1982-05-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the development of the Peace River tar sands would create thousands of jobs across Canada at a time when the country so desperately needs those jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources do everything in his power to make this tar sands project proceed quickly.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, Canada has a special interest in wishing the success of the multi-party democracy thrive in Zimbabwe. Recent events give grave cause for concern regarding this kind of democracy in that country. The imprisonment of a Member of Parliament, Mr. W. E. Stuttaford, the threat of arrest of Member of Parliament, Mr. Dennis Walker, and especially the imprisonment of black leaders who oppose the ruling party, should make all of us especially concerned about the future. 1 move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs establish a special liaison with the Government of Zimbabwe to register our concern and to monitor the level of political freedoms for all parties in that country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, federal ridings where the Liberal incumbents are justifiably terrified of the voters' wrath are to be the recipients of millions of federal dollars supposedly earmarked for make-work projects. Actually, this is a cynical, thinly disguised attempt to buy voters with their own money. In view of this treachery, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That Canadians be soon allowed to exercise their franchise, so that they may indicate their revulsion at this blatant vote-buying ploy, by defeating all current Liberal Members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. Recently the Manitoba Court of Appeal quashed the city of Winnipeg's anti-sniff bylaw, which was designed to discourage the availability of model glues and plastic cements for sniffing by juveniles, a practice which is known to do serious damage to its young users, and which is a problem not only in Winnipeg but in the north and in other Canadian cities. The argument against the bylaw, accepted in the Appeal Court, was that the issue is a matter of federal jurisdiction and needs to be dealt with by Parliament. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urges the Minister of Justice to put before this Parliament very quickly legislative proposals for dealing with this serious problem, so that

May 19, 1982
mechanisms will finally be in place to help protect the minds and lives of young Canadians who, for other reasons that also need to be dealt with in this House, see their only recourse in the cheap and very dangerous escape of solvent intoxication.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) what proposals he had to aid farmers now, since the Farm Credit Corporation and Small Business Development Bonds have failed. The Farm Credit Corporation is out of funds and the banks are reluctant to issue Small Business Development Bonds. The minister gave us the same idiotic runaround we are always getting. Obviously, no one over there cares about agriculture. Farmers are going bankrupt in ever-increasing numbers, and the Minister of Agriculture says it is no worse than in other sectors of other industries. I might remind the minister, Madam Speaker, that his responsibility is not those other industries; his responsibility is agriculture.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


T.A. Bud Bradley: Must we have the initiation of food stamps before the government will address the problems in agriculture? This issue must be resolved now. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the whole issue of farm financing be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture where it can and will be addressed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, parts of the National Energy Program are as destructive as anything ever done by a democratic government in the
free world. It has, for example, to date subsidized the import of foreign oil out of the public purse at an estimated cost of $17 billion, which represents more than 20 per cent of our national debt.


An hon. Member:: Lunacy.


David Kilgour: This subsidy program now favours imported oil at the expense of oil from western Canada. In April alone approximately 300,000 barrels a day were expected to be locked in, representing unnecessary oil imports costing approximately $12 million a day. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the government reconsider the more perverse aspects of its energy policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, the problems of the Polish people continue to be of great concern to all Canadians. Considering that today the Polish Alliance of Canada is celebrating its seventy-fifth anniversary here in the Parliament buildings, and considering that Her Worship Mayor Marion Dewar, Mayor of the City of Ottawa, has declared Thursday, May 20, 1982, Polish Day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That this House support the mayor on this day and urge all citizens of Ottawa to continue to show their concern and support for the people of Poland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is moved by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That this House support Mayor Dewar on this day, 19th day of May, 1982, and urge all citizens of Ottawa to continue to show their concern and support for the people of Poland.
Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 19, 1982

Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, given that dike inspectors along the Fraser River watershed are now preparing for a major flood, possibly of disastrous proportions causing, millions of dollars of damage to important agricultural crops and private property from Prince George and Kamloops all the way downstream to Westham Island at the mouth of the Fraser River, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That the Government of Canada move immediately to reallocate all federal funds available for diking and disaster relief during 1982 to prevent devastating damage to private property and to the most severely threatened farmlands such as the fertile food and seed producing acreage of Westham Island, B.C.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, a year ago the government introduced the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge, forcing air carriers to pay world prices for fuel used in international flights. When that charge ended on January 31 foreign carriers were allowed to apply for rebates amounting to $47.5 million. However, Canadian carriers were denied the right to apply for rebates of the $50 million paid or owed by them. It is seriously unfair that foreign carriers are given an advantage at a time when Canadian carriers face the terrible dilemma of going bankrupt or going heavily into debt. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the government reconsider the position it has taken and, recognizing the grave situation of Canadian airlines, allow them to have equitable status with other airlines and grant them the right to apply for rebates.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, last week the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) berated the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) for not muzzling the U.S. ambassador to Canada for speaking in Canada on what the Leader of the New Democratic Party thought was an exclusively domestic Canadian matter. Last week Canada's Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke in an American forum and included remarks regarding U.S. policy. Strangely enough, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has been silent about that. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That the Leader of the NDP have his ideological eyes checked to see if he has equal vision in both of them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, Quebec workers have received the welcome news of the award of an $800 million contract to Bombardier, facilitated by 9 per cent seed money from the Export Development Corporation. At the same time Waterloo region farmers are being unceremoniously hauled off their fields and onto bank managers' carpets at the very time of the growing season when they are literally sowing for their livelihoods. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That this House urge the government to direct the Minister of Finance to make low-cost seed money like that used to assist the Bombardier tender available to Canada's food producers; and, furthermore, in view of the ongoing investigation into the profit situation of chartered banks, the Minister of Finance ask the banks to hold off on farm foreclosures until the tabling of those findings and so let our farmers get the country's food supply into the ground unharassed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 19, 1982
Oral Questions NUCLEAR ENERGY


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ON PROMOTION OF CANDU SALES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody): Madam Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Before the government came to its senses and realized the so-called sale of two Candu reactors to Roumania was an economic farce and would never result in the actual transfer of paid-for nuclear technology, the Roumanian government had spent $44 million of a low interest Export Development Corporation loan provided to finance the sale.
This week we learned that the Lopez Portillo government in Mexico has put the whole idea of nuclear megaprojects on hold indefinitely and that the $5 million AECL spent to prepare and promote its Mexican reactor bid is just another in the long list of fruitless mega-write-offs of taxpayers' money to the Canadian nuclear industry. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House instruct the government to stop squandering taxpayers' money on nuclear megamania both at home and abroad, and further, that the government spend the accrued savings on a policy improvement which would direct the savings to the development of Canada's conservation, solar and alternative fuels industries.
Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who undoubtedly has noted the financia1 assistance given to the New York Metropolitan Trans'. Authority which was announced yesterday. It got a loan at 9.7 per cent to run for 15 years, to 1997. If the government has been able to find this kind of money to lend to the New York authority, would the minister indicate if there is similar money available that could be offered to transit authorities in Canada or other worthy groups who would like 9.7 per cent financing for the next 15 years?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the financing to which the hon. member refers was provided through the Export Development Corporation and is justified, of course, by the very substantial benefits it will provide to Canada. I would
have thought that the hon. member would agree that this project was a very desirable one from the Canadian point of view and that, in the present circumstances, we ought to stretch every possible and legitimate method of securing business for Canada. This will have very important employment effects in Quebec particularly, but also in the province of Ontario.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I might comment that certainly employment in Canada is fine but did it never dawn on the government that two things could be accomplished- help for Canadian transit authorities and the creation of jobs in Canada if funding at 9.7 per cent for 15 years were available?


TRANSPORT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, perhaps I may put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Would he indicate if this type of funding is available to similar authorities in Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and Edmonton, for example? The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority is boasting in New York this morning that, thanks to the Canadian government, it has saved over $300 million on its transportation acquisition.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I thought the Minister of Finance explained very, very well that this was an export oriented matter. Now I am going to do what I do not think I should do, because it is dangerous-I am going to thank publicly the Minister of Finance for his help to transportation in recent months. He has provided $1.3 billion for western rail transportation. He has increased the budget for my department by $20 million last year, $40 million this year, and $60 million next year for air transportation and the building of airports.


Mr. Clark:: Whose money?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Canadian money. That is his job, and that is what he has done. I could go on giving a long list, but the end of the list would be the amount of money he has provided for research and development into transportation in Canada. That is $20 million.
The sale to the United States also has to be seen in terms of Canadian transportation because the equipment that Bombardier is going to export to the United States will add to the equipment that Canadian cities will be able to procure.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, we must note that the Minister of Transport carefully avoided admitting that he has not offered a red cent to Canadian transit authorities. He is the man who has crippled Canadian VIA rail services from coast to coast.
May 19, 1982


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce inform the House whether he has taken up with the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Federal Business Development Bank, the question of seeing if some of this 9.7 per cent funding might be available through the FBDB to worthy small businesses in Canada which are being subjected to interest rates as high as 22 per cent by that Crown corporation?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the financing that my hon. friend is talking about was offered in order to meet the competition from a French company. My hon. friend is talking as though he would prefer that the French got those jobs instead of Canadian workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member asks what I have to say on this subject. I want to say that today I announced the federal government is providing $9.9 million-


Mr. Blenkarn:: At what rate?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -to Mitel Corporation toward the development of a new digital PABX system which is expected to create close to $1 billion in additional sales and 1,300 jobs over the next five years in both Ontario and Quebec. I presume my hon. friend is against that, too. Well, he ought to be ashamed of himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Madam Speaker, while we are focusing on ways in which government contributes to the creation of jobs and national wealth through its fiscal powers, I want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. He is not here, and the buck always ends up with the Minister of Finance, so I will go to him.
The minister is aware that the $5 million given to the Farm Credit Corporation early last winter helped only about 200 farmers, and many more are still hard pressed. The Minister of Finance can find $1 billion at 9.7 per cent for projects outside Canada, but what is he doing to help agriculture? Can he find an equivalent amount immediately for our hard-pressed farmers?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has a legitimate point in asking what one can do to assist the hard-pressed farmers. But to suggest at the same time that there was something unworthy, improper or illegitimate about providing export assistance to Bombardier in order to sell 825 subway cars and provide 25,000 persons-years of employment in Canada, is quite another matter.
The hon. member has to understand that there was very strong competition from international suppliers, including those from France, and in order to meet that competition and get this order it was necessary for the Canadian government to provide this particular form of credit financing through the Export Development Corporation.


CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS
Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I am not criticizing the program the minister has just initiated to help Bombardier, not for a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Murray Cardiff: But today and tonight we have the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting with us and many of the hon. members opposite, and they are crying for help. We know there is money available; 1 have had approaches made where there would be offshore money made available to assist in the agricultural sector. You are telling us what you are doing for Bombardier; the bottom line is: what are you going to do for the farmers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his acknowledgement that there is no basis for criticism of the arrangement that has been made by the Export Development Corporation to support bombardier. I thank him for that, and I think it is a much more enlightened attitude than the one taken by the hon. member for York-Peel.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No difference at all. You have missed the point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: However, 1 would like to tell the hon. member that very shortly I will be meeting with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I intend to have a very deep discussion with them about their problems. And if, out of that discussion and later consideration it will be possible to do more than is presently being done, then I would be a very happy person to do it.

May 19, 1982
Oral Questions ENERGY


MUNICIPAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister. I have learned that the municipal energy management program, which is a $23 million conservation program to train energy auditors, and is part of the National Energy Program which the minister read out in the House in his first budget, is in danger of being cancelled. I have a letter from the Mayor of Vancouver indicating that such is the case. Can the Minister of Finance confirm that indeed the government is cutting back on energy conservation programs?
Why is the minister prepared to give $600 million to oil companies operating in the Beaufort Sea, and goodness knows what other additional moneys to Dome Petroleum, next week or thereafter, while cancelling important programs which really could conserve energy and make us energy self-sufficient?


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, with reference to the subject raised by the hon. member, he should realize that conservation is a major element of the National Energy Program. However, with reference to the particular subject matter, the Government of Canada is encountering difficulties in its negotiations with the various provinces concerning this program. As a result, a complete review is taking place at present as to whether or not we will pursue this particular program.


ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. He has been standing up in this House day after day, together with his colleague, the Prime Minister, saying that with the collapse of the energy megaprojects, such as Alsands and the Alaska gas pipeline, that other energy megaprojects are coming along. Apparently it is now confirmed that the program to which I refer is on hold. It is a small program worth $23 million but, according to the Mayor of Vancouver, this program will provide jobs and it will really have an impact on energy conservation in the country. What is the Government of Canada's program now? Is it to cancel energy conservation programs in return for putting more money into these megaloser projects?


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to one particular program in relation to conservation. However, he refuses to acknowledge the success of some of the conservation programs announced in the National Energy Program. I refer him to the Canadian oil substitution program and to the home insulation program, which have been major success stories of the National Energy Program. The problem which the hon. members raises is of particular concern to the Government of Canada. However, negotiations
with the provinces have not been proceeding well. Our government is intending to review not only our negotiating position but indeed the positions taken by the various provincial governments. It is hoped that the matter will be resolved. However, I do not wish to raise false expectations with the hon. member, and he should be prepared to place some of the blame on the various provincial governments.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice said in this House yesterday that no decision had been made at that time, less than 24 hours ago, about referring the offshore mineral resources dispute question to the Supreme Court of Canada. This morning he proceeded to Newfoundland and the Prime Minister telexed the Newfoundland government stating that the question was today filed with the Supreme Court of Canada. The reference has been filed today referring the issue of the Hibernia oil field's ownership to the Supreme Court of Canada. There has to be some explanation for this.
Today the Minister of Justice met with the leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland-the defeated Liberal leader-rather than with the minister of justice for Newfoundland. He refused to meet with the minister of justice before holding his press conference. Why has the government interfered in the orderly handling of this matter by the Canadian court system, the matter having already been referred to the Appeal Division of the Newfoundland Supreme Court? That court has already set dates for factums to be filed. It has fixed October 8 as the date to set the hearing. Why is the government interfering? Does it not trust the Newfoundland court after its constitutional decision?
Does the Acting Prime Minister not realize that court decisions will never settle this issue, which is an issue of justice and fair treatment for the people of Newfoundland, our tenth province?


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member would conclude his question by saying that no court would ever decide this matter, when he himself in his opening sentence suggested that it was somehow improper for the federal government to proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada, while the matter or several related matters were before the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. The gist of his question was: why has the federal government gone to the Supreme Court?
May 19, 1982

I should tell the hon. member that the Minister of Justice stated today that while the provincial government had recently filed a reference to the provincial court of appeal, the questions submitted by the provincial government raise a number of complex issues in addition to the question of jurisdiction in respect of Hibernia. These other matters include the status of inland waters, the territorial sea, and perhaps the interests of other provinces as well. In the view of the Minister of Justice, it was necessary to move rapidly to have the urgent and pressing questions of jurisdiction in Hibernia resolved at the earliest possible date by the highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada. That was the explanation offered today by the Minister of Justice.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not think it is ever necessary for a minister to deceive the House by stating that no decision had been made, and then flying to Newfoundland to announce the decision.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order. I think 1 mentioned the other day that the idea of question period is not to offer comments to all the answers received. The hon. member who was very long in his first question, should please proceed to his question now.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Would the Acting Prime Minister tell the House why the Minister of Justice met first with the defeated leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland who was rejected by approximately 61 per cent of Newfoundland voters? Why did he meet first with him? Of course he and the Liberal Party of Newfoundland have rejected the federal government's course of action. Why have they found it necessary to declare war on the province? When will the government respond to the fair offer of the government of Newfoundland which was made to the federal government on January 25 but was never responded to? Do they think they can bully the smallest province of Newfoundland into a settlement?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, the intention is not to bully the smallest province at all. The intention is to try to settle-


John Carnell Crosbie: How will this settle it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the jurisdiction of Hibernia which, until it is resolved, will constitute a block to the development that we can all foresee for the province of Newfoundland. I should say to the hon. member that in the letter which the Prime Minister sent today to Premier Peckford-


John Carnell Crosbie: There was no decision yesterday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -he concluded by saying:
Oral Questions
I continue to hope we can resolve our differences over resource management and revenue sharing despite the fact that two legal actions have been launched. In the meantime, while these two court actions proceed, the federal government remains committed to working co-operatively with the government of Newfoundland in order to ensure that current oil and gas activity in the offshore continues.
I assure the hon. member that it is not our intention to bully; it is our intention to work co-operatively with the government of Newfoundland in the way indicated.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is the date of the letter?


PROPOSALS MADE BY NEWFOUNDLAND GOVERNMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister who will know that this unprecedented legal action will be seen as an affront to the integrity of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and an insult to the people of Newfoundland; he knows that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I want to ask the minister why the Government of Canada did not respond to the reasonable request of the government of Newfoundland, made as recently as May 4, whereby it once again asked the Government of Canada to set aside the question of ownership during the period of negotiations and permanently, if there was an agreement; and the very reasonable position of the province which called not only for shared management and revenue sharing but for setting aside permanently the question of jurisdiction? Why, in the face of that very reasonable proposal, did the Government of Canada affront and provoke the people of Newfoundland by this unprecedented action?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, that question was also dealt with in the letter of the Prime Minister to Premier Peckford, in which the Prime Minister said:
You have insisted that the federal government agree, in advance of serious negotiations, to set the issue of legal ownership aside permanently and commit itself to a framework for resource management that could produce a stalemate which would not be in anyone's interest.
The Prime Minister went on to say that pre-conditions of that kind obviously make meaningful negotiations quite impossible.


QUERY RESPECTING RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I ask the Acting Prime Minister what is more important, the creation of a stalemate or the development of this very important resource for Canada? This is the question which must be addressed. Does the Acting Prime Minister expect the House to believe that reasonable negotiations can resume in the light of this unnecessary provocation? He knows that there can be no negotiations as long as this question has been

May 19, 1982
Oral Questions
referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, while it is before the Newfoundland Court of Appeal. Why have they not responded to the request of the Newfoundland government to sit down and negotiate the reasonable proposition which was put to the Government of Canada on January 25 and which, incidentally, was supported by almost 62 per cent of the people of Newfoundland who voted in the last provincial election?


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that it is possible to secure and work out arrangements between the federal government and the provinces. I remind the hon. member, who is normally a reasonable person, that the Government of Canada has succeeded in working out arrangements or agreements with three western producing provinces, and that we were able to work out an agreement on the offshore, after intensive negotiations, with the province of Nova Scotia. I believe that what has been possible with four other provinces is possible and can be attained, with good faith on both sides, with the province of Newfoundand as well.


TIMING OF CABINET DECISION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House of Commons when cabinet took the decision to refer the offshore question to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I do not have that information. I do know that the order in council was signed this morning, but I have no other information which I can give. The Prime Minister will be in the House later, and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition may want to follow up that question, but I have no further information on the point.


TIMING OF PRIME MINISTER'S ARRIVAL IN CHAMBER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, just for the purposes of clarification, will the Prime Minister be in the House before the end of question period?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is meeting with the Prime Minister of Australia, and I expect him to be in the House before three o'clock.


NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I should like to direct my
question to the Solicitor General. In 1976 the Prime Minister and British Columbia Senator Ray Perrault met with one John Meier of British Columbia, a former Howard Hughes associate. At that time Mr. Meier provided them both with extensive documents and tapes concerning allegations of CIA penetration of Canadian security services and funding through CIA agents of specific election campaigns and candidates in Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan between 1970 and 1976. Will the Solicitor General confirm that, as a result of these serious allegations, the Prime Minister ordered a secret investigation into the allegations and the charges by Mr. Meier and that there was in fact an inquiry conducted by a lawyer named Pierre Genest? Will the Solicitor General now make public the results of that secret inquiry?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I have no information on that subject at all. I hope to be able to look into it and comment on it shortly.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I gave the minister notice of this question yesterday. Of course, if these allegations can be confirmed, they represent a massive violation of Canadian sovereignty by American CIA agents.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE STUDY ALLEGED CIA INVOLVEMENT IN CANADIAN ELECTIONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, in light of the importance of the issues raised by Meier's petition, a petition which I intend to table in the House at the conclusion of question period, and since these issues were also recently raised in the Quebec trial of RCMP Officer Vermette, will the minister now give the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs a reference to study the question of CIA involvement in Canada, to hear witnesses, including Meier, and determine whether indeed the Canadian security service has been infiltrated by the CIA and whether, most important, the CIA attempted to influence democratic elections in Canada just as they did in Chile in 1973?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member did not give me notice that he would be asking that question today.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
May 19, 1982
[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We have learned that the Quebec government has again refused to recognize the legitimate fishing rights of the Micmac at Restigouche and has provoked them by withdrawing from an offer which might have settled this matter. Since the fishing season in the Restigouche opens in three weeks, and we do not want to see a repetition of the raids and violence of last year, will the minister tell the House if he will intervene in this matter to negotiate with Quebec and demand a reasonable and just settlement as soon as possible?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Madam Speaker. As a matter of fact I have intervened, in the sense that my officials in Quebec have been talking to the Quebec government this morning. We are urging, and I am urging, the chief and the band to continue discussions with the province. We are urging the province to do that same thing. We do feel disappointed. We thought this was close to resolution a short time ago when there seemed to be an acceptance of the quota. The province has reduced the quota and that has inflamed emotions, but we hope that can be corrected fairly shortly.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS PROVINCIAL TAXATION AUTHORITY
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the federal government accept the principle that a provincial government has the constitutional authority to tax another level of government, namely, the federal government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice.


CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PROVINCIAL TAX
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, when the minister takes that question as notice, would he also examine whether the imposition of an employee tax paid by an employer, in this case the federal government, a tax collected by a province, falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitution, namely, what I always thought was a provision whereby one level of government could not tax another level of government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when I took the question as notice it was not to be unco-operative but because of its importance. I will add the second question to the first and provide a reply, after I receive legal advice, as soon as possible.
Oral Questions FINANCE


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF EXCISE TAX ON NATURAL GAS
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the excise tax on natural gas is possibly one of the most abhorrent taxes which has come out of the National Energy Program-not only is it a bad tax, it is a cancerous one-does the minister realize it is adding one third to the home heating cost of all home owners in Canada? Further, if he wishes to help the farmers, the quickest way to help them is to delete that tax since natural gas is the basis for fertilizer and this is the time of year when farmers use a tremendous amount of it. Is the minister prepared to withdraw the excise tax on natural gas?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if 1 had an alternative source of revenue that could be easily applied without objection, I would consider withdrawing the tax. However, I have no such alternative source of revenue.
The hon. member must realize how difficult it is to raise taxes under current circumstances because, as the Treasurer of Ontario discovered, any tax is bound to provoke a reaction from those persons affected.


Thomas Gordon Towers: If the minister would withdraw the money which is going into PetroCan-Petrofina it would be a good start toward relieving the tax.


PAYMENT OF TAX BY DISTRIBUTORS
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, the distributors of this gas have to pay the tax even prior to collecting it. This means that the distributors have to borrow the money in order to pay the tax to the Department of Revenue. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in committee last night that he is prepared to look at that and perhaps give the distributors at least 90 days in which to collect and pay the tax to the Department of Revenue rather than having to do it within 30 days. Would the Minister of Finance at least go that far?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, yes, I will agree to look at the matter as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources undertook before the committee.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism remarks made in a speech delivered on April 23 to a federally sponsored conference on racism in Vancouver. It was delivered by Israel Ludwig, a Winnipeg lawyer and government appointed chairman of the

May 19, 1982
Oral Questions
Race Relations Committee of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism.
Incredibly Ludwig urged that Christmas, Good Friday, and other religious holidays be abolished in order to combat racism. He urged the government to monitor the news media, and demanded that the CRTC have the power to revoke licences of radio or television stations that give prominence, where prominence is not justified, to racist groups. He urged a similar body to monitor the press. He alleged that the press gives coverage to racist groups in order to sell their newspapers. An admission of unacceptable government interference in the freedom of the press emerged from his remarks. I would ask the minister if he plans to remove Mr. Ludwig from the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism because of his statements.


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, no, I do not intend to remove someone for expressing his views. I believe that this country belives in the freedom of expression.


Mr. Huntington:: What about metric?


John Carnell Crosbie: What about Fraser?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 1 think that if the hon. member would read the full text of the speech he would have a better understanding of the suggestions of Mr. Ludwig. For instance, he did not suggest for a moment the abolishing of Christmas; he suggested that some consideration might be given to honouring the high or holy holidays of non-Christians who are as Canadian as the Christian population of this country.
The hon. member should also be aware, if he reads his newspapers, that 1 said following Mr. Ludwig's speech that 1 differ considerably with some of the points which he put forward but I certainly do not argue with his right to express his views.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I guess you mean that Neil Fraser is an example for freedom of speech after being fired.


Madam Speaker:: Order. May I point out that that has nothing to do with the question that was just asked?


Steve Eugene Paproski: I do feel it is a worth-while comment.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I do feel I have the freedom of speech to make a comment-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That is precisely what 1 was saying. I do not think it is time to make comments. It is time for question period. I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton North for that purpose.


MINISTER'S UNDERSTANDING OF MULTICULTURALISM
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I have a brief supplementary. Mr. Ludwig seems to think that multiculturalism means ruthless suppression of the traditions of freedom of the majority. I hope that this is not the way the minister understands multiculturalism.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, 1 think the hon. member is putting too many peppers in his pirogis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Racist!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I would love to arrange, if I could, a meeting with Mr. Ludwig and the hon. member because I think he would find him an interesting Canadian with some interesting ideas. I agree with some of the proposals in that speech. Some of them I do not agree with.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Spadina.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That's the way to keep Canada together.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: It's right down the line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Wonderful Wednesday again!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns his recent statement that a decision will soon be made concerning the problems facing the footwear manufacturing industry since he lifted the quota on leather footwear at the end of November. Does the minister agree with the statement of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal that any system of restraint less than comprehensive would offer no protection at all? Does he therefore agree that the surveillance system of counting imports did not work as a method of controlling the quantity of canvas footwear imported at the time when the canvas footwear loophole was found to be injuring our domestic footwear industry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the existence of the canvas footwear loophole was taken into account by the government when it made the decision which was announced last fall to include canvas footwear in the quota. I think we have certainly responded to that concern.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The minister knows his action was too late.
May 19, 1982


REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF IMPORT QUOTAS ON LEATHER FOOTWEAR
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, having in mind the Anti-Dumping Tribunal's warning that imports of leather footwear from low-wage countries compete directly-and this was over a year ago-in the middle-range points of the Canadian footwear market to which the Canadian producers direct about 90 per cent of their product, will the minister assure this House that he will not rely on such an ineffective method as counting alone for solving the problem presently facing the footwear industry, and will he encourage his colleagues to reinstate the quotas on leather footwear before that industry is entirely destroyed?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my recollection about the Anti-Dumping Tribunal is that they found our footwear industry could meet competition from developed countries, including state-trading countries. These are the major sources of imports of leather footwear. In addition to the quota system which we announced last fall, we also created a $17 million fund to assist in the modernization and upgrading of our industry. In any event, we are actively studying and reviewing representations from all elements of the industry, and have been doing so since the announcement of the policy. When that review is completed, we will announce any decisions we have to make as a result of the review.


LOSS OF JOBS FOLLOWING REMOVAL OF QUOTA
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, since the minister will not answer my questions about the surveillance method or the quotas, and since he has promised for three months to make an announcement, which he has not done, will he now say whether he is aware of the fact that we have already lost one third of the jobs in Canada's leather footwear manufacturing industry since he removed the quotas? Will he say whether he seriously intends to take action now to defend the remaining 14,000 jobs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are certainly interested in the well-being of the industry, including the workers in it. That is why we continue to have a quota on canvas footwear and other forms of non-leather footwear, and why we created the modernization fund of which I just spoke. There is a debate about the number of jobs in the industry at the present time as to the extent to which they are affected by the economy as a whole or whether they are affected by increased imports. This matter is being actively looked at by cabinet. The matter is one for decision by cabinet and any decision will be announced as soon as possible.
Oral Questions METRIC CONVERSION


THREAT OF PROSECUTION OF GROCERY STORE OWNERS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday I was advised that several owners and operators of small grocery stores in Ontario received notification from the regional manager of the weights and measures division of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that officials intend to prosecute them and that they face fines of up to $1,000 and/or jail terms of up to six months, for using pounds rather than kilograms. Since the minister is responsible for the weights and measures division of his department, can he tell this House why that division is not following the minister's statement made in the House last Friday that he will recommend exempting small retailers from compulsory metrication?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I indicated I was going to discuss this policy with the industry. The discussion has not yet taken place. Therefore the policy currently being followed is one that was established and approved by Parliament in 1976-77, and later implemented as set out in the legislation at the time through regulations.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: So much for the word of the minister.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONSULT WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF SMALL BUSINESS
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, the minister undertook on Friday to consult the industrial sector committee to which he just referred. I advised the minister that 25 per cent of those people are from foreign manufacturers of weigh scales and another 25 per cent are from his ministry and that of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister assure the House at this time that the people he consults about this proposal will be the people affected, the small business sector, not those who manufacture foreign-made weigh scales and members of his own ministry and that of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, as usual the hon. member's questions are misleading and based on wrong facts. I assure him that the consultation that will take place will truly be with the people concerned. The hon. member's remarks indicate the spirit of negativism which characterizes him.


CASE OF KINGSTON COUPLE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the answer to the first question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I want to bring to his attention a specific example, the case of a couple in Kingston, Mr. and Mrs. Len Menikefs, hard-working people who have the respect of the community. They have been suddenly confronted with the idea that they may be thrown

May 19, 1982
Oral Questions
into jail for a six-month period. While the minister is considering whether there should be compulsory or voluntary implementation of the metric system, why should those people have to go to jail just because of some whim of the minister? Why are they not allowed at least to have the benefit of the understanding which the minister gave the Elouse the other day?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, let me assure you that I am not at all impressed by the plea of the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Ouellet:: -which is absolutely without foundation. Nobody will be charged or threatened with being jailed until the program has been fully implemented, which will not be before two years down the line. All the stories dreamed up by the Conservative Party, which has decided to make a political issue of a non-partisan question, are false and without foundation. The hon. member should be ashamed of creating fear.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who has just come back to the House and who will know that yesterday, at about five minutes to three o'clock, the Minister of Justice, in answer to a question as to whether or not the government was going to refer the question of offshore jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Canada, said:
-there has been no decision made by the government at this time on that question.
1 would like to ask the Prime Minister whether that response by the Minister of Justice yesterday was a truthful response and, if so, would he tell the House of Commons at which time, what time yesterday or today, did the cabinet of Canada meet to make the decision to refer the offshore jurisdiction question to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the decision became effective when the order in council was signed some time this morning. I cannot say exactly at what hour.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister perhaps wonders why his word is not accepted. Responses like that are the reason.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TIMING OF CABINET DECISION
Charles Joseph Clark: Let me
put the question again. When did cabinet make that decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question of what goes on in cabinet, as the right hon. member knows, is a matter for the Privy Council to keep to themselves. When a decision is made by cabinet is when that decision results in an order or in a decision by the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Yes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is right. Sometimes you discuss questions and you do not make the decision effective then, because you want to know if certain other things are going to happen, whether negotiations can become effective, and so on. There was discussion of this matter over the past many weeks. The decision became final this morning when the order in council was signed.


TIME OF CABINET MEETING
Charles Joseph Clark: When did the cabinet of Canada meet to make this decision?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: And was the Minister of Justice telling the truth to the House of Commons yesterday when he gave his answer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the cabinet met yesterday, yesterday morning. It took what in effect was a conditional decision, and that decision became effective this morning.


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 on Tuesday, May 18, 1982 and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, as a result of the answers which were given today during question period by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order.
May 19, 1982


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the answer which was given by the Solicitor General during the question period today. I want the record to be very clear that the Solicitor General was in fact yesterday morning given detailed information concerning the allegations which I had made in question period today, and the suggestion that he was not informed that he would be questioned on this matter today is completely without foundation.


Madam Speaker:: That really is not a question of privilege, it is debate. I will not even allow the hon. member to respond. I do not recognize that as a question of privilege.


MR. CROSB1E-ALLEGED MISLEADING STATEMENT BY MR. CHRETIEN
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the answer given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I refer to page-[DOT]


Madam Speaker:: Order. There is some disturbance behind the hon. member for St. John's West. I want to remind the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) that the hon. member for St. John's West had risen on a question of privilege just ahead of the hon. member and therefore 1 will recognize him in his turn. I recognize now the hon. member for St. John's West.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I refer to Hansard of yesterday at page 17533 and 17534 where the Minister of Justice, questioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as to whether the federal government is considering a unilateral reference on offshore resource ownership to the Supreme Court of Canada, said:
-No decision has been made at this time.
On the next page, in response to a further question about a direct unilateral reference, he said:
Madam Speaker, I said that there has been no decision made by the government at this time on that question.
Madam Speaker, this morning a telex went from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the Premier of Newfoundland informing him that a reference had been filed with the Supreme Court of Canada this morning putting to the Supreme Court of Canada a question, the whole question of offshore ownership of resources off the east coast of Newfoundland. The Minister of Justice himself flew to Newfoundland to make the same announcement at a press conference. Today we have heard from the Prime Minister that a decision was made by the cabinet of Canada yesterday morning.


An hon. Member:: Deliberately misleading.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not care whether the decision was conditional or not. The decision was confirmed by order in council last night so that the Minister of Justice has deliberately, on a
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
most important matter, deliberately misled this House, deliberately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. 1 gather the hon. member is commenting on the way in which the hon. minister or the Right Hon. Prime Minister answered him yesterday and today in the House. I must say to the hon. member that answers of ministers in the House, if they do not satisfy the members, do not constitute a basis for a question of privilege. What the hon. member is doing until now is debating that question. That is his right, he may debate it, but he may debate it at another time and not under the guise of a question of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am not debating the adequacy of the answer. I am saying that the privileges of members of this House have been affected by a minister deliberately misleading this House, and that is a breach of the privileges of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not care if he is in the House or not. He should not be, an outright liar who deceives the members of this House.


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. I would like hon. members to try to be a bit less nervous. The only way to get through debate is to do it in an orderly fashion, and I would appreciate the co-operation of hon. members to do just that. Someone was speaking to me. Did I hear the hon. member say that someone had deliberately misled the House?


An hon. Member:: You got it right!


An hon. Member:: Remember Profumo!


Madam Speaker:: That is quite unparliamentary. I am afraid I must ask the hon. member if he wants to confirm that. There are things that cannot be said in this manner, unless they are done under a substantive motion, to charge a member with deliberately misleading the House. I would ask the hon. member if he would withdraw those words.


Hon. Eric Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I am sure you will want to consider the distinction between a difference in the subject matter of a debate and a charge that the minister has deliberately misled the House. If ever there was a question of privilege that was a substantive question of privilege, throughout the years in the House, it was the assertion by a member of the House that a minister of the Crown had deliberately misled the House. That is the substance of the question raised by the member for St. John's West. 1 would submit most strongly, Madam Speaker, that the Chair has an obligation when such an assertion is made that a minister of the Crown is deliberately misleading the House, and that it raises a very substantial question of privilege which must be

May 19, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crash ie
considered by the Chair. 1 also suggest that the Chair has an obligation to hear submissions with respect to the position the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is advancing, both pro and con, before coming to a decision. To do otherwise would be very dangerous, and in this very vital and sensitive area of questions of privilege I suggest it behooves the Chair to hear substantial submissions before coming to any premature conclusions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: We are dealing with two things, obviously, and we will make a distinction between the two things. The first thing we have to deal with is the unparliamentary language which was used. That is one point. If the hon. member wants to maintain that accusation or that unparliamentary language and if he wants to insist on that charge, he knows how he can do that. He must give notice of a substantive motion to charge an hon. member with having "deliberately" misled the House. Otherwise, in the course of normal debate, which we are having now, the expression "deliberately misleading the House" cannot be used. It is unparliamentary. Debate can continue on this question of privilege only on the condition that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) withdraws those words.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, with great respect-


Mr. Cousineau:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Who is running this House?


Erik Nielsen: If hon. members opposite will be quiet, I would like to point out that to come to a judgment that words used by the hon. member for St. John's West are unparliamentary would be to prejudge the very matter the hon. member for St. John's West is raising. The hon. member for St. John's West has been very specific in asserting that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has deliberately misled this House. This happened not only during question period yesterday, in which case I agree with the Chair that notice should be given and the question raised in the normal way under the rules, but it also arose again today as a result of the responses given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the questions advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
Our rules provide that questions of privilege with respect to matters raised during question period on the current day should be raised now, and that was the purpose of the hon. member for St. John's West in raising the matter now. If the Chair finds that, pursuant to her interpretation of the rules, the matter should be raised tomorrow, naturally notice will be given, but I suggest very strongly to the Chair that the hon. member for St. John's West is entitled to be heard now since the matter did arise during today's question period.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is really going right around the question.


Mr. Harquail:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member a bit later.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is really going right around the question. There is no question whatever as to the right of the hon. member for St. John's West to submit a question of privilege today, if it follows from the deliberations of today. There is no question about that whatever, and I will hear him for as long as he wants to do just that, but he must raise his question of privilege without using unparliamentary language, which is quite clearly determined in Beauchesne and many other authorities. "Deliberately misleading the House" may not be used in the course of debate or the raising of a question of privilege. If the hon. member wants to maintain that an hon. member has deliberately misled the House, he has to do that through a formal motion, and I will not hear him today on his question of privilege-which he is completely entitled to raise-unless he withdraws those words.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I certainly have no intention of withdrawing any language I have used here, and I certainly wish to proceed with the charge that the Minister of Justice has deliberately misled this House. That is what he did yesterday, as shown by the answers of the Prime Minister to questions raised here today. I am not withdrawing. That is my charge, and I will follow it up with all the formalities as soon as I can. No way am I withdrawing-no way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I take note of what the hon. member has said and, if he wants to lay a formal charge subsequently, he may do that, but the words "deliberately misled" have been pronounced in this House. They are unparliamentary, and the hon. member will have to withdraw them. I ask him to do that, in co-operation with the Chair, who has the responsibility of maintaining order in this House. That is a responsibility the Chair exercises only through rules and practices which hon. members themselves have established. The hon. member is in fact going against himself if he does not co-operate at the present time, but I am sure he will do so and withdraw those words for the time being. If he wants to repeat them in a formal charge under a different procedure, he can do that later on.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, surely it must be apparent that to follow the course of requiring the hon. member to withdraw the words he has used, the accusation of deliberately misleading the House, is to come to a pre-judgment on the very matter at issue before the Chair. The Chair has my undertaking and the undertaking of the hon. member for St. John's West that he will give-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: If the jackals over there will be quiet for a moment, we will undertake to give the Chair proper notice tomorrow supported by-


An hon. Member:: Jackass.
May 19, 1982


Erik Nielsen: The jackasses are all over there. Long before I did, the Prime Minister called them braying donkeys.
We will undertake to give the Chair proper notice tomorrow supported by a substantive motion, but I suggest it would be a gross misinterpretation of our rules to come to a pre-judgment and to require the hon. member for St. John's West to withdraw the very substance of that notice and of that motion before he even has an opportunity to present it to the Chair for discussion by hon. members in the House.


Madam Speaker:: No, 1 am not pre-judging the matter at all.
1 am only asking the hon. member for St. John's West to withdraw the unparliamentary language he has used in the House. That is precisely the reason we need a motion, so that everyone will know exactly what the minister is being accused of and charged with. That can be done by way of a substantive motion which the hon. member might bring on at a later date, but an unparliamentary expression has been uttered in this House, and 1 cannot allow the business to proceed without its having been withdrawn. I am sure the hon. member will understand that and that he will withdraw those words for the time being, on the understanding that he may maintain that, if he wishes, in a formal charge on another occasion.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, to require that is to require the hon. member for St. John's West to admit that the expression he used was untrue. That is not the case. If the words used were untrue, I am sure the hon. member for St. John's West would withdraw them, but we on this side of the House maintain that they were not untrue, and if the Chair insists on following this course, my only advice to the hon. member for St. John's West is to stick by his words, and we will confront the Chair and the House tomorrow with a substantive motion and proper notice of a question of privilege on this very, very serious matter of the Minister of Justice's deliberately misleading the House by his answers yesterday.


Madam Speaker:: 1 certainly cannot-neither can any other hon. member in the House at the present time-judge whether these accusations are true or untrue, taking into account the way this situation developed.


Erik Nielsen: That is right.


Madam Speaker:: The precise reason we need a motion is so that the whole question can be debated. However, those unparliamentary words cannot be uttered in the course of exposing a question of privilege, and I am afraid I must ask the hon. member for St. John's West to withdraw those words, without prejudice to whatever subsequent procedure he might want to follow.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, 1 naturally wish to cooperate with the Chair, but 1 am not going to lend myself to any pretence that we have not been deliberately deceived. I have had enough of it, and so have all hon. members on this side of the House. We have had enough of members of the cabinet deceiving us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


John Carnell Crosbie: We have had enough of half-truths and evasions. Yesterday there was a deliberate and serious black and white deception of this House as to what was to happen on the offshore mineral issue. The minister flew to St. John's. His plane was ready and waiting for him after he misled this House. No way will I withdraw, not for one second.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: In that case I have no choice but to name the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, in the circumstances, our parliamentary practice leaves me no choice. It is my duty to move:
That the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.


Madam Speaker:: 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 please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried.
Conforming with the decision of this House, I must now ask the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to withdraw from the chamber.
1 must again ask the hon. member for St. John's West, in conformity with the decision that has been taken by this House, to withdraw from the chamber.
Perhaps the Sergeant-at-Arms could escort the hon. member for St. John's West out of the Chamber.
And Mr. Crosbie having withdrawn:


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I tried to catch your eye earlier in the afternoon. In view of the events that have transpired I want to review and reflect on the record of the remarks of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in his answer to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) about the implementation of metric. I have a blind constituent who has been threatened and is in the situation of either being liable to be fined or sent to prison because he has not complied with metric. 1 want to review what the minister said and check my facts again.
I give you formal notice now that I intend to raise a question of privilege on this point.


Madam Speaker:: I would just remind the hon. member that the fact that he rose in this House to give me notice does not constitute the proper type of notice. He should give me notice in writing with a brief statement of what constitutes his question of privilege and I will deal with it at another time.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, on that question of privilege I want to say that on the way out of the House the hon. member raised with me the matter of the blind person in his constituency. I told him that he was not correct, that the person was not prosecuted and will not go to jail.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that is debate and I cannot allow it at this time.


POINT OF ORDER
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In an exchange of questions between the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) during question period, the minister read extensively from what purported to be a letter sent by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) to
May 19, 1982

the Premier of Newfoundland. I think it is the custom of this House that upon request that letter will be tabled.
I am sorry that the Minister of Finance has left the House but the Prime Minister is here and undoubtedly he is familiar with the letter I referred to. I request that the letter from which the Minister of Finance read extracts earlier today be tabled.
Order Paper Questions
question is posed tomorrow. I might deal with it tomorrow if a decision is made by the minister not to table it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, unfortunately 1 was not here when that exchange occurred; 1 was meeting with the Prime Minister of Australia. I have no objection to making that letter public but I think it would be discourteous to do so unless the Premier of Newfoundland agreed. 1 can ascertain-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was not here and do not know the circumstances in which it was read. If hon. members object to reading from it, then that is all the more reason not to ask for production of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They will have to make up their minds. Madam Speaker, let us try and get this straight. 1 said that I am prepared to table it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of John Meier of Delta, British Columbia. Mr. Meier makes certain requests of this Parliament. He asks that the House cause a committee of the House to conduct hearings into matters and facts concerning the intervention of the CIA in Canadian elections, as well as penetration by the CIA into Canadian security services. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ordered an inquiry into these matters, I urge that this petition be taken very seriously and that a committee investigate these very serious allegations.


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With this crowd, Madam Speaker, you have to explain everything twice-


Charles Joseph Clark: And change your stride in mid-stream.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and three times for the leader, Madam Speaker. I said I am prepared to table it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said I am prepared to table it if the Premier of Newfoundland-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 know he is a laughing matter, and if this is the view of the hon. member he can express it himself.
Is the opposition satisfied, Madam Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No? Let us have a supplementary. I would like to hear that.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,887, 2,889, 2,895, 2,896, 2,897, 2,939, 2,955, 2,983, 4,173 and 4,280.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the Accommodation Program-Operations and Maintenance at page 32.28, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to training and educational services (a) how does the department explain the 100 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?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Accommodation operating-vote 10, standard object 04, training and educational services.


Madam Speaker:: The Minister of Finance is not in the House at the present time but the Right Hon. Prime Minister has just said that he is prepared to table this letter under certain conditions. I think we should wait until tomorrow to see what kind of consultations can take place and whether the
Expenditures	1978-79	$166,120
1979-80	86,929
Decrease	$ 79,191
(a)	Training and educational services did not increase by 100 per cent but actually decreased by 48 per cent.
17598

May 19, 1982
Order Paper Questions
The 1979-80 expenditure of $86,929 was broken into the
following categories:
(b)	(c)
Reimbursement for courses after working hours	$14,366
Course fees during normal working hours	47,089
Public Service Commission training courses	24,315
Fees paid to professional and resources persons, including guest speakers, etc.	1,159
Contracts over $2,000 were the following:
Public Service Commission, Ottawa, Ontario	$20,777
Public Service Commission, Halifax, Nova Scotia	8,217
Algonquin College, Ottawa, Ontario	15,890
Darcy Sweeney Ltd., Scarborough, Ontario	2,125


Mr. Clarke: With reference to. the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the Administration Program at page 32.26, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to photographic services (a) how does the department explain the 70 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?


Paul James Cosgrove: Expenditure	1978-79	$18,290
1979-80	31,124
Increase	$12,834
(a)	The increase is primarily related to the volume of work assigned to the Canadian Government Photo Centre and Public Archives by the department for photographic services.
(b)	and (c) Of the $31,124 reported in the 1979-80 public accounts, $10,601 was paid to the Canadian Government Photo Centre and $12,787 was paid to Public Archives. The balance, $7,736 was for various photographic services throughout the country and for which no individual payment of $2,000 or over was made. The payment to the Canadian Government Photo Centre included Canada Week publicity costs, the Dempster Highway opening publicity costs, general photography, etc. The amount paid to Public Archives was for microfilming services. In 1978-79 payments to the Canadian Government Photo Centre totalled $5,073 and to Public Archives $5,438.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the Transportation Program-Operations and Maintenance at page 32.29, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other business services (a) how does the department explain the 103 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?


Paul James Cosgrove: Expenditures	1978-79	$16,607
1979-80	33,725
Increase	$17,118
(a)	and (b) The increase is largely attributed to the increase in service fees for the procurement of materials as levied by the Department of Supply and Services.
(c)	Payments to DSS in 1979-80 totalled $27,615 compared to $10,952 in 1978-79, an increase of $16,663. Other than to the Department of Supply and Services there were no individual payments in excess of $2,000.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the Transportation Program-Operations and Maintenance at page 32.29, 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 340 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?


Paul James Cosgrove: (a) and
(b)	The increase in other types of services in 1979-80 is a result of not reporting expenditures in as great a detail as in 1978-79.
Reported in Public Accounts	1978-79	1979-80Other types of services	$ 4,095	$18,008Protection services	8,141	8,255*Snow removal service	14,278	3,728*Temporary help services	-	2,235*Printing services	942*	1,072*Contract business services	-	1,088*Sundries	3,153*	1,630*$26,514	$18,008
Included above in other types of services
The comparable figure for 1978-79 is $26,514 as compared to $18,008 1979-80 which reflects a decrease of $8,506 in 1979-80.
(c)	Contracts over $2,000 were the following:
Bernard Long, Clair, New Brunswick, snow removal	$ 2,791
Manpower Temporary Services, Hamilton, Ontario, secretarial services	$ 2,235
Valley Investigation and Patrol Ltd., Surrey, British Columbia, protection services	S 8,180
May 19, 1982


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Public Works under the Accommodation Program-Operations and Maintenance at page 32.28, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to catering services (a) for what reason did the department require such a service (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?


Paul James Cosgrove: Expenditures	1978-79	SI,277,030
1979-80	1,001,460
Decrease	$ 275,570
(a), (b) and (c) The federal government (Public Works) is responsible for the operation of the Goose Bay, Labrador facilities and has an agreement to provide meal service to the British and American air forces on a recoverable basis. In addition the department provides a subsidized meal service to all single federal public servants at Goose Bay under the isolated posts regulations. Payments at Goose Bay in 1979-80 were $803,344. The balance of costs were incurred at Ottawa and are for catering service on a cost-recovery basis provided for clients using the Federal Study Centre and the Conference Centre.
Contracts over $2,000 in addition to those listed in public accounts were as follows:
Austrian Catering Service, Ottawa, Ont.	$12,986
Capital Food Services, Ottawa, Ont.	3,210
Jack Edelson Ltd., Ottawa, Ont.	16,795


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Environment for Parks Canada at page 32.10, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to photographic services (a) how does the department account for the 955 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: (a) The increase in expenditures for photographic services between 1978-79 and 1979-80 is attributable to two basic administrative changes in 1979-80:
(i)	The coding classifications for photographic finishing in 1979-80 was coded to professional and special services instead of materials and supplies as had been the case in 1978-79;
(ii)	The Parks Canada program applied strict rules upon expenditures which could be charged to the capital vote with the result that in 1979-80, photographic expenditures were almost exclusively charged to operations rather than to capital projects.
(b)(i) Arthur Holbrook-$3,000.
Order Paper Questions
(ii)	Canadian Government Photo Centre-$33,263. (a) production of photographic mural panels for Woodside National Historic Park, $15,557; (b) mounting, lamination and fabrication of photographic display for the Sault Canal, $14,916; (c) mounting and lamination of a special text (49 titles), $2,790.
(iii)	Cardinal Research, preparation of a 13-15 minute bilingual version of a 35 mm automated interpretive slide/tape program of Jones Falls, Rideau Canal engineering history and general information, $10,000.
(iv)	Department of Supply and Services, payment of service fees, $4,247.
(v)	National Film Board, $18,912. (a) 35 mm colour English sound slide presentation of Fort St. Joseph and the Indians, $2,723. (b) 35 mm Bilingual slide and sound presentation, Woodside National Historic Park, $2,983. (c) sound and slide presentation entitled National Parks, $3,850. (d) sound and slide presentation entitled National Parks, $6,573. (e) 35 mm colour bilingual slide and sound presentation, Woodside National Historic Park, $2,783.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Environment for Parks Canada at page 32.9, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to education services, for what reason does the department pay for elementary and secondary education?


James Duncan Schroder: Elementary and secondary education costs are paid to school districts for children of employees in Riding Mountain and Prince Albert National Parks. These two parks have employees living in staff accommodation within the park boundaries. Employees pay rent to the Crown based on the Treasury Board Living Accommodation Directive. Grants in lieu of taxes are not paid to municipalities. Instead, agreements are entered into by the department with municipal school boards for both transportation and tuition on a "per student" basis.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of the Environment for Parks Canada at page 32.10, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to motion picture production (a) what were the titles of all such motion pictures (b) at what audience were they aimed (c) what cost recovery can be expected from the distribution of the films (d) what was the total cost of the production of each film produced in the fiscal year 1979-80?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: (a)	(b)	(d)
1. To Sense the Wonder	Schools, community groups, $ 99,000
tourists, general public

May 19, 1982
Order Paper Questions
(a)	(b)	(d)2. A Likely Story	Park visitors, schools, general public	97,0823. A Day in the National Park	Theatre patrons, park visitors, television viewers, general public	6,1004. L'Enigme du Saphir	Schools, community groups, general public	10,0005. La Bataille de Chateauguay	Park visitors, schools, general public	135,0006. A Day at Fort George	Park visitors, schools	14,0007. Military Firearms in Canada	Park visitors, schools	6,5008. Visitors are Coming	Schools, community groups, general public	32,5229. Cabot	Park visitors, schools	9,23010. Historic Sites film clips	Television viewers	3,500(c)	No distribution proceeds are expected as these films are made available to groups for education-information purposes.


Mr. Corbett: 1.	To date, what amount was spent on the Bagotville base to make way for the new F-18?
2.	How much more is it estimated will have to be spent on the base to accomodate the F-18?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: 1. To date no funds have been spent on the facilities at CFB Bagotville to make way for the new CF-18.
2. Future expenditures on the base infrastructure to adequately accomodate the CF-18 are currently estimated at $19 million.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past three fiscal years, how many grants in Quebec of the program New Horizons were for (a) less than (i) $5,000 (ii) $10,000 (iii) $ 15,000 (iv) $20,000 (b) more than $20,000?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a)	Less than	(i) $5,000	(ii) $10,000 (iii)	$15,000	(iv) $20,0001979-1980	324	178	30	51980-1981	269	216	56	151981-1982	250	195	48	16(b)	More than	$20,000	1979-1980	3	1980-1981	6	1981-1982	4


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again I rise with respect to question No. 2,042 from January of last year. Has the parliamentary secretary any possible explanation as to why the government is denying the people of Canada full knowledge as to what it cost them for the Prime Minister's trip as set out in that question?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, we are not denying anyone any information. As of today we have answered 3,222 questions during this session. The answer is in progress. 1 am pleased the hon. member has drawn this matter to my attention again and I will, of course, look into the matter on his behalf.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I am wondering when 1 may receive a reply to question No. 4,229 which was placed on the Order Paper a good six weeks ago at the invitation and urging of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He could not answer my question in the House and suggested 1 place it on the Order Paper. It is not a terribly difficult or complex question to answer, but it is very timely in view of the number of young people looking for summer employment. The question deals directly with the criteria this government used to man the Metric Commission information kiosks, and I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not know the answer offhand but I will be pleased to look into this matter on the hon. member's behalf.


Mr. Young:: Madam Speaker, can the parliamentary secretary indicate when we can expect an answer to question No. 4,165 concerning a number of related questions with respect to the Main Square apartment buildings in the city of Toronto?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of what stage the answer to that question is at the moment, but I will be happy to look into it on behalf of the hon. member.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 19, 1982



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 18, 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. Beatty.
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, I am not necessarily very pleased to take part in the debate on this particular amendment. 1 want to draw hon. members' attention to the trend of "government out of control" which is of increasing concern not just to those of us who have worked through three Parliaments on the Public Accounts Committee, but also to the public and the taxpayers. By debating Bill C-102, an act which gives the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) the power to put in place Crown corporations subject to the approval of cabinet, we are accelerating that trend and are creating a subgovernment which is not subject to public scrutiny.
The arguments of PetroCan were that the people and government of this country needed a window on the energy industry, particularly oil and gas; but just as soon as the window is created we find it being painted black inside and out. Crown corporations are becoming a subgovernment which this House of Commons cannot get a handle on; they are in no way, shape or form accountable to us in this House. This bill only confuses the issue as to whether Crown corporations incorporated under Bill C-102 will come under the Financial Administration Act or the Canada Business Corporations Act. This definitely leaves those of us with some knowledge in this area totally confused, and I understand it leaves the legal profession and experts outside of this House totally confused as well. It is a grey area and will take a long time to sort out.
Before 1 speak exactly to the narrow limits of the amendment put forward by my colleague and benchmate, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), I would like to bring to the House's attention the fact that in the Thirtieth Parliament members on all sides worked for hours and hours, weeks and weeks through four sessions trying to get control of this whole subject of Crown corporations. I remember the day when one of the senior Treasury Board officials was asked how many Crown corporations there were and he did not have the answer. It later came out that there were 478 known Crown corporations.
The committee then started to work on this issue, and officials from the Treasury Board diligently attended every single one of those meetings and subsequently came up with a blue book which was the forerunner to a Crown corporations act. The Public Accounts Committee of the Thirtieth Parliament submitted a very detailed and studied report on this issue
Energy, Mines and Resources
where it said Crown corporations must be brought under either the Financial Administration Act or a Crown corporations act so that Canadian taxpayers could see just how this subgovernment was developing.
[DOT] (UOO)
Of the Crown corporations, either wholly owned, partially owned or subsidiaries of subsidiaries of Crown corporations, there are some 50 that have been given agency of Her Majesty status. What this amendment tries to do is remove from the powers given to the minister of energy agency status that, in our opinion, is totally unnecessary and extremely dangerous in light of the lack of accountability this House and the committees of this House have over the Crown corporation subgovernment.
Agency status was drafted as a chapter in a blue book on Crown corporations. For some reason or other known only in the Privy Council office, it was not included in the text of this book. I assume that kind of knowledge was not to be broadly spread to Members of Parliament or the public at large.
Agency of Her Majesty status is indeed a unique and powerful privilege that I do not believe this House should be conferring on any one minister. Everything the minister of energy has to do in terms of incorporation of Crown corporations can be done under the present structure of going to cabinet and incorporating through governor in council order. But what is happening here is that we are giving the minister the right to confer unbelievable powers on this string of companies that he is creating as he takes control over the whole national energy structure in this country; state control, I might say, Mr. Speaker.
Agency of Her Majesty status exists probably in 50 corporations. We heard that wonderful speech from the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) last night. I would urge everyone to read it. That speech illustrated how shallow our knowledge is in this important area of government business. There are about 50 Crown corporations that have been given the gift of agency of Her Majesty status. Some of the powers that are automatically conferred by that status are immunity from taxation by provinces, and immunity from the law. The law as it applies to other businesses incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act does not apply to the gift the Minister of Energy is giving in Bill C-102 to these Crown corporations, the need for which the minister has not yet defined.
The minister is seeking and getting this power which will give these special corporations immunity from provincial legislation and provincial taxation. Not only that, but these corporations get immunity from federal legislation federal laws. They get very special status. These Crown corporations that are given this status, which my colleague is trying to have removed from this bill in the subamendment to which I am speaking, also allows these corporations the special privilege and right to borrow money from any sector at the cost of the

May 19, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
government. There is an automatic government guarantee conferred by giving agency of Her Majesty status. It is questionable.
We already know from the Supreme Court of Ontario ruling which my colleague put on the record last night that the competition act and actions that are unlawful for everybody else in the private sector in Canada will now be lawful for administrators or corporations that are conferred this agency of Her Majesty status in this bill. We as Members of Parliament really do not fully understand the breadth nor the complicated nature of the power being conferred by Bill C-102. It will empower the Minister of Energy to put Crown corporations in place as his need so arises in the marketplace.
In committee the minister told us that rather than use Petro-Canada for these purposes he thought there would probably be more control and it would be safer if special corporations were put in place. Yet my colleague the hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe pointed out that the powers needed were absolutely unnecessary, that they existed, and the agency status of Her Majesty carries a potential for abuse that we in this House do not understand. I join with him in a plea to members opposite and to members in the NDP ranks that we strike from the bill lines 11 to lines 14 found on page 2 because everything the government needs is in place now. Surely we do not have to confer this special status on corporations, the need for which has not yet been defined by the minister.
Having said that, I am very sorry the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is not with us today. He was here last night. He has been very diligent in his duties as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. He sat through all the hearings and studies on the need for a Crown corporations act in Canada. This was before we started expanding this subgovernment which is now out of control and is not accountable, in spite of what anyone else wants to say in this House, to the committees and the systems under which we operate.
The President of the Treasury Board wrote a book when he was in the private sector called "Fiscalamity". We have read the book. His sincerity and the depth of his concern is known to us all. Having worked as a colleague with him on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I know how able and sincere his concerns are. But why, now that he is President of the Treasury Board, is legislation like this coming in that flies in the face of the work of the Lambert Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, and which flies in the face of years of work on the part of the Treasury Board in that department's blue book calling for Crown corporations? Why does it fly in the face of a very good report submitted in the Thirtieth Parliament by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which laid out major recommendations and conclusions on this subject matter?
What do we have to do in the way of an appeal to the government on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, an appeal on the part of people who are now becoming genuinely concerned that their freedom is being threatened because the
parliamentary system is not working, the bureaucracy and the subgovernment of Crown corporations are in a runaway condition, able to call on the Consolidated Revenue Fund when they fail and they have agency of Her Majesty status?
We are also dealing with the fact that the boards of directors and their powers in the special Crown corporations are not the same and are not subject to the same laws as are businesses incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act. This gets back to Professor Florie's warning in 1979 to us in Toronto, which is that government controls the private sector but no one controls the public sector.
My plea and cry in this House to members on the government benches is: "Please wake up and understand the seriousness of what we are doing when we allow Crown corporations to be put in place at the whim of a minister with agency of Her Majesty status." That is a power the minister does not need.
If you had been attending the special committee hearings on Bill C-102, Mr. Speaker, you would have found that the second reading speech of the minister in this House, he had to admit, was somewhat misleading. He mentioned that we needed competition, that this was a way of providing competition in the marketplace and that these Crown corporations were necessary.
What concerns me is that we have moved way beyond the fifty-fifty mix of private-public involvement in the marketplace. These Crown corporations, particularly with the status which we are asking to be removed from the bill, are outside the laws that apply to everyone else. Also, their directors are not accountable as are directors in the private sector.
In committee the minister assured us that the chief executive officers of the new Crown corporations would be appointed from their boards of directors. One just has to look at the incestuous relationships which are now developing within the Crown corporations sector, within the public sector or this subgovernment that is outside the purview of and accountability to the House. Accountability could only come if this major piece of work on the part of the Treasury Board had been implemented in the Crown corporations act. That act has been drafted and is ready to be tabled, but we have not seen it.
I pleaded with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources not to come in with a bill like Bill C-102. He had all the power he needed in the present processes to do what he wanted, but he said: "That takes time and there is not time fcr what I want to do." the powers in Bill C-102, particularly the status we are trying to remove with the amendment to which I am speaking, are far broader than anything that minister or any future minister needs to act on behalf of Canadians.
I believe hon. members of the New Democratic Party and all speakers on this side have said that Bill C-102 is very, very bad. The bill itself should be withdrawn, instead of our being required to struggle with the powers being given to the minister in the bill.
May 19, 1982

I want to re-emphasize that we are mixing apples and oranges here. The bill talks about the Canada Business Corporations Act. If there is to be any accountability to Parliament, it should come under the Financial Administration Act. The experts cannot tell us how it sorts out. One can listen to a lawyer in committee give a fuzzy answer. When one takes the answer to be analysed by outside lawyers, they say that the entire area is in confusion. The bill is giving unbelievable powers which do not exist anywhere in the private sector to Crown corporations that are shells and phantoms. If there is an area of concern in my gut, it is that Crown corporations do not have the sense of behaviour which is required of the private sector, be it their boards of directors, chief executives or otherwise.
Committees of the House have worked for years on the poor behaviour of Crown corporations and their officers. For example, Polysar was using dummy invoices to transfer profits made onshore to offshore corporations in order to avoid tax in Canada. Also Radio Engineering Products, a Crown corporation which was put in place with Crown money, transferred its assets out of the country so that the government could not seize them. They have the slickest legal minds in the world working in these areas. All we have to do is review the behavioural problems in AECL, particularly in its international dealings, none of which has been properly accounted; commissions being paid to people offshore; and joint contracting deals made with other countries, for example, the Argentina Candu reactor. All these behavioural problems exist when people are not accountable through a system of disclosure.
Hon. members on both sides of the House, Liberal and Conservative, have worked on this question for years. The Auditor General has written reports that the system has been out of control since 1974. With all the warnings of the Auditor General, with all the work of the office of the Comptroller General and the Treasury Board, we have not heard one word about the Crown corporations act, a magnificent piece of work on the part of Treasury Board. We have not heard one word on the reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the entire matter of bringing accountability to the government and to the House for this whole level of subgovernment.
There are various examples of runaway behavioural problems because these corporations are not accountable. There is no window on their operations. After all these years of work, one really wonders if this place is worth the time, sweat and energy one puts into it, because bureaucracy and that government will do what they want-to hell with accountability. 1 have just about had it, with all the work which people like myself, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), the President of the Treasury Board, one of the Acting Speakers and hon. members on both sides of the House, have done. We have worked our hearts out to bring this issue to account. Then we see Bill C-102 brought in by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which thumbs its nose at those of us who are trying to represent our constituents and the people of Canada in general in an area of accountability. There is something tragic about the entire bill.
Energy, Mines and Resources
All I am doing is speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, or to anyone on the government side who is listening. No minister should have the powers which are conferred in this bill. No corporation, if we do not know the purpose of its formation, should be given agency of Her Majesty's status. This is really the last straw. Anger is starting to build in the country. The government should wake up to the fact that what we want through Part III of the estimates is some decent, honest disclosure; that is what is needed. This bill flies in the face of years of work by hon. members on both sides of the House. It flies in the face of totally apolitical work and dedicated, sincere energy and effort to try to make the system accountable to Canadian taxpayers.
Also there is taxation without representation in the energy package. In the total package of these bills unbelievable powers are being given to a minister of the state. This would not be half bad, but an essential element of Parliament which we inherited from the mother of Parliaments is ministerial responsibility. Obviously from the examples we have had in this session, ministerial responsibiity no longer aplies in this Parliament.
This form of government cannot stick together. It will not work. It will cause anger and frustration. I am awaiting the point of outrage when the people at large really understand how out of control is the entire system. To pour my heart out into this stuff is almost the most thankless thing I have ever experienced in my life. The problem with the Crown corporation issue, which will be aggravated and developed further with Bill C-102, particularly with agency of Her Majesty status therein, is the fact that there is no review. There is no one to question the mandate, or the manner in which the Crown corporation is serving its mandate and its objectives.
We have a comptroller generals act and an Auditor General Act which contain a value for money concept that is the most advanced in the world. It is not that we want supply to return to where the opposition can hold it up by endless debate and impede the government in forward progress, but there is only one alternative to returning to what was pre-1971-an honest, well organized system of information which provides a window, a view and a degree of accountability on how well the mandates and the objectives of Crown corporations are being served by their managers. All too often we find the incestuous relationships of boards of directors being comprised of former public servants or public servants moving out of the department which created the beast into a position as chief executive officer or on the board of directors. How can a board of directors discharge or question a chief executive officer who has been appointed by cabinet or by the Prime Mimster (Mr. Trudeau)? We should just think about that. They cannot and they will not.
This whole subgovernment concept, which is further aggravated with the presentation of Bill C-102 and this agency of Her Majesty's status, flies in the face of everything. I plead with members opposite to talk with the minister and allow this amendment, which removes lines 11 to 14 on page 2 from the bill, to pass and to let those people in the Crown corporations create their entities and shells through the normal channels which are available to them and in place right now. Let these

May 19, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
bills provide for some accountability under the Financial Administration Act. Let us stop giving these Crown corporations an automatic and direct guarantee to call on the Consolidated Revenue Fund to rectify their mistakes.
Under this bill the minister can create corporations which will be able to take billions of dollars in the form of government guarantees. For example, I understand that just this fiscal year closing, 1981, there is over $58 billion in known guarantees on contingent liabilities that are not in the public accounts of Canada. If we allow this type of legislation to go through, that situation will be aggravated to the point of national bankruptcy, and I believe that this is what we are really dealing with today. If we are going to allow a bill such as this to be passed, let us make sure that Members of Parliament have the proper tools to have an overview on the bill and access to the disclosure of the needed information to examine the mandate and efficiency with which managers and the boards of directors are serving their objectives. There must be some control over Crown corporations and, above all, there must be accountability.
The need for this accountability in Canada and within the governmental system has arrived. The clock is ticking away in the final hours because I believe that the taxpayers of Canada are close to the point where they will no longer tolerate intervention and interference by the state over the entire marketplace. The Crown corporations of this country are too interrelated, cross-subsidized and have too much communication between their directors to allow any company in the private sector to survive. 1 do not want to see a fifty-fifty balance of private and public corporations in the marketplace because 1 believe that would mean too many Crown corporations. The difference between private and public corporations is that a private corporation cannot survive without a bottom line.
It is interesting to see the advantage that Crown corporations have over major private corporations. For example, 1 was talking to two employees of Canadian Pacific Airlines. They were telling me that the problem they have competing with the very-well-run national airline, Air Canada, is that Air Canada had its debt cancelled and is therefore operating with an unnatural administrative burden. The private sector corporation, which comes under the taxpaying sector under acceptable accountability, just cannot compete with the lighter burden of the Crown corporation.
What is at stake is freedom in the marketplace. As we move from concentration on ownership in the private sector to allow even more concentration on allowing the state sector to have control over our lives, we lose freedom of choice. When we lose that, we have lost our freedom. All through the ages history has told us that when this happens, power over the people is the objective. I want to see this system survive and I want to see Crown corporations and the public services accountable to the institutions. I believe there should be parliamentary reform which will deliver that accountability.
I urge members on the government side to vote for this amendment and strike from Bill C-102 the phrase, "agency of Her Majesty status". Because that in itself has serious implications. I would also urge those members to develop legal answers which would clear up the confusion which exists between the relationship of a corporation under the Canada Business Corporations Act and one accountable through the Financial Administration Act.
In order to have any kind of accountability, any corporations which are created by the minister should come under the Financial Administration Act. The Canada Business Corporations Act content of Bill C-102 confuses the issue and 1 suppose it is there deliberately to confuse the issue so that we cannot make inquiries within the time frame and workload that we have as Members of Parliament in this place.
The issue which is raised by this amendment which was introduced by the hon. member from Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe is one of the most serious we have had. The minister does not really need these powers provided to him under this bill and I am surprised that we did not catch his ear after all the pleas we made to him in committee about this. If the intent of this bill is that which we were told in committee, the minister does not need the broader powers he is seeking through this legislation. It is a bad bill, the minister does not need it and I would like to see it withdrawn. All the powers he needs are in place today. In my opinion, agency status is an offence to the President of the Treasury Board, who is a former chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and a member who has worked hard on this issue for years.
1 plead with hon. members to let us bring ourselves back to the point where we have some accountability to the people. Let us not create a subgovernment that not even we can examine and review. I plead with hon. members opposite to support this amendment so that the bill will at least be 50 per cent improved. It is quite hard to improve compost and rot so perhaps we can empty the bin and get rid of the bill altogether.
I close by saying that Crown corporations do not need these powers and should not be allowed to have their mistakes and debts automatically guaranteed by the Government of Canada. I do not believe that these corporations should be exempt from both provincial and federal laws. Crown corporations should be subject to the same law that private corporations work under. The issue we are concerned about is the authority of the cabinet to set up Crown corporations. We are concerned about the whole subgovernment that is outside the reviewing and accountability process that is being called for by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, by the Auditor General and which the office of the Comptroller General has been attempting to initiate.
I repeat once again that we in the House have no opportunity to examine the mandates given these Crown corporations or to examine the efficiency with which their mandates and objectives are served. There is no control over boards of directors as there is in private sector corporations. If the state is going to be involved in the marketplace, I must ask what is wrong with making Crown corporations subject to the same
May 19, 1982

laws as the private sector. Why do we need to give an unnatural advantage to Crown corporations in financing and provide them with a legal umbrella and isolation? Why cannot the laws pertaining to cartels, competition, intervention, and all other laws which apply to the private sector not apply to the public sector?
I urge hon. members of the Elouse to support this important amendment, because I do not believe that any one minister should be given this type of power.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak briefly on this amendment which was introduced by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). At page 17576 of Hansard for May 18, the hon. member had this to say:
How many instances do we need before members of the House, and particularly members of the NDP, are prepared to show respect for taxpayers' money, money which is coerced from their constituents?
The members of the Conservative Party do not help their case when they try to amend this bill, which I agree is a bad bill because of the way it deals with the set-up of Crown corporations, by going on a right-wing tirade, as the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) pointed out in his speech last night, against the whole principle of Crown corporations. That is the inarticulated major premise of many of their speeches. Nor do they help their position by saying we in this party are prepared to throw taxpayers' money around.
I do not say the hon. member who spoke last was particularly saying this, but I draw his attention to an example in our home province of British Columbia. A Social Credit provincial government, really a conservative provincial government, took all the resources of public Crown corporations that had been set up under the previous NDP government, such as BCRIC, the British Columbia Resource Investment Corporation. Its shares sold at $6 and eventually went up to $8. Now they are down to a little over $3 a share and the shares have gone into fewer and fewer hands.
We have a situation where the government took a public resource which belonged to all the people, "BCRICed" it, and put it into this corporation whose shares have done nothing but go down. It has been poorly managed since they have been there. Who is giving away public money? I just point that out. Otherwise I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe.
Let me state again briefly the problem that we on this side have with this bill. We have no objection to the government setting up Crown corporations, but we do not see why it cannot come in and set up a Crown corporation by an act of Parliament. Surely that is the proper way to do it. Then after we had debated it, the Crown corporation could be properly set up.
Members opposite have said we cannot do that because it takes too long to go through Parliament. The answer is not to go around Parliament or continue the practice of orders in
Energy, Mines and Resources
council setting up corporations and do all of the lawmaking outside Parliament. The logical answer is to reform Parliament. You do not say that we do not have to reform Parliament and therefore you will continue with this kind of lawmaking. The logical way is to reform Parliament and then do the proper kind of law-making.
The other day I pointed out that if the government had not made an order in council amendment without parliamentary scrutiny of the Alaska pipeline act, 1978, it would not be in the exposed position it is in today over the pre-build of that pipeline. We could have had a full debate in the House and then sent the bill to committee to be looked at. Maybe it would not have made what in retrospoect turned out to be an unwise decision.
Our position is that if you want to set up a Crown corporation, which we are not philosophically opposed to-unlike many of my friends to the right-such as in the energy field, there is a proper way of doing it. There may be room for an expanded alternate energy corporation, a conservation program, a neighbourhood energy corporation or an Inuit energy corporation to share in the Beaufort Sea resources in partnership with other Crown corporations. There are all sorts of possibilities. However, it must not be done by a quick order in council by whoever happens to be the energy minister on a particular day and gets support from a couple of cabinet colleagues.
I was only half jokingly referring to the minister when he said he was a socialist and that these are socialist policies. I said they were Stalinist policies, not socialist. Socialist policies would have a lot of reference to the proper working of a parliamentary institution because that is the way to go. I just wanted to clarify that.
I want to reiterate some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Regina West, who said that we would support this amendment, not because we are philosophically opposed to Crown corporations but because we want to make the whole process better. Ultimately, we think the Crown corporations would be better constructed and would work. Unlike some of my friends to the right, we want Crown corporations to work.


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 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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

May 19, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Yvon Pinard: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-102, an act to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act, be amended in Clause 1
(a)	by striking out lines 37 to 41 of the French version at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(7) II demeure entendu que ces societes ne peuvent constituer d'autres personnes morales dont I'acitivite principale n'est pas une des activites prevues au paragraphe (1)."
(b)	by striking out lines 36 to 40 at page 2 and lines 1 to 3 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(8) The Minister shall, not later than the fifteenth sitting day of Parliament after a corporation has been incorporated under subsection (1), table or cause to be tabled in each House a statement giving the reasons for the incorporation of the corporation."


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I should like to point out first of all that in the notice of motion, the French version was printed on both sides by mistake, but in any case, the first part of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is solely aimed at making the English and French version consistent by changing the wording, and that is achieved by the words "II demeure attendu"-
As to the second change, Mr. Speaker, its purpose is to make the text more consistent with the rest of the amendments to be introduced under Motion No. 3, and to ensure that when a Crown corporation is established by the minister, a statement giving the reasons for this decision is tabled in the House of Commons to inform members accordingly. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this information will satisfy the requirements of the committee which was seeking to obtain as much information as possible, and as regards the possibility of discussing this issue on Motion No. 3, most of the committee's objectives will thus be satisfied.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly have no objection to this motion and concur with it. Putting in the proper French is something we agreed to in terms of the amendment to what is designated 6(8) at the bottom of page 2.
I point out that this amendment, which would have asked that when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is creating a new Crown corporation and the bill has passed committee, that he make a statement in the House giving the reasons, thereby allowing the opportunity for a reply from the opposition, plus questioning. It was interesting how
that came about in committee, Mr. Speaker. There happened to be a little bit of background noise and two of the Liberal members accidentally voted with members on our side and, lo and behold, the amendment passed through! 1 am sure that the officials and the minister have taken them aside and chastised them properly for being so undiligent in their work as to actually agree to something suggested by the opposition.
However, that requirement upon the minister, that he actually make a statement in the House, that he stand up here and say why he should be incorporating a new corporation, apparently was too onerous an obligation to put upon the minister, so we have this amendment that he only make a statement or table a statement. This allows the officials to write the document for him and he can table it in the House. It saves the minister going through the onerous duties and responsibilities of actually reading the statement and then submitting to questions in the House. We all appreciate that that is really an undue obligation to put upon a minister of the Crown, that he go to that effort. Of course, we will agree to any facility that will let the bureaucrats get their work tabled in here quickly without having to interfere with the minister and cause him to have to read what the officials have written for him, and perhaps defend them in reply to questions in the House.


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.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Lalonde) agreed to.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, there is a government amendment that deals with amending Clause 1. I would like to seek unanimous consent to introduce one of our amendments.


Harvie Andre: It is a one-clause bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This is to Clause 1, line 18, page 3.


Harvie Andre: We have a motion also.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I understand that my friends to the right in the Conservative Party have a motion, so perhaps we could deal with that. Perhaps I could just give notice that the better way of dealing with our amendment would be to deal with it after the Conservative motion is dealt with and before the government amendment. Because our amendment refers to the original wording of the bill as it is and not the new wording that the government may bring in.
May 19, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is aware that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) will seek the unanimous consent of the House to put an amendment. The way that the amendments are now ordered provides that the amendment put forth by the hon. member for Well-ington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) will be first put to the House and then a government amendment put forth by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). The only suggestion 1 can make is that while the amendment by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe is under debate, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway might want to arrange the matter as to the order of debate on these motions.


Harvie Andre: That Bill C-102, an act to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act be amended in Clause 1
(A)	By adding immediately after line 3 at page 3 the following:
"7. No corporation incorporated under subsection 6(1) or this section, or of which any shares have been acquired by the Minister thereunder, shall, without the approval of the Governor in Council,
(a)	procure the incorporation of a corporation or
(b)	acquire shares of a corporation which by virtue of such acquisition would become a subsidiary, within the meaning of the Canada Business Corporations Act, of the corporation.
(B)	By striking out lines 4 and 5 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
8. (1) An order of the Governor in Council under subsection 6(1) or section 7 shall be laid".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this amendment is to provide for the incorporation of subsidiary corporations the same kind of check, minor though it is, that exists in regard to incorporating a new Crown corporation. That is, Mr. Speaker, the gist of this bill when it is fully amended is that the minister, if he wishes to set up a new Crown corporation, must first table a statement in the House of Commons indicating the reasons for the formation of the Crown corporation. There is the ability through a negative resolution, or a positive resolution if introduced by the government, or there will after this amendment is passed, for the House to cause a debate to be held, a three-hour debate with a vote at the end, either concurring or not concurring in the establishment of this Crown corporation.
However, Mr. Speaker, because of the ability of a corporation then to incorporate a subsidiary corporation, we do- without the benefit of this amendment-have the possibility that a Crown corporation could be set up. Whatever minor checks the system provides now in terms of a negative resolution and a statement from the minister, and so on, would be there, but that Crown corporation could set up unlimited subsidiary corporations. Those subsidiary corporations could be established without the knowledge of Parliament, without any indication to Parliament as to the reason for their establishment. Those subsidiary corporations could have the full range of powers of the main Crown corporation. They could undertake debt obligations on behalf of the Crown. They could undertake all manner of activities that could serve as a pork barrel and could serve any number of purposes without there
Energy, Mines and Resources
being any way in which this House could even know what they are doing, let alone hold them accountable.
So I would ask government members and the New Democratic Party members to give serious consideration to this motion. It is not going to hamstring the government in any way, shape or form. It simply provides that if we are setting up Crown corporations, whether directly or by way of subsidiary, we at least have the same kind of check, minor though it is, for both types of Crown corporation. This amendment would guarantee that, Mr. Speaker, and in no way, shape or form restrict the government from pursuing the fundamental intent of Bill C-102, offensive as it is to us in a general sense.
We nonetheless would request of the government that if they choose, and they obviously do, to proceed with Bill C-102 and this ability to create Crown corporations, then at least let us acknowledge that in order to be truly honest about the amount of accountability and openness we will have, we must also include subsidiary corporations. This amendment would take care of that problem.


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 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. Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
I have before me a motion standing in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), but the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on a point of order if he wishes to seek the unanimous consent of the House to put his own motion first.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I so seek that consent. I think it would be easier to deal with our motion briefly at this point since it does refer to the bill as printed now, and I believe there is agreement. I will just put the motion and ask the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) to speak briefly. I move:

May 19, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources
That Bill C-102, to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act, be amended in Clause 1
(a) by striking out line 18 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but what I offered him the opportunity to do was to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to put his motion before the government motion. That is what I am prepared to deal with now, if that is all right with the hon. member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, that is what I ask.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway seeks the unanimous consent of the House to place his motion ahead of the one which will be presented by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Now either the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway or the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) may address Motion No. 6.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-102, to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act, be amended in Clause 1
(a)	by striking out line 18 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"not less than ten members of the House"
(b)	by striking out lines 38 and 39 at page 3 and substituting the following
therefor:
"than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate or at the expiry of the fifth"


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will speak very briefly on what is a rather minor amendment to substitute the number ten for the number 30 which is contained in Bill C-102 as it is now.
A negative resolution is one of the options which will be available to us under this bill. In other legislation the number of members required to call for a negative resolution is ten. For example, Section 52 of the Petroleum Administration Act allows ten members of Parliament to present a negative resolution if they object to the unilateral setting of oil or natural gas prices by the government. The amendment we are putting forward seeks to amend a provision the government agreed to in committee, and that provision would reduce the number from 50 to 30. Our amendment proposes to reduce the number required to initiate a negative resolution from 30 to ten. That seems eminently reasonable to us. It is consistent with other legislative practices. Before the government can act, Members of Parliament should be afforded a better opportunity to fulfil their legitimate functions.
The second part of the amendment would delete the reference at page 3 of the bill to a maximum of three hours' debate and institute in its place a maximum of Five hours' debate. The clear reason for that is to ensure that while there is not an
unreasonably long and dragged out debate, this House, Members of Parliament and the people of Canada would be protected. Three hours on a Wednesday-or three hours on a Friday especially-would provide very little opportunity to bring about any public recognition of the issues involved.
We propose this amendment for those two basic reasons, and I ask hon. members to support it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the amendment 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.


Harvie Andre: On division.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Waddell) negatived.


Yvon Pinard: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-102, to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 9 to 50 at page 3, lines 1 to 49 at page 4 and lines 1 and 2 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) An order referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the twentieth sitting day of Parliament after it has been laid before Parliament pursuant to that subsection unless, before that time,
(a)	a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons to the effect that the order be confirmed, signed by a Minister of the Crown, is filed with the Speaker of the House of Commons; or
(b)	if no motion has been filed under paragraph (a), a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons to the effect that the order be revoked signed by not less than thirty members of the House of Commons is filed with the Speaker of the House of Commons.
(3)	Where a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons is filed as provided in subsection (2), the House of Commons shall, not later than the sixth sitting day of Parliament following the filing of the motion, take up and consider the motion.
(4)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (3) shall be debated without interruption for not more than three hours and, on the conclusion of such debate or at the expiration of the third such hour, the Speaker of the House of Commons shall forthwith, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
8. If a motion described in paragraph 7(2)(a) is taken up and considered by the House of Commons in accordance with subsection 7(3) but is not adopted
May 19, 1982

by that House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
9. If a motion described in paragraph 7(2)(6) is adopted by the House of Commons, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
&edl339;-l 10. (1) If a motion described in paragraph 7(2)(a) is taken up and considered by the House of Commons in accordance with subsection 7(3) and is adopted by that House, a message shall be sent from the House of Commons informing the Senate that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by the Senate.
(2)	Where a request for concurrence in a motion is made to the Senate pursuant to subsection (1), the Senate shall, not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament following the receipt by the Senate of the request, take up and consider the motion.
(3)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (2) shall be debated without interruption for not more than three hours and, on the conclusion of such debate or at the expiration of the third such hour, the Speaker of the Senate shall forthwith, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to determine whether or not the motion in question is concurred in.
(4)	If a motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (2) is concurred in by the Senate, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force immediately on the concurrence therein.
(5)	If a motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (2) is not concurred in by the Senate, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
11.	(1) If a motion described in paragraph 7(2)(6) is taken up and considered by the House of Commons in accordance with subsection 7(3) but is not adopted by that House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall come into force on the fifth sitting day of Parliament after the failure of the House of Commons to adopt the motion unless before that day a motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than fifteen members of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the Senate.
(2)	Where a motion for the consideration of the Senate is filed as provided in subsection (1), the Senate shall, not later than the sixth sitting day of Parliament following the filing of the motion, take up and consider the motion.
(3)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (2) shall be debated without interruption for not more than three hours and, on the conclusion of such debate or at the expiration of the third such hour, the Speaker of the Senate shall forthwith, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
(4)	If a motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (2) is adopted by the Senate, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(5)	If a motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (2) is not adopted by the Senate, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force immediately on the failure of the Senate to adopt the motion.
12.	An order of the Governor in Council under subsection 6(1) that has been laid before Parliament but has not come into force shall stand revoked on the dissolution or prorogation of Parliament.
13.	For the purposes of this act "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits."


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this amendment contains the procedure for an affirmative or negative resolution. It provides the following.
A motion for negative resolution can only be filed if no motion for affirmative resolution has been filed.
Where a motion for affirmative resolution is filed, if the House does not adopt the motion, the order is revoked and therefore the Senate does not play any role.
Where a motion for affirmative resolution is adopted by the House, the Senate will have an opportunity to look at the
Energy, Mines and Resources
order. If the Senate concurs with the House, the order will come into force. If the Senate does not concur with the House, the order is revoked.
Where a motion for negative resolution is filed, if the House adopts the motion, the order is revoked and the Senate has no role to play.
Where a motion for negative resolution is filed, if the House does not adopt the motion, the Senate has an opportunity to consider the order. If the Senate concurs with the House, the order enters into force. If the Senate does not concur with the House, the order is revoked.
Finally, it should be noted that the amendment provides for the situation where there is a dissolution or prorogation of Parliament. In this case, an order that has been laid before Parliament but has not come into force is revoked.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, we debated this matter in committee at some length, and before we got to committee the hon. member for Wellington-Duffer-in-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) gave a very succinct and well-thought-out speech on this issue in the House. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) did likewise. Both opposition parties agreed that this negative resolution procedure is an inadequate procedure at best. As the hon. member for Wellington-Duffer-in-Simcoe pointed out, at the worst it is perhaps even an unconstitutional procedure.
This matter was debated in the committee with some care. The government has moved to bring an amendment forward, but it seems to us that we are still in the odious position of dealing with a bill containing a negative resolution aspect.
The reason we introduced an amendment a few minutes ago-and perhaps this should have been said then-is that there can be parties in the House which do not have 30 members. For example, in 1979 when I first came to this House, my party had only 26 members. Even if we had wanted to do so, we could not have mustered the 30 members necessary to deal with a negative resolution. Now we have 32. What is the magic in the number 30? If the government really wanted to be democratic, it could have reduced the number to ten. Perhaps we are past that, but we are still dealing with the negative resolution problem.
This goes back to the original problem of creating a Crown corporation. The government has basically asked to be allowed to create Crown corporations by order in council and, to allow some semblance of parliamentary scrutiny, the government has said it will allow a negative resolution, tabling and so forth. However, that does not really allow for a full and fair debate in Parliament such as there would be if the government brought in a bill and we had second reading debate and committee study and the bill returned to the House for third reading. That is the proper way to deal with matters and that is why Clause 1 of this bill is still defective.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can conclude my remarks very briefly when we debate this, probably next Tuesday, and we will have a vote shortly thereafter.

May 19, 1982
Energy, Mines and Resources


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is not clear as to the intent of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the hon. member's wish that I call it six o'clock and not put the question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 20, 1982