only with respect to the present amendment, but also with respect to motions Nos. 1 and 2 related to Bill C-102. Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The question is on the motion of Mr. Beatty. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on the motion (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?
June 2, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Pinard (for Mr. Lalonde) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in order to facilitate the debate which will be taking place in the course of the next few minutes, perhaps it will be useful to talk for a couple of minutes about what this debate is not about. This debate is not about the issue of whether there is a role for Crown corporations in the energy field in the future. That is an issue to be debated on another occasion. What the debate is about this afternoon is the question whether or not Parliament has a role to play in being consulted and involved before the government sets up new Crown corporations in the energy field. That is the first issue.
The second issue is what responsibility does Parliament have on a continuing basis to ensure that Crown corporations operating in the marketplace operate in a way that is fair and proper and which shows respect for the tax dollars of the taxpayers of Canada and for the intention of Parliament when it passes legislation that Crown corporations conduct themselves in a proper way.
We have just voted on three amendments to this legislation which is before us today. I moved two of the amendments. One of those amendments was very straightforward and would have simply required that the procedure which would have been followed by the government for incorporating a new energy Crown corporation would be followed as well for subsidiaries.

June 2, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
A question which members should logically be asking themselves is this. If it is necessary that a Crown corporation, before it is created, should have the authorization of the governor in council in the form of an order in council and that the order should be tabled in Parliament so it will have an opportunity to put forward a negative resolution to strike it down and say that it does not want the Crown corporation started, then why should not the same procedure be followed for subsidiaries if they can be incorporated with all of the powers of the parent, with as much power to commit the consolidated revenue fund and to interfere in the marketplace?
The amendment which we proposed was simply designed to ensure that the same provision was followed for the subsidiaries of these Crown corporations. We proposed the amendment and debated it. There was silence from the government side; not one syllable was uttered explaining why it was desirable to have parliamentary involvement at the outset when the Crown corporation was created and why it was suddenly undesirable to have parliamentary involvement when there was a proliferation of subsidiary Crown corporations. That amendment was defeated, not with any explanation to Parliament or to the Canadian people, but just by the use of raw numbers.
The second amendment which we proposed and which was just voted on dealt with the question of agent of Her Majesty status. There are two fundamental concerns which we should have as parliamentarians as a result of agent of Her Majesty status. The first concern is that, in granting automatic agent of Her Majesty status as part of the birth certificate of these new Crown corporations, we are giving them the ability to have their debts automatically become liabilities within the consolidated revenue fund. What we are saying is that these Crown corporations can continue to borrow in the future, and if they are badly managed and run up massive losses, the people of Canada are the ones who will automatically become liable for those losses and will have to pay the bills.
Second, we are saying that on the basis of current jurisprudence in the Supreme Court of Ontario, in the Uranium Canada and the Eldorado Nuclear case, companies in the future shall have immunity to criminal law, such as the combines law and the legislation dealing with false and misleading advertising. What we are saying is that under this legislation we are automatically conveying immunity to these Crown corporations from the workings of the Combines Investigation Act. If a private company were to price-fix, the government would lay criminal charges against that private company; but if a Crown corporation which is incorporated under this bill price-fixes, it is immune.
We are saying that if a private company engages in false and misleading advertising, criminal charges would be laid against that company by the government and it would be fined as a result. In the case of these Crown corporations, they will be exempt. They can engage in false and misleading advertising with impunity.
Surely we should be asking ourselves whether we should be automatically conferring that status on all Crown corporations. We therefore moved the amendment, which stated that
since the government has the ability under current legislation to convey agent of Her Majesty status on any Crown corporation if it so chooses at any time, we simply asked that it be done on a case by case basis rather than giving a blanket grant of this special privilege that these Crown corporations would have.
Again, we moved our amendment and made our case and there was silence from the government side. There was no explanation whatsoever as to why the government was not prepared to review this on a case by case basis or why it was essential that all these new Crown corporations be granted this automatic agent of Her Majesty status. Had it given justification for its position, it would have been easier to understand why the government would vote down an amendment designed to protect Canadian taxpayers. No such justification was given.
We now find ourselves in a position where we are dealing with third reading of a bill which was bad to begin with. It had amendments moved to make it better but it is going through largely unchanged. I want to indicate that when the vote is taken on this bill some time before six o'clock this evening, our party will be voting against it because it does not deserve the support of the Parliament of Canada.
What does the bill do? Most importantly, it provides a framework for the creation of new Crown corporations either by incorporating them under the Canada Business Corporations Act or by using funds and purchasing existing companies and converting them into Crown corporations.
The logical question which the taxpayers of Canada would expect us to ask the Liberal members who are proposing this legislation is; For what purpose will these new Crown corporations be incorporated? What will be the nature of the new Crown corporation to be created? You have Petro-Canada, you have Eldorado Nuclear and you have Uranium Canada. For what purpose does the government need new Crown corporations? No explanation has been given. All that the government has asked is that the House of Commons give it unending authority to incorporate any energy Crown corporation it so chooses.
I should stress the fact that its powers go well beyond the energy field. If they are incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act they have the powers of a natural person and can extend beyond simply dealing in energy matters. The government can incorporate subsidiaries and can operate either in Canada or abroad.
These are questions which have not been answered in this debate. How will these companies operate and for what purpose will they be incorporated? What role will they play in the marketplace? What are the government's intentions? How can the government ask Parliament, as trustees of the public purse and custodians of the public interest, to simply give it carte blanche to do whatever it wants without giving a single explanation of the nature of these Crown corporations to be created?
June 2, 1982

The issue today is not whether there should be any Crown corporations in the energy field in the future. The issue concerns the role of Parliament and whether the government has a responsibility to justify the creation of a new Crown agency to Parliament. Surely we would be totally remiss in discharging our responsibilities if we said that we did not care as Members of Parliament for what purpose the government is setting up these Crown corporations which could result in costing the taxpayers of Canada billions of dollars and will obviously have an effect on the marketplace in Canada. We have asked those questions but have received no answers. Surely there is no way members of the House can be expected to vote for the bill until we have those answers.
Have there been problems with Crown corporations in the past which should cause some concern today? Indeed there have. During the 1960s and 1970s there was a succession of reports by the Auditor General of Canada, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and by the Lambert Commission, which was the royal commission on financial management and accountability. Various and sundry other groups found that financial management and control of Crown corporations desperately had to be improved. Just this year we saw the most conspicuous example of government mismanagement when it was in the marketplace at the time of the Consolidated Computer collapse. That was a situation where the taxpayers of Canada were required to pick up a bill which I believe went over $100 million in the collapse of Consolidated Computer.
It is perhaps useful to refer to Consolidated Computer as a case study and to ask ourselves whether the Consolidated Computer fiasco could repeat itself here. After the collapse of Consolidated Computer, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) commissioned an internal study by General William Anderson, a very distinguished public servant on loan from the Ontario government, who investigated the circumstances surrounding Consolidated Computer and made recommendations to the government. His report has never been released to Parliament. We have never had the opportunity to have any formal tabling or debate in the House. But we have a copy of at least portions of that report.
It would be useful to put on the record parts of the report under "Summary and Recommendations", because as I read the report hon. members should ask themselves how often this will happen in the energy field if Bill C-102 is enacted. On page 50, under "Summary and Recommendations", General Anderson stated:
The story of CCI is one of continued support, notwithstanding formidable evidence and considerable advice to the contrary. The available documentation in the files and the often conflicting information and opinions from the interviews do not provide a clear and single explanation of this phenomenon.
In 1971 /72, the decision to restructure the company seemed to be in line with the General Adjustment Assistance Board's normal decision criteria with due recognition of government policy in the computer sector. It was concluded that CCI had technology worth saving and the company was restructured, refinanced and provided with new management under the direction of the GAAB. However, the significant feature in this case was that the GAAB took an equity position in the company.
Energy, Mines and Resources
Subsequent decisions on CCI were influenced not only by the need for the GAAB to make reasonable, high risk business judgments but also by the government's legal responsibilities as owners of the company, social responsibilities as employers of a "private sector" workforce and perceived moral obligations to both suppliers and customers of CCI. In addition, there was a growing awareness of the government's policy and strategy with regard to the computer industry which supported the establishment and development of a strong Canadian capability in this area. CCI started to shift into a special category of its own and was no longer subject to the same decision criteria that applied to other projects.
The 1976 restructuring was more hotly debated than the earlier refinancing. At first, the GAAB decided to sell CCI. However, the committee that was set up to develop sale proposals, recommended that CCI be restructured with equity being held by Fujitsu, Central Dynamics Ltd. (CDL) and the government. In addition, the GAAB established the lease companies in 1976 and approved 99 per cent guarantees of up to $30 million. Once again, the GAAB was in the role of owner and banker. While the GAAB acknowledged the high risks, it was felt that the link with CDL and Fujitsu would provide the necessary management products and technology to make the company viable. Subsequently, CDL withdrew from the proposal but this was not seen by ITC or the GAAB as being fatal.
The interrelationships between the GAAB/EDB, ITC, CCI and the lease companies, as outlined earlier in this report, made it virtually impossible to render objective business decisions in this high risk environment.
The government decision in 1976 seemed to reinforce the idea that CCI was a special case and that it was to be treated as such. Additional financing was provided by the GAAB/EDB in subsequent years but the usual review of loan guarantee proposals was less evident in the documentation. Repayment schedules and minimum covenants, which would normally serve as controls, were waived or modified by the GAAB/EDB. While some project officers in ITC and members of the EDB were concerned and recommended that the project be terminated, their warnings were not heeded. Contributing to this situation, particularly in the later years, was the lack of quality information and the piecemeal nature of the decisions.
General Anderson goes on to talk about the lack of available information, and then in a subsequent paragraph states:
During the last two years, there was a growing number of officials recommending the termination of the CCI project. The reports, with a few important exceptions, were almost all bad. However, there were still a few individuals in key positions that were somewhat "bullish" on the future prospects of the company. The EDB, on a number of occasions, postponed a final decision on the project. There always seemed to be a new event which indicated that the company could be turned around or sold or that the government liability could be reduced. The events included a renewed interest by Fujitsu, a major contract with ICL, various potential buyers, new management and a new business plan. Each of these events required time to "investigate", "negotiate" or "develop". None of them ever materialized in a manner that offered any real hope to save the company or reduce the government's liability. This situation was pointed out to the EDB in September 1980 when a briefing, in support of a loan guarantee request of $4.7 million, noted that "... since November 1979 the EDB has, on four occasions, agreed to insure a total of nearly $12 million in new loans . .. for the purpose of buying time". The loan request was approved and the EDB and ITC continued to "buy lime" until January 1981 when the EDB decided against any further support and turned the matter over to ministers.
In June 1981, the government approved a partial restructuring and sale of CCI by no later than December 31, 1981. In the documentation which led to this decision, ITC was still referring to the "new management team", "large customer base", "potentially lucrative links with leading computer suppliers" and "world competitive products". It suggested that the longer term prospects were promising and made repeated references to the private sector interest in purchasing CCI.
It was not until October 1981 that the full seriousness of the CCI situation was recognized by ITC and the government decided that the Minister of ITC and the President of the Treasury Board should disengage the government from CCI by whatever means were appropriate. Further study (since the June 1981 decision) revealed that the company was in far worse shape than earlier believed.

June 2, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
In summary, the decisions to continue the support of CCI were probably made in accordance with the normal GAAP criteria up to and including the 1971/72 restructuring. The decisions since that time have been influenced less by objective business judgment than they have by the government ownership of the company, the various individual perceptions of the reasons for supporting CCI, the EDB s perception of government policy, significant conflicts of interest, poor quality information and advice that always offered a glimmer of hope that all was not lost.
This particular fiasco involving a corporation which came to be under the ownership of the government resulted in a cost to the taxpayers of Canada of over $100 million. I have in my hand letters passing between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) and the President of the Treasury Board, exchanged on a confidential basis. The President of the Treasury Board made it clear that the government was in a very vulnerable position, but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce still urged him to put in more government money to try to cut the losses. If the legislation before us is approved here today, we are putting the taxpayers of Canada in a position where they could be liable for literally billions of dollars of losses. With this legislation we will be creating a breed of Crown corporation which is above the law, which will operate in competition in the marketplace and will not be subject to the same criteria as other private sector corporations. We are ensuring that there will not be adequate parliamentary consultation either in the creation of these Crown corporations or in their management on a regular basis. In Bill C-102 there is not even a requirement that these Crown corporations to be incorporated be included in the schedules of the Financial Administration Act. The government did not even go that far, yet it says that it wants unlimited ability to incorporate these corporations and to make the taxpayers of Canada responsible for their debts.
When the vote is taken on this matter in a few minutes, I hope Your Honour will look down the benches of cabinet ministers in front of you and that you will ask yourself to how many of them you would be prepared to give signing authority on your credit card. To how many of them would you give authority to use their business judgment as to when it would be appropriate to run up a charge on your account? Mr. Speaker, your answer would probably be "None of them!" In particular, would you give that authority to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) on the strength of his performance concerning energy issues in recent days? Surely you would not. However, that is precisely what Parliament will do today. It will give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the authority to incorporate unlimited new Crown corporations and to make the people of Canada liable for their debts.
This is a bad bill. It does not deserve the support of Parliament. All hon. members who are concerned about parliamentary control and ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars are protected have a responsibility to vote against this bill on third reading.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking briefly on third reading, 1 have a few comments. This
bill is largely about open government versus closed government, when it comes to the operations of Crown corporations, in determining what fields we as representatives of our electors feel it is appropriate and wise for our government to be engaged in.
Most hon. members recognize that from time to time the government must go into the marketplace in one form or another. Unfortunately, the history of much of Canadian government in the past has been that when we go into the marketplace we go in with one arm tied behind our backs. In dealing with the larger, centralized elements of the business community, we find that our governments play poker with all of their cards face up or with half of their cards face up, and consequently get into trouble.
Time and time again the private sector of the energy industry has said to the government: "You give us the price we want, at both the front end and the back end, give us the tax incentives and the write-offs and the taxes we want, or we will pack up and go home." Any government worth its salt has had to face the challenge, either that it must give in completely to that kind of threat of a capital strike by the private sector in that field, or it must be prepared to go into the business itself as an alternative.
We in this party as much as anyone else recognize the situation presented to the Canadian people. We know there are times when the government must involve itself in the major sectors in the marketplace. Our problem with this bill is that the government, meeting behind closed doors and without any reference to the elected representatives of the people, can determine for itself in what manner it will act. The official opposition and we in this party put forward amendments which attempted to introduce realistic checks and balances. We did so in order that we ourselves may be assured, and so that we in turn may assure the people we represent, that the decision being made by the government is an appropriate and wise decision, and that the new institutions will perform a valid and responsible function in the marketplace.
In its own amendments the government has taken some cognizance of the awkward position as regards the Senate that existed in the initial legislation. We are still left with the situation, specified in exact terminology in this bill, where there can be a government and a House of Commons both agreeing it is necessary to have a Crown corporation in place to perform a certain function; and a Senate which disagrees. Many people in this country believe-I am not going to say rightly or wrongly at this point-that the Senate is a bastion of the rights of the privileged and a bastion of the rights of property. Whether it is the Senate of Canada or the British House of Lords, that is their main function within parliamentary democracy in the western world. It alone is going to be able to say: "No way."
We know that the Senate has certain prerogatives within our parliamentary system, but in very few specific pieces of legislation where it is not required do we enter that veto in, do we see it specified. We had a great debate on that matter of the Senate's right, with respect to the Constitution, of the Senate insisting on its right to veto changes to its own composition and its own nature. Here we are again with another piece
June 2, 1982

of legislation saying that the rights both of the government and of the House of Commons itself can be overturned by giving the Senate a second kick at the cat.
Members of the Senate who have held directorships for years in financial institutions and in energy corporations-they are rather famous for that and have been for years-are given the right to veto what both the government and the House of Commons in their wisdom have decided to let go through. It is wrong in the broader view of their normal role in the parliamentary process, and it is doubly wrong for us to include the right to veto specifically in legislation of this sort. It is not done in other laws we have passed and it is a gross mistake to do so in this instance.
We also have problems here with respect to the general matter of social responsibility and public accountability of all Crown corporations. We do not like bureaucracy and regulations any more than anyone else. The amendment introduced a few moments ago by my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was one attempt to introduce some guarantee that accountability and social responsibility would be built into some of the corporations that the Canadian government from time to time may wish to institute. If we do not introduce that guarantee of accountability and responsibility into the management structures and into the review structures of those corporations, we will become bound up more and more in red tape of a kind that will cause untold problems both to our constituents and to ourselves as representatives.
A former leader of the Conservative Party, which forms the official opposition, had some interesting words to say on that matter at the recent policy conference of that party. He said:
The free market "is a wonderful mechanism. But the motivation is making a buck, and a miner or a manufacturer doesn't make money by improving the environment. He doesn't make a buck worrying about the socially disadvantaged, or tiding over employees in times of unemployment ... Any civilized society has concepts of order and ideals that aren't the business of the marketplace.
Those Conservatives who come within that historic definition of conservatism share the emphasis on the public interest and the public philosophy. Even though socialists and Conservatives historically may have a different view from time to time as to what the legitimate public interest is, we share that philosophy and we share that degree of responsibility in public accountability.
My colleagues and I are sometimes more than a little puzzled why people who do not show any willingness whatever to accept that traditional concept of conservatism continually rise and speak on behalf of that party in the House. I am glad that at least the former leader, and also some of the members over there, still hold to the views and the philosophy that are the basis of that party.
There is an appropriate place for public interest, for an expanded sense of public responsibility and accountability. To our great regret, the government has not seen fit to incorporate into this legislation the kind of mechanism that is necessary when setting up institutions to serve the people. There is no chance such as there is in Norway within StatOil, where there
Energy, Mines and Resources
is an annual report to parliament which is debated in parliament. The corporate plans of that corporation in the energy sphere and the status and performance of that corporation are analysed on a regular basis by the parliament of Norway. We do not have that kind of mechanism here. If it is in the government's mind to set up some corporations in this area-and if it is not, why the legislation?-why has it not taken this opportunity to show it believes in the democratic process, that it believes in public responsibility and in public accountability? We can only assume that it does not believe in these things or we would have heard more from the government directly or we would have had some more appropriate response at least to the suggestions made by ourselves and by the official opposition during the debate of the last few hours.
I do not want to take much more time at this juncture. Many hon. members would like to bring this matter to a resolution. Our party certainly does not want to hold it up, but I urge the government in the weeks and months ahead to take another total look at the structuring, especially of public corporations but also of some major private associations and corporations across Canada, to see if we cannot begin to reintroduce some of the sense of social responsibility and community responsibility which, once upon a time, existed in areas of the private sector and may one day exist in the public sector. If we do that, we will have fulfilled our purposes as a people's Parliament. If we do not do it, I think we will all have given democracy a bad, bad name.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak briefly at third reading of Bill C-102.
1 think the key question is why this bill is needed and why it is before the House. No one has given us any real reasons why this bill is needed, but I would like to state why I believe it is needed by going back to an act passed by this House called the Canada Oil and Gas Act. When it was before this House, it was Bill C-48, and I would like to quote Section 31 as follows:
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, prior to the authorization of a system for producing oil or gas from any Canada lands, may direct that
(a)	the Crown share in any relevant interest be transferred to a designated
Crown corporation: or
(b)	any designated Crown corporation to which a Crown share in any relevent
interest has been transferred under this section transfer the Crown share to
any other designated Crown corporation.
When we dealt with Bill C-48, some of us made a very strong case-and I was one-that we did not want to see a 25 per cent Crown share transferred to Petro-Canada in areas like Hibernia, the Grand Banks, in the Beaufort, on the Arctic Islands, in the Mackenzie Valley and the west coast offshore. I simply did not want to see this Crown corporation called Petro-Canada have such vast holdings in relation to Canada lands with respect to oil and gas production. I felt, as several of us did when we discussed that bill, that it was necessary to have holding corporations in their simplest form which have very few employees and boards of directors holding a 25 per cent share on behalf of the Crown and, as a result, having

June 2, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
Crown policy injected into these partnerships or into these consortiums producing gas and oil off the west coast, in the Mackenzie Valley, in the north and on the east coast.
I was particularly concerned that in areas where we set up these holding corporations the provinces should be permitted to put somebody on the boards of directors of these Crown corporations to have policy input. If a corporation is associated with an area around Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia should have the opportunity to put somebody on the board of directors of such a Crown corporation in that area. If it was associated with Newfoundland, Newfoundland should have the opportunity to put somebody on the board of a Crown corporation dealing with production off the east coast. If it was up north, perhaps some other province or provinces should have input into policy. If it was off the west coast, the province of British Columbia should certainly have the opportunity to put a member on the board of directors of a Crown corporation holding a 25 per cent interest in production and exploration in that area. That is why I think this bill is vital and necessary.
It is appropriate that people make suggestions about incorporating greater accountability to Parliament on the part of some of these Crown corporations, but the bill is necessary because it would be wrong to assign such vast holdings and interests and such vast policy direction to either Petro-Canada or some other Canadian Crown corporation.
However, I say again that these Crown corprations must effectively be holding corporations with very few employees, and the boards of directors should adjust themselves to policy in dealing with the consortiums and partnerships which will be created.
I do not want to hold the bill up, so in conclusion let me say that if it is the intent of the government to create Crown corporations to deal with energy matters in a substantial way beyond the requirements of Bill C-48-and I say they are substantial with regard to that bill-I would be concerned about this bill. If it is the intent to create Crown corporations to build nuclear reactors across the nation or outside the country, that should be debated to a much greater extent in the House. If it is the intent to create energy corporations to deal with solar energy or some other form of energy, I think the government has a responsibility to come back to the House in relation to creating Crown corporations in other areas.
I believe the intent of Bill C-102 is to deal with the holding Crown corporations which are necessary to affect the requirements of Bill C-48 and the exploration of oil and gas on , federal lands; but if the government intends to go much beyond that, I think it should come back to the House for additional discussion of that type of legislation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is against Bill C-102, because it gives the government, and more specifically the cabinet, the exclusive right, without consent of Parliament, to promote the establishment of energy corporations. This is against the basic principles of our parliamentary system.


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 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.


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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Madam Speaker:: It being past six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.13 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 3, 1982