1983-11-24

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 19, 1982 consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would just like to mention that there is an agreement among the House Leaders to deal with all stages of this Bill today. Therefore, the motion should be amended and the reference be to send the Bill to the Committee of the Whole, not to the Standing Committee. I want to put on record that all the necessary consent should be sought in due time, but it will be given to allow this Bill to get through all stages today.


Mr. Yurko:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 would like to ask the House Leader for some clarification in connection with the procedure that he is now proposing. Is he suggesting that, as a result of a meeting between himself and two Party House Leaders, the procedure can now be changed without putting the matter before the House for unanimous consent? Or are we proceeding as the Orders of the Day state so that I might have a chance to speak on the Bill if I wish to do so? 1 would like to have the House Leader clarify these points 1 have put before the House.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the consent is only to allow the Bill to be dealt with through all stages today. There is no doubt that if the Hon. Member seeks the floor and the Speaker wants to recognize him, he will be allowed to speak during the next few hours available for debate. Debate is not limited to one speaker per Party.


Mr. Huntington:: Mr. Speaker, we have agreed to put the Bill through all stages today. If we are to do so, I think the Bill should be in Committee of the Whole before one o'clock. I would think we could have something like two speeches, if the Hon. Member for Edmonton East wants to take his 20 minutes. I would certainly appreciate a few minutes at second reading before we go to Committee of the Whole.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the agreement we made was not specific as to how long debate would last at second reading and in Committee of the Whole. I think we should let debate go on and we shall see what happens later. There was no firm deal as to the number of speakers at second reading, for example.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, 1 was somewhat troubled in getting ready for the debate today. There are a substantial number of amendments to this Bill that we have to get through in Committee of the Whole. Was there a breakdown in the proceedings? Why were the amendments not published in the Order Paper? How are we going to handle this? Are they going to be read into the record? Are they going to be handled one at a time as we proceed in Committee of the Whole?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, while debate is going on at second reading, we might consider a reasonable approach to dealing with the numerous amendments when we reach Committee of the Whole stage. I will speak with the President of the Treasury Board. I have a meeting with the House Leaders in 15 minutes. If we can be useful, fine. The agreement was that we dispose of the Bill today in the House of Commons. If we have the time to deal with all the amendments, fine. If we do not have the time, they will have to be voted on very quickly.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader sets forth with accuracy the fact that there has been agreement to pass the Bill through all three stages today which, of course, does not prevent the Hon. Member for Edmonton East from speaking. I was unaware of any Government amendments with respect to the legislation and presumably there are such amendments. It might facilitate the matter and would certainly be a courtesy to all Members of the House if we could have copies of those amendments distributed to all Hon. Members. This has caught me somewhat by surprise.
Another thing I should say is that I agree with the Hon. Member for Capilano. We should try to move on to Committee of the Whole to deal with these amendments as quickly as possible and I think that that could be accomplished if we were to hold the number of speakers down to a minimum on second reading.
If I might have the attention of the Government House Leader so that he can concur, the third thing I would like to remind him of is that we agreed to deal with this Bill today. If it happens to conclude before six o'clock today, we will see the clock as being six o'clock with no intervening business after the conclusion of this business and before the six o'clock closing of business.


Yvon Pinard: Agreed.

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. 1 am not sure that I have full clarification in my mind as to what is going on in the House at this particular moment. The Government House Leader indicated that an agreement has been reached to make certain that the Bill passes today. 1 recognize that I sit as an independent and can only speak once on second reading and once on third reading, 1 hope.


Erik Nielsen: But you are unlimited in Committee of the Whole.


William J. Yurko: I know that. I can speak during Committee of the Whole in terms of the number of amendments that are made, and indeed they are quite substantive. If a person were to get really interested in asking questions about these amendments, I imagine he could hold the Bill up for several hours and indeed for several days.
My point of view again, Mr. Speaker, is not that I am particularly interested in the Bill. I am interested in the procedure which goes on in the House with respect to independents who may be here in the future. There may be 20 of us in the future, I do not know. I am concerned that an agreement has been reached between the three Parties indicating that the Bill should be passed today without putting the matter by way of a vote of unanimous consent in the House. If the matter were to be put and indeed unanimous consent were to be requested, I would be prepared to give that unanimous consent without too much difficulty. However, the point I make is, how can an agreement be made in such a way that it impinges upon my rights in the House without my being party to that agreement?
As I said, if I wished to become miserable, I could certainly delay this Bill beyond the course of the day, particularly in Committee of the Whole. I simply ask again for clarification from the Government House Leader as to whether a request for unanimous consent to this agreement should be put in the House or whether he is simply prepared to go ahead, hoping that it will indeed pass in the course of the day if I do not become too mouthy, if you wish, in terms of asking questions in Committee of the Whole.


Erik Nielsen: He was asking for consent.


William J. Yurko: If he is asking for consent, then I expect the Speaker will put the request for unanimous consent to deal with the Bill in its entirety this day to the House. If the Speaker does so, then I would certainly be prepared to give my consent.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if you seek that consent, we are prepared to give that consent as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. In that case, the House has heard the proposal put forward by the Hon. President of the Privy Council to the effect that the House will deal today with all three stages of Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Agreed and so ordered.
When debate adjourned on Bill C-96 at a previous sitting of the House, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) had the floor. It is my understanding that there has been, shall I say, changes in responsibilities on the part of certain Hon. Members.
The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre not being available at this time, the Chair would normally recognize a Member of the New Democratic Party. However, the House may wish to give its consent to hear out the Hon. Member for Capilano who, I understand, wishes to contribute to the debate at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before we do that 1 think, for the sake of order and our records, the Chair should put the motion once again as amended by the Government House Leader, that rather than the Bill going to the Standing Committee, it be referred at the termination of second reading to a Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Mr. Gray, seconded by Mr. Pepin, moves:
That Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act, be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion ?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just going back to the point you were making before you asked for consent to change the procedure, I would be quite delighted to hear the Hon. Member for Capilano. I know that he has a lot to offer. I think it would be appropriate to recognize him in lieu of the Member for Calgary Centre, who is not here now.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am a little confused. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre is the Official Opposition critic for defence and 1 believe he is in the estimates committee. 1 am a little confused at your wording. You said "heard out". Are you giving me the balance of his time? Otherwise, I would just as soon go to the Hon. Member for Edmonton East and then 1 would like ten or 15 minutes at least.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair is prepared to recognize any Member who wishes to speak at this time.
1 think I should explain to the House the conundrum that we are in at this stage. I understand that changes have been made in certain responsibilities. I understand the Hon. Member for Capilano is now the official spokesman for his Party. I am attempting to accommodate everyone. If the Hon. Member for Capilano wishes me to recognize another Hon. Member, I am prepared to do that as well. I will recognize whoever rises. The Hon. Member for Capilano.
November 24, 1983


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we have got through the initial procedural problem. It will not be an easy day. Just as we came into the House we were given this package of amendments which we will have to deal with through the Committee of the Whole stage. Since they are not printed in our Order Paper, I understand we will have to read them into the record.
In this Bill we are dealing with amendments to the Financial Administration Act. The call and demand for these amendments has come out of a long series of meetings and many hours of deliberation between the Auditor General and his staff, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Treasury Board. These are housekeeping amendments which are probably meant to bring us out of the quill pen age, as the Comptroller General says, and up to the computer age. They are highly technical.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Lang) was good enough to meet with me as the Official Opposition critic of the Treasury Board and we spent some hours on these. I have been assured by the Comptroller General that each of these amendments is necessary. I just want to explain that the reason for all of these amendments is to take care of objections that the Office of the Auditor General has had to Bill C-96 in its printed form. These amendments have come a long way toward doing that.
At the outset, I must say that one of the matters that was not agreeable to us during the negotiation stage was Clause 3. We had problems dealing with that clause. The wording was submitted to me by the Comptroller General. I would assume that the wording as submitted to me by him, amending Clause 3 to fit with anxieties that we had, is what is in this package. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) nods yes. So that concern is covered.
Over the years, I suppose since Auditor General Macdonell flew the signal in March of 1976 that spending was out of control, a hard working group, including the Deputy Speaker, has worked on procedures and attitudes to try and bring the matter back under control. I stand here as a person who is very concerned at what has happened to our Government and what is going to happen to our country if somehow or other Hon. Members in this House cannot deliver themselves to a new direction and to a new attitude-and it is going to have to be an apolitical attitude-in order to bring the runaway, out of control spending of the Government of Canada under control. It is not necessarily totally the fault of the incumbent Government, but it has to accept the responsibility for what has happened to the country in the last 14 years. The matter is of crisis proportion today.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on August 13, 1969, recognized that the behaviour of governments in Canada and in the western world was going to cause serious deprivation and problems for the poor, the sick and the elderly. I stand here to make a plea to all Members of this House of Commons, my own Party, the New Democratic Party, the Government Party and the independent, that if we are going to bring the system under control, we are going to have to change our
Financial Administration Act
attitudes. We in this House, as individual Members, are to blame. We are the politicians. We go to the electorate and make promises and we are proud of what we deliver back into our constituencies. There are Hon. Members who are proud of what they can gather here and deliver back. That seems to be how the people of Canada relate to politicians. They seem to accept half-truths.
I am suggesting to you, Sir, that we are at the end of that road. What we are dealing with in this Bill is just the beginning. All we are doing is dealing with the technical aspects of the Financial Administration Act, to allow for some of the new value for money concepts which we passed in our Auditor General Act and in the amendments to the Financial Administration Act which gave us the Comptroller General and will allow the central agency of the Treasury Board and the office of the Comptroller General to function and overcome the handicaps, abuses and voids which the Auditor General has been pointing out for some years now.
I do not have trouble in agreeing to the Bill. Our Party is going to support the Bill in order to get it through the House all in one day. However, I would want each element of it to be talked about and understood. It is good for Members of this House to have an understanding of what we are doing.
I rise to take time on second reading to make an appeal. We, as a western world nation, are in a catch-22 situation. I have just come from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, which was questioning the Secretary of the Treasury Board. I can appreciate that the President of the Treasury Board has been busy getting ready for this day in the House, but it is unfortunate that he was not in that Committee this morning because the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates is a Committee of the House dealing with policy. We examine senior Deputy Ministers, like the Secretary of the Treasury Board in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts; and in that standing committee we are apolitical and do not touch policy. However, with the nation in the dilemma in which it is today, in spite of the Prime Minister's warning back in 1969, the whole system is out of control. In spite of the Auditor General's warning in March of 1976, we are in 1983 even further out of control and something has to be done. We have to cross Party lines and cross the bridge between the politicians and the professionals who manage the federal Government system.
In my opinion and that of many others, if we continue this way the system will go into total collapse. Those social policies we are so proud of in Canada are going to collapse with it. Our pensions are going to collapse. We cannot get this country back on its feet creating wealth if we have a fat, careless, slothful overburden in the form of government. We can trim the federal Government, make it lean and effective, as our value for money legislation calls for. But I really fear for the people of Canada if we continue the way we are because we

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act
are harming those who cannot look after themselves, those who are about to rely on their pensions for a modest standard of living in the twilight years of their life. It is not just Canada, Mr. Speaker. Other nations have tried, too-deliberately and too energetically, to redistribute wealth. 1 suggest we have gone so far in that direction that we have smothered the creation of wealth.
What we are dealing with today is a technical move which should remove a lot of the excuses the central agency gives for not being able to control the system. Guideline after guideline and regulation after regulation in the central agency are so permissive you can drive trucks through them. I plead for this House to accept responsibility for financial management and make sure tax dollars are used wisely, efficiently and effectively. But it 'aint going to happen, Sir, unless we as individual Members in this House do it.
I have to compliment most of the people in the federal bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker. The Comptroller General has put in place all the things we asked him to do. He asked for five years and that is coming forward. The new form of the Estimates is coming down and the President of the Treasury Board has requested Members to comment on the new Part I Is. All of this reorganization and proper disclosure of information we hope will allow us to overcome the extravagance we see within Government today. I put a lot of faith in the new form of Estimates and proper disclosure of honest information to hold the system to better account. But none of that is going to happen, none of the work of the federal bureaucracy will come to fruition-and I guess we have spent close to $200 million on this since I was Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts-unless the individual Member who sits in this House representing the Canadian taxpayer changes his attitude and starts to conserve the tax resources of Canada.
The taxes paid by working people represent blood, sweat and tears. They spend the best part of their day earning their wages from which taxes are deducted. Corporations in Canada add to the value of goods. If they do not do it efficiently and effectively, they are not around for very long in this competitive world.
The energy, skill, the thought and the engineering, the professionalism which goes into creating the profits from which we draw taxes, are held in disrepute and disrespect here. Some 65 per cent of Canadians say this place is no longer relevant and they are right. This is taxation without representation. We have a Department of National Revenue which can walk right into an individual's bank account without even asking the person concerned and take money through some kind of power they have developed with the banks. There is fear among the people of this nation that the arbitrary powers of Government are out of control.
It is up to us, Mr. Speaker. If we want to continue to conduct ourselves in the historical pattern of politicians, then I suggest to every Member sitting in this Chamber that democracy is threatened and will die. It is that serious. Let me just read the concern of the Prime Minister back on August 13, 1969. He said:
This year the debate about inflation and the search for ways to combat it have reached a new intensity. Most Canadians-whether in government, business or labour-realize that if inflation continues unchecked they will suffer personally. But some people suffer more than others. Even a modest increase in general price levels causes anguish for pensioners, wage earners with weak bargaining powers, the unemployed, persons on welfare and other who are unable to increase their incomes. Because these persons are often our lowest income earners inflation has serious implications for our goal of achieving an equitable distribution of incomes.
We have chosen an approach to combat inflation which we believe can produce better long-term results for the country and for Canadians. For success, it requires your support, and this is why 1 am speaking to you tonight.
Our fiscal and monetary policies are the first line of attack. During the past year we have taken necessary steps to place our budget in a surplus position in the 1969-70 fiscal year ... the first actual surplus in thirteen years. This swing from a deficit of $575 million last fiscal year to a surplus this year is of great help in fighting inflation in our economy.
Another important step in holding down costs of all governments in Canada was our refusal to turn over larger amounts of money to the provinces. The Federal stand, and the fruitful discussions held with the provinces before they brought in their budgets, has resulted in most provinces making successful efforts to improve or maintain budgetary balance. I hope they keep up the effort.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and myself were in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates this morning. One of the problems we were asking about was the increase in the transfer payments to the Provinces, out of control spending and the inability of the central agency, the Treasury Board, to show any semblance of control. I happen to know that the Secretary of the Treasury Board is concerned with the looseness which exists within the system, but we politicians-and I am going to disregard political boundaries-of all stripes are the guilty ones. We do not represent our constituents in matters of supply.
Parliament came about because the King bled the people dry through taxes. That is what the Government is doing in this country and I stand here and say: Enough! Let Bill C-96 be the beginning today of a tightening up of our spending and a representation once again of the taxpayer by Members sitting in this House. If we do not do it I do not know how we are going to survive because we have smothered out the wealth-creating abilities of our land. We cannot see a way to compete with the industries that we have been generous enough to complete in the Third World.
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down so that we have maximum time in Committee of the Whole to get through all the amendments we have to deal with.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, it was only one hour ago that I became aware that we were going to debate second reading of Bill C-96. I must admit to the House that I have not had the opportunity to prepare a speech. However, I would like to indicate that almost five years ago when I was elected to this Parliament there were three major problems on my mind that, in my view, had a crisis element to them. The first was the patriation of the Constitution and an amending procedure. The second was the reform of Parliamentary institutions. The third was coming to grips with the growth of Governments in Canada, not only provincial and municipal Governments, but the federal Government.
November 24, 1983

Mr. Speaker, 1 spent many hours preparing the first speech that 1 made in this House on October 1 1, 1979. 1 would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from it because 1 dealt with this very matter. I said then:
A recent analysis shows the growth of governments in the free nations of the world in the 20-year period from 1955 to 1975. I will not run through all of them, but I should like to refer to a few examples. In the Netherlands the government's share of the gross national product in 20 years grew from 31.5 per cent to 54 per cent; in Sweden from 16.5 per cent to 52 per cent in 20 years; in Ireland from 28 per cent to 50 per cent; in the United Kingdom from 32.5 per cent to 45 per cent; in Germany from 30 per cent to 44 per cent; in Italy form 28 per cent to 43 per cent; in France from 33 per cent to 42 per cent;-
Over the 20-year period the Government of Canada's share grew from 25 per cent of the GNP to 40 per cent of the GNP. In 1979 the best figures I had indicated that Governments redistributed 42 per cent of the GNP of the nation. At that time I was asked what it was for the United States. I indicated that in the United States it grew from 26 per cent to 36 per cent. 1 also gave figures for some other nations.
That 42 per cent five years ago has now grown, in my view, Mr. Speaker, to 50 per cent of the GNP in Canada. The figures that I have before me are estimates, but the indication is that this year the three levels of Government in Canada will be taking, by way of taxation, 50 per cent of the GNP of this nation for redistribution. In this nation we now have a process where Government redistribution through the taxation system is crushing the ability of the nation to create new wealth.
If there is a problem that has to be faced in every way by every level of Government in Canada, it is to come to grips with this single most important matter in the nation. Creation of wealth must be stimulated again and can only be stimulated by reducing the take from the entrepreneurial and wealth-creating sector of the economy. If there is a point to be made in this House, it is this very point.
I am not going to dwell upon the amendments in this Bill and the additional technical amendments to it in terms of control, but they are hardly enough. I suggest very strongly that at the earliest opportunity the Government of the day should put forth a joint committee of this place and the Senate to examine this area in detail and to come forth with some concrete directions in terms of the control of the growth of Governments in Canada. The federal Government does control, to a large degree, the growth of the provincial Governments through its transfer arrangements, so there is some degree of control from here over the provincial Governments and even over the municipal Governments.
1 appeared before the Joint Committee on Senate Reform and I tried to present a very strong case that the Senate should have the power to review the expenditures of Crown corporations and to limit some of the appropriations to the Crown corporations across this land. That way there would be a check, not only on this place but on the self-perpetuation and growth of Crown corporations themselves. I know how busy Ministers are. They cannot possibly review what goes on within some of these Crown corporations on a daily basis. If commitments are made in these Crown corporations, Ministers
Financial Administration Act
then have to accord with them. Therefore, they have to be stopped in advance rather than after the fact.
I have a Bill on the Order Paper to provide that an Act should be structured to grant Parliament the authority to place Members of parliament and Senators on the board of directors of federal Crown corporations. I received information suggesting that this is not possible because of conflicts of interest and many other reasons. As a Minister in Alberta I put elected members on Crown corporation boards and they were the watchdogs of those Crown corporations. Those elected members functioned extremely well. They put a lot of pressure on the Minister responsible to limit allocations to those Crown corporations and to see that they functioned properly. There was a second line of elected defence by putting an elected member, or in this case a Senator, on some of those Crown corporations at the board level to take note of the decisions that are made at the policy level in these Crown corporations which commit expenditures which can hardly be decreased in this House.
Speaking briefly in a general way to this Bill which deals with the regulation and control of the growth of Governments and expenditures, I am attempting to say that I do not believe for one minute that the mechanism has been found in this Bill to control the growth of government in general and to control the expenditure of the vast complexity of the federal Government. A new system must be found. I hope that the House will either set up joint committee of the House and the Senate to examine all aspects over a period of a year or two of this area of concern for the Parliament of Canada, or devise some better method than I can think of to deal with this most complex and difficult problem within the nation. Because of the very nature of the growth of technology today, expenditures and governments grow irrespective of the dictates of the political process itself.
Mr. Speaker, I want to close by thanking you for the opportunity to make a few remarks on this most important matter. I hope Members of this House will put some points forward regarding a new process for control of the growth and expenditures of government.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments based on some of the things that have been said in the last little while by the Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). No Member of Parliament could disagree with their statements that governments, federal, provincial and municipal, are large organizations and that they have grown larger in recent years. Nobody would disagree with them when they call for efficiency in government.
In the last few years this country, in fact every country in the western industrialized world, has experienced economic recession. It has been obvious that many large organizations, not just public organizations but private organizations, some of them the biggest companies, in the easy years of economic growth and profitability were not as efficient as they could

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act
have been. We have seen examples of that. We have examples given to us by the Auditor General and the Comptroller General of mistakes and inefficiencies in government operations. We have seen some very glaring examples in some of our Crown corporations which have obviously not operated very efficiently. 1 refer for example to Canadair. Some problems were not caused by inefficiency but by mistakes in planning because of inability by the corporation concerned and the inability of others to foresee the recession. But it must be pretty obvious to Members of Parliament in the case of Canadair that if one cannot say it was inefficient, it is pretty obvious that it was slow to report its difficulties to the Government; and if Canadair did report its difficulties to the Government and asked for advice, it certainly did not report those difficulties to Parliament.
I join with Members who have spoken, the Hon. Member for Capilano and the Member from Calgary, in supporting the idea that we have to have greater efficiency and that the Government's organization needs to be changed and tightened up so that we get greater efficiency. Where I have some difficulty in following the arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for Capilano and the Member from Calgary is in their sweeping statements about government programs, that we are doing too much, that government is taking too much of the Gross National Product, that we should reduce the percentage of the Gross National Product which goes to government. Governments tax and collect revenue in the way they do, not just for the sake of taxing or for the sake of collecting revenue. Governments spend money to provide services for people, the services which people as individuals, or companies which are in business, cannot provide for themselves.
It was suggested by both Members that we should somehow reduce the transfer payments which are made to the Provinces. I think it is incumbent upon those Members of Parliament or anybody else who believes that government expenditures should be reduced, who believe that the transfer payments made by the federal Government to the provinces should be reduced, to say so. I suggest it is incumbent upon them, if they are serious and believe what they are saying and are going to be honest with other Members of Parliament and with the people of Canada, to indicate much more clearly and much more specifically than they have done today or at any other time just how transfer payments can and should be reduced.
Let us look at some of the reasons the federal Government makes transfer payments. The federal Government has paid over the years approximately 50 per cent of the cost of medicare. Are there Members here who believe we should reduce our expenditures on medicare? If so, they should say so. We have paid approximately 50 per cent of the cost of hospital services. In fact, for some of the poor Provinces like those in Atlantic Canada we have paid more than 50 per cent. Are there Members of Parliament who believe that the federal Government should reduce its share of hospital payments? If so, they should say so. Although we have changed the formula in the legislation and we have changed how we pay for it, over the years we have paid about 50 per cent of the cost of
post-secondary education, the cost of providing university education for those Canadians who want to attend universities and those who want to attend community colleges. Are we doing too much? Are we training too many people in our universities and community colleges? Is it costing us too much? Can we afford it? If Members of Parliament feel that way, I believe it is incumbent upon them to say so and to tell the people.
The federal Government pays for more than 50 per cent of the cost of scientific research in this country. Canada is spending a smaller percentage of its Gross National Product on scientific research than any other country in the industrialized world. The stated objective of this Government to increase expenditure on scientific research to 1.5 per cent of the Gross National Product is several years down the road. In fact, many of the other western industrialized countries, Japan included, are already spending 2.5 per cent of their Gross National Product on scientific research. Is there any Member here who really believes we are spending too much tax money for scientific research? If we are, are we going to leave it to the private sector, which has failed up to now for reasons which I do not have time to discuss today, to attain 1.5 per cent of GNP expenditures for scientific research? If they will, how will we get our expenditures up to 2.5 per cent GNP?
We have had report after report after report about the bad state of our forests. There is a recent one from the Science Council. We had a debate on Tuesday on the whole question of our forest industry. The Science Council made a report a few months ago, the last of many reports made by various research institutes saying we are cutting down our forest at twice the rate they are being replaced. Twenty-five years down the road, unless we take some pretty drastic steps at the federal and provincial Government levels, the forest industries on which several hundred thousand people in Canada depend for a living will no longer be with us. Should we be cutting down on reforestation expenditures?
What about our fisheries? We just had the federal Liberal Government reach agreement with two provincial Conservative Governments, the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland. They reached a major agreement for the restructuring of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada which will mean a major expenditure on the part of the federal Government and the Provinces. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the fishing industry in its free enterprise form simply could not operate on a sound financial basis, for reasons which I do not have the time to discuss, nor am I expert enough to go into detail in any case.
Why did the federal Liberal Government and the two provincial Conservative Governments go into this? Because there are 60,000 or 70,000 people in Atlantic Canada who are totally dependent for a living on the fishing industry. Here you have another example of Government expenditures at the federal and provincial level.
Let us take agriculture as another example. Our agricultural industry is in competition with the agricultural production of
November 24, 1983

many countries. If we have been able to develop new products, it has been because Government expenditures for agricultural research have resulted in the development of new products, such as earlier maturing grains and so on. Is there a suggestion on the part of the Hon. Member for Capilano that we have been doing too much? I challenge Hon. Members who think that governments are spending too much money or are taking too much out of the Gross National Product-and many of them apparently believe that-to be honest and to indicate how governments can spend less.
1 agree with those people who say that government at every level is not always as efficient as it could or should be. Also I agree with them that, with care and effort, inefficiencies can be eliminated or reduced. However, there is no evidence that savings made in those ways will have a very substantial effect upon the expenditures of governments. As the Hon. Member for Alberta East said a few moments ago, increased government expenditures are not just happening in Canada; they are happening in every country of the western world.
I would like to deal very briefly with another point mentioned by the Hon. Member for Capilano. I believe he said that he felt we had gone too far in government programs which were conceived and directed toward achieving a redistribution of wealth. The statistics do not bear out that argument at all. According to the ones prepared by Statistics Canada, the percentage of the GNP which goes to the bottom 20 per cent of Canadians-that is the 20 per cent of Canadians who have the lowest incomes-has been 4 per cent for 30 years or more. Sometimes it has been 3.9 per cent or 4.1 per cent, but it has been 4 per cent for at least 30 years. The percentage of the GNP which goes to the top 20 per cent-in other words, to the top fifth, high income earners-has been 40 per cent for the last 30 years. Sometimes it is 41 per cent or 39.5 per cent, but it has been around 40 per cent.
1 hope the Hon. Member for Capilano will deal with the point I have made. How can he say that we have gone too far in our programs of redistribution when in fact increases in pension, medicare, hospital care and other good programs which have been implemented, programs supported by all Hon. Members of Parliament, have not changed income distribution in Canada?
In closing, let me indicate that I look forward to the future day when the Hon. Member for Capilano and others who believe, as he does, that governments are doing too much will tell us and the people of Canada just how they expect governments to do less, to spend less or to take a smaller percentage of the GNP than they have taken in recent years.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly, but I have been asked some very interesting questions which I think challenge the appeal I have made to all of us in the House to recognize that things are out of control. First, I say to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that in this fiscal year the country is facing a $31.3 billion deficit. We are spending $31.3 billion more than we are taking in in revenue. The tragedy is that 22 cents or 23 cents out of every dollar of tax by Canadians into
Financial Administration Act
the federal system goes into interest payments on the accumulated debt, which is now approximately $140 billion. I believe it was $134 billion and now it is around $140 billion. If we add the debt the Crown corporation sector is accumulating in borrowings from the private sector, which does not show as a national debt, I think it totals around $165 billion. The 22 cents out of the tax dollar is not on the Crown corporation debt; it is on the debt of the federal Government.
I acknowledge the correctness of what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North said in that the transfer payments among governments have increased and escalated very severely and that they are delivering transfer payments, in terms of indexing costs, to cover programs such as medicare and all the others of which we are so proud. My point is that the nation will lose all those programs if we do not address some fundamentals.
In terms of addressing transfer payments which take up about two-thirds of our budget, I think we have to conduct a complete analysis of the competing services which the two levels of Government are delivering to the people. I was told by the late Auditor General, James Macdonell, that if we did an inventory of the competition between the federal and provincial Governments, probably in the first year we could address $5 billion of that transfer payment and, over the next three or four years, address another $5 billion. That study has not been done. It is a study that we should conduct because the survival of our system and quality of life depends on it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make two short points. First, I suggest to the Hon. Member for Capilano that we have a very large deficit, not because we are inefficient but because we are in a recession. If instead of 11 per cent to 12 per cent unemployment we had unemployment of 5 per cent to 6 per cent, or if we had another 500,000 or 600,000 people working, they would be earning money and paying income taxes instead of drawing unemployment insurance and would be purchasing goods and services on which companies would be paying corporation taxes and sales taxes. Then our deficit would be much smaller than it is.
My second point is one I made before. I had the greatest respect for the former Auditor General, Mr. Macdonell; I sat on that committee for a while. I had great respect for his ability. Many of his suggestions and proposals to the committee and to Parliament were worth while. Some have been implemented, but he was not an expert on the services Canadians need; he was an expert accountant. He was not an expert on medicare, hospital care, unemployment insurance or welfare.
I am doubtful about this $5 billion figure which the Hon. Member for Capilano pulled out of the hat. If the polls are correct, and if in a year or two down the road we have a Conservative Government, he will have an opportunity to show us whether in fact his arguments are correct.
Let me close by saying that of course we are concerned about the deficit. The deficit would not be the problem it is if we were not in a recession and did not have 1.5 to 1.75 million

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act
people unemployed, if these people were working rather than drawing unemployment insurance or welfare.
An item in today's newspaper reported the opening of a restaurant in either Calgary of Edmonton. The restaurant advertised that it would be hiring 30 to 40 people. Over 3,000 people have applied. That is proof of what some of us have been saying, that 99 per cent of the unemployed would be working if jobs were available to them.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on the exchange that we have heard from the two extremes on the other side of the House. I listened to the comments of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and was struck by the fact that we always have this blinkered focus on money rather than its use. I would like to put some of his comments into prospective.
First, the deficit we are currently facing is indeed a problem for the federal Government. However, the alternative would be to put an enormous damper on our economy by shrinking that deficit. Second, the deficit represents an investment in the safety net and for the recovery projects that are helping Canadians during a slow economic period and coming out of that period. Third, he should take into account that there are some small or negligible over-all provincial deficits. Our transfers paid their bills. Therefore, we are assuming many of the provincial debts at the federal level. Finally, I would like to point out that this terrible interest burden that he sees is in fact money paid by Canadians to Canadians in the form of interest on that debt, such things as interest on Canada Savings Bonds.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, as the NDP Treasury Board critic, I want to put a few comments on the record concerning Bill C-96, an Act to make certain amendments, as the Minister said in his speech on November 19, to enable Treasury Board further to improve financial control and accountability in departments and governments by the Government of Canada. That is a very admirable task. However, I maintain that the improved financial control and accountability being put forward in these amendments, which I just received this morning and have not had an opportunity to consider in depth, is not good enough. I would like to talk about the principle of what is going on.
When looking at improved control and financial accountability, very often those who draft the amendments look only at the efficiency with which government operates. I do not think that is good enough. Many speakers this morning have mentioned J. J. Macdonell, the former Auditor General. I was associated with him through the Public Accounts Committee. I had many very interesting learning experiences through the contributions Mr. Macdonell made to the Public Accounts Committee and, as Auditor General, to the people of Canada.
Mr. Macdonell often stressed that there is a need to look at more than just the efficiency by which government operates.
He referred to the three "E's". You have to look at economy, whether Government is getting the best bang for the buck. Quite often it does not do that. Second, you have to look at efficiency, of course, which the drafters of these amendments so often only look at. Third, you have to look at the effectiveness of what is actually happening to the people if this country through programs being delivered by the Government, Crown corporations and agencies.
The responsibility of the Government and Crown corporations is to deal in terms of our national priorities and responsibilities. If the Government has an over-all responsibility to the people of Canada, there should be some fairness to those at the top end of the economic ladder and those at the bottom. There should be some sense of fairness and equality in the distribution of wealth in this country. That does not now exist as the major responsibility for this Government, many provincial Governments, or possibly anyone who has the control of power in the federal Government today.
I can think of some real abuses of our system and the reason why there is such a need for financial control and accountability. Looking at the three "E's", economy, efficiency and effectiveness, I again go back to my experience in the Public Accounts Committee when I arrived here as a new Member of Parliament. The Committee was dealing with Atomic Energy of Canada and the heavy water plant that had been built at La Prade and never used. It was mothballed at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of this country.
It was also considering the heavy water plants at Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury. AECL had come to the Public Accounts Committee and the Government of Canada asking for forgiveness of loans of, if memory serves me correctly, $186 million. The Government subsequently forgave these loans to AECL. Beyond that it provided AECL with future budgets to continue the production of heavy water. That was well because it provides jobs for people in Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury. It is an industry that is complementary to the production of Candu reactors. When you look at that example closely, Mr. Speaker, you find there was not good regard for economy, effectiveness or efficiency. Although heavy water is still being produced at Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury, we cannot sell any Candu reactors. If we do not sell reactors, we cannot sell the heavy water. Heavy water sales are contingent on the sale of Candu reactors except for a few minuscule gallons used for a topping off process.
Many countries which have purchased reactors from Canada have their own heavy water plants. When we sell a reactor to Romania or some other country, they want to create jobs there. Even if we were successful in selling more Candu reactors, we would still have a problem selling heavy water. Those countries interested in reactors to produce hydroelectric power are interested in having their own heavy water plants.
What is happening is that we are stockpiling heavy water. I again stress the importance of having these jobs for Canadians. However, if you took the budgets of this now useless industry in Canada year after year, plus the $186 million forgiven by the federal Government to AECL, you would find that you
November 24, 1983

could give to each of those employed in that industry $50,000, $100,000 or $200,000 and also retrain them or let them go into a business of their own in some other area.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that there is not very much regard for the three E's-economy, efficiency and effectiveness. 1 do not say this in a partisan way, but so often the amendments made by the Government to the Financial Administration Act look only at the efficiency aspect. That is not good enough. We must look at the fairness that exists within the country. We must look at the national debt, and 1 personally think the national debt is a very serious problem in the country.
The national debt has been built up over a number of years. I do not know when the federal Government last had a balanced budget.


Mr. Lang:: Early 1970s, just before OPEC came in.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The Hon. Member across the floor says that it was in the early 1970s. That was almost a decade ago, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Does that shock you? What do you want us to do, cut back? You and Capilano should get together.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Liberal Members are asking that we cut back.
I think it is very unwise that the Hon. Member opposite with the laughing mouth would call for something like that. There is room for cutbacks within the federal Government and 1 have just referred to one such area as being Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Had the Hon. Member been listening, he would know that in total there is in excess of over $1 billion wasted through that Crown corporation.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That's your opinion.


Douglas Keith Anguish: It is not my opinion, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has said, it is a fact, and if he paid attention to the public accounts of Canada, he would know that it is a fact. Anyone can look through the public accounts of Canada to substantiate what I have said here today.
Another example of what I have been speaking of is Eldorado Nuclear, a Crown corporation. That Crown corporation is one of those that wants no interference from the Government of Canada or from the Auditor General. One would think that Eldorado Nuclear belonged to the private sector. I maintain that as long as that company is a Crown corporation or a Government department or agency, it has a responsibility to the people of the country to keep in line with the national priorities and objectives of the Government. It must fit into some kind of strategy. The bottom line on the balance sheet cannot be its only motivating factor. If it were, it should go to the private sector.
Eldorado Nuclear does not belong to the private sector, Mr. Speaker, and I would not want to see it belong to the private
Financial Administration Act
sector because of the nature of the industry in which it is involved and the touchy situation that exists over exports of uranium. However, that is an entirely different topic and I will not go into it here today.
There could be another savings for the people of Canada through Eldorado Nuclear, Mr. Speaker. That Crown corporation once ran a uranium mine in the riding I represent at a place called Beaverlodge or, as it is better known to many people, Uranium City. In the year prior to the closing down of Uranium City and the mine at Beaverlodge, Eldorado Nuclear spent in excess of $100 billion. All of a sudden one morning, the people of Uranium City woke up and the news was that Uranium City and the Beaverlodge mine had closed down. When I was first elected to represent that area, that community consisted of over 3,000 people. It declined to a population today of about 250 people because of the "sound planning" of a Crown corporation.
I know that my time is running, short, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to say that in addition to Bill C-96, I would very much urge the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) to bring forward Crown corporation legislation which would make Crown corporations accountable to the people of Canada through Parliament, because today those Crown corporations are seemingly not responsible to anyone. When the Public Accounts Committee would like the Auditor General to do a comprehensive audit on, for instance, Eldorado Nuclear, officials of Eldorado Nuclear say: "No, we do not want to work with you". I maintain that Crown corporations have a responsibility to work with us because we do represent the people of the country. Crown corporations do have a responsibility in carrying out national priorities, objectives and strategies. I think Crown corporation legislation would go a long way toward making those agencies outside of Government departments more accountable to the people of Canada.
Before I was interrupted a few moments ago, I was about to say a few words about the national debt. I believe the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) was correct when he mentioned the figure of about $165 billion as being the amount owed by the Government of Canada. That in effect is our national debt and does take into consideration the money owed by some of the Crown corporations. The figure I have been using is not $165 billion but $166 billion, for which in some way the people of Canada are financially and ultimately responsible.


Mr. Gauthier:: What about the other side of the ledger? What are the assets?


Douglas Keith Anguish: The assets of the Government of Canada can never be determined. If the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) would pay attention to some of his own committee work, he would know that the Government cannot determine what Canada's assets are because it does not know. One of the reasons it does not know that, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government follows different accounting procedures from anyone else in the country. I have maintained in the House before, Mr. Speaker, that if any farmer, businessman or

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act
individual kept their records and submitted their income tax returns on the basis of that kind of information, they would be sued for income tax evasion.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: They would be in jail.


Douglas Keith Anguish: They would be in jail, Mr. Speaker, because no one else in the country can get away with the things with which the federal Government can get away. 1 think that that is shameful. Hon. Members across the way smile and laugh about the financial state of the country.
The late J. J. Macdonell had said on many occasions, as have others in the House, that we have lost control of the public purse. We have lost control of the public purse because we have perpetual deficit financing year after year. Among other things, the NDP has always been accused of being a Party of big spenders. However, I maintain as an individual that it would not matter who came into power. No one could do any worse than the current administration. It is trying to come to grips with the situation through some of the amendments we are dealing with today, and I admire that. However, we in the New Democratic Party believe that we can only use deficit financing when it is an investment in our future for which there will be a return either in terms of financial return or programs for the people of Canada. However, we cannot continually use deficit financing simply for the sake of deficit financing in an attempt to keep all of the voters happy and try to buy people throughout the country with their own money.
That method seems to be working, but it is getting to the point where 1 do not believe the Government of Canada can continue to use deficit financing to the extent it is today. I do not think we need to sacrifice many of the social programs and responsibilities which the Government has a mandate to carry out in order to achieve or at least begin to work toward balanced budgets within the country. The tax base is already there, Mr. Speaker.
1 would like to point out that I was somewhat dismayed by the last budget that came down because of the share the large corporate sector paid in terms of the revenue that is derived by the Government of Canada. Back in the 1950s, the breakdown of the revenue that came to the federal Government was about 50 per cent from corporations and 50 per cent from individuals. That has decreased for the corporate sector over the years. The corporate sector now pays about 13 cents on every dollar, as opposed to 50 cents at one time, to the Government of Canada. There is some imbalance there which I believe needs to be corrected.
The Government of Canada will have to come to a day of reckoning with the people of Canada very soon. I do not think it will find it quite so humorous when the credit rating of this country dwindles in terms of our respect throughout the global community. The only reason we have been able to succeed and to deficit finance for so long, as far as I am personally concerned, is due to the vast resources that we have in this country. If we were like some countries in the world, the
bankers would have stepped in and stopped us a long time ago. The only way there could have been success in this country without the rich resources which we have within our people and our natural resources is by revolution instead of democratically speaking out within the House of Commons and the institutions which this country has to protect democracy.
As I have said, I believe the Government must come to a day of reckoning. I think it would be much better for the Government, whether a Liberal Government or some other Government, to come to the sensible conclusion that it must do something with the financial administration of the country before the people of Canada decide for it through a general election.
1 believe Canadians generally and the Government particularly, through this institution, would be much better off to entrench some power back in Parliament itself. Members of Parliament feel frustrated in the role they must play in dealing with the financial accountability of the Government of Canada. For instance, looking back on the Public Accounts Committee when it forgave the $186 million that the AECL owed the Government of Canada, I know that individual Members of Parliament or even all Members of Parliament in Opposition could not have done anything to stop that from happening if the Government wanted it to go through.
1 think we must look at the role of Members of Parliament so that they can play a meaningful role on behalf of their constituents in examining the public purse, ensuring the maintenance of social programs and the over-all responsibility of providing a better distribution of wealth within the country. I hope that happens very soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Minister rising to reply?


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: First, I will inquire if there are any questions or comments. There being none, we will proceed with debate. Before recognizing the Hon. Minister, it is my duty to inform the House at this time that if the Minister rises to speak, he will close debate on second reading, according to Standing Order 41(3).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of very interesting comments made during this debate. It is tempting to respond to them at some length. Certainly there should be greater attention given, and perhaps this will be the case, to the very strong espousal by the spokesman for the NDP of an early move to balanced budgets. However, I hope that, perhaps on another occasion, we can explore this very interesting joining of forces with the Official Opposition.
Rather than doing so at this time, I would like to assist the House, since we are going into Committee of the Whole, by presenting to it some comments not only on the Bill itself but on the amendments which have been the subject of intensive discussion on the part of my Parliamentary Secretary and the
November 24, 1983

Opposition spokesmen. In this connection, I want to express my thanks for the courtesy and consideration given by official spokesmen for the Opposition Parties to the amendments which we have indicated we want to present.
I also want to express my thanks for the willingness of the Opposition Parties to facilitate the consideration and passage of this Bill today. Finally, I want to thank my distinguished Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang), for his very effective work with the Opposition spokesmen which has led us to the point where we can confirm that we have had a motion indicating an agreement by all Parties to dispose of this Bill today.
As I said when I spoke to open second reading on November 19, 1982, as a result of comments and suggestions received by the Government, 1 would be proposing a number of changes at the committee stage. These changes would include the deletion of Sections 20.1, dealing with net voting; Section 101, dealing with interdepartmental charging; and Section 102, dealing with the charging and paying of interest. As well, there are a number of technical amendments to the wording.
As I have said, in order to facilitate study of this Bill during Committee of the Whole, I would like to take the opportunity during this stage of debate to summarize some of the provisions of the Bill since it has been a year since this debate opened and 1 presented its basic themes to the House. The principal objective of this Bill is to improve financial controls, accountability and disclosure to Parliament while at the same time streamlining and modernizing certain administrative procedures that have become outdated.
In particular, the Bill establishes in law the fact that only Parliament may forgive a debt recorded on the balance sheet of Canada. It provides a mechanism for the disclosure and approval of loan guarantees by Parliament. It improves accountability for and reporting on the use of appropriations by requiring disclosure in the public accounts of debts incurred but not paid year end. It strengthens controls over the respending of refunds of expenditures by restricting the types of receipts that qualify to be credited through an appropriation and subsequently respent. It provides improved authorities for the recovery of accountable advances and strengthens accountability and liability for losses of public money and public property.
The Bill also contains several changes to the borrowing sections of the Act which were recommended by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). These changes are designed to enable the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance to approve the administrative process associated with Government borrowing and to respond to changes in market conditions.
In addition, and of particular significance to myself as President of the Treasury Board, are the amendments to Part IV of the Act which formally recognize the role of the President of the Treasury Board with regard to the public accounts and in dealing constructively with any recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee for improving the accounting and reporting practices of the Government.
Financial Administration Act
By way of illustration, 1 want to take a few moments to elaborate briefly on each of these objectives. Subsection 18(1) currently authorizes the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of Treasury Board, to make regulations authorizing deletion from the accounts of debts due to Her Majesty which do not exceed $5,000. Under the deletion of debt regulations, authority to delete debts from the accounts is delegated to the Minister of each department for debts that do not exceed $2,000, and to the Treasury Board on recommendation of the Minister concerned for debts between $2,000 and $5,000.
At present there is no provision for the deletion of debts over $5,000, nor is there uniform criteria for determining when a debt should be considered uncollectable and written off. In addition, action taken to collect debts varies from department to department and there are inconsistencies in the collection of various overpayments as a result of differing authorities in individual Acts.
The proposed changes to Section 18 will provide the Treasury Board with the authority to deal with debts over $5,000 and to prescribe the procedures to be followed and the criteria to be applied when writing off a debt. There will continue to be a requirement in law that debts written off during a fiscal year be reported in the public accounts for that year and, as specified in the proposed Section 18(2), parliamentary authority would be required to write off such debts as loans and investments that are recorded on the balance sheet of Canada.
Section 22 of the Act currently provides the authority to honour loan guarantees but does not provide a mechanism for parliamentary review and approval. We believe that Members of Parliament should have an opportunity to examine and approve each request for a loan guarantee. The proposed amendment to Section 22 will provide a simple mechanism for parliamentary review and approval, and should certainly deal with the concern of Hon. Members of Parliament with regard to the use of letters of comfort.
Several of the proposed amendments are directed at improving disclosure and accountability to Parliament for the use of appropriations. Changes to Section 30 will require that debts owing at the end of a fiscal year under a contractual arrangement, or for work performed, goods received or services rendered, be recorded in the accounts of Canada as a charge against the applicable appropriation, even though payment might not actually be made until the following year. This provision will ensure full disclosure on the public accounts of the complete use of parliamentary appropriations by requiring the recording at year end of both amounts actually paid and amounts owing.
As mentioned earlier, changes to Part IV of the Act, Sections 54, 55 and 56, will make the President of the Treasury Board responsible for tabling the public accounts and will involve the Comptroller General, through the President of the Treasury Board, in establishing in consultation with the Minister of Finance the form and content of the public accounts. These amendments will also provide the Receiver General-

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister but it seems to the Chair that the Minister is anticipating the work which the Committee of the Whole should be doing possibly in a few minutes' time, or within the next hour or so. The purpose of recognizing the Minister at this stage was to give him the right to reply to comments which were made in the course of debate. The Chair has serious reservations about the propriety of the Minister's remarks in the sense that he is anticipating the amendments which would be presented at the committee stage.
In any case, the Chair will hear the Minister out. However,
I would advise him to stick to the spirit of his right to reply.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments. What I am attempting to do is to reply to comments made by various speakers about the amendments and their desire to learn more about them. I want to say that it is not my intention to open committee stage with another speech. I hope I can have the indulgence of the House in concluding my remarks, which I have almost completed. It is my intention, in speaking at this time, to respond to what I understood to be a basic concern of Hon. Members, and that is that they would want to be aware of what shape the Bill will be in at the time it proceeds to Committee of the Whole.
If 1 can have the indulgence of the House I will complete my remarks in just a minute or so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair appreciates the Minister's attempt to be useful to the House. However, the Chair must be concerned with procedure, and the proper procedure. The Minister would have, in the normal course of events in Committee of the Whole, an opportunity to make those very statements, presumably in a few minutes' time. The spirit of the Standing Orders, in granting the Minister the right to reply, is not to go into detail, as he is now doing with his anticipated amendments. He should reserve those comments, in my opinion, for the Committee of the Whole stage. However, with the indulgence of the House, I suppose anything is possible around here.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to the point raised by the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps normally all Hon. Members would welcome and understand your intervention. 1 believe there are some extraordinary parameters to the process and procedure at this stage, inasmuch as the very detailed and technical amendments were not available to us for study prior to today. I believe the House might perhaps be inclined to allow the Minister to complete his remarks, having noted the concern of the Chair with respect to the proper procedure at this stage of the discussion.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I want to extend our courtesy to the Minister, if he feels it is necessary to continue, in wrapping up second reading debate. However, he is going to have to explain each clause, and the amendments thereto, as we get into Committee of the Whole, and much of what he is saying right now is going to have to be repeated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That was precisely the concern raised by the Chair. However, there seems to be agreement. Let me state very plainly that this in no sense should be taken as a precedent, because the Standing Order is very clear as to the scope of the remarks of the Minister at this stage. I recognize the President of the Privy Council by agreement.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Unless, Mr. Speaker, there has been some change at Government House today, of which I am not aware, I have not yet become President of the Privy Council, but I assume you are recognizing me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I apologise. The Hon. President of the Treasury Board.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: To advance debate, not being able to anticipate to what extent explanations will be required with respect to each clause, I will simply say that the principal objective of the Bill is to provide better control over revenues and expenditures, and greater efficiency in the methods by which we achieve that control. I hope I would have the consent of the House to refer this Bill to Committee of the Whole for clause by clause study.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, could the President of the Treasury Board give us a brief explanation? We were involved in adjusting to the new Auditor General Act and 1 believe Hon. Members in the House would appreciate some comment.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I wad distracted by the work of the staff to instal the table at which officials will sit. I apologise to the Hon. Member and would ask him to restate his question.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am asking for the usual explanation from the President of the Treasury Board on Clause 1. I believe it has some importance. It indicates that Part VII was removed when the new Auditor General Act was proclaimed. I believe it would be good for the record of the committee if we had the explanation from the President of the Treasury Board.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the amendment to Clause 1 is to change the long title of the Financial Administration Act. The purpose is to make the long title better reflect the several purposes of the Act. That is basically the reason for this particular amendment.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we are really concerned with restating that Treasury Board is very
November 24, 1983

much concerned with the establishment and maintenance of the accounts of Canada and the financial control of Crown corporations. Is that what this does?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This would be the effect of it, as 1 understand it, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On Clause 2-"Auditor General of Canada"


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, 1 understand that Clause 2 is subject to an amendment, and 1 would ask the President of the Treasury Board to tell us why Bill C-96 is worded as it is in Clause 2. Would he be good enough to explain why it is being amended? Is he going to move the amendment, because I cannot agree that Clause 2 as it is presently worded should carry.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, our deliberations in the Committee of the Whole will prove that, compared to the information I am now going to provide, I was certainly not providing detailed technical explanations of the Bill when I spoke on second reading. They were very general comments compared to the comments 1 am going to provide in answer to my hon. friend.
First of all, the proposed amendment in the form originally tabled is for the following purpose. Chapter 34 of the Statutes of Canada, 1976-77, the Auditor General Act, provides for the revocation of Part VII of the Financial Administration Act dealing with the Auditor General of Canada, and thus it becomes necessary to define "Auditor General" as referred to in other parts of the Financial Administration Act. The definition included in Clause 2 is to indicate that "Auditor General" means the Auditor General of Canada.
There is a proposed amendment to Clause 2(2), the purpose of which is to change the definition of money paid to Canada for a special purpose. The following wording is substituted:
"money received by Canada for a special purpose" includes all money that is paid to, received or collected by a public officer under or pursuant to a statute, trust, treaty, undertaking or contract, and is to be disbursed for a purpose specified in or pursuant to such statute, trust, treaty, undertaking or contract;
I want to propose an amendment as follows:
That subclause 2(2) of the English version of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 26 on page 1 and substituting the following:
"to, or received or collected by a public"
I do not know if you want me to cease speaking now, Mr. Chairman, while you put the amendment, or whether you will permit me to go on and state the object of the amendment. I want to be very scrupulous with respect to procedure. Perhaps I can say that the object of the amendment is to extend the definition of money paid to Canada for a special purpose to include money received or collected by a public officer. The object is to have a technical improvement in wording.
There are other amendments to the Act.
Financial Administration Act


Roderick Blaker: Order. The Chair would like first of all to dispose of the first amendment proposed by the Minister.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister give a few examples of how the addition of the word "or" extends the definition?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the purpose of the amendment is to indicate that moneys may be received by or paid to a public officer even though he does not formally collect it. For example, a prisoner entering an institution has to place any funds with which he enters the institution into the hands of a public officer who holds it for him during the period of his incarceration. This is an example of the kind of situation this change in wording is intended to address.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: 1 do not want to belabour this, Mr. Chairman. There has to be a reason for it. Clause 2(2) reads:
"money received by Canada for a special purpose" includes all money that is
paid to, received or collected by a public officer under or pursuant to a
statute-
The amendment adds the word "or" Does that mean moneys received by prison officials from people who are incarcerated can be put into a special account so that it can be paid without interfering with the accounts of Canada? Is that all the word "or" does?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As 1 understand it, funds received by public officers in those circumstances are held in trust by the public officers until the term of imprisonment is over. To repeat what I said before, the amendment is designed to recognize the fact that moneys come into the hands of public officers which are not formally paid to them. They take possession of the money in ways which do not indicate or suggest formal payment. With respect to prisoners, the moneys they bring into prison are shown as liabilities on Canada's balance sheet.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, I have to ask again how does the amendment make such a significant difference? The original wording said "paid to, received or collected". My problem is with the language.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the distinguished Opposition spokesman and I share a similar difficulty. I am told the word "or" was added on the advice of legal draftsmen. Advisers to the Department of Justice said it was necessary in order to cover the kinds of situations I outlined. Perhaps had he and I been dealing with this on our own we would not have done this, but we are acting on the advice of counsel in the Department of Justice with respect to the drafting of this Bill.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am still having difficulty, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to hold the Bill up, but it is just that I am really trying to understand the significance of the change. I do not trust draftsmen of legislation because they can mangle the language I was educated in quicker than anyone else. I get very worried when 1 see an amendment adding the word "or".
I have read this five or six or seven times and tried to understand the significance. Does it make the accounting

November 24, 1983
easier? Does it make it easier to return the goods received from, say, a prisoner by a public officer? Does it avoid an intensive amount of detail in the accounts of Canada? Why has it been amended?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I understand it, this amendment is not being made for accounting reasons but for legal reasons. That is to say, and 1 am venturing my own view on the matter, technically it could be argued that if this word "or" was not placed in the Act, moneys which public officers took control of in circumstances of the kind 1 outlined, that is to say a prisoner coming into a penal institution and having funds in their possession taken over by public officers, whould not be handled in the same way as moneys paid voluntarily to a public officer. This may be a rather fine point but this is my understanding of the distinction which was not covered in the Act as originally presented and which we are now advised should be dealt with by the addition of the word "or". We are dealing with two sets of circumstances which are definitely different although it may not appear to be that different on the surface.


Roderick Blaker: Order. It being one o'clock p.m. it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the Bill later this day.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am rising in the House today to repeat, in the same terms, what the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said upon receiving a letter from Senator Davey inviting him to attend a dinner on December 13 in honour of our Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Now imagine, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party is in need of funds, and I have the privilege of being asked to take part in its fund-raising campaign.
I am enraged, furious, indignant, fuming, incensed, boiling, maddened, irritated, galled, defiled, annoyed, smeared, chafed, rasped, triturated, abrased, furcated, defiled, stained, soiled, blemished, stunned, bewildered, puzzled, befuddled, confounded, mystified, perplexed, baffled, baited, devilled, lured, decoyed, vulgarized, debased, and insulted.
Mr. Speaker, this letter made me disconsolate, inconsolable, unconsolable, comfortless, forlorn, heartsick, soul sick, heart-sore, heartbroken and dejected, and I coughed and wheezed, and so forth. Mr. Speaker, as a Liberal in more ways than one,
I make donations to charitable organizations, but the Progressive Conservative Party will not get a cent from me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



CUSTOMS AND EXCISE


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the then Minister of State for Finance, on the 29th of June, 1983, tabled a notice of a Ways and Means Motion to apply the customs and excise jurisdiction of Canada to the Continental Shelf of Canada. He went on to indicate that amendments to legislation affected would be introduced accordingly. This and many other similar motions are even yet left on the table.
Shipbuilding and repair represents a major industry in both the national and the provincial contexts. The federal Government's initiative, after much encouragement by the shipbuilding and repair industry, is consistent with its policy of extending Canada's offshore jurisdiction beyond the current 12 mile territorial limit. The increase in resource exploration and the development on Canada's Continental Shelf beyond that 12 mile limit, a more uniform application of existing rates of duty on shops under the Customs Tariff, and the necessity to introduce a greater degree of equity and fairness into the shipbuilding industry, make the introduction of these amendments an early necessity. As this industry has been held in check by so many other measures, will the Minister of Finance respond in this instance by introducing the necessary legislation before the end of this session?

[ Translation]



EDUCATION


Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun-Saint Paul):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the distinguished French newspaper Le Monde published an article which said that the Quebec Department of Education was planning to publish a textbook on the history of
November 24, 1983

Quebec from which the word Canada would practically be eliminated. After failing to convince Quebecers in the May 1980 referendum that its option was the right one, and after giving up on Quebec's senior citizens who, according to Mr. Levesque, are an obstacle to Quebec's independence, the Quebec Government now wants to take advantage of the minds of young Quebecers in their formative years. This promises to be the most systematic destruction of Canadian history this country has ever known within its own borders. The Quebec Department of Education is becoming an instrument of political propaganda through which intolerance, ignorance and obscurantism will be fed to young Quebecers during their history classes. The history of Canada is an affirmation of the harmonious co-existence of two founding peoples and affords living proof that cultural minorities can develop free of any restraint on Canadian soil. In a world where interdependence is increasing every day, understanding and respect for the past is a sign of a country's high degree of civilization. Mr. Speaker, the PQ Government is about to plunge Quebec youth into the abyss of ignorance.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our Party I want to indicate grave concern that the Reform Committee of the Liberal Party has once again delayed its report. A party described by its hard working, party splitting, leadership hunting President as "still in the Mackenzie King era", must move more quickly. The report describes the Liberal Party as "tired, arrogant, self serving, self satisfied, and irrelevant in some parts of the country." Mr. Speaker, that is not new. Canadians have known that for years. What is new is the revelation that there are some parts of the country where they are not that way. There could be as many as six ridings.
Fortunately there is a saviour on the horizon. It is not the Minister of Energy (Mr. Chretien), who is behind one of the curtains looking for delegates. It is not the white knight from Bay Street who quit in 1975. It is not the hapless ex-Minister of Finance whose 1981 budget destroyed the Canadian economy. No, it is the Liberal party President, the shy and retiring Iona, who says:
I've done a great deal of work on my economics knowledge. 1 can hold my own with all of them.
Who could not hold their own with all of them, in a Party that created 12 per cent unemployment, 13 per cent inflation, and 22 per cent interest rates?
In closing, we want to urge the Reform Committee to move quickly so they can continue the dissension in the Liberal Party.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: In the Ottawa Citizen this morning it is reported that a Supply and Services bulletin on recent contracts carries a $100,000 item for a company called Nunavut Communications Inc., a contract to provide advisory information and creative services related to the development of a communications plan covering the Canada Health Act.
I want to tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) that if she really wants to get a Canada Health Act through this House, what she should really do is bring a Bill before this House which will strengthen and enforce the five basic principles of medicare, that will address the problems of extra billing and user fees. She should not, before we even see a Bill in this House, be contracting out presumably for the kind of advertising campaign we were treated to during the constitutional debate. Are we going to see Canada geese flying to Liberal tunes once again, or are we going to see a decent piece of legislation that Members of Parliament will feel good enough about to sell in this country? That is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be doing, not spending money on Liberal patronage to a company owned by someone who used to be in the Prime Minister's Office. She should be bringing forth a decent Bill.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Maurice Bossy (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) once again the urgent need for a solution to a dangerous situation that exists at the City of Chatham Airport, located within my constituency of Kent.
Three years ago Chatham City Council attempted to purchase or expropriate land adjoining the airport to allow for an extension of the runway. A dispute regarding the legality of zoning bylaws erupted with one land owner who, unable to reach a satisfactory agreement with City Council, constructed a grain silo and hog barn on his property, but directly within the flight path of any approaching or departing aircraft. These obstructions have limited the use of the airport to small aircraft, effectively cancelling the only air passenger service there operated by Pern-Air. The presence of these buildings has therefore created a very serious safety problem.
Though the Department of Transport has been involved from the beginning of the situation, it remains far from being rectified. I urge the Minister to speed up the process of reaching a conclusion to this matter, and to consider seriously introducing pertinent zoning legislation. The provincial Gov-
29164

November 24, 1983
ernment of Ontario has placed a direct responsibility on the federal Government for this action. We should not wait until a tragic accident occurs before taking action to prevent situations similar to the one at Chatham airport from occurring across the country.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am deeply troubled by an article which appeared in The Citizen concerning the environmental assessment and review process. I was astonished to find out that, as a result of eight internal evaluations of Government Ministries, the Government's plan has been starved for funds and knowingly deprived of effective leadership-in sum, dealt a body blow to its effectiveness.
The plan is supposed to ensure that every federal activity, from $25,000 annual maintenance operations to multi-billion dollar megaprojects, is checked for potential ecological harm. Under two cabinet directives this was to be carried out. We have just discovered that this is not the case. How can the Government, and especially the Ministry of the Environment, go about touting ecological concerns when the Government does not even enforce its own program assessments?



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, with my experience in agriculture I know the danger of loose hobby farm laws, but surely there is a greater danger in going to the other extreme and beating into the dirt the poorest farmers who are struggling to survive.
Farmers across Canada, especially those who are trying to save their farms by working at other jobs, and those who are trying to build farms by the same method, are being subjected to continued harassment through vicious interpretations of outdated Section 31 of the Income Tax Act by Revenue Canada. I have seen blueberry farmers, livestock producers, cattle ranchers, and every type of farmer across Canada being subjected to persecution.
Many of those who are being audited and having their taxes increased are farmers pure and simple; their entire life is farming. Valiantly they take other employment to get through a hard time, getting up at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning to do their farm work, and then going to outside jobs, only to return to finish their farming duties. Is it fair that people who cannot afford to fight back be overtaxed to pay the country's deficit brought about through the incompetence of the Government opposite?
The over zealous interpretation of Section 31 virtually destroys the opportunity of many Canadians to start farms. Farming is a tough, unforgiving business. The country needs farmers and the food they produce. The position of Revenue Canada in this matter ignores not only equity but contravenes the rights of all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 1981, Senator Bud Olson, Minister of State for Economic Development, confirmed the federal Government's commitment to participate in the development of the Northeast British Columbia coal block. The federal and provincial Government of British Columbia have poured billions of dollars into this new venture in northeastern British Columbia, which is supplying export coal to the same markets that are presently supplied by the coal mines in southeastern British Columbia. At present, 300 workers have been laid off at Westar Mines in Sparwood, British Columbia, and 1,100 workers have just received notice from Fording Coal of a three-week lay-off prior to Christmas, and a further one-month lay-off in July.
The federal Government has a responsibility to investigate immediately the program which was outlined by the New Democratic Party in September, when we requested that western coal producing Provinces be given the opportunity to supply central Canada's coal requirements. It is imperative that the Canadian Government take immediate steps to meet with producers and consumers to work out an agreement which would ensure not only employment for thousands of workers but also make a major contribution in cleaning up our environment. Western Canadian coal has a sulphur content well below that of American coal which is being used at the present time in central Canada.
If immediate steps are not taken to secure these Canadian markets as they become available, coal mines in southeastern British Columbia will have no one to blame but the federal Government for causing their economic disaster. The Government has promoted-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.
November 24, 1983



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Statistics Canada has just released its latest index of leading economic indicators. That index supports the growing concern of reputable economists across the country that the current economic recovery is stalling and that it will almost certainly falter in the new year. I would like to ask the Minister this question. Given that employment dropped by 25,000 in October, that the housing construction sector remains appallingly weak, and that retail sales have been falling in real terms since June, is the Government considering very seriously indeed the desirability of an early budget to deal with these growing signs of weakness in the economic recovery?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 have indicated, I am considering bringing down a budget some time between February and June of 1984. I have not as yet decided on a particular time to do so. I am watching the evolution of the economic recovery and will advise in due time as to the advisability of an early budget or a later budget.
So that my hon. friend will not be unduly concerned, I would like to draw his attention to another statement made by Statistics Canada which came out, not yesterday but this morning. That statement does not refer to the leading economic indicators in August but to industrial production in September. It indicated that seasonally adjusted industrial production increased by a very strong 1.8 per cent in September following an upward revised figure of a 1.1 per cent increase in industrial production in August. While Statistics Canada had come up with only a 0.4 per cent increase in August, it revised its figures and arrived at a 1.1 per cent increase, almost a 300 per cent increase in the figure first issued by Statistics Canada.
1 might also point out to the Hon. Member a review of the ten major forecasters which was published very recently in the latest issue of The Financial Post. That review indicates that growth for 1983 was 3 per cent, and growth for 1984 is forecast to be 4.5 per cent by ten major forecasters.


CANADIAN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPARED WITH UNITED STATES FIGURES
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. He can derive whatever satisfaction he wishes out of the statistics to which he has referred. But is he also aware of the fact that there are one-quarter of a million fewer Canadians working today than when the recession began? Is he aware of the fact that, by contrast, there are a million more Americans working today than when the United States entered its recession? Do not these facts, rather than his own, clearly indicate to the Government that our economic recovery has a
Oral Questions
long way to go to match the Minister's expectations and the performance of the American economy? I would therefore ask the Minister again if these facts do not demonstrate the need for an early budget to deal with the faltering economy and, in particular, with the weakness in the economic recovery.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend could also refer to the fact that Canada created
350,000	jobs in the last year, a proportionately larger number than any other industrial country. I might also refer my hon. friend to the most recent issue of the British publication, Euromoney, which has studied 93 countries around the world. Euromoney indicates that the country with the largest economic turnaround of any single country of those 93 is Canada.


REQUEST FOR NEW JOB-CREATION MEASURES
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can lull himself into a false sense of satisfaction by reading statistics that may have been prepared by Euromoney. The fact is that the Bank of Commerce, the Royal Bank, and Dominion Securities, to name just three institutions, are all quoted in today's press as saying that the economy is drifting, without enough strength to sustain the current recovery into 1984. Since virtually all the economic indicators prove them right, does the Minister not agree with those economists right here in Canada, not those from outside the country, that the economy is "at a major decision point for policy makers"?
[DOT] (M20)
In light of that, will he assure the House that the Throne Speech coming up in a week or two will contain real job-creation measures and not band-aid approaches, so that the million or so unemployed can get off welfare, unemployment insurance, and Government make-work programs, and find real jobs in the private sector?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we do not have to wait for the next Throne Speech. I may remind the hon. gentleman that in the last budget brought down in April of this year, the main focus was on job creation in the private sector, and that the majority of the jobs created this year as a result of the Government's economic and fiscal policies were created in the private sector. I am referring to permanent, steady jobs and not just temporary employment. In addition, the private sector has been instrumental in helping to make the direct job creation programs for which my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, is responsible, increasingly successful.
We therefore have a situation in which the private sector has been able to create a large number of jobs this year and will continue to do so next year.
As far as the Throne Speech is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will have to be patient, and I hope we shall be

November 24, 1983
Oral Questions
able to start the debate on the Throne Speech a few weeks from now.


GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES-REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know that the major part of the growth in this country this year took place in the first two quarters. Since then, the economy has been stalled. His budget was on April 19 and it accomplished nothing to make this country grow, improve its economy, or to get us out of a recession.
The fact is that the recovery is stalled. What new initiative does the Minister have in mind that would turn the country around and get it growing again? Or is the fact of the matter as set out by Alfred Apps, reported in Maclean's this week, that the Government's advisers say that no amount of new government initiative will do anything. If that is the case, when will he suggest to the Prime Minister that he call an election?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think the person who is probably the most stalled in this House is the Hon. Member. He is reported as having said that it would take 15 years for the Conservatives to bring some recovery to the economy. We will do that in less time and a lot faster than he would. 1 suspect he was referring to the time it would take them to get back into office.
If the Hon. Member wants to talk about figures, again I would like to refer him to Statistics Canada figures, not for the first two quarters but for September. The figures for the month of September, which is the third quarter of this year, indicate that industrial production went up by 1.8 per cent. That is in a single month, September. The month of August has also been revised upwards by Statistics Canada, to 1.1 per cent from 0.4 per cent. Therefore, the economic recovery, far from faltering, is proceeding very well indeed. All the forecasters foresee that for this year Canada will have a rate of growth that compares very favourably with the rate of growth in the United States, which is the fastest growing economy in the world, along with Canada.


INTEREST RATE LEVELS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about some statistics of today. Interest rates today have gone up for the fourth straight week in a row. Let us talk about the cost of money. Every forecaster and economist is saying that we have to get interest rates down. What is happening is that interest rates continue to rise as Governments borrow 75 per cent of the money available in the marketplace. What action does the Government intend to take to get interest rates down and start the economy growing?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. friend that the prime rate in Canada is at the same level as that in the United States at the present time. The
rates for bonds, after 15 years, are lower than they are in the United States. Consumer loans can be obtained presently at a rate equivalent to the rates that were prevalent over the last 25 years. Mortgage rates for consumers, at 10.25 per cent, are as low as they have been for several years. Therefore I would like my hon. friend to look at the facts on the interest rate side and realize that Canadian monetary policy has been the right one.
We have depressed interest rates as much as we could, and in effect the average Canadian is now getting rates, whether on the mortgage side or on the consumer loans side, which compare with rates which have not been in existence for years and years.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Well placed government sources today, as indicated in The Globe and Mail, are reporting that the Minister of Finance and his Department are preparing a scheme which would see new tax breaks for corporations in an effort to encourage them to implement employee stock ownership programs. Are the Minister and his Department considering such a scheme? Will he confirm that this scheme is being developed now?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker. There will be, I am sure, a number of speculative stories written about the contents of an eventual budget. I can tell my hon. friend that I have not even decided on the broad framework of the next budget, let alone decided on particular proposals. 1 remind the Hon. Member, however, that in my Department, and in many other Departments of Government, as the budget is being considered several months down the line, every year those Departments are called upon to carry out a review of their plans, and a lot of studies on many subjects are carried out. 1 would suggest to my hon. friend that there will be 30 or 40 different questions which will be examined. 1 might retain one, two, or three suggestions in the end, when the budget time comes. My hon. friend, again, will have to wait until the budget is released to know exactly which suggestions I have kept.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a follow-up question to the Minister of Finance. I believe he has admitted he is considering this proposal, and while we in the New Democratic Party are in full agreement with a policy which would see meaningful worker participation in management decision-making, and worker ownership, we certainly are very hesitant about the scheme which has been presented, which really does not appear to be much more than a back door for wage controls and a threat to free collective bargaining. Will the Minister indicate, if he is not considering
November 24, 1983

this scheme, if he is saying this will not be something which he introduces in the budget in the springtime?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying any such thing. What I am saying is that 1 will not comment on press speculation about any particular items in the budget. This is not the last opportunity which my hon. friend will have to ask me to comment on speculative stories. There will be a number of them.
As to what will or will not be in the budget, my friend will have to wait, if he checks the speeches I have made over the last several months, he will see 1 have indicated how important it is to improve labour-management relations in this country, and that the burden in that regard is not only on labour but that management has a big role to play in this regard also. Labour, management, and government should be ready to look at new initiatives and examine ways, many ways, whereby the general state of labour-management relations could be improved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap on a supplementary question. The Hon. Member could avoid long preambles.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will avoid a long preamble by asking the Minister of Finance a simple question.


PARTICIPATION OF WORKERS IN MANAGEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: In the Minister's consideration of ways and means of improving the labour-management atmosphere, would he agree that simply providing an opportunity for employees to hold a handful of shares in a company would really do very little in terms of any real participation of workers in their work place?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I have invited business and labour to examine ways of improving labour relations in this country. I made it clear that both employers and employees had a responsibility in this respect. 1 am personally looking at a number of ways in which we could facilitate and improve labour relations in this country, and I shall probably have a chance to discuss this matter with my provincial counterparts as well. As far as the Hon. Member's specific comment is concerned, I shall take it as a comment based on a proposal that is still hypothetical.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for employment and immi-
Oral Questions
gration 1 will address my question to his seatmate, the Minister of Defence. The Minister must be aware that in the Department of Employment and Immigration there is a program called the Critical Skills Training Program, the purpose of which is to identify those sectors in industry which are going to require specially trained personnel in the future, such as the shipbuilding program which now finds itself short of 250 marine engineering technicians. Did the Minister's Department inform the Department of Employment and Immigration that it would require at least 250 marine engineering technicians? After all, the program has been in the works for at least three years.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, that question was raised this morning in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Commodore Healey, the project manager, said the story was inaccurate. There is no shortage of 250 marine engineers. Active recruitment is going ahead. Saint John is meeting with some difficulties, and hopefully they will be short term. He also indicated it is hoped that all of the marine engineers required for the Canadian patrol frigate program will be found in Canada, except for certain specialized marine engineers.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, that is a preposterous response but not surprising coming from this Government, particularly this Minister. The fact is there is a shortage and it was obviously not identified by the Department of National Defence which had responsibility for ensuring those people were available.


POSSIBLE DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION OF PATROL FRIGATES
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister how long it is anticipated that this project will be held up. The workers concerned are going to go without jobs because of the incompetence of the Government which will find foreign workers to come in and take those jobs which should be designated for Canadians.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I would rather the hon. gentleman had been at the committee this morning to address that specific question. We dealt with that question, and assurances were forthcoming to the effect that the marine engineers would be found in Canada. If the hon. gentleman wants to discuss the matter with either the project manager, or Saint John shipbuilding in his own area, he would see that, while there are some temporary difficulties, the problem will be resolved.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that when we selected this process for building six new frigates by identifying a Canadian contractor, we knew there would have to be special efforts in order to build a Canadian team. We accepted that risk and are meeting the expectations. We will have to work a bit more assiduously, and I hope the hon. gentleman will give us his co-operation just as the hon. gentleman from Esquimalt-Saanich offered to do this morning, in order to resolve the issue.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
November 24, 1983

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who has taken a position on behalf of the Government which I can only describe as heartless and mean-spirited with respect to the plight of Donald Marshall, the Mic-Mac Indian from Nova Scotia.
The Minister will know that the Government of Canada, on behalf of all Canadians, signed an international covenant on civil and political rights which provides, among other things, that:
When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment. .. shall be compensated-
There is a federal responsibility in this matter and the Minister cannot weasel out by attempting to place it on the shoulders of provincial jurisdiction, since he funds provincial legal aid. How can he now deny assistance to Donald Marshall?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is surely aware that international agreements, whatever their validity or application, do not change the constitutional and legal situation in our country. We have many examples where the Provinces have given us authority to agree to certain things internationally and the federal Government takes its international obligations, yet within Canada the obligation rests on the Provinces. I take that to be almost too obvious to state, but in this situation it is worth stating.
The Government of Ontario seems to be assuming its responsibilities in similar matters. It is prosecuting studies in this area with great assiduity and I see no reason why other Provinces cannot also assume their responsibilities.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the question 1 asked deals with a sense of compassion. The Minister demonstrates that neither he nor his Government has one iota of compassion with respect to a very tragic situation where a man spent 11 years incarcerated, under a federal law, with respect to an alleged murder. In view of the fact that the Minister indicated his sympathy, which does not cost him or the Government anything, what steps has he taken to manifest that sympathy? Has he at least called the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and used his good offices to make sure there is compensation? Has he offered any amount of money at all in conjunction with the Province of Nova Scotia?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, indeed I have spoken to the new Attorney General of Nova Scotia on this matter. 1 tried to use, as the hon. gentleman puts it, my good offices to have the Province assume its responsibilities. The hon. gentleman says this is a federal law, and so it is, as is everything in the criminal law. But as it happens it is enforced by provincial or municipal police, in this case the police of the City of Sydney, Nova Scotia. They fall under the jurisdiction of the Province, and the case was prosecuted by a provincial prosecutor. That should make it clear enough there was no aspect of federal involvement whatsoever in the unfolding of this case.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy who will know that the Atomic Energy Control Board is in the process of issuing new guidelines for worker exposure to ionized radiation. Perhaps the most important change is a drastic increase for women workers, from the present level of one REM, to five REM, to current level for men. Would the Minister not agree this form of sexual equality only increases the risk of cancer for women, and deformities in their unborn children?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of this problem. I will look into it and report to the Hon. Member.


REQUEST THAT BOARD HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, at the same time will the Minister look into the fact that the AECB will not hold open hearings to discuss these new levels of exposure but is, instead, holding hearings behind closed doors? Will he not agree that, in an age where we have public hearings on rail line abandonment, and on radio and television licences, new levels of exposure for workers can only be decided after open public hearings?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the Board is operating under the laws of this Parliament. 1 will check if there is provision for public hearings, but I know it is operating within the laws and the mandate given it by the House of Commons.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Among the many people whom the Prime Minister consulted with in depth before embarking on his peace mission was U.S. General Bernard Rogers, Supreme Commander of NATO. Apparently General Rogers supports the Prime Minister in his efforts. I
November 24, 1983

quote, "He and 1 agree on the objectives of arms reduction for all forces."
Has the Acting Prime Minister's Department given special study to the Mutual Balanced Force Reduction talks and how those talks can be beefed up? This is one of the areas apparently that General Rogers noted strongly, and the Prime Minister, in one of his four points. Would the Minister give some indication whether the Department has studied this and whether or not new suggestions for these kinds of talks will be forthcoming?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that the MBFR talks be given renewed impetus has become a part of the Prime Minister's peace initiative. General Rogers has frequently made the point that the imbalance which presently exists in conventional arms in Europe has effectively lowered the nuclear threshold. Presumably one deals with this in two ways. One way would be to increase the level of conventional forces on the side of the NATO allies. That would be the last resort. An effort at the MBFR to attempt a mutual reduction of conventional forces would be much better. The Prime Minister has already conveyed to other NATO leaders his hope that an effort would be undertaken in 1984 to give additional impetus to the MBFR talks. These talks have been going on for ten years. There is a little movement recently, but much more movement should be possible. The Prime Minister is attempting to bring that about.


FINANCE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. For many months, when interest rates and inflation were very high, the Minister of Finance suggested that we should be looking at the real interest rates. Is the Minister of Finance aware that under current conditions, with interest rates at the levels they are at, and inflation at the level it is at, in fact his economic policy has not improved the real interest rates that Canadians face?


Marc Lalonde: I would be pleased to draw to my hon. friend's attention the fact that real interest rates in Canada at the present time, and for the last several months, have been lower than in the United States. I would also like to draw to his attention the fact that consumer loans are as low as they have been for the last 25 years. Mortgages, which are at 10.25 per cent for one year, are as low as they have been for several years. Canadian citizens can now get loans on the market at rates that compare to the best rates they have had in several years.
Real interest rates are still high. I have made comments in that regard, both in the United States and in Canada and at
Oral Questions
various international conferences. Most industrial countries are pressing the United States to take steps to reduce real interest rates. The fact is that in Canada we have now real interest rates that are lower than those in the United States.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. The Member for Mississauga mentioned a critical factor in Canadian interest rates as compared to American interest rates. Since the Canadian Government is borrowing 75 per cent of available funds from Canadian banks, will the Minister explain to the House and to the Canadian people what will happen to our interest rates when the demand for capital is high enough and the crunch comes? Will not the economic policy of the Government, and continually high budgetary deficits, put pressures on the Canadian economy which will slow, if not stop, our economic recovery?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend what is happening at the present time. There is no crunch. As a matter of fact the banks have surplus funds available for lending. This is why citizens can get comparatively low rates on loans from the banks at the present time. There is a concern that eventually down the line there will be a problem of crowding out of private sector borrowing, but this will not happen in 1983 and not likely in 1984. The issue is indeed an issue of concern for subsequent years.
I have already announced steps that we are taking to bring the federal deficit down and to reduce the call on the market by the federal Government, and I hope by provincial Governments also. There is no reason to believe that the problem that my hon. friend is worried about will arise. We can take steps to avoid that problem. No one is considering the problem as a serious one, either this year or next year.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. A Canadian, Hugh Hambleton, was tried and convicted a year ago in Britain on charges of spying on behalf of the KGB. Has the Acting Prime Minister any comments to make on the evidence that came out at the British trial to the effect that, in April of 1980, Hambleton was offered immunity from prosecution by the Canadian authorities on the condition that he would co-operate with the Canadians in determining the exact nature of his contact and connections with the KGB?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no further comment to make today on that point.

November 24, 1983
Oral Questions


EMPLOYMENT WITH CIDA IN PERU AND HAITI
Donald W. Munro: I would like to ask a question more within the domain of the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Earlier in his service in Canada Mr. Hambleton was selected by CIDA to head a team in Peru and later in Haiti. In light of the fact that Mr. Hambleton had no experience whatsoever in Canadian government service, and particularly in CIDA, can the Minister say why he was selected to head the CIDA team in Peru on his first appointment abroad, and later in Haiti?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This question should be placed on the Order Paper.


Donald W. Munro: Oh no!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Minister cares to, he can comment, but it involves a level of detail that is normally the kind of thing requested on the Order Paper.
The Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Fifty thousand acres of rich coal lands in southeastern British Columbia have been released from the terms of the Crowsnest agreement. The Province of British Columbia has always maintained it has ownership of this land. Will the Minister agree to arrange a meeting immediately with the Province of British Columbia to resolve the ownership of these rich coal lands?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any communication from the Minister of Resources of the Province of British Columbia on this matter. It is a problem that is being reviewed in my own Department. If we have to talk with the Government of British Columbia, we will talk with them. These lands belong to the federal Crown, as has been the case since the time the deal was made with the railway.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DISCUSSIONS
Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, there is exploratory drilling for oil going on in this area at the present time. Will the Minister enter into discussions with the Province of British Columbia which will lead to a plan for the management and development of these coal lands, regarding leasing policy, taxation agreements, and environmental impact management?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In my judgment there is no great urgency with
that problem at this time. There are a lot of coal mining operations in Canada at this time. They are all in a surplus position. There is no great urgency to develop new mines at this time. We have a lot of time to resolve these difficulties. I do not think it is a very urgent problem.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, if I can get his attention. Is the Minister aware of the fact that the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Senator Argue in the other place, plus certain officials of the Canadian Wheat Board, are travelling across western Canada making speeches and delivering information encouraging Canadian farmers to purchase Russian tractors and combines? Are they citing government policy? If so, how does this action fit in with the Government's program of "Buy Canadian"?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the Hon. Member's allegation.


ROLE OF RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES
John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Minister, through you, that in fact this is very accurate information. It is reported, and the Senator and the Commissioners have not denied it. Will the Minister clarify the fact that the Minister and the Commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board say they are doing this at the request of the Russians? Since when did the Canadian Government take its domestic purchasing policy from the U.S.S.R.?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Hon. Member, I am not aware that the Senator was expressing these comments. Obviously, based on the Hon. Member's representation, I will have a discussion with the Senator.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burlington.


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but I see she has disappeared. Perhaps I can catch her later.
November 24, 1983


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It deals with the Polish hunger strikers in Toronto. Can the Minister give any encouragement to these brave people that his efforts in appealing to the Polish authorities are having some effect, because it is getting very cold and very damp on the Toronto waterfront?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I know the interest of the Hon. Member in this question. It is a question in which I have been quite interested myself. We have made representations to the Polish authorities. They have responded to six of the cases. It is true there are four outstanding cases that have not been dealt with yet. We intend to continue our efforts.
The Hon. Member asks me whether I have any hope. I draw on my knowledge that the Polish authorities have been cooperative in family reunification cases in the past, and I trust they will continue that practice and give relief or clearance to the four outstanding cases. We are continuing our efforts. Just recently 1 again asked our officials in the Warsaw embassy to make further representation to the Polish authorities.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with a number of Canadians of Grenadian descent who are continuing to be somewhat tormented by the absence of knowledge of their families on the island of Grenada. Can the Minister indicate whether or not any effort is being made to assist these people in determining the present state of their families?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the Hon. Member that there has been a special effort, but if there are residents of Canada of Grenadian descent who wish to be informed about their relatives, we will make an effort to provide, through our consular service, the maximum information possible. I cannot say at the moment whether anything has been done on that point yet, but I will inquire.
Oral Questions


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister knows, the Ontario Government recently decided to terminate its funding support for a radio reading service for the blind. Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare consider, because this is such an essential service for blind Canadians, continuing to provide that financial support, and discuss this matter with the provincial Government with a view to ensuring this essential service is continued?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that we are now flooded with letters from different Provinces of the country about community services or social services which have been cut by a provincial Government. I really regret it. We do share 50 cents on the dollar in these services, but it must be, because of the constitutional division of power, at the initiative of a given Province. We cannot step in when Provinces cut services. I regret it, and I would ask Hon. Members to address their petitions to their provincial MLAs.


Miss MacDonald:: Even when you cause the problem.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. After some months I have been able to obtain some pages from the Tax Operational Manual that deals with Project L. It is "Instructions to the auditors". One of the instructions reads: "Does the taxpayer have a swimming pool or a pond, and provide details?" What difference does it make whether a farmer has a swimming pool or a pond?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular instruction, but I shall make enquiries and 1 hope I will then be able to give the Hon. Member a more satisfactory answer.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I have been attempting for two months, with direct questions to the

November 24, 1983
Oral Questions
Minister in committees and through questions to his Department, to find out about what the Minister is doing with the study being done for a steel bar mill in Windsor in light of the fact that the balance of the industry is operating at 40 per cent
of capacity?


Edward C. Lumley: We
are studying it, Mr. Speaker.


MINISTER S POSITION
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a case that the Minister knows how to pick winners and losers. Stelco is now planning to shut down its Hilton works in Hamilton and move everything to its new plant. Does the Minister consider that Canada needs another steel bar mill in Windsor, or is it the Liberal Party that needs it?


Erik Nielsen: Study that one.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was the Conservative Party that was against picking winners and losers. Obviously, if the Hon. Member is recommending this particular project, or recommending against a particular project, 1 will have a look and take his representation into consideration.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is temporarily responsible for mines. As he knows, the mining sector is the victim of the most uncongenial economic circumstances in the world and is literally on the rocks. Fifty per cent of the mines are idle, affecting 50 per cent of the jobs. One of the problems which will severely affect the recovery of that sector is the excessive tax burden which the Government has placed on the shoulders of the resource sector, and particularly the heavy increase in so-called non-profit taxes. The Minister has ordered a study of comparisons with other jurisdictions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Frank Oberle: 1 will, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister tell the House what is the state of the study? Will it be made public? Is the study near completion? What initiatives is the Government planning to ease that burden on the industry, to permit it to breathe and to regain its former health?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I think the question of taxes for every sector of the economy is regularly reviewed by the
Minister of Finance when budget time comes. As far as the mining sector is concerned, different representations have been made to the Minister of Finance on this score. Basically, as the Hon. Member has stated, the problem of the mining industry is based on the low demand for products across the land and in the world market. With all of the nations entering economic recovery, normally the demand for Canadian mining products should increase.
*	V *


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport in his capacity as Minister responsible in this House to answer questions for the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. My question follows up on questions asked yesterday. 1 would like to know whether or not the Government is waiting until after January 1, 1984, to increase grain quotas on the Prairies so that as much grain as possible can be moved under the new freight shipping rate set down and scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 1984?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, fortunately at the same time that we were exchanging views in the House yesterday in Question Period, the Minister of State for the Wheat Board was appearing before the Saskatchewan Pool presenting a number of very imaginative and creative ideas on how we might go about changing the quota system.


Erik Nielsen: What else?


Lloyd Axworthy: I will be very pleased to send the remarks of the distinguished Senator in the other place concerning those changes in quotas to the Hon. Member, so that he might determine whether his Party would concur in such changes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Which one are you talking about? Name names.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. The Government has launched an extravagant signage renewal program for federal government buildings across Canada. The Government is going to be changing decals on cars, existing directory boards, and installing back lit signs. Why is this a priority in times of supposed restraint? The cost must be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I might add that the former Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Member for Yukon, stopped the program because it was not necessary.
November 24, 1983


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member's Party had been left in office longer, I suspect it would have stopped the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: You have succeeded in that.


Roméo LeBlanc: If the Hon. Member does not accept that the Government of Canada should be clearly identified in the buildings it occupies across the country, I wish he would let me know. Certainly, in terms of job creation, I receive representations from companies involved in putting up signs, billboards, et cetera. They ask for more work, and I am certainly looking at trying to help them.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, November 23, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on the usual point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was not rising on the usual point of order. I wanted to ask a question, which I will not ask now, arising out of the answers given to me by the Minister of indian affairs and no northern development yesterday.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government House Leader to outline the business for tomorrow, assuming we conclude the debate on Bill C-96 today, and the business for next week? He might indicate, if he can do so now, the date for prorogation if it is in his mind, and I imagine that it is very much so. At the same time, perhaps he could indicate his planning with respect to a new Speech from the Throne should Parliament prorogue in the near future.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be dealing with Bill C-72 and Bill C-71. Monday will be the last allotted day. On Tuesday we will be dealing with Bill C-170 and next Wednesday will be Private Members' Business.
There has been consultation earlier today among the House Leaders. Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek unanimous consent for the following two motions, I think you would obtain it.
Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council have unanimous consent to introduce the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Therefore I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan):
That, if a division is required on any motion relating to the business of supply on Monday, November 28, 1983, the said division shall be postponed until 5.45 p.m. on Tuesday, November 29, 1983 whereupon all questions necessary for the disposal of the business of supply in the period ending December 10, 1983, shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: As I indicated earlier, I have a second motion to move:
That a prorogation of this session shall have no effect on resuming consideration of all of the objections to the Electoral Boundaries Commission's reports; and.
That the objections printed in the Notice Paper on the last day of this session be printed in their same form in the first Notice Paper of the second session of this Parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleausre of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: I think the Hon. Member for Yukon wanted to know when we would prorogue and when a Speech from the Throne would take place. If the Bills I have indicated previously are passed by the Senate before Wednesday at three o'clock, I think we would be in a position to prorogue in the middle of the afternoon next Wednesday. In so far as the date for the Speech from the Throne is concerned, I am not in a position to be specific today but I can give a general idea that the Speech from the Throne will be held in the week of December 5, somewhere between December 6 and December 8.


Erik Nielsen: That is close enough, Mr. Speaker. I think we can safely predict, knowing the propensities of the Government, that it will probably be right in the middle, on December 7.
I was listening in French to the President of the Privy Council who was speaking in English, and 1 thought I heard him say that the business for tomorrow would be Bill C-72 rather than Bill C-172 and Bill C-71 rather than Bill C-171.


An Hon. Member:: He did.


Erik Nielsen: But because I sometimes have difficulty in following the rapidity of the Minister's English, maybe the French was a little slow in coming to me.

November 24, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Blenkarn POINT OF ORDER


MR. MUNRO (ESQU1MALT-SAANICH)-QUESTIONS CONCERNING MR. HAMBLETON
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of Question Period. On Friday of last week, I was foreclosed on asking questions about the Canadian spy, Mr. Hambleton. Today in a ruling from the Chair, it was suggested that I put the questions on the Order Paper because they were too specific. There are already 60 questions on the Order Paper from 1980 and this man will be out of jail in a year's time. Are there that many spies in CIDA that you will have to determine which one I am talking about?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, am I too late to put a question to the Government House Leader?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent of the House, is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief. There has been some talk in the House on all sides about the possibility of a free vote on the testing of the Cruise missile. 1 would like to ask the Government House Leader whether or not he would undertake to consult with Opposition House Leaders, the Hon. Member for Yukon and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, about the possibility of such a free vote. I am only asking him to consult; I am not asking him to agree at this time. 1 am also asking him whether or not he would report back to the House before the end of this session.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member reads the answer given yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister to one of his colleagues, he will have the answer to his question.


POINT OF ORDER
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking the floor at this time to respond to a point of order raised on November 17 by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) with respect to Vote 6b of the 1983-84 Supplementary Estimates (B). I am making these comments to assist in the ruling Mr. Speaker will be making on the matter in due course.
I understand that my hon. friend's point of order was based on two contentions. The first was that the Canada Post
Corporation Act contains no legislative authority for the Corporation to do the kind of things listed in Vote 6b. Therefore, he argued that Vote 6b would provide authority not present under existing legislation. Second, he argued that activities listed under Vote 6b would not result in or contribute to the losses of the Canada Post Corporation.
The Canada Post Corporation Act is not exhaustive in citing the things the Corporation may do. Section 5 of the Act authorizes the Corporation to provide products or services which are necessary or incidental to operating a postal service. All the things listed in Vote 6b are necessary or incidental to the activities which are the objects of the corporation. Section 29 of the Canada Post Corporations Act provides for a deficit appropriation item when the Corporation's income is insufficient to meet its expense. Since its inception the Corporation has invoked this provision and is expected to do so in 1983-84. Therefore, any expenditure will contribute to the deficit.
The Corporation could have proceeded with these projects and the costs would have been included in a lump sum appropriation under Section 29. However, the projects reflect Government initiatives in the fields of decentralization, employment and energy conservation and Vote 6b presents a disclosure of the Corporation's contribution toward these goals. Finally, I am told that there have been past instances when Crown corporations have received appropriations for activities under circumstances similar or identical to the present one.
Canada Post Corporation Vote 6c, 1982-83 Supplementary Estimates (C), had the identical vote title as that for the present Vote 6b. It also listed three of the five projects now listed under the present vote. Also Supply and Services Vote 2', 1981-82 Supplementary Estimates (E), provided funds to Canadian Arsenals Limited for the federal building retrofit and conversion initiative (energy conservation). Secretary of State Vote 70, 1978-79 Main Estimates provided funds to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the specific purpose of a host country broadcasting service for the 1978 Commonwealth Games.
On the basis of these arguments, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the item is in fact in order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling, in both official languages of this country,
November 24, 1983

the First Report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-PRESENTATION OF SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Robert Gourd: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*


PETITION
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the ten Polish Canadian strikers in front of the Polish Consulate in Etobicoke was raised in Question Period again today. These ten Canadians, who are fathers and husbands, want nothing more than to see their wives and children join them in Canada. Although I am in daily contact with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and with the Polish Embassy in Ottawa making representations on their behalf, it is still my duty to present the following petition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is doing a little more than presenting a petition. The usual format is merely a brief explanation and presentation.


Jesse Philip Flis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The petition merely reads: "We, the undersigned, support the hunger strikers for the release of their families from Poland". These petitions are in addition to the 1,000 signatures that I have already tabled in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions. Shall I dispense with the usual reading?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you call upon any Member having a motion in his name and wishing to proceed with it to rise. Otherwise proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Any Member with a motion in his name wishing to rise at this point will be recognized. If there are none, we will proceed to Questions on the Order Paper.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,574 and 5,233.
[ Text]


Mr. Bosley: 1.	What is the salary of Mr. Pierre Juneau as President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	What was the total salary paid to Mr. Juneau as Minister of Communications in a Liberal government?
3.	For how many years and in what specific capacity did Mr. Juneau draw (a) a salary (b) benefits (c) other forms of recompense from the taxpayers and, in each case, what was the precise amount of the salary, benefits or other forms of recompense?
4.	What experience in the private sector qualified Mr. Juneau for his appointment as President of the CBC?
5.	As President of the CBC, on what date and under what circumstances did Mr. Juneau first meet the Prime Minister?
6.	On what date and under what circumstances did Mr. Juneau first (a) work with (b) work for the Prime Minister?
7.	Was the President of the CBC ever involved with the publication Cite Libre and, if so (a) in what capacity or capacities (b) at what period of time?
8.	Was the President of the CBC (a) consulted (b) involved in any way by the government in the events leading to the invocation of the War Measures Act in October 1970?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Offices of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	For those positions to which a salary range is not attached and where the determination of salary includes consideration of assessed performance, as a matter of privacy the government does not release individual salaries. These circumstances apply in the case of Mr. Juneau, President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
2.	Mr. Juneau was paid at the rate of $20,000 per annum.
3.	1949-1966: Held various positions in the National Film Board, i.e., Field Representative for the City of Montreal; Assistant Director for the Province of Quebec; Director of International Distribution; Assistant Director of the National Film Board's European Office in London; Secretary to the Board and Assistant to the Commissioner; Executive Director; Senior Assistant to the Commissioner, and Director of French Language Production. During his employment with the National Film Board, Mr. Juneau's salary was as follows:
July 5, 1949	Salary range/annual salary $2,580-$3,180
Dec. 1, 1950	2,904- 3,576
Jan.1,1951	3,636- 4,020
June 7,1951	3,576- 4,212
July 9, 1951	4,212- 4,836
Dec. 1, 1951	4,520- 5,180
Dec. 1, 1953	4,920- 5,610
July 1, 1954	5,220- 6,120
Oct. 1, 1954	7,000- 8,000
April 1, 1956	8,000- 9,000
March 1, 1957	12,000
Oct. 1, 1958	13,000
Jan. 1, 1961	15,000
Jan. 1, 1964	17,500
Dec. 1, 1965	18,900

November 24, 1983
Order Paper Questions
February, 1966: Full-time Member and Vice-Chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors-salary $23,000.
March, 1968: Chairman of the Board of Broadcast Governors, which later became the Canadian Radio-Television Commission-salary $27,560 effective March 18, 1968. Salary ranges for Governor in Council appointees were established effective January 1, 1969, and individual salaries within those ranges were determined on the basis of assessed performance, thereby resulting in exact salaries not being released. The salary ranges within which Mr. Juneau was paid are as follows:
effective January 1, 1969-DM2 ($33,000-$37,000) effective January 1, 1970-DM2 ($35,000-$39,000) effective January 1, 1971-DM2 ($37,500-$42,000) effective January 1, 1972-DM2 ($40,000-$45,000) effective January 1, 1973-DM2 ($42,000-$49,500) effective April 1, 1974-DM2 ($44,000-$54,000)
August, 1975: Minister of Communications-salary, see Part 2 above.
November, 1975: Special Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister-salary range $35,500-$47,500.
November, 1976: Chairman of the National Capital Commission-Salary DM1 ($41,000-$54,000); effective April 1, 1977-DMI ($43,000-$58,800).
February, 1978: Under-Secretary of State-Salary DM2 ($49,500-$65,300);	effective	April	1,	1978-DM2
($51,900-$67,700); effective April 1, 1979 DM2 ($55,600- $72,400).
April, 1980: Under-Secretary of State and concurrently Deputy Minister of	Communications-Salary	DM2
($60,900-$79,300).
August, 1980: Deputy Minister of Communications-DM2 ($60,900-$79,300),	effective	April	1,	1981-DM2
($73,400-$86,000); effective July 1, 1982-DM2 ($82,150- $96,670).
August 1982: President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Salary-See reply to (1) above.
Mr. Juneau's benefits and other forms of recompense were the same as those provided by his employer to other employees at the same level.
4.	Mr. Juneau's entire career has been within the public sector and, as is obvious from the positions he has held (see (3) above), he has a long familiarity with communications and cultural affairs in Canada. Fie has also been active in a number of educational, religious, social and cultural organizations.
5.	Since becoming President of the CBC, Mr. Juneau has met the Prime Minister on only one occasion, an official dinner on November 24, 1982 given by the Canadian Conference of the Arts on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Canada Council.
6.	(a) August, 1975-as Minister of Communications (b) November, 1975-as Special Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister
7.	Yes, as a contributor and member of the editorial board in the early 1950s.
8.	It is impossible to determine if there was any communication between the government and the President of the CBC at that time.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was a post office constructed in Pierrefonds, Quebec and, if so, what was the cost of the (a) land (b) surveying (c) design (d) construction (e) site improvement?
2.	What is the estimated value for the purpose of the assessment of a grant in lieu of municipal taxes?
3.	Was any amount paid out in lieu of school commission taxes and, if so (a) on what date (b) to whom (c) what was the amount?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. A
Post Office was constructed in Pierrefonds, Quebec in 1982. The cost of:
(a)	land was $ 111,150, including legal fees of $ 1,150.
(b)	surveying-nil (carried out by the department).
(c)	design-$122,659
(d)	construction-$1,266,700.
(e)	site improvement-$208,000. This amount is included in the total construction cost.
2.	The estimated value of land and building for the purposes of the 1983 grant in lieu of taxes is:
Land-$205,000 Building-$1,017,440 Total-$1,222,440
3.	(a), (b) and (c) School commission grants related to this Post Office are collected by the Municipality of Pierrefonds. Total payments to Pierrefonds are expected to be finalized in early November at approximately $40,000 for 1983.
Of this amount, $11,400 was paid to Pierrefonds on 4 April and $18,600 was approved for payment on 4 October.
The school portion of Pierrefonds' grant relates to the lie de Montreal school commission whose total share of this grant would be estimated to be $1,758 with $501.03 relating to the 4 April payment, $817.47 relating to the amount approved for payment 4 October and approximately $440 relating to a final payment to be made in early November.


John Leslie Evans: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

November 24, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-96, to amend the Financial Administration Act-Mr. Gray-Mr. Blaker in the Chair.
Roderick Blaker: The House again in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act. My understanding is that when the House rose at one o'clock, Members were considering Clause 2. I will put the question and recognize any Members who seek the floor. Shall Clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2-"Auditor General of Canada"


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, I was worrying about the amendment which really involves the word "or". I was seeking to find out what that did in a legal sense to the meaning of Clause 2(2). The reason 1 was getting from the President of the Treasury Board was that it involved the receipt of moneys and/or other properties that would go into trust from prisoners, which was used as an example.
The trouble I was having was that in the briefings that I received from Treasury Board on Bill C-96, particularly this area, Subclause (4) was the paragraph that applied to the reason given in reply to my question on the amendment proposed that would add the word "or" to Subclause (2). Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board would like to give me an explanation of the word "or", that it does to change the intent or the legal language. Is not the matter of trust for people who are incarcerated and their personal property covered in Subclause (4)?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the word "or" is to differentiate between money paid to Canada, on the one hand, and money received or collected by Canada, on the other. The Government's obligations with respect to money paid to it are sometimes different from those with respect to money received or collected. For example, the Government may merely be holding money collected in trust, but may be obligated to perform some service for money paid for a special purpose. 1 am also advised that this will make the English version of the Bill exactly the same as the French. 1 hope this will be of assistance to my hon. friend.
Financial Administration Act


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, 1 thank the President of the Treasury Board very much for that explanation.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, I have to ask you to excuse my voice today. 1 am wondering whether putting "or" in will facilitate or make it easier for the Department of National Revenue to take out of the bank accounts of Canadians money that it thinks belongs to the Government. This practice is, in my view, a terrible practice and is being carried out more and more frequently. There is one case which 1 would like to mention later today where the Department of National Revenue took $1,000 out of a man's bank account and that man did not even find out about it until several days later when the manager of the bank happened to mention it to him. The Department of National Revenue did not even have the courtesy to tell the man what had happened.
If this amendment will make that practice any easier, I would like to raise strenuous objections to it. As a matter of fact, I would like to raise strenuous objections to the practice of going to a bank account and taking money out without notifying the Canadian to whom the money belongs.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I understand by hon. friend's concern but his concern is related to the Income Tax Act. We are dealing here with the Financial Administration Act. The amendment for which we are seeking approval would not facilitate the kinds of activities about which my hon. friend is concerned.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, on that point, we are dealing with a definition that refers to money received by Canada for a special purpose. The President of the Treasury Board is assuring us that the extending of this definition in no way, shape or form legitimizes the practice in which Revenue Canada is now involved of automatically going to people's bank accounts without their knowledge and taking money from them. I would just like to make absolutely sure that the President of the Treasury Board is assuring us right now that the extension of this definition in no way, shape or form legitimizes that most reprehensible practice that is going on in Canada today.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to give that assurance.
I have no further comments to make on this amendment. If the committee is so disposed, 1 would be happy to ask it to carry this amendment and then go on to other amendments. Either fortunately or unfortunately, there are quite a few amendments before us.


Roderick Blaker: 1 will put the question then. Shall Clause 2 as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 2, subclause (2), agreed to.

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I understant that it was recommended by the Auditor General of Canada that Clause 3 be omitted-


J. Michael Forrestall: It is not Clause 3 or anywhere near it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It is Subclause (3). Do I undersand that the President of the Treasury Board will be deleting it, or will he be proceeding with an amendment?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, I have an amendment with respect to Clause 3. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if, in order to facilitate the business of the committee, I could confirm that the amendments to Clause 2 which have been circulated to Members of the committee and are available to the Table with respect to Subclause 2(3) and Subclauses 2(4), 2(5) and 2(6) have in fact been adopted by the committee. The reason I ask this question is that we had been discussing an amendment to Subclause 2(2), the amendment containing the contentious word "or", and I would like to make sure that there is no doubt on the part of the committee that I had intended to bring before the committee amendments to Subclause 2(3) and Subclauses 2(4), 2(5) and 2(6). These were amendments regarding which there had been consultation prior to today's session, the text of the amendments having been distributed to members of the committee.


Roderick Blaker: I am a little baffled. I have in front of me a proposed amendment. I do not know whether it has been moved or not. It is entitled Subclaue 2(3). If we are all talking about the same one, the Chair would appreciate being instructed as to whether it is the intention of the Minister to move this amendment or whether in fact he is arguing, as I think he may be, that it has somehow already been moved and passed. I do not know.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, you asked if Clause 2 carried and the committee indicated that it should carry. Just so that there is no confusion later on, I would like to make sure that all of the amendments which I intend to move before the committee have been dealt with by the committee or if I have formally to move the remaining two amendments which I have just mentioned. I am sorry that this is so technical, but I would like to make sure that the discussions my hon. friend and I and others carried out before today's sitting will be reflected in the proceedings of the committee and eventually of the House.


Roderick Blaker: I would like to be of some assistance.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering about one thing. When you asked if Clause 2 shall carry, I, not being a lawyer, made a mistake. Clause 2 does not carry but Subclause (2) as amended of Clause 2 does carry. I think there will still be amendments to Subclause (3) and Subclause (4) of Clause 2.


Roderick Blaker: Now I understand what has happened. 1 think it will require the unanimous consent of the House to undo something which has been done, and obviously
there was simply an error made in the proceedings. I would request of Hon. Members that the reply to my question whether or not Clause 2 as amended shall carry be undone and that further amendments will now be debated in terms of Clause 2. I shall put the question again on Clause 2 and look for those Hon. Members who wish to enter debate. Shall Clause 2 carry?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, not being a lawyer myself, I would appreciate it very much if Clause 2(2) as amended would be called and we could then proceed to Clause 2(3).


Roderick Blaker: Would the Hon. Member be so kind as to repeat himself? He would like to have which clause or amendment called now?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with Clause 2(2) and we have agreed to the amendment as moved by the President of the Treasury Board which would amend that clause to read:
-to, or received or collected by a public officer.
Could we clear that amendment as agreed before proceeding to Clause 2(3)?


Roderick Blaker: I will put the question on Subclause
2(2).


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a question of whether or not this is the process the Chair would like to follow. It is a process which we thought would be useful in putting behind us that with which we have dealt without having to return to those points at any time. Perhaps that would be agreeable for now and throughout the entire process.


Roderick Blaker: That is fine. I will call the subclauses as Hon. Members have indicated they want them to be debated and I can either ask if each subclause is carried after the end of each debate or I can put the question on all subclauses at the same time, whichever practice Hon. Members choose.
We are now dealing with Subclause 2(3). Shall Subclause 2(2) carry?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Auditor General recommended the omission of Subclause (3) of Clause 2 and I would ask the President of the Treasury Board to advise if that subclause is to be omitted or if it is to be amended.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I propose the following amendment to Subclause 2(3). I move:
That Bill C-96 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 3 to 13 on page 2;
(b)	by renumbering Subclause (4) as Subclause (3).
I want to give a word of explanation. The proposed amendment would extend the definition of "public money", to include any money held by Canada. Circumstances can arise where
November 24, 1983

money is paid to Canada in error and such money was not public money under the old definition and so could be repaid pursuant to Section 14(3) of the Financial Administration Act.
The proposed change would make Section 14(3) inoperative and there would be no authority to repay amounts received in error.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, 1 agree with that. We are omitting paragraph 3 and I agree with the amendment as read by the President of the Treasury Board. This means that Subclause(4) in Bill C-96 is then renumbered as Subclause(3).
Could I ask the President of the Treasury Board if the new Subclause(3), which is Subclause(4) in Bill C-96, is not the phrase reading "money received by Canada for a special purpose" in the clause that deals with funds received from prisoners, turned over in trust? 1 would like to clear up that misunderstanding because that was the nature of the briefing I had before today.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, 1 am advised that we have to amend both the definition of "public money" and the definition of "money received by Canada for a special purpose". I am sorry that this is all so technical. 1 know that my hon. friend would want to be very careful, and I agree with that.
What we are dealing with here is an amendment to Paragraph (d) of the definition of "public money" so that it would read, "money received by Canada for a special purpose."
1 gather that we are trying to make the two parts of the definition consistent. We were originally talking about part of the section for which there is an explanatory note which says "money paid to Canada for a special purpose" and we are making the words later on consistent with that.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I do not want to belabour this point but before one o'clock the President of the Treasury Board was advising me that the amendment to paragraph 2 of Clause 2, the addition of the word "or", was to make it possible to receive funds from people, for instance, who were incarcerated in prisons. 1 was very confused with that explanation because in the briefings 1 received from Treasury Board on this part of Bill C-96, 1 was told that money received by Canada for a special purpose was the clause that would allow moneys received from prisoners to be put in trust, and that that whole area of confusion was cleared up with Subclause(4) of Bill C-96 amended to become Subclause(3). I just want to clear my notes and make sure that I am still continuing with an understanding of the details of the Bill.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I understand my hon. friend's concern. 1 am advised that what we are talking about now covers the situation we were discussing before one o'clock. Apparently more than one clause of the Bill has to be changed in order to cover the same general area.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: 1 understand that.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Subclause 2(3) carry as amended?
Financial Administration Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subclause 2(3) agreed to as amended.


Roderick Blaker: We will now be looking at a further amendment for which I ask leave for the President of the Treasury Board to put before the House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, 1 want to propose an amendment to Bill C-96 with respect to Clause 2. It is quite lengthy and 1 am wondering if there could be consent on the part of Opposition Party spokesmen for me not to read it all out. I would be quite happy to do that.


Roderick Blaker: Is it acceptable that the amendment will be deemed to have been read by the Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: 
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, I really do have empathy and feel sorry for the President of the Treasury Board. I know that he has had some surgery in his mouth and is not completely comfortable this afternoon.
1 really do not want to edge him but I would like to know the intent of this amendment.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the intent of this motion is to define certain terms that will be used later on in an amended Section 37. I would be delighted to read out all of these terms but that is the purpose. It is in order to prepare the way for amending Section 37.
[DOT]valeurs* ou [DOT]titres*
" securities"
"treasury bill" [DOT]billet du T resor*

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act


Roderick Blaker: Shall the amendment carry?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this is an amendment to Clause 2 immediately after line 19 on page 2. Could I ask the President of the Treasury Board to clarify this and give me its intent? I have notes here that leave me without a complete understanding of what this is.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am happy to assist my hon. friend. 1 gather we are creating new Subclauses 2(4), 2(5) and 2(6). They will provide, with respect to Subclause (4), a definition in French for the term "valeurs" ou "titres".
Second, there will be a definition of "treasury bill" in the English part of the Act as well as, finally, a definition of the term "treasury note".
They would not otherwise be there in the amendment. They are necessary in order to have a properly amended Section 37.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: As I understand it, what we are doing is allowing some immediacy to the Minister of Finance who has to adjust quickly to certain market and monetary conditions and that through the process of Governor in Council orders it is very time consuming. This is to bring us up into the computer age so that the speed of decisions can be enhanced. Is that what we are trying to do with these definitions?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That will be the effect of the definitions, together with the later clause to which they apply. I thank my hon. friend for stating it in quite a succinct form for us.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
On Clause 3-Idem


Roderick Blaker: With respect to Clause 3, I understand there may be an amendment.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, with respect to Clause 3 and Section 5 in it, I want to propose an amendment. The amendment has been discussed with the spokesman for the Official Opposition. Clause 3 in Bill C-96 reads:
3. Section 5 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(7) The Treasury Board may require any public officer or agent of Her
Majesty to provide a department with any account, return, statement, document, report or information for the purpose of locating any person in order to
collect a debt due to Her Majesty."
I am proposing an amendment which reads:
That Clause 3 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 24 to 28 on page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"to provide a department with such information from any account, return, record, statement, document or report as may be required (o) to locate any person in order to collect a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada by that person; or
(b) to set-off a debt due to Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province against any sum of money that may be due or payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada."
The object of the amendment as originally submitted is to authorize the disclosure of information to Departments for the purpose of collecting or recovering amounts due to Her Majesty. The object of the amending motion I have just proposed is to clarify the intent of the provision and limit the possible wide-sweeping application of the original amendment.
I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Capilano for his counsel in this matter. The amendment which I am proposing arises out of discussions we have had with him with respect to the kinds of concerns 1 have mentioned and is intended to lessen if not to eliminate them.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, as 1 understand Clause 3, as amended-and I thank the President of the Treasury Board for co-operating with the concerns expressed by this side-any information gleaned by way of this clause, after it is amended, would still be in accordance with the Privacy Act which was passed in June, 1982 and which has been proclaimed. I understand that that safety net on the use of the information would still apply. This information would be restricted strictly to the need-as we are stating in the amendment-such as a student loan contract which has failed to be completed. It is the responsibility of the Treasury Board to make sure that the proper collection procedures have been followed. And in the case of someone who has disappeared, we are allowing it to get an address. However, all matters in terms of the Privacy Act will apply, even with this clause as amended. I would just like that assurance.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to give that assurance. The provision is intended to be in conformity with the Privacy Act and, as I understand it, the Privacy Act would prevail, in any event.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 3, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 4 carry?
On Clause 4-Establishment of accounts


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, it is our intention to ask that Subclause 4(11) be deleted. I suppose it is not required
November 24, 1983

because it is actually covered in another Bill, Bill C-126, which was passed on August 4, 1982, so it is superfluous.


Roderick Blaker: Which line was that, may I ask for the record?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the entire Clause 4 in Bill C-96.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board is deleting Clause 4 of Bill C-96 for the reason that Bill C-126 was passed through the House of Commons on August 4, 1982 and that Bill C-126 allows the Government to perform with the powers which this clause sought. Therefore, we agree that it can be deleted.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 4 be deleted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 4 deleted.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 5 carry?
On Clause 5-Report


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, Clause 5 deals with remissions. I would like to receive a little information on remissions. How does one go about getting money back from the Government? I will just briefly cite a case where one of my constituents-a new Canadian, incidentally-filed installment payments of $1,000 in each of the quarters in 1975. One of these $1,000 installments was put on his account and then someone in the Department took it off his account and claimed they sent it back to the Mercantile Bank in Calgary. That bank claimed it never had any such letter and the Department apparently cannot find any letter sending the money back to the Mercantile Bank in Calgary.
When the Department took the $1,000 out of this person's account it left him owing just about $1,000 on his income tax. So the Department went to his account and took out $ 1,000. 1 mentioned this earlier today. As soon as my constituent found out about this, he made representations to the Calgary office, which told him it was just a computer mistake and that it would be corrected any time now. But every week he would go down and be told it was just about corrected. Then the Government removed the Department from Calgary to Winnipeg, and the first thing my constituent was told then was that it was destroying its records and closing the case.
It is terrible and inhuman to close the case when that Department knew that $1,000 was missing. All the Department can say now is that its files are destroyed. Why would a Department destroy files when a case is still in difficulties? Would the Minister advise me just how one could go about getting remission in a case like this? Because this is a very inhuman thing to do to new Canadians who came to this country, trusted the Government and now are finding-as one of their neighbours said-that this Government is almost as bad as the government of the country from which they came.
Financial Administration Act
1 know that the Government does not want to steal this money. However, whether someone in the Department mislaid it, whether someone took it, or whether it was returned to the Mercantile Bank in Calgary, what I am saying is that the money was received by the Department of National Revenue, and the Department of National Revenue is therefore responsible for that $1,000, which should either be credited to this person's account or returned to him.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is for the purpose of authorizing the Treasury Board to prescribe the form in which remissions will be reported. It is intended to reduce the administrative burden associated with compiling many pages of details of remissions, thereby increasing the usefulness of the public accounts, since it is intended that each Department will report the total value of remissions in their total value, rather than reporting each transaction in excess of $1,000.
My hon. friend asks how a remission is made. I can tell him that it is done by Order in Council. It is done on the recommendation to Treasury Board of the responsible Minister. Therefore, in the kind of case my hon. friend is talking about, the Minister of National Revenue would have to make a submission to Treasury Board asking for an Order in Council authorizing the remission. I would be happy to make inquiries of the Minister of National Revenue, if you would like, in regard to the particular case and to assist in having the matter clarified.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister explain just what is going to happen? There are a lot of remissions from ports and wharves. Are all of these remissions going to be held on record? Are they going to be in the public accounts or be available on the basis of access to information? Could he outline for us the mechanics involved here?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: All the remission orders will be published in The Canada Gazette which will come out weekly. This is really to simplify what is required with respect to what is reported to the House of Commons in the Public Accounts. One can inspect The Canada Gazette each week and get the details of each remission order.
What will happen as a result of this amendment is that because the Treasury Board will have authority to prescribe the form in which remissions are reported, then with respect to the public accounts themselves as distinct from The Canada Gazette it is itended that we ask each Department to report the total number of remissions and their total value rather than each transaction in excess of $1,000. I am talking here about the public accounts.
What we are trying to do is to have the public accounts deal with this subject in a more select and meaningful way. Of course, details can be obtained under the access to information legislation and, in any event, I am told they will be published weekly in The Canada Gazette.
Clause 5 agreed to.
t
i

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act On Clause 6-Debt write-off regulations


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this is a clause on which I wish to present some amendments. These are rather lengthy and 1 will try and make my comments in the briefest and, hopefully, simplest form possible.
The object of Subclause 6(18) is to expand the regulationmaking powers concerning the writing off of debts and to remove the monetary limit. The amendment would also transfer the authority to make such regulations from the Governor in Council to the Treasury Board. The amendments 1 want to offer would improve the regulation-making authority and require that all write-offs of debts be recorded in the Public Accounts. The amendment as originally drafted would have given the Treasury Board authority to determine what writeoffs would be reported and we have come to agree that instead of that, all write-offs should be reported in the public accounts.
As I set forth in my speech on second reading, we are clarifying procedures with respect to the resolution of debts and so on. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to move the following amendment to subclause 6(18) which 1 have just described:
That Clause 6 of Bill C-96 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 14 to 19 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"18. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Treasury Board may make regulations respecting the writing off, in whole or in part, of any debt or obligation due to Her Majesty or any claim by Her Majesty, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations"
(b)	by relettering paragraphs 18(1 )(6) to (d) as paragraphs 18(1) to (c).
I also move:
That Clause 6 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 39 to 41 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"(3) Debts, obligations and claims written off under this section"


Roderick Blaker: We should take one amendment at a time for the purposes of putting the question. Therefore, shall the first amendment to Clause 6 carry?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, what is the source of the debt we are writing off? Are we dealing with income tax payments?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that the regulatory authority for debt deletion relates only to unrealized revenue. That is to say, relatively small amounts, 90 per cent of which relate to income taxes uncollectable through debt, bankruptcy, the person moving out of Canada, and so on. All debts recorded by the Government on the balance sheet of Canada can only be written off under this amendment with the authority of Parliament. Other uses of this provision will be where someone receives a social assistance overpayment and it would cause undue hardship if the Government were to recover the overpayment.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, as 1 understand it, the amendment removes Treasury Board discretion and makes it clear that all write-offs will be reported?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, this mentions regulations. The Minister was good enough to make available draft regulations prior to the Bill coming into the House. I compliment him on his generosity because it is a breakthrough for the Opposition function in dealing with legislation. He might note that this very technical Bill is going rather smoothly because of the courtesies extended.
I have a draft of the regulations and 1 am wondering how we might get those regulations into the proceedings here. Can I ask the Minister to table the regulations?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my hon. friend's comment and I would like to assist in having this information made generally available. 1 should say they have not been formally approved as yet. These are the regulations 1 intend to submit for formal approval, and I have no reason to believe they will not be accepted in that form. If there is some way perhaps they could be printed as an appendix to Hansard, recognizing that they have not yet received full and formal approval, 1 would have no objection. But I have to seek the assistance of the Chairman as to what procedures we can rely on at this point.


Roderick Blaker: If the Hon. President of the Treasury Board wishes to table these regulations, he need only seek the consent of the house to do so.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact they are in draft form. I was wondering if they had been brought up from draft to final form.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I gather we are inhibited from bringing them into final form until the Act is approved by Parliament. But 1 want to assure my hon. friend that it is my
November 24, 1983

intention to submit them for formal approval in the form in which he has received them. Again I would be happy to table them formally for the information of all Elon. Members or take such other steps as are consistent with the rules of the House to make them available to members of the committee of the House.


Roderick Blaker: From a procedural standpoint I cannot comment on the desirability or non-desirability of the Minister tabling regulations which are still in draft form. Procedurally he can table a draft or final copy, whatever it is he may choose, and need only seek the consent of the House to do so.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1 would like to make one point which has just been brought to my attention. The draft regulations have not yet been reviewed by Justice to see if they conform to the statutory instruments legislation. 1 think my friend and I want to make sure that our colleagues on that committee will not have some complaint later on. Perhaps it would be better not to table them. 1 would have no objection to my hon. friend making them available to Members of his caucus. I would do the same for Members of my caucus.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The point that 1 am raising, and not belabouring, is that as we came through these amendments and the explanations being given to me, because it is a technical subject, the draft regulations were made available to me. It is on the basis of the information that I have been given and the form in which it was presented, respecting the fact that it is in draft form only, that we are able to move through this type of legislation rather quickly. What happens if the regulations that I was given to consider are changed dramatically? I do not know. That is a point which I think I am entitled to be covered on. I would accept the regulations being gazetted or something so that they do become public and we do know what applies here.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my hon. friend that the purpose will not be changed except that, as 1 have said-and I had not realized this when I first commented in response to my hon. friend's question-they have not yet been examined for the purpose of seeing if they comply with the statutory instruments law. Of course, they will be formally gazetted in order to be finally approved. 1 wonder if he will accept my assurance that, subject to meeting the requirements of the statutory instruments law, it is my intention to ensure that the intent and the purpose as set out in the draft will be maintained and continued?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Of course I would be pleased to, Mr. Chairman.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the first amendment proposed by the Minister to Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Financial Administration Act


Roderick Blaker: Shall the second amendment as proposed by the Minister to Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 6 as twice amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 7-Vote can authorize spending


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If you are calling Clause 7, Mr. Chairman, here again we are requesting that it be deleted. The reason is that the proposed amendment was intended to make it specific that Parliament could authorize the respending of revenue, something known as net voting, through the wording of the Appropriation Act. The Auditor General has recommended that this clause be dropped because of his view that in principle the practice of net voting should not be carried out. We are happy to accept the views of the Auditor General at this time and delete the provision in question.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I will support the deletion of it although I think we should recognize that the Comptroller General thinks that it is a good management tool but that the control regime is poor. I would agreed that the clause be deleted.


Roderick Blaker: It is moved by the Minister, and seconded by the Hon. Member for Capilano, that Clause 7 be deleted. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 7 deleted.
On Clause 8-Authority for guarantee


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, a word of explanation about Clause 8. The change in question is being made as a result of the Speaker's ruling on legislating through the Estimates. Section 22 of the Financial Administration Act makes reference to the authority of Parliament to authorize loan guarantees. It has been suggested that such authority must be obtained by an "Act of Parliament" other than the appropriation procedure, which should be used only to obtain funds for programs otherwise approved. Because such guarantees are financial in nature and closely relate to the process whereby funds are provided, the appropriation procedure is in fact an appropriate vehicle for obtaining the necessary parliamentary authority. It is proposed, therefore, that language be added to Section 22, which makes it explicit that such authority can be obtained through an Appropriation Act as well as other legislation. There is no further amendment here, Mr. Chairman. I am just offering an explanation for the clause which you have just called. If there are no other comments by Hon. Members I would respectfully request that the clause be carried.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I think we are making giant steps forward here in overcoming concerns that we have debated many times

November 24, 1983
Adjournment Motion
in the House in what some of us in the Opposition consider improper use of Estimates. I notice that the language is permissive. Clause 8 reads:
8. (1) Section 22 of the said Act is renumbered as subsection 22(1).
(2) Section 22 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) An authority referred to in subsection (1) may be contained in an
Appropriation Act."
So the permissiveness there is that it can be obtained through an Appropriation Act as well as other legislation. 1 guess the permissiveness that l was concerned about, as a result of the Ministers' explaining it, gives them either one of two routes in which to go. 1 have no further objection.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 8 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 8 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Before 1 recognize the Hon. the President of the Treasury Board I have to advise Hon. Members about the proceedings on adjournment motion which may, due to a House order made earlier, in fact come up earlier than six o'clock. I want to give Hon. Members time to know they are on the list. To do that I have to move back.
Progress reported.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of C-96, to amend the Financial Administration Act-Gray-Mr. Blaker in the Chair.
On Clause 9-Control of commitments
Bill
Mr. The Deputy  Chairman@: Shall Clause 9 carry, is possibly an amendment.
see that there



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Public Works-National Arts Centre-Responsibility for structural defects, (b) Request that Minister launch inquiry; The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Customs and Excise-Establishment of duty-free shops in Ontario; The Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz)-Customs and Excise- Establishment of duty-free stores in Ontario.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the amendment as printed in the Bill before us would authorize the Treasury Board to prescribe the manner in which every Department shall control its financial commitments. The motion I intend to move would make it clear that there is to be no weakening of the legislative requirements for commitment control. Rather, the change is to permit flexibility in the choice and methodology used to achieve the objective of controlling appropriation authorities. The text is available to the Chair and Hon. Members, and if they would permit, I would not read it all out, but I would be happy to do so.
[Editor's Note: The amendment referred to above is as follows:]
That clause 9 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 30 to 32 on page 4 and substituting the following:
Control of	"25. (1) No contract or other arrangement providing for a
commitments payment shall be entered into with respect to any program for which there is an appropriation by Parliament or an item included in estimates then before the House of Commons to which the payment will be charged unless there is a sufficient unencumbered balance available out of the appropriation or item to discharge any debt that, under the contract or other arrangement, will be incurred during the fiscal year in which the contract or other arrangement is entered into.
(2) The deputy head or other person charged with the administration of a program for which there is an appropriation by Parliament or an item included in estimates then before the House of Commons shall, as the Treasury Board may prescribe, establish procedures and maintain records respecting the control of financial commitments chargeable to each such appropriation or item."


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Then I agree.


Roderick Blaker: Will the amendment to Clause 9
Record of commitments
carry'


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 9 as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed

*
November 24, ] 983

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 10-Lapsing of appropriation


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 10 carry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this clause also requires an amendment. First of all the clause as called by you would provide for the charging of debts that remain unpaid at the end of the fiscal year and would authorize the discharge of any such debt that is not in excess of the appropriation. The amending motion 1 want to present to the committee would make it clear that this provision is only to require that all debts incurred be recorded and does not permit payments to be made in excess of appropriation authority.
[Editor's Note: The amendment referred to above is as follows:]
That clause 10 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 35 to 46 on page 4 and lines I to 30 on page 5 and substituting the following:
Lapsing of	"30. The balance of an appropriation granted for a fiscal year
appropriation that remains unexpended at the end of the fiscal year shall lapse, except that,
(a)	a debt incurred for work performed, goods received or services rendered prior to the end of the fiscal year or incurred under any other contractual arrangement prior to the end of the fiscal year that remains unpaid at the end of the fiscal year shall be recorded as an expenditure against the appropriation; and
(b)	at any time during the following fiscal year, or during such shorter period as the Treasury Board may direct, a payment may be made for the purpose of discharging any debt referred to in paragraph (a) that is not in excess of the appropriation."


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Perhaps my hon. friend would care to comment and respond, if necessary.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good amendment to the original draft. What we are dealing with, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, is an item that has been of concern to the Auditor General for some tjme. We are really addressing item 15.14 in the 1982 Auditor General's Report. It is very encouraging for some of us who have been working on that committee over the years finally to see results of reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to the House being acted upon. I think you can see by the technical nature of the Bill that it does take some time to get this in place, and we are making very good progress. There must be smiles on some of the faces over in the Auditor General's office.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the amendment to Clause 10 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 11-Accountable advances
Financial Administration Act


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: A brief word of explanation, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would expand the Treasury Board regulationmaking powers concerning accountable advances and would permit recoveries to be made for moneys payable to the estate of persons to whom advances are made.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but ask the President of the Treasury Board, when he talks about advances-I just have to, it is the devil in me-whether this does not cover those $25 million advances to operations like CN Marine?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that these cover such things as travel and relocation advances to officials required because of their work and not the kinds of advances my hon. friend is talking about.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he intends to bring forward some more amendments that might tighten up the type of abuse in the type of advance that CNR made to CN Marine?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am always ready to study and consider suggestions made by my hon. friend as well as those of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General, Mr. Chairman. I would be so delighted with my hon. friend's help to have this series of amendments on the books that while I would be happy to begin another set of preparations for further changes, 1 would have to work on that once we have this out of the way. I would be happy to consider other amendments.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: What you are watching here, Mr. Chairman, is the type of a political environment that operates in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Again, I have to compliment the President of the Treasury Board on providing me with a draft of proposed new regulations for this section. As a Member of the Opposition carrying on tasks that do not bring much in the way of political marks, it certainly helps one to understand and get an in-depth understanding and knowledge of how things are going to operate. I am assuming that once the legislation is through and the proposed new regulations are finalized by the Department of Justice they will be gazetted in the normal process and there is no variance really from the intent of the draft.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 11 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On Clause 12-Refunds and repayments


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, here too we have to offer an amendment to the Bill before us. First, the amendment to the Bill before us would confine the applicability of Section 32 to such classes of refunds and repayments as the Treasury Board may designate. The object of the motion that I want to move is to specify in law rather than through Treasury Board directive

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act
the classes of refunds and repayments that may be credited to the vote.
[Editor's Note: The amendment referred to above is as follows:]
That clause 12 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 10 to 17 on page 6 and substituting the following:
"32. Subject to such directions as the Treasury Board may make, any amount received as a refund or repayment of an expenditure or advance or as an overpayment or a price adjustment on a payment shall be credited to the appropriation against which the expenditure or advance, or the payment, as the case may be, was charged."


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board and I understand it, but I am not too sure how many others in the House do. But in bringing it down to a few words, if it is owed it must be recorded. Is that what we are doing?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I am advised it is actually the reverse to my hon. friend's statement. If the Government buys a typewriter and sends it back and there is a credit for it, we have to be able to record that appropriately.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the amendment to Clause 12 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 13-The raising of loans


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, again I want to propose an amendment. First, to explain the object of the amendment in the Bill before us, it would enable the Minister of Finance, on the authorization of the Governor in Council, to determine the effective rate of interest of securities and to reduce the amount should circumstances warrant. The amendment would also authorize the Minister to increase the rate of interest or the yield to maturity of securities.
The purpose of the motion I am going to move is to provide more flexibility in connection with the raising of money by way of loans for the issue of securities. Authorization for the Governor in Council to delegate certain matters to the Minister or his officials is provided. The changes are intended to permit the Government to tailor security issues to meet up to the moment changes in market conditions.
[Editor's Note: The amendment referred to is as follows:]
That clause 13 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 20 to 41 on page 6 and substituting the following:
"37. Where by this or any other Act of Parliament authority is given to raise money, by or on behalf of Her Majesty, by way of loan or by the issue and sale of securities, the Governor in Council may, subject to the Act authorizing the raising of such money,
(a)	authorize the raising of all or part of that money by the issue and sale of treasury bills or treasury notes and authorize the Minister or such officer of the Department of Finance as may be designated by the Minister,
(i)	to determine the date of the issue and the date of maturity thereof, the rate of interest thereon, if any, and the dates of payment of interest, if any,
(ii)	to sell any of such bills or notes for such price or prices and on such terms and conditions as the Minister from time to time considers necessary, and
(iii)	subject to such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may specify, to enter into such contracts or agreements relating to the issue and sale of those bills or notes on such terms and conditions as the Minister or such officer of the Department of Finance designated by the Minister considers necessary; or
(6) authorize the Minister, or such officer of the Department of Finance as may be designated by the Minister,
(i)	subject to such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may specify, to enter into such contracts or agreements relating to the raising of the money on such terms and conditions as the Minister or such officer of the Department of Finance designated by the Minister considers necessary,
(ii)	to raise all or part of that money by the issue and sale of securities other than treasury bills or treasury notes,
(iii)	to issue and sell such securities in a principal amount not exceeding an amount authorized by the Governor in Council,
(iv)	to determine the rate or rates of interest, not exceeding the maximum rate or rates of interest authorized by the Governor in Council, payable in respect of such securities,
(v)	to determine the date, not later than the date authorized by the Governor in Council, on which the principal amount specified in such securities is payable, and
(vi)	to sell such securities
(A)	for such price or prices, not less than the minimum price or prices authorized by the Governor in Council, and
(B)	on such other terms and conditions as the Minister or such officer of the Department of Finance designated by the Minister considers necessary."


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, in accepting this method of expediting technical language in a long amendment, I understand that we are giving the Minister of Finance more flexibility to act on foreign market transactions and that it is going to lead to a better, more efficient management. I have to ask through you, Mr. Chairman, if the President of the Treasury Board, who is the watchdog of the federal system for the taxpayer, has any concerns about abuses that might occur as a result of the wording in this? I have to rely totally on the very able technicians in Treasury Board. I am prepared to give the nod to this on behalf of my Party, if it is mechanics to make possible better management, but I would not want to think that I was just giving a careless nod to something which would open loopholes and be open to abuse.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I do not think even the most partisan opponents of my hon. friend would try to argue that he was doing anything carelessly, especially not in this committee.
I am happy to assure him that I have not received any information, nor have I reached any conclusions, which would lead me to believe that this could lead to any abuses. In fact, it is my view that this would lead to better management of the Government's borrowing process, enabling the Government to get perhaps better terms and conditions by being able to respond quickly to market changes. Frankly, therefore it might be of some savings to taxpayers. To have this result, we have to be able to speed up the process somewhat, and this is the purpose. I think it is very much in line with the over-all
November 24, 1983

objectives of my hon. friend of getting better value for taxpayers' dollars.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause, 1 3 as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 14-Temporary Loans


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, again 1 have to say that I will present an amendment. First of all, the amendment as originally printed would authorize the Minister of Finance to determine the effective rate of borrowings under Section 39. The motion in question, which I will move, involves changes consequential to changes to Clause 13 covering Section 37. The amendment would make Section 39 consistent with Section 37 and would permit foreign debt operations, such as the sale by auction of securities where the effective price is set after the Governor in Council has approved the other terms and conditions.
Therefore I move:
That Clause 14 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 3 to 7 on page 7 and substituting the following:
''may authorize the Minister to borrow, for a period not exceeding six"
As I said, that is to be inserted in the spot indicated.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, we agree to that amendment to Section 39. As an aside, may I just say that the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, who usually sits in front of me, fears being shown on camera and is totally embarrassed at my behaviour in dealing so amicably with the President of the Treasury Board on a piece of legislation of this simplicity. Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, 1 have a second amendment with respect to Clause 14 to move at the request of the Department of Finance. 1 have already indicated that the proposed new Section 39.1 would enable money to be borrowed and repaid in a currency other than that of Canada. Also it would authorize the repayment of amounts exceeding amounts authorized where they are to be repaid in foreign currencies. The amendment I want to present would clarify and improve the original wording. Therefore, I move:
That clause 14 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 13 to 27 on page 7 and substituting the following:
"39.1(1) Any amounts raised by way of loan under the authority of this or any other Act of Parliament in the currency or currencies of any country or countries may be repaid in the currency or currencies of any country or countries and securities issued under the authority of this or any other Act of Parliament in the currency or currencies of any country or countries may be made payable in the currency or currencies of any country or countries.
(2) Every Act of Parliament heretofore or hereafter passed that authorizes the borrowing or the raising of money by way of
(a)	the loan of a specific or maximum number of dollars,
(b)	the issue of securities for a specific or maximum number of dollars in principal amount, or
(c)	the guaranteeing of the payment of a liability or obligation for a specific or maximum number of dollars,
shall be deemed to authorize the borrowing, in whole or in part, of an equivalent amount, the issue of securities, in whole or in part, of an equivalent principal amount or the guaranteeing, in whole or in part, of an equivalent amount in the currency of any country other than Canada, calculated in each
Financial Administration Act
case using the value thereof and the rate of exchange between the Canadian dollar and the currency concerned as quoted by the Bank of Canada at the opening of business on the day immediately preceding the day the money is borrowed, the proceeds from the issue of securities are received or the guarantee is given, as the case may be.
(3) For the purpose of any limitation in respect of an amount
(a)	that may be borrowed.
(b)	for which securities may be issued, or
(c)	the payment of which may be guaranteed under this or any other Act of
Parliament,
the principal amount borrowed or authorized to be borrowed, the principal amount of any securities previously issued or authorized to be issued or the amount guaranteed or authorized to be guaranteed, as the case may be, payable in a currency of any country other than Canada, shall be deemed to be the Canadian dollar equivalent of the value thereof, as calculated under subsection (2), regardless of any premium or discount at which the securities were sold and regardless of any premium that may be payable on early redemption."


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I understand that what we are doing is empowering the Minister of Finance to use an exchange rate at the time a loan is made or at the time it is paid. Could the President of the Treasury Board help me with that and give some clarity as to what the amendment does? Also, does it extend to the guarantee authorities of Crown corporations?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the period when the loan is made. I hope that that is the information my hon. friend is seeking.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: What we have amended it to cover is cases when the loan is made.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Does it apply to guarantees of loans made from Crown corporations?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1 am advised that it covers the matter of guarantees of loans by Crown corporations.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 14 as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 15-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this clause would deem money paid to an authorization agent or deducted from salary to be money held in trust for Her Majesty for all purposes. At present, such money is deemed to be held in trust by Her Majesty for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act and the winding up Act.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Are we involved here with Canada Savings Bonds deductions as a first claim in trust?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, that is a case which this clause would cover.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: In other words, if a corporation which has been taking payroll deductions from employees for the purchase of Canada Savings Bonds went into receivership, the Crown would have a first claim on those funds to protect the employees purchasing that Crown instrument?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That is correct.

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act


Arthur Ronald Huntington: What has been the experience of the Government in this area? Have employees in the past either lost substantial sums of money, or has the Crown in its benevolence seen fit to make such a tragic event good?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am unable to give an exact quantification, but 1 am told there have been cases in the past where the Government has had to accept liability because such funds had not been accounted for. Although I am unable to give an exact figure or an exact number of cases, we feel this has happened often enough to require this kind of amendment.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Was there an involvement of this in the pension plan of White Motor Company?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I do not have that information, but 1 would be happy to seek it and provide it to my hon. friend.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: 1 do not think I will ask the President of the Treasury Board to do that, but I might say that what we are giving here is a protection to employees in organizations which are making payments into instruments such as Canada Savings Bonds. It is my understanding that the pension payments which the employees of white Motor Company made in the United States were lost to those employees in the collapse of that company. Therefore, it is a serious issue that we are addressing.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about items that do not qualify as Government securities. I will be happy to join my hon. friend in seeking further clarification of the interesting point he has raised.
Clause 15 agreed to.
On Clause 16-Form of register


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, the object of the amendment as printed in the Bill before us, and it is one requested by the Department of Finance, is something that is consequential on proposed Subclause (2). Proposed subclause (2) is to expand the meaning of the word "register".
Perhaps I can give a further word of explanation. I may have been a little too brief. This is a minor change. It is one that recognizes that we have gone from the quill pen to the computer age and that the register of Government securities may be in a photograph film form or maintained by any system, mechanical, electronic or computerized data processing.
This is what we are trying to recognize here. I gather that without this amendment the Act would not encompass the need to maintain a register of Government securities through the up to date forms of record keeping, including computer.
Clause 16 agreed to.
On Clause 17-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, again I have to offer the following amendment:
That Clause 17 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 27 on page 8 and substituting the following:
"required to present fairly the".
Let me explain the purpose of the clause as it appears in the Bill before us. The motion would add certain underlined words. The motion would provide wording consistent with the Auditor General's Act, substituting the words "required to present fairly the" for the words "required to give a true and fair view".


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, I understand that this brings the Bill into conformity with generally accepted audit standards, and we agree.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: I understand that an Hon. Member may seek the floor for permission to revert to Clause 10 for a moment for the purpose of asking a question.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Chairman, 1 wonder if I could have unanimous consent of the House to revert to Clause 10 for a question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
On Clause 10-Lapsing of appropriation


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Chairman, I was rather startled when the Minister spoke on Clause 10, the sixth paragraph of which refers to:
-in whole or in part, of an equivalent amount... in the currency of any country other than Canada, calculated in each case using the value thereof and the rate of exchange between the Canadian dollar and the currency concerned as quoted by the Bank of Canada at the opening of business on the day immediately preceding the day the money is borrowed, the proceeds from the issue of securities are received or the guarantee is given, as the case may belt goes on, in Subclause (c):
The principal amount borrowed or authorized to be borrowed, the principal amount of any securities previously issued or authorized to be issued or the amount guaranteed or authorized to be guaranteed, as the case may be, payable in a currency of any country other than Canada, shall be deemed to be the Canadian dollar equivalent of the value thereof as calculated under subsection (2), regardless of any premium or discount at which the securities were sold and regardless of any premium that may be payable on early redemption-
My question to the Minister is based on an experience in the Canadian Wheat Board. I apologize for being late in asking the question. In the answer to my colleague from Capilano, the Minister mentioned that this refers to Crown corporations. The experience in the Canadian Wheat Board was that the Government of Canada guaranteed a loan for the sale of grain to a foreign country. The deal was made in sterling. As a result of the devaluation of sterling at that time, the western grain producer lost millions of dollars. The cost was underwritten by the grain producer. Could the same thing happen in this case, or would the Government of Canada be responsible for any loss as a result of a devaluation in currency?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this would not cause us as a Government to underwrite foreign exchange losses of corporations of the kind my hon. friend has mentioned. The clause
November 24, 1983

would come into play only where we have to make a calculation to determine whether the limit that Parliament has authorized to guarantee has been reached. In other words, there are occasions, as we know, when Parliament legislates a limit on the amount the federal Government can guarantee with respect to borrowings of a Crown corporation. We must have a way of making calculations as to when that limit has been reached. This is where the clause would come into play. It would not create any general obligation to underwrite exchange losses.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Chairman, if an agreement was entered into by the Canadian Wheat Board or any other Crown corporation on the basis of Canadian currency, if payment was to be made in the currency of another country and if there was a devaluation of that currency, somebody would take a loss. If the Government enters into an agreement with a Crown corporation, somebody will have to take the loss. Another illustration was the Candu sale by AECL to Argentina. At that time there was a tremendous loss because of devaluation of the Argentine currency. Therefore, could I have some clarification of that?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a situation in which the Government may be called upon to honour a guarantee it has made to a Crown corporation of a loan denominated in a foreign currency. I am informed, and I do not claim any deep expertise in these matters, that if the Government is called upon to honour its guarantee and the loan is one denominated in a foreign currency, then the Government must pay that amount in that foreign currency as of the date the loan is entered into. That is my understanding of the situation and I hope I have grasped it in response to my hon. friend's question.
On Clause 18-Submission of Public Accounts to Parliament


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 18 carry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Clause 18 deals with the submission of public accounts to Parliament. The amendment to Section 55(1) would substitute the President of the Treasury Board for the Minister of Finance and the amendment to Section 55(2) would have the Minister of Finance share his responsibilities for the form and content of the Public Accounts with the President of the Treasury Board.
The amendment would also take into account that fact that the Auditor General of Canada no longer certifies statements. The amendment I wish to offer would bring about a technical improvement to wording and provide a regulatory authority within which the Receiver General of Canada can issue demands for information. Therefore, I move:
That Clause 18 of Bill C-96 be amended
(o) by striking out lines 3 and 4 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"(iii) such of the assets and liabilities of Canada as, in the opinion of the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister, are required to show the financial position of Canada as at the termination of the"
Financial Administration Act
(b) by striking out lines 10 to 12 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"(d) such other accounts and information relating to the fiscal year as are deemed necessary by the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister to present fairly the financial transactions and the financial position of Canada or as"
(r) by striking out line 19 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"General may, from time to time, subject to such regulations as the Treasury Board may make, send a"


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board if this clause as amended gives greater precision to the financial statements of Canada and if the assets and liabilities are stated accurately? Does it remove the games that we have been playing whereby we have carried as assets loans we know we will not collect? Does it clean up those types of concerns of the Auditor General? Perhaps I could help the President of the Treasury Board by asking him if we could expect from the system a more accurate reporting within the financial statements of Canada as a result of the amended Clause 18.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the amended Clause 18 gives the President of the Treasury Board a greater role to play in the compilation and submission of the public accounts than is the case at present, and it also gives him a greater role to play with respect to the form of the public accounts.
I understand that this clause is one which the Auditor General would like to see incorporated into the Act. It does not of itself eliminate the areas of difference of opinion between the Auditor General and the Government as to the form of the public accounts, but it does give us a more ready vehicle for dealing with these issues once such things as the multiyear study of the comptroller General, which is being undertaken at the request of the Public Accounts Committee, into the issues raised by the Auditor General about the form of the accounts are completed.
I must say that I found it a bit odd that at the present time, the role of the Secretary of the Treasury Board with respect to the compilation and submission of public accounts is, at least technically, not particularly formal. This amendment helps to remedy that omission and gives the President of the Treasury Board a role to play when dealing with the kinds of issues which my hon. friend has raised and which he at present technically or formally does not have.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, we on this side are very pleased to see that these powers will be granted to the President of the Treasury Board because it cleans up a whole area of no-man's land. Could 1 ask the incumbent President of the Treasury Board if, with his new powers, he will clean up the condition of the balance sheet of Canada? Will he address the concerns of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General of Canada by removing those assets which we cannot collect from the financial statements? Will he tidy up that condition which continues to be a concern? I hope that he will be able to commit himself to that action in front of the committee now that he will have these powers.

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it would be prudent for me to act on this matter until the studies requested by the Public Accounts Committee which are being carried out by the Comptroller General have been completed. One of these studies involves co-operative action with the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
As I see it, one of the problems is that, unlike for the private sector, there are no generally accepted accounting standards with respect to statements of governments. The public accounts of Canada so far have been prepared for the purpose of complying with the legislative authority conveyed by Parliament.
There are other issues to which my hon. friend is alluding. One issue to which he has not alluded is that not only would one have to consider whether certain things should not be recorded as assets but whether certain assets that are not recorded at all should now begin to be recorded in the public accounts. An example of that would be the gold reserves of the federal Government which have a value in the area of $10 billion.
This is an issue to which I am addressing myself. I hope to use that authority to help find some mutually satisfactory solutions to the issues raised by the Auditor General. However,
I think it would be prudent for me to await further progress with respect to the studies which the Public Accounts Committee has requested the Comptroller General to undertake in this matter.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 18 as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 18, as amended agreed to.
On Clause 19-Auditor General of Canada eligible


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 19 carry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment here which is consequential to the amendment proposed in Clause 2(1). I wish to offer an amendment which provides a technical change in wording. 1 move:
That Clause 19 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out lines 32 and 33 on page 9 and substituting the following:
Auditor	"(2) Notwithstanding any other Act, the Auditor General of'
General of Canada eligible


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, 1 am again wondering if the President of the Treasury Board could explain this consequential amendment. Just what are we doing? Could he explain that for me because I do not quite understand it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1 gather we are removing the words "of Canada" after the words "Auditor General" and we are removing the words "of Parliament" after the words "Act". 1 presume that the removal of the words "of Parliament" is being done because we are only in this Chamber talking about Acts of Parliament.
Second, with respect to the deletion of the words "of Canada", I gather that is meant to reflect a more accurate statement of the Auditor General's title.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 19 as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 20-Bank accounts


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I will ask the committee to agree to delete this clause. The reason is that this clause was included in Bill C-126, which was passed on August 4, 1982, regarding which there has already been some reference made.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 20 be deleted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 20 deleted.
On Clause 21-Proceedings where notice not complied with


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this clause would replace the 5 per cent interest rate in question by a rate fixed by the Minister and would clarify the provision. In Section 89, the Receiver General is able to charge interest at a rate of 5 per cent per annum on all accounts when, in the opinion of the Receiver General, public money has been withheld. This rate is not appropriate in current circumstances and could lead to a debtor deciding to let a debt stand and pay 5 per cent interest rather than to liquidate the debt to the Crown.
We are proposing to amend the section to make it more flexible so that the interest rate would be set from time to time by the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Governor in Council, and would not be fixed by the Act.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 21 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 21 agreed to.
On Clause 22-Liability for loss


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The purpose of this clause would be to reduce the degree of care involved here from gross negligence to negligence. Section 91 provides for the situation where, through malfeasance, wilful neglect of duty or gross negligence, public
November 24, 1983

money that should have been collected has not been collected, and holds the person responsible to be accountable for the money in just the same manner as he would have been accountable had he actually collected and received it.
The responsible person can then be required to compensate Her Majesty under the terms of Section 89. In some cases where it has been necessary to consider taking such recovery action, lawyers of the Department of Justice handling the matter have had difficulty with the expression "negligence". This phrase, referring as it does to a high degree of carelessness, thus enables any claim of gross negligence to be disputed as to whether it was in fact gross or simple negligence.
This virtually leaves the Crown importent in negligence cases. It is proposed, on the advice of the Department of Justice, that the word "gross" be removed from the expression "gross negligence" in this section.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the amendment carry?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Someone else may wish to ask a question but 1 just have to understand this. Were we not amending Section 91.1(6), changing the word "authorizing" to "respecting"? Are we dealing with Clause 22?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, there is another part to Clause 22 with respect to Section 91.1. 1 have not come to that. I was only dealing with Section 91 itself. What we are doing with respect to the Act is repealing the current Section 91 and substituting a whole new Section 91 for it. The main purpose of that, I am told, is to change the degree of negligence which would create the obligation in question from gross negligence to simple negligence.
If members of the committee would like, there is also an amendment to Section 91.1, which I intend to amend further. Perhaps I could deal with that right now.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, you probably sense that I am rather surprised. However, none of my working papers, nor the briefing that I had, had shown that Clause 91 was going to be amended. Therefore, I have no knowledge of what the President of the Treasury Board is doing to Section 91.
I am aware of an amendment to Section 91.1. However, I am lost.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, perhaps 1 have inadvertently caused some misunderstanding. What I am doing as we proceed to each clause of the Bill before us is to say a few words of explanation. 1 am not waiting to see if Members of the committee would like an explanation.
I am not dealing with Section 91.1 yet. Perhaps I should have just kept quiet.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You are not amending Section 91?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: No, I am not.


Roderick Blaker: The Chair has a problem, however, 1 am on Clause 22. My understanding is that the Minister
Financial Administration Act
wishes to propose an amendment with relation to Clause 22 of Bill C-96 at line 8 on page 11.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I wish to propose is to Section 91.1, found on page 11 of the Bill. Perhaps I caused some difficulty by making some comments on the part of the Bill that was not being changed. I thought it would be helpful to the committee if 1 said a few words about it.
Section 91.1 is there in order to authorize the Treasury Board to make regulations respecting losses of money and public property suffered by Her Majesty. I move:
That Clause 22 of Bill C-96 be amended by striking out line 8 on page 11 and substituting the following:
"(6) respecting the charging of losses"
The object of the motion is to make technical changes to wording on legal advice. I would be prepared to go into all of that in further detail. Perhaps I should sit down and see whether further information is desired by the committee.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I always appreciate knowing what is in the minds of people that give legal advice. I would appreciate an explanation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The original clause had the word "authorizing". We are being advised to change "authorizing" to "respecting".
As 1 said earlier in the afternoon, perhaps if my hon. friend and I were left to our own devices we would not be dealing with this. However, we have been advised to make this change.
If I may give further comments, and my hon. friend may smile at this, I am told that the philosophy of the drafting today is not to make regulations authorizing something but respecting something, because the basic law under which the regulations are made does the authorizing. If he is smiling and shaking his head, I join with him in that.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the amendment to Clause 22 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 22 as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 23-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1 am not offering a further amendment to this clause. However, if the committee likes, 1 can say a brief word about its purpose.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It would be appreciated.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The purpose is to widen the scope of Paragraph 92(e) to cover offences under this Act, and the regulations as well as offences under revenue laws. It would permit the report in question to be given to any superior officer. The amendment

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act
to that portion of section 92 following Paragraph (f) would increase the maximum fine from $500 to $5,000. Paragraph 92(e) requires any person having knowledge of a fraud against any revenue law to report the information to a superior officer, but there is no requirement for reporting beyond that superior. Since the immediate superior could be the person concerned in a fraud, it is proposed that this be amended to read "any superior officer" and adds words to require further reporting in accordance with the regulations to be made under the proposed Clause 91(1).
It is also proposed that the scope of this subsection presently confined to offences under the revenue laws, be widened to include offences under the Financial Administration Act so as to cover frauds in the management and attainment of all public money as well as in the revenue collection process. Section 92 deals with offences by officers or other persons employed in the collection, management or disbursement of public money. The penalty has not been changed since the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act was passed in 1931, so we are simply updating the penalty to make it more relevant in current conditions.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, the Minister said "more relevant". 1 guess ten times since 1931 is close to being relevant.
The thing that worries me about the trend we are getting into is the size of fines. I can understand $5,000 if it is a pretax situation. There is no deductibility in the system. I certainly do not want my remarks to be taken as defending or being sympathetic to those people who play games with the law and the tax collector. But there is a grey area on the fringe where arbitrary decisions are now being made by officers of Revenue Canada. 1 understand they are not going to Justice for legal interpretation any more. They will charge a person, put him in court, take him through the process and use the excuse of, well, when we do that we elicit more information. The legal process in this country today is terribly expensive. When we start rubber stamping fines of $5,000, for an awful lot of people that is $10,000 of income. I assume we are dealing with after-tax dollars and 1 think we have to be careful about the escalation in the size of fines which I have seen pass through this House in this last Parliament.
The people with the power in the federal Government are moving in an extremely arbitrary fashion in their interpretations. Again, I am not defending those who are guilty, but 1 think too many innocent people are being touched by the threat of the big stick in the hands of public servants. 1 sense power is being abused because there is great fear among the people given the fact that officers of Revenue Canada can enter bank accounts and remove money without the person who owns the bank account even knowing about it.
I just have to put those comments on record. I would rather see this at $2,500, which would be, on average for a person in this league, $5,000 in income. I think we are getting excessive here.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I understand my hon. friend's concerns. However, this clause does not deal with the type of situation my hon. friend has been discussing. We are dealing with a fine imposed by a court. We are dealing with a maximum figure, a fine not exceeding $5,000, so the court can impose a fine of any amount up to that figure. Most important, the provision relates only to offences carried out by employees or agents of Her Majesty, officers or other persons employed in the collection, management or disbursement of public money. We are not talking about citizens who are called to account by the Department of National Revenue. That involves another statute and another enforcement procedure. We are talking about public officials responsible for the collection, management or disbursement of public money who are not acting in a lawful manner.
My hon. friend may want to reflect on the views he has stated and he may then want to agree with me that while his comments are very important and relevant with respect to private individuals, the argument for a maximum possible $5,000 fine in the circumstances to which the clause applies may have a salutary effect in making sure people carry out their duties as public employees.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, on reflection, I will do as the Minister suggests. I have to admit that I was bootlegging in a concern 1 have with regards to the increasing use of arbitrary powers on the part of public servants.
Clause 23 agreed to.
On Clause 24-Deduction and set-off


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 24 carry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this amendment would merge Subsections 95(1) and (3) into the proposed Clause 95(1). It would also eliminate the need for an opinion by the Minister of Justice as to whether a person is indebted to Her Majesty, and would authorize the appropriate Minister to make deductions and set-offs. Subsection 95(2) would appear as the proposed Subclause 95(3) and Subsection 95(4) would appear as the proposed Subclause 95(2), and the proposed Subclause 95(4) is a new one.
I can give further detail but I will pause at this point to see what the wishes of my colleagues are in this regard.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: We would appreciate further detail, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, Subsection 95(1) of the Financial Administration Act authorizes the deduction or set-off of debts due the Crown against any sum of money due or payable by Her Majesty to such persons. It requires, however, that prior to exercising the set-off procedure the Department obtain an opinion from the Department of Justice that the person is indebted to Her Majesty in the specific sum and the authority of the Treasury Board to make set-off by submission to the Board.
November 24, 1983

Prior to April, 1979, an opinion concerning the amount of indebtedness of a person to Her Majesty was always provided by the legal services of the Treasury Board itself, but because of the volume, over 200 submissions per year, this responsibility was centralized with legal officers in the Department. Experience has shown that the majority of set-offs are related to the collection of money pursuant to statutes such as the Income Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Student Loans Act. Because of the statutory nature of such debts the amount of such debts to the Crown, whether caused by default or as the result of overpayments, are not in question and legal opinions concerning them have been based on figures provided by officers of the Department. Consequently, the Department of Justice considers that in the case of statutory debts a legal opinion concerning the amount due is not necessary.
Subsection 95(1) has been in effect since the Financial Administration Act came into existence in 1951. During the period the section has been in effect, a number of court cases challenging the Government's right to set off have resulted in judgments which have upheld that the Government has a common right to make set-offs. Therefore, the Department of Justice considers that the approval of the Treasury Board is superfluous and can be eliminated without detriment. This opinion is based on the judgment in the Federal Court of Appeal which stated that the only purpose of the Treasury Board approval is to provide a mechanism for the set-off of moneys.
As a result, we propose that Section 95(1) be amended to eliminate the necessity of a legal opinion concerning the amount of statutory debts. I would like to note that a legal opinion will continue to be required to establish the amount of a debt relating to non-statutory obligations, for example, contractual obligations to pay the Crown. Also, the amendment would discontinue the requirement to obtain approval of the Treasury Board prior to set-off. Under this proposal, the appropriate Minister will have the authority to require a set-off in the same manner as was recently proposed in the Income Tax Act.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 24 carry?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Agreed.
Clause 24 agreed to.
On Clause 25-Proof of Treasury Board records


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this clause is simply to add the title underlined in the amendment. That is not a new amendment I am offering now but rather the amendment printed in the Bill. The titles underlined are Deputy Secretary, Comptroller General of Canada, Deputy Comptroller General of Canada and Assistant Comptroller General of Canada. I suppose it reflects changes in organization since the Act was last amended, including the creation of the office of Comptroller General.
Financial Administration Act


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 25 carry?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Agreed.
Clause 25 agreed to.
On Clause 26-Repeal


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I would like an explanation of this clause. I am having a little trouble with it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I could say simply that it is consequential on the amendment proposed in Clause 22, but I will go on at greater length. Part XI, Civil Liability and Offences, contains several sections concerning action to be taken when money has not been collected or properly accounted for and offences result in losses to the Crown. Part XII, Miscellaneous, Section 96 in the Act, deals with the public officers' guarantee account which was established as an indemnity fund to compensate for losses arising from any defalcations of public officers. In recent years the wording of the various sections has led to uncertainty as to the action which should be taken and losses incurred. Furthermore, there are precise requirements for taking action and reporting losses where public officers are concerned and while no equivalent requirement exists applying to losses where other persons are concerned. This leads to the latter class of losses being largely ignored in the reporting process. A study into the subject of losses of public money and property has led to the proposal that there should be one comprehensive policy for action to be taken to cover all types of losses, whether caused by public officers or by others, and whether arising for a defalcation or otherwise.
When the Act first became effective in 1952, Section 98 created the public officers' guarantee account and authorized the transfer thereto of the balance remaining in the former Government employees' guarantee fund, which has been in place since 1936, as a means of self-insurance against losses caused by defalcation by public officers. It was funded by premiums levied on and paid from appropriation moneys in respect of all employees handling or managing public moneys. Prior to 1936, it was the practice for Departments to pay premiums on bonds of indemnity which bonded Government employees, the requirement for bonding having been established August 20, 1869. I do not think there is anybody in the House who would recall that. The sums transferred from the former fund to the public officers' guarantee account in 1952 was $657,000.
Section 98 enables the Treasury Board by regulation to levy premiums on Departments to be paid into the account. No such levies have been made during the life of the account. The amount deposited originally plus repayments and restitution made by defalcating officers have been sufficient to meet all claims authorized by the Treasury Board. The lack of any need to levy premiums on Departments over the last 25 years has removed all sense of the account as a bonding mechanism. It has had the effect of reducing the self-insurance aspect virtually to the same self-insurance situation as applies in the case of other losses such as fire losses.

November 24, 1983
Financial Administration Act
We therefore submit the use of the public officers' guarantee account can be dispensed with. Consequent upon the proposal to abolish the use of the public officers' guarantee account it becomes necessary to make provisions for the disposal of any such balance as may remain in the account on the day on which the proposed amendments to the Act become effective. It is proposed that the clause be included in the Bill for a transitional provision to provide for such balance as remains in the public officers' guarantee account on the coming into force of the amended Act and such sums as may be recovered subsequently against payments made previously from the account to be credited to revenue.
I hope this will assist my hon. friend. In essence, the old Clause 98 has been replaced with the new expanded Clause 91(1) which was agreed to under Clause 22.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, if we had had that last note first we would have avoided putting the Minister through that long reading. I have an understanding of that now.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 26 carry?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Agreed.
Clause 26 agreed to.
On Clause 27-Interdepartmental charges


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the committee to delete this clause. We have received legal advice that the proposed amendment is unecessary. The legal advice is that the Treasury Board already has the authority to issue policy on charging for services between government Departments.
We also want to delete the second part of Clause 27. It was intended to enable the payment of interest to suppliers on overdue accounts. It was later considered preferable to include the specific terms and conditions in the applicable contracts rather than to seek a general legislative provision. You may recall that I announced on behalf of the Government a policy to pay interest on overdue accounts some months ago. It is now in operation. It arises out of the insertion of the appropriate conditions in the contracts in question, therefore making a legislative change unnecessary.


Roderick Blaker: The Minister moves to delete Clause 27.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Agreed.
Clause 27 deleted.
On Clause 28-Transitions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Finally, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-96 be amended by adding, immediately after line 40 on page 14, the following:
"Consequential Amendments
1976-77, c. 34	25. Section 6 of the Auditor General Act is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
Idem	"6. The Auditor General shall examine the several financial
statements required by section 55 of the Financial Administration Act to be included in the Public Accounts, and any other statement that the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance may present for audit and shall express his opinion as to whether they present fairly information in accordance with stated accounting policies of the federal government and on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year together with any reservations he may have." "
This is consequential in changes to Sections 54 and 55 found in Clauses 17 and 18.


Roderick Blaker: The House has heard the amendment proposed by the Minister.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am wondering if we could just have a few words as to what this amendment does. Does it close out the Public Officers Guarantee Act, or have we done that? Is this closing it out, as you previously said?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, yes, the first part of Clause 28 closes out the Public Officers Guarantee Act in the way I outlined perhaps at too great a length.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the amendment moved by the Minister be accepted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 28, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: The Table officers are in possession of an amendment which has not been referred to. 1 do not know whether it is the intention of the Minister to pursue it. The amendment relates to the Auditor General Act.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, that was the amendment to which 1 just referred.


Roderick Blaker: 1 had not realized the Minister was putting the amendment which I have in hand which is referred to as a new clause or that he was dealing with it in Clause 28. The reason I asked whether he wanted to move that is that the Table Officers tell me the proposed amendment which deals with the Auditor General Act is not before the House and, therefore, it is out of order. However, I understand that can be cured by unanimous consent. 1 propose to do that. Is there unanimous consent that this amendment be placed before the House?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, could you elaborate? The Auditor General Act is not before the House. Therefore, it cannot be amended. While we have been amending the Financial Administration Act all day, what is the difference? Could 1 have an explanation?
November 24, 1983


Roderick Blaker: I would think the original Bill, the Bill before the House, did not contain a reference to the Auditor General Act. Consequently, to bring it in now by way of an amendment could be procedurally questionable. The matter could be cured if the House gives unanimous consent.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, what I am asking the committee to do is to add a clause to Bill C-96 which will have the affect of amending, as a consequence, the Auditor General Act. The purpose is to make it consistent with the Financial Administration Act to the extent that in both cases there would be reference to statements presented by the President of the Treasury Board. You will recall that earlier in the afternoon I asked that the Financial Administration Act be amended in order to confirm the role of the President of the Treasury Board in presenting and compiling the public accounts. This consequential amendment just inserts in the appropriate clause in the Auditor General Act the phrase "President of the Treasury Board" to make clear that the Auditor General's examination will cover the public accounts and any other statement that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance shall present for audit, etc.


Roderick Blaker: We still need the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to bring in this amendment?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Could I have an explanation, Mr. Chairman, before giving unanimous consent? The short title of the Act is "An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act." If that were strictly correct, do I understand it properly that it is also an Act to amend the Auditor General Act, and that would cover it?


Roderick Blaker: A change in title will not make a difference. It is a procedural problem related to the fact that the Auditor General Act was not referred to at second reading of the first draft of the Bill. The Bill in its present shape does not refer to it. However, is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roderick Blaker: Clause 28 as amended has been agreed to previously.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair may have a problem, or Hon. Members may have a problem. I am not sure whether the Hon. Members who are proposing to present matters in the adjournment hour are all present in the Chamber at this moment nor whether the Parliamentary Secretaries are present in order to answer. I do not have the list before me. However, under a House order made earlier we are now to call it six o'clock. My only concern is that I would not like to see
Adjournment Debate
Members who are on the list for the "Late Show" lose their positions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the two Members from our Party who are appearing in the adjournment debate tonight are present and ready to proceed. If the appropriate representatives on the part of the Government are ready, I do not think there should be any problem. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), who has the first order of business, is here. The Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), who has the third item of business, is also here. The third participant, to my recollection, is the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who is a Member of the Government Party. It may be in order for us to start with the first participant, and if the Hon. Member for Algoma comes he can be placed as the third participant and bring up the rear, as it were.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is entirely up to Hon. Members if they wish to proceed. The difficulty I am concerned is about whether or not there is a Parliamentary Secretary prepared to answer. I gather that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) is perhaps examining that problem now. Maybe we could give him a moment or two to see how things are going. However, 1 will, of course, recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine. It is his right to address the House whether or not there is someone here to give a reply.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, with the type of responses we get on the Adjournment Debate it would not be of great consequence whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary is here. It is a departmental answer which is mainly a cover-up.
On October 17, 1983, 1 questioned the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) on the structural problems of the National Arts Centre. He gave me a very incomplete answer in the House and forwarded me a letter which contained other partial information. Therefore I have a series of questions which I should like to direct to the Government or to the Parliamentary Secretary tonight with the hope of receiving some answers concerning what is happening at the National Arts Centre.
29196

November 24, 1983
Adjournment Debate
There are structural problems in the National Arts Centre. Water is leaking into the garage and maintenance shops. The source of the leakage has been found to be through the sidewalk abutting the west side of the Mackenzie King bridge, which in turn forms the roof over the mechanical room. It is leaking because of failure of the waterproofing in the expansion joint in the garage roof. Apparently responsibility for this is that of the City of Ottawa, as well as for the leaky sidewalks. The joint, which is supposed to provide give when the concrete slabs of the garage expand and contract, has been worn by vibration from OC Transpo buses running along Confederation Square. The costs are estimated to be between $285,000 and $300,000 for correction. The bridge and sidewalks are within the jurisdiction of the City of Ottawa, the National Capital Commission and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.
The Minister stated in a letter dated October 26 that it was his intention to consult with the City of Ottawa, the NCC and the Regional Municipality since the problem is in their jurisdiction. However, in an article which appeared in The Citizen in Ottawa on October 18, a Public Works spokesmen, Mr. Tormi Heinmaa, pointed out that the Department of Public Works wanted the Ottawa-Carleton region to pay part of the repair costs but that they were were not very responsive. He went on to indicate:
It's between ourselves and the National Arts Centre to fund the bill.
There seems to be a little confusion here.
The Minister also stated in his letter of October 26 that he planned to consult with the City regarding these necessary repairs. However, according to The Citizen article of October 18, it would seem that some consultation has already taken place and that the City does not seem agreeable to funding part of these costs, as was stated. I am most interested in knowing what part of the costs is being referred to, and if the Minister was aware of the consultation which seems to have already taken place.
Has it been determined as yet who will pay for these repairs? Has the Minister made any formal request to the NCC, City of Ottawa or the Regional Municipality for payment? It was made clear by architect Alexander Topolski in a memo dated Setptember 21, 1983 to the Chief Property Manager of Public Works that if prompt action was not taken, the water penetration would cause further damage. Of course this would mean most extensive repair work and in turn would cost more money. It was further recommended that the repairs should be completed before the onset of freezing temperatures. Has the Minister seen to it that immediate remedial action be taken to ensure the cost of repairs does not expand?
The Public Works spokesman, Tormi Heinmaa, stated as well:
Really, the workmanship in many places around the Arts Centre is not up to very good standard.
I would like the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary to tell me why the workmanship is not up to standard. Was the
building originally constructed poorly, or has it over the years been allowed to deteriorate? If the latter is the case, why has there not been regular inspections to ensure everything was maintained up to par? If the construction was poor to begin with, I believe there should be an investigation into why the workmanship was below an acceptable level. Further, it should be ascertained as to who will receive the bill for all the necessary repairs.
These are legitimate questions. I hope to receive an answer from the Government tonight as to who allowed all this sloppy workmanship at the National Arts Centre.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few details to what the Hon. Member said in his question on October 17 of this year. First of all, after a period of heavy rain last September, it was found that water was running from the ceiling of the NAC garage into the central stores and the air vents near the mechanical room.
At the request of the NAC, departmental experts immediately proceeded to investigate what caused the leak. They found that water was leaking through the sidewalk abutting the west side of the Mackenzie King bridge, which forms the roof over the NAC mechanical room.
Our Department immediately started with emergency repairs to the waterproofing of the expansion joints of the garage roof located under the sidewalk. I should point out that the entire sidewalk abutting the NAC was built fourteen years ago as part of the Mackenzie King bridge and the west side of the traffic way. Actually, the road was entirely rebuilt over the NAC garage, stores and mechanical room. Over the years, it has been very difficult to find and correct the defects, leaks and damages caused by water penetration. These problems were mainly attributed to causes such as breaks in drain pipes or the road's defective or deteriorating expansion joints and catch basins.
However, during the last two years, bus traffic has increased considerably, and it is suspected that this too has speeded up deterioration of the waterproofing membrane between the road bed and the garage roof, especially near the expansion joints in the ceiling. The sidewalk has also deteriorated as a result of normal exposure to the elements and the fact that it is constantly exposed to potential damage by increasing vehicle traffic. Furthermore, sidewalk blocks are often damaged by snow removal equipment. Together, these factors have helped create the need for maintenance and repairs. To correct the water penetration problems, our Department is now carrying out the emergency repairs I referred to earlier, at an estimated cost of about $80,000. The repairs are part of a more ambitious project now under consideration, to correct problems arising from the condition of the sidewalk along the entire south side of the NAC and the western access route towards Elgin Street, and to the north along the west side of the
November 24, 1983

building as far as the ramp at the northwest corner. Work on this project will start at the point where present repairwork is supposed to finish, which will reduce the total estimated cost by $285,000.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should point out that the NAC is responsible for maintenance and operations in the entire complex, according to the twenty-year lease currently in effect, which expires in May 1989. As the landlord, our Department provides, on demand, any professional and technical services that may be necessary. I can assure the Hon. Member that it would be useless to carry out an independent investigation of the problems at the NAC, since our professional staff, with the help of NAC personnel, is quite capable of resolving any problems that may arise.
Discussions are now taking place with the various authorities involved, namely, the National Art Centre, the National Capital Commission and the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality, regarding the feasibility of sharing responsibility for and costs of these repairs.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE-ESTABLISHMENT OF DUTY-FREE SHOPS IN ONTARIO
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, on October 24 of this year I raised a question about the establishment of duty-free stores in Ontario, page 28260 of Hansard. The Minister's answer was unacceptable. Therefore, I would like to speak to the issue of duty-free shops and the policy of the federal Government toward them.
As the Member for Erie, I represent the Town of Fort Erie, which is one of Canada's largest vehicular points of entry. Despite this fact, I have not received the slightest indication from the Minister that there might sometime be a duty-free shop opened in that town. Indeed, the pilot programs or projects have been located in some rather remote western towns. How they propose to gather data from these out of the way border crossings and make it appear relevant to crossings in Ontario such as Cornwall and Fort Erie, I simply do not know.
Ironically, Ontario seems to offer the most potential for the development of profitable duty-free shops yet, according to the Minister, the Province of Ontario has "chosen to protect its state monopoly and thus thwart private enterprise which the Canadian Government wants to promote through its duty-free shops national program."
1 applaud the Minister's reference to encouragement of private enterprise. Believe me, it is a real surprise to hear that from a Liberal-socialist Cabinet which has nationalized everything from soup to nuts. I refer to its expensive parasitical Crown corporations, from Petro-Canada, with the free seat cushions for Blue Jay fans, to the Canadair fiasco where executives lease aircraft from other companies to Canadair for their own travel, thus lining their own pocketbooks at the taxpayers' expense.
Adjournment Debate
Be that as it may, the Minister and I seem to differ on the role of the Province in the duty-free shop situation. He insists that it is the fault of the Government of Ontario, that the situation seems to be at a stalemate. He is correct in stating that the LCBO is insisting on the right to brand selection, choosing of candidates to manage the outlets, etcetera.
However, the curt nature of his answers to me in the House, at any rate, seem to tell me that he is rather impatient with the whole issue. Perhaps if he sat down with the Ontario Cabinet and worked the thing out reasonably, with a view to achieving some kind of middle ground, more progress could be made.
The Minister's attitude seems to be, to me at any rate, one of stating what he wishes and obtaining carte blanche to proceed directly in that direction. When things do not work out as planned, he turns to us and tells us to go after the provincial Government.
We have been after the provincial Government. The same day the Minister announced to the House that he had not received a favourable answer from the provincial Ministers I received a letter from the Treasurer of Ontario which reads in part as follows:
I can now confirm that Cabinet has agreed, in principle, to allow the duty-free stores at border crossings, and 1 trust, upon completion of a mutually satisfactory arrangement with the federal Government, the first of these stores will be opening in the very near future-
The news then is not all bad despite doom and gloom from the Minister.
I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to an article published in The Ottawa Citizen of October 25, 1983:
A compromise appears near that would allow duty-free shops at some Ontario-United States border crossings, including Cornwall, Prescott, and Lans-downe, about 15 kilometers East of Gananoque.
Consumer Minister Robert Elgie said that he is confident that the debate between Queen's Park and the federal Government can be settled within the next few months.
I am fully aware of the problems involved in obtaining agreement between the federal and provincial Governments on this highly sensitive matter. However, as 1 have mentioned before, I am optimistic that a compromise can be reached as well. 1 wish to emphasize that there must be attention given to those towns with the best potential for success. Fort Erie is one of those towns.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the employment offered by a duty-free shop would be of benefit to the Town of Fort Erie which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Partisan and political considerations must be laid aside in the selection of candidates for these new projects. If they are, all Canadians can benefit from the job creation potential offered by the duty-free shops.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, from the inception of the land border duty-free shop program, it has been recognized by the federal Government that close co-operation

November 24, 1983
Adjournment Debate
with provincial liquor licensing authorities would be required. The problem between the federal Government and the Province of Ontario has centered around the Province's desire to protect its monopoly on the distribution and sale of liquor products in the Province. While the program is designed to provide opportunities to the private sector in general and to small business in particular, the position of the Ontario Government so far is that it wishes to operate the liquor sales outlet itself, a situation similar to that in existence at the Toronto International Airport.
Liquor sales form an integral part of a duty-free shop operation. Experience and research to date indicate that up to 60 per cent of total sales may be attributed to these products. The nature of a land border duty-free shop is somewhat different from an airport duty-free shop. In particular, the nature of the land shops has dictated that Customs and Excise take the position that a private-sector operator would need liquor sales to ensure a viable operation, either from the actual sale of liquor or from the spinoff effect of customers who come into the store to purchase liquor products.
Therefore, there is no intention of proceeding with the establishment of land border duty-free shops without provision for liquor sales. Furthermore, the Department remains committed to its original premise that such shops be operated by the private sector.
The Minister has discussed this issue with Dr. Elgie, the Ontario Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Dr. Elgie agreed to study the issue further. There were subsequent meetings between officials which have led to the belief that an agreement can be worked out through further negotiations. The Minister is anxious that the matter be resolved as soon as possible so that the Department can proceed with the program at Ontario borders, including Erie, hopefully around the middle of 1984.
We are encouraged that the Ontario Cabinet has indicated, to certain Hon. Members of this House, agreement in principle with our views. While the Minister has not yet received a formal communique from Dr. Elgie in this regard, our respective officials will work on the numerous small details which are associated with any federal-provincial agreement. We expect an agreement will be prepared early next year in time for national implementation of the duty-free shop program. Translating principles into practice is not always a simple task, but every effort is being made to resolve this issue at as early a date as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 5.44 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 25, 1983